Sen. Edwards Needs Your Support Tonight!

Do you believe that presidential elections should be publicly financed? John Edwards does, and yesterday he took the courageous step of opting to accept federal matching funds for this election, and he's the only leading candidate to do this, and tonight, I'm asking you to show your support for that decision by making a contribution to his campaign.



That means, if you contribute to John Edwards for President today, up to $250.00 of that contribution will be matched, so $10 becomes $20 and $250 becomes $500. So, how about it? While Hillary Clinton continues to rake in the money from Washington lobbyists, the only money that's good in the Edwards campaign is yours and mine. Your small change can make a big difference, and you can contribute on this secure web page.

So many of my progressive friends have told me that they support public financing of elections. Well, now is the time to step up the the plate and show that you will support the candidate who agrees with you. If you contribute before midnight on Sunday, it will be counted in what is sure to be a strong third quarter fundraising total for Sen. Edwards.

I have found it interesting in that today, on some "progressive" blogs, the Edwards team has been assailed for this decision. Not a terribly progressive attitude if you ask me. After all, Edwards is opting into a system that was established in the wake of Watergate to help stem the tide of corruption in elections and return control of the process to citizens like you and me. It's time to stop the madness and support the candidate who is, once again, leading-in the only way that really matters. It's one thing to talk about big, bold change and quite another to actually embrace big, bold change-right now, this year, in this election. Isn't that the kind of leadership you are looking for in a president?

It's Worth Noting

John Edwards has stayed competitive in Iowa, in fact leads in many polls, despite the fact that he has not been up on television while Clinton, Obama, Biden and to some extent, Richardson, have.

Is the NYT Shrill, Too?

Writing today for the New York Times, Paul Krugman, says

Senator Clinton delayed a long time before coming out with her own plan — a delay that created a lot of anxiety among health care reformers, and may, as I’ll explain in a minute, be a bad omen for the future. Still, this week she did deliver a plan, and it’s as strong as the Edwards plan — because unless you get deep into the fine print, the Clinton plan basically is the Edwards plan.

Over the last week, the Edwards campaign has been effectively holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on health care. The issue is not the substance of her plan, but, rather, the timing of her plan. The truth is that John Edwards led on this issue in February-just as he has led on virtually every issue. While Hillary Clinton was talking about incremental steps, John Edwards published a comprehensive, workable plan to cover every American. Now, Clinton, seven months later, published a plan-one that is remarkably similar to the Edwards' plan. Any why not? It's an excellent plan. The Clinton campaign appears to be pushing back by focusing, not on any plan, but instead, on Elizabeth Edwards suggesting that she is "attacking" Hillary and is becoming "shrill." (For those of you who don't know, "shrill" and "attacking" are words people toss about in an effort to shut up strong, smart women-especially when they are both right and effective.) So, is Krugman "shrill," too?

It's not a problem that Clinton's plan so closely mirrors what Edwards proposed seven months ago. The Edwards plan is the best plan, and it makes perfect sense for her to emulate it. The question is, why did it take her so long? Krugman has a thought about that as well:

...even if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Congressional majorities, the insurance and drug lobbies will try to bully them into backing down on their campaign promises.
That’s why the long delay before Senator Clinton announced her health care plan made supporters of universal care, myself included, so nervous — a nervousness that is not completely assuaged by the fact that she finally did deliver. It’s good to know that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will run on a very good health care plan. What remains is the question of whether he or she will have the determination to turn that plan into reality.

For the first time in my memory, in John Edwards, we have an opportunity to nominate a Democrat who is both the most electable and the most progressive. John Edwards is not in bed with the lobbyists for the industries that hope to derail universal health care. Hillary Clinton is still taking their money. She says that the money won't impact her resolve to reform health care, but you have to wonder. With Edwards, there is no question about his resolve.

Fineman Handicaps Iowa

Howard Fineman is handicapping Iowa and giving Edwards the edge at the Harkin Steak Fry. Read it all here.

John Edwards: We Didn't Get Health Care; We Got NAFTA

Today, addressing the Laborers Leadership Convention in Chicago, John Edwards pressed Hillary Clinton on her newly unveiled health care plan. Today, Clinton became the third Democrat to unveil a plan for universal health care. Sen. Edwards lead on this this issue by being the first of the candidates to announce a plan and provide the details. Today, Edwards took Clinton to task for continuing to take money from some of the same interests who help derail her 1993 plan. Edwards said:
"The cost of failure 14 years ago isn't anybody's scars or political fortune, it's the millions of Americans who have now gone without health care for more than 14 years and the millions more still crushed by the costs."
Edwards was referring, of course, to Clinton's typical "I have the scars to prove it" retort when challenged about her failed efforts on health care in 1993 and her advocacy for inviting special interests to the table now. To the labor union audience, Edwards pointed out that in 1993, the President (Clinton) strongly supported universal health care, none the less, thanks to the influence of lobbyists and special interests, we didn't get health care, but we did get NAFTA.
Edwards attempted to put bite in his growl today by saying that when he is elected, he will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of congress and all senior political appointees on July 20, 2009, unless we have passed universal health care. I don't imagine he's going to find a whole lot folks in Congress lining up to support that legislation....but, he made his point. What's good enough for the rest of us, is good enough for politicians in Washington.

This is cross-posted at Georgia Women VOTE!

Elizabeth Edwards in Atlanta!

Please join us for lunch with

Elizabeth Edwards

103 West Restaurant
103 West Paces Ferry Road
Atlanta, GA 30305
Wednesday, September 19th, 2007
12:00 PM

Event Chair: $2,300 (Private Reception)

Host: $1,000 (Private Reception)
Sponsor: $500
Friend: $250
*Maximum contribution per individual is $4,600,

$2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general

Melissa Mullinax Abbott * Jody Andrade * Marie & Roy Barnes *Lauren Benedict * Stephanie & Rob Benfield * Jeff Bramlett *Tamara & Brendon Briggs * Jim Butler * Melanie & Chuck Byrd* Martin Chitwood * Robin Frazer Clark * Carol Cooper * Melita Easters *Karen & Jon Hawk * Steve Leeds * Steve Lore * Ron Lowry* Kathy McArthur & Waldo Floyd * Adam Malone * Tommy Malone *Toni & Tim Morrison * Amy & Daryl Morton * Fred Orr * Marion Pope *Carmen & Geoff Pope * Elisabeth & Buck Rogers * Tim SantelliKiran & Shi Shailendra * Karen & Glenn Sturm * Sacha & Mark Taylor *Robert Teilhet *Teresa & Trip Tomlinson * Lyle & Michael Warshauer

*Host Committee in formation

For more information or to RSVP, please contact Liz Pavle at 919-636-3211 or LPavle@johnedwards.com or https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/event/070919B19B

Paid for by John Edwards for President.Contributions to John Edwards for President are not deductible for federal income tax purposes

This is cross-posted from Georgia Women VOTE!

Edwards: "We've got to End it, Not Defend it"

Taking aim at the influence of corporate politicians and Washington lobbyists, today, John Edwards challenged Hillary Clinton, and all the other Democratic candidates, to "end it, not defend it." According to the Associated Press, Edwards made these remarks as he accepted the endorsement of the Carpenters Union.

To the roars of the union members, Edwards said, "Washington is rigged against regular Americans, against working Americans like you and the men and women you represent, whose interests and concerns don't stand a chance against the onslaught of lobbyists in Washington, D.C."

Edwards again issued his challenge to all Democratic candidates to refuse to accept money from federal lobbyists and political action committees. Edwards has never accepted either and no longer accepts contributions from state-level lobbyists. Edwards said that he is not asking any candidate to give back money they have taken in the past, but, instead, to declare this a new day for Democrats-a day when the party through the example of its leaders will be the party for the people of this country, not the party of corporate interests.
Edwards has Clinton in a bit of a box. Increasingly, she finds herself responding to him, both on the issue of her electability and on the issue of corporate influence/lobbyist money. To defend taking the money from lobbyists (over $400,000 and counting), she is forced to defend a system in Washington that most people believe does not work for them. Last week, she said that she intended to work within the system created "by the constitution" for change in Washington, and that "you can't deny that the system exists." Today, Edwards said:

Look, Senator Clinton is right – you cannot pretend the system doesn't exist. But you also can't pretend that it works. And that's where she and I part company.Because I believe if you defend the system that defeats change, you can't be a president that will bring change. When it comes to the Washington influence game, we need to end it, not defend it.She says you bring change by working within the system established by the Constitution. I think the system has been corrupted by corporate powers never contemplated by the Constitution. This is not the government of, by and for the people that our founding fathers intended.There is no principled compromise between the way things have always been and the way things could be.

This discussion of whether the system need to change or merely be trimmed around the edges is a debate that is likely to escalate as Americans become increasingly frustrated with the escalation of the war in Iraq and the failure of the new Democratic majority to stand up to the President.



This is cross-posted at Georgia Women Vote

Health Care AND Responsibility for Everyone

Today, Sen. Edwards made it clear that health care for everyone does not imply responsibility for no one. Today in Tipton, Iowa, he told a crowd that people would be expected to see their doctor for preventative health care. He said that if Americans choose to be in the health care system, they cannot choose to not see their doctor for twenty years. Regular checkups and a healthier lifestyles would drive down health costs in American. That makes sense, but, alas, the words had hardly left his lips before the rightwing bloggers started in. The same crew that preaches personal responsibility thinks expecting people to go to the doctor is just too much to ask. Okay, how about we compromise and let you drive your SUV to the doctor??

Electability a "Hill of Beans?"

Campaigning today with his wife, Sen. Clinton, President Bill Clinton tried to counter arguments that she would have a tough time winning the general election. From the Washington Post:

"In Portsmouth, he sought to knock down arguments that his wife wouldn't be able to win a general election. He cited polling in several states showing her leading most Republicans in hypothetical matchups."This electabliity thing is a canard. It's a hill of beans," the former president said, adding he believed Americans would elect the best candidate."

Really? So, did Americans elect the best candidate in 2000 and 2004???

I admire President Clinton, but he is ignoring his wife's obvious weakness here. She does energize the Republican base in a way none of the GOP candidates can hope to do. In any candidate field, there are candidates who are easier to get elected than others, and in this field, Hillary does not win the "electability" contest, and frankly, the fact that the Clinton campaign is now addressing this directly underscores the fact that it is an issue.

Last week, at the healthcare forum, Edwards had her addressing his issue of lobbyist contributions, and today, she retools her speech to address the issue of whether she can be a change agent (something raised effectively by both Obama and Edwards). For the first time in the campaign, she is no longer controlling the message and the debate.