In the midst of the stupidity over bloggers and the stupidity over his house, it’s worth noting that John Edwards presented a pretty significant and detailed heath care plan last week. The plan, which was analyzed in detail by Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic, provides universal health care but does so through the use of tax credits to create and fund entities for groups of peopuyle to purchase insurance called “health markets” as well as through an “individual mandate” which is a requirement that everyone b insured. It also allows Medicare to compete with private insurers to provide coverage to people through health markets. It is a complex plan that would be funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Although it has the advantage of “giving people who have insurance something they lack now–more security and more choice–without taking away their coverage,” the complexity this engenders makes it difficult to sell. As Cohn notes “grafting universal coverage onto an already complicated system inevitably means drawing up a complicated plan. That’s not particularly helpful in the current media environment.”
The alternative is a straightforward single payer system like that in a bill before Congress, HR 676, that was introduced by John Conyers (and co-sponsored by Dave Loebsack.) This is the system used in the rest of the western world, which leads to significantly lower health care costs than what we have. A single payer plan would be much more effective but is considered less politically feasible. As a result, it is doubtful that any other serious candidate will advocate for it (as opposed to hopeless publicity seekers). However, it is still possible. The national debate on health care is moving increasingly towards a single payer solution. Edwards, by introducing his plan, laid down his marker but, as the debate develops, other candidates who either seek to flank him on the left or merely keep up with the national debate may introduce single payer plans similar to HR 676. In meantime, we will just have to wait and see what their policy teams cook up.
Barack Obama pledged in his annoucement yesterday that “we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president’s first term.” However, he hasn’t unveiled his plan yet. In the meantime, John Edwards has been the first candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan. It may not be perfect but it is definitely worthy of respect.
In Iowa, presidential candidates are no doubt already scrambling for high-profile endorsements. Since Tom Harkin took the relatively safe route and endorsed the home team very early, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at our Democratic Congressmen in Iowa to see who they might pick.
Of course, the decision of whether to make an endorsement at all is relevant to the discussion. During the 2004 campaign, Leonard Boswell (IA-03) did not make any endorsement, instead remaining neutral and showing up at any major candidate’s campaign stops that he could get to for a bit of extra face time. This year, he might be planning to do the same. He already showed up at Hillary’s event in Des Moines:
Mrs. Clinton was introduced by Representative Leonard Boswell, who drew a huge ovation when he called her “a great first lady,” and then noted that the day had meaning for women in his family and, surely, many women in the audience.
I don’t blame Boswell for remaining neutral, because it may well be in his political interest. But with questions about whether he even plans to run for reelection, it remains to be seen whether he will pick a horse.
In 2004, Bruce Braley (IA-01) was an Edwards activist, as his biography on the DCCC’s site points out. Perhaps he will endorse the fellow trial lawyer again, but so far he seems not to have announced one way or the other. Getting elected to Congress can sometimes change your allegiances, after all.
Dave Loebsack (IA-02), somewhat predictably, was a Deaniac in 04. The bottom of his online CV at Cornell College notes that he was “one of the Linn County coordinators for Howard Dean for President,” and other sources tell us he was a precinct captain. (It’s also worth noting that Loebsack was a Bill Bradley activist in 2000, for whatever that’s worth.) Since Dean isn’t running again, of course, it isn’t clear how this will impact his decision this time around. Either way, if he endorses a candidate, it is likely that it will be someone on the left.
And while I could opine about how Steve King might endorse Tom Tancredo’s TEAM AMERICA, I’m certainly not an expert on such things, so I’ll leave it at the Democrats.
In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she’s running for President, there has been another avalanche of articles on the competition to be the Democratic nominee in 2008. However, they all seem to think that there are only two candidates running, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Every other candidate is almost totally neglected. There are obvious reasons to do this, Obama and Clinton are the two most well known candidates and it’s always easier to boil things down to two options but the problem is that it’s a year out. Already just about every different branch of the media, from a major newspaper to a major blog to the BBC is making this a two-horse race. One can imagine that John Edwards must be completely exasperated. First, in 2004, (as detailed in this subscription only New Republic article) he and his inner circle believe that Howard Dean’s scream kept him from getting any media attention for his strong second place finish in Iowa. Now, the media is ignoring him because he doesn’t fit the plotline of the Hillary vs. Obama competition. But Edwards comes off relatively lightly compared to Tom Vilsack who will be very surprised to discover that his wife is a newspaper columnist named Ann according to this article in The Observer. And as for Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson (who is declaring his candidacy this morning on ABC’s This Week), the only way they can get any media attention right now is if they audition for American Idol. One hopes that this attempt to artificially narrow the field will not last long once the initial burst of attention for Clinton and Obama is past. Caucusgoers and primary voters deserve as many choices as possible and narrowing the field nearly a year before the first caucus is in no one’s interest.
In the latest must-read political story of the week, Adam Nagourney chronicled Hillary Clinton’s plans for her run for President. However, in the New Hampshire heavy article, one paragraph stood out,
“Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran the first time, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so other candidates steered clear of the race”
This misses one of the big challenges that Hillary faces. Rogue polls aside, she has next to no traction among Iowa caucusgoers. Vilsack has been Governor for eight years, Edwards still has a formidable base of support left from 2004 and Obama is not only seen as a political rockstar but, as a Senator from Illinois gets local television coverage in much of Eastern Iowa as well. In contrast, Bill Clinton never had to campaign in the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary has no hometown advantage in Iowa.
Hillary will have none of these advantages and right now is clearly running fourth in Iowa. Although she may have a lot of money, media is secondary to field in caucuses and among Democratic activists, all the candidates have high name ID. It’s still early and as Chase pointed out recently, the Iowa Caucuses are still wide open. But, Hillary is clearly starting behind the eight ball and it would not be a surprise if she doesn’t compete in the caucuses at all and tries to build up New Hampshire and South Carolina as firewalls.
Wal-Mart occupies a special place in the demonology of the American Left–and with good reason. Its business practices lead to the exploitation of workers both at home and overseas and it has paved its path to success on the destruction of countless American small businesses, most of which were located in small towns like Grinnell. These sins have been extensively catagoried by organizations like Wake Up WalMart.
However, Wal-Mart seems to be taking steps to remediate these issues. Most notably, the front page of the New York Times today has an article that describes how Wal-Mart is using its power as the largest store in the nation to encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs. Compared to a traditional incandescent light bulb, a compact flourescent light bulb “uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.” This is part of an ongoing effort by Wal-Mart to become a better corporate citizen and address a lot of the criticism it’s received. In fact, its new chief lobbyist is a former official in the Clinton Adminstration.
So do these efforts mean Wal-Mart has changed its stripes? I don’t know but it does seem to have some interesting political ramifications. It puts John Edwards, who has taken an active part in the anti-Wal-Mart campaign as part of his attempt to reposition himself as the progressive candidate in 2008, in an interesting position. He’s now criticizing an environmental do-gooder. While Hillary Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board until her husband ran for President, doesn’t have to run so far from her past involvement with the largest company in Arkansas. While no Democrat will embrace Wal-Mart (after all, with enemies like SEIU and the UFCW, you’re not going to have a lot of Democrats who want to be your friends), how they address the issue will be important. It’s the difference between a nuanced position that won’t alienate corporate contributors and an all-out attack that will be a bid for support from organized labor.
The question is whether by word or by deed, Wal-Mart will be successful at changing its stripes so that an attack on its corporate practices is merely doing the bidding of labor unions rather than defending working Americans. The success of Wal-Mart’s efforts may not just determine its corporate image but the image of Presidential candidates as well.
As Chris at Political Forecast points out, Ed Fallon was an active volunteer at John Edwards’ event in Des Moines this weekend. In addition, Denise O’Brien showed up as well. It seems judging from this, Edwards may have an early advantage with the hardcore lefties in the caucuses this year. Considering Edwards was endorsed by Dennis Kucinich for all intents and purposes in 2004, it looks like Edwards will get a lot of support from the Fallon/O’Brien wing of the party this time around. (Not to mention that Kucinich might fall short of the one percent of county convention delegates he received in 2004 this time.)
Although it’s questionable how much pull Fallon actually has, (his “Don’t Write Me In” campaign was astonishingly successful in the General Election), he still received the support of nearly 40,000 voters in the 2006 Gubernatorial primary. And quite a few of those voters were highly enthusastic about him. It’s doubtful whether Fallon’s endorsement has any real weight outside of Fairfield and certain precincts of Iowa City but it doesn’t mean his endorsement’s useless. When Barack Obama attacks John Edwards on his vote in support of the Iraq War, John Edwards will have Fallon to back up his lefty street cred among caucus goers. It’s not the type of endorsement that actually will bring a lot of votes (like that of a major union like AFSCME) but one that’s important because it reassures voters. To paraphrase Thomas Callahan III, it offers a guarantee of lefty credentials that will help keep many prospective Edwards supporters feeling all warm and toasty inside.
Via Political Wire, American Research Group put out a crazy new poll of likely 2008 Iowa caucus goers.
In the Democratic caucus, Clinton led the poll with 31%, followed by Edwards with 20%, Vilsack with 18%, and Obama with 10%. Interestingly, Vilsack did the best with “no party” respondents who said they were likely to participate in the Democratic caucus, at 38%. Clinton garnered 32% of this group’s support, but no other candidate scored more than 2% of “no party” support. This could be a product of name recognition, but since when are Iowans who consider themselves likely caucus goers unfamiliar with Kerry or Edwards? I never would have though that Clinton could bring a lot of “no party” support to the caucuses.
In the Republican caucus, Guiliani led with 28%, followed by McCain with 26% and Gingrich with 14%. Naturally McCain did well in the “no party” category, although for some reason American Research calls them “independents” in this section…
A new Research 2000 poll in Iowa shows John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama tied among likely Democratic caucus voters with 22% each. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trails with 12%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at just 10%.
No other candidate broke 10%. Top three Republicans are John McCain (27%), Rudy Giuliani (26%), and Mitt Romney (9%). I think this just reinforces my post from yesterday, “Why the Iowa Caucuses are Still Wide Open.”
There has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about who is going to win Iowa in 2008. I’ve been resisting the temptation to join, because it’s pretty unlikely that the picture we see now will look anything like the picture we see a year from now.
Think of how much has changed from four months ago: Warner, who has since dropped out and now might be un-dropping out, was attracting a lot of Iowa support. Obama, whose candidacy I have been predicting for a year, was written off as too green and inexperienced to run in 2008. Bayh looked like he had too much money not to play in at least the first four primary states. John Kerry was not a favorite, but he was in as good a position as any of the candidates. And John Edwards was probably getting the most buzz around here. (Incidentally, Hillary’s position as the elephant in the room everyone either loves or loves to hate has remained relatively consistent this whole time.)
Since then, Warner and Bayh dropped out, and a lot of people started talking about what that might mean, often concluding that it was because the caucuses were close to being decided — already. (Kyle’s post here is actually what provoked me to write this.) Here are five reasons why it’s still wide open:
The caucuses are an expectations game above all else. Given two candidates with equal money, talent, charisma, etc., the candidate who is favored more heavily is actually in a weaker position right now than the candidate nobody is talking about. To “win” the caucuses, you have to beat expectations, not just the other candidates, and the job gets harder and harder as expectations get higher and higher.
Nobody knows what to expect from Tom Vilsack. Before he announced, I didn’t know very many people who took his candidacy seriously. But his campaign has assembled an excellent staff, and he keeps on impressing me. He isn’t expected to do all that well nationally (his strategy is clearly to paint himself as the underdog of the race), but nobody really knows how well he’ll end up doing in Iowa. (Drew has some thoughts on how well he has to do to stay in, but even he’ll admit that it’s guesswork at this point.) Again, though, I think it’s clear a fair number of candidates have to play in Iowa (particularly Edwards and probably Obama), and, if Vilsack can even hold his own against them, he isn’t out of the picture.
The majority of the field hasn’t even declared yet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all staying above the fray by not making themselves candidates yet. As soon as they do, expect a lot of rhetoric to change. Even if attacking Obama will hurt the attacker more than it will hurt Obama, somebody will start doing it as soon as he declares in hopes of shaking the tree a little bit. Expect a wave of attack dog pundits and surrogates as soon as Obama and Clinton declare. We don’t know how that will turn out.
Nobody is talking about John Edwards right now. Even though Edwards is a fundraising force with name recognition, a strong biography, charisma that rivals Obama’s, and a reputable staff, he has avoided high expectations. Polling in Iowa has consistently put him on top, and it looks like he’s going to declare pretty soon, so it isn’t clear how he will end up.
In the end, staff quality and political strategy make a much bigger difference in the caucuses than buzz and media coverage. John Kerry was not a frontrunner in November of 2003; he was closer to a longshot. But his staff put together a better field program than Dean’s staff, and he ended up winning. (And because Dean was the frontrunner before losing, it pretty much knocked him out.) Field work is huge in Iowa, and we probably won’t know who has the best field program until the caucuses are over.
Of course, keep checking here for more news and analysis as the field of candidates continues to narrow.
