Please note, right up front, that I'm not advocating one candidate over another at this point. (I'm keeping my preferences to myself for now.) I will note through this dairy that there is further friction heating up within the Democratic Party between the progressive wing (represented in part by the Edwardses) and the DLC/establishment wing (represented by the Clintons).
So, CNN quoted Elizabeth Edwards from a Salon interview, which is linked to below:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Elizabeth Edwards sought to punch holes in the notion that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is the women’s candidate in the 2008 race for the White House. For Edwards, that title falls to her husband, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who is competing against Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"She’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see," Elizabeth Edwards said in a wide ranging interview with the online magazine, Salon. "John is."
To begin with, I love her outspokenness. She is direct and combative without being obnoxious. In fact, I think Elizabeth Edwards exemplifies a lot of the qualities of people who populate this site - directness, clarity and a low tolerance for fools.
I'll only observe that as things stand, Hillary would still be a huge upgrade over what we have now. My biggest concern is that she and the DLC cadre would not work hard enough to clean up the messes and the Republican cadres now populating the Federal agencies throughout government.
(However, anytime you want to really piss off a Republican, just point out that Clinton was the last President since 1980 to turn in balanced budgets. Because of the Clintons, we OWN the fiscal prudence argument.)
Edwards continues her sharp critique of Hillary:
Edwards particularly offered a sharp assessment of Clinton’s approach to providing healthcare to everyone.
"On the issues that are important to women, she has not ... well, healthcare, that’s enormously important to women, all the polls say, and what she says now is, we’re going to have a national conversation about healthcare," Edwards said in the Salon interview. "And then she describes some cost-saving things, which John also supports, but she acts like that’s going to make healthcare affordable to everyone. And she knows it won’t. She’s not really talking about poverty, when the face of poverty is a woman’s face, often a single mother."
A Clinton spokesman declined to comment on Edwards’ remarks, while a spokesman for the Edwards presidential campaign would not speak directly about the Clinton comments other than to say Elizabeth Edwards was only talking up her husband’s ability to offer solutions.
I don't understand how we can possibly not have a Democrat nominee who will not frankly endorse major reforms in our healthcare system. (My concern is that if Obama or Clinton achieves this, that is precisely what we will get.) In my view, a single-payer system is the least bad option we face now. The Mitt Romney/Arnold Schwarzenegger solution is to force any unemployed person or contractor to pay into the system. While I agree with this in theory, since it expands the risk pool, the problem is that head-by-head costs are too high. I'll never forget having to pay over $900 a month out of my unemployment just to keep my family of three's health plan during my last (fortunately rare) spell of unemployment. To Arnold: we already have a near-compulsory plan: it's called COBRA. And frankly, it's too dang expensive.
American companies, it must be said, also have a big problem with the system the way it now stands. It harms their international competitiveness. (Don't think I'm feeling sorry for them though, given the massive profits so many companies are reporting, along with the grotesque salaries of our CEO class. But I think sometimes they do make legitimate points.) For workers, tying their health coverage to their job strikes me as madness. Companies constantly scramble to reduce the cost overruns of their health plans, usually by foisting revised plans on their workforce every year. I recall having to give up my HealthNet plan and having to go to Blue Cross, which was a significant downgrade. We were also facing another wrenching change this year but somehow were reprieved from having to change plans yet again.
People in these companies, and the companies that employ them, should have a big say in how we address this terrible problem. I feel it can't be limited to the unions, professional advocates or specific political functionaries because this is an issue that simply affects everyone. (An obvious truism.)
Edwards has a point, and I think it's salutary to rap Hillary's knuckles to remind her how important healthcare is to everyone in this country. A dialogue on real solutions to this problem is vital, and the more Elizabeth Edwards (and John, obviously) raises it, the better.