Daily Kos

Edwards Blasts Corporate Clinton and her "Karl Rove"

Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:16:04 AM PDT

[This has been crossposted from MyDD with the permission of the author, TomP. I wanted to make sure Kossacks saw it, because I believe the most troubling thing about Hillary is her (still underdiscussed) close connection to Corporate Power, including some of its darkest elements.

Even Karl Rove sold his direct mail firm before going to work for the Bush campaign. Mark Penn needs to sell his PR firm. Or Hillary needs to fire him. Or she shouldn't be the nominee. For me, it's that simple. And you?]

TomP's Diary:

Yesterday, John Edwards criticized the corporate nature of the Clinton campaign and why it is the wrong way for Democrats.  John Edwards highlighted Senator Clinton's chief advisor, Mark Penn, as a prime example:

"Bush has been a perfect example of cronyism, because Blackwater has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and to President Bush. I also saw this morning that Sen. Clinton's primary adviser, Mark Penn, who is like her Karl Rove – his firm is representing Blackwater. I think it is important for Iowa caucus-goers to understand the choices they have in this election. And it is the reason I continue to say we don't want to replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats."

Ben Smith (quoting John Edwards)

Mark Penn has sought to clarify his company's role with Blackwater:

Burson says its subsidiary, BKSH & Associates, run by GOP operative Charlie Black, "helped Blackwater prepare for their recent hearing before Congress. With the hearing over, BKSH's temporary engagement has ended."

Ari Berman, The Nation
Okay, so his company's subsidiary prepared Blackwater to testify before Congress.  Hmmm.  And they won't do it again, right?  Not until next time, anyway.  And tell me, why do you need a PR firm to tell the truth to Congress?  
Who is Mark Penn and why is he important?

But perhaps the most important figure in the campaign is her pollster and chief strategist, Mark Penn, a combative workaholic. Penn is not yet a household name, but perhaps he should be. Inside Hillaryland, he has elaborately managed the centrist image Hillary has cultivated in the Senate. The campaign is polling constantly, and Penn's interpretation of the numbers will in large part decide her political direction.
Yet Penn is no ordinary pollster. Beyond his connections to the Clintons, he not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies.
snip
Morris knew Penn from his days as a pollster in New York and brought him into the White House. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-Chips and school uniforms,'" says a former Clinton adviser. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest." He became known as the "most powerful man in Washington you've never heard of."

Spinning Hillary Centrist
The man with the polls tells Hillary what to say and how to say it.  Hiding corporate policies under the pablum of poll-tested platitudes.  PR firms do that every day for corporations.  
Just ask Labor about Mark Penn:

"Learning that Mark Penn was CEO of a company that in fact conducts some of its business busting unions was very, very problematic to the AFL-CIO, as well as to many other unions, and we made that clear" to the Clinton campaign, said Karen Ackerman, AFL-CIO political director. "This is an issue that continues."
Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said in a statement: "We have expressed our concerns to Sen. Clinton about Mark Penn and his firm's work for anti-union companies. We value Sen. Clinton's commitment to strengthen America's middle class. But as long as Mark Penn continues to profit from his company's involvement with anti-union companies, this issue will not go away."

LA Times

One of labor's bigger irritations with the Clinton campaign has been the role of chief strategist Mark J. Penn, who has remained worldwide president & CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the global public relations and public affairs firm. One of the B-M clients most despised by labor is Cintas Corp., which is the largest uniform supplier in North America and say it clothes 5 million people for work each day.
snip
With Burson-Marsteller's assistance, Cintas has staved off a push to unionize its workforce, and the public relations firm's website at one point boasted of its work in parrying union pressure.

Ben Smith's Blog

You cannot ask Eleazar Torres-Gomez about Burson's work for Cinitas in fighting unionization, a union that would have forced the company to obey safety rules, because he's dead:

Eleazar Torres-Gomez was pronounced dead on the scene after apparently being dragged by a conveyor into an industrial dryer.  Torres-Gomez was trapped in the dryer—which can reportedly reach temperatures of 300 degrees—for at least 20 minutes.

Cincinnati Beacon
A particularly brutal way to die.  And Cinitas had been repeatedly fined by OSHA for the same safety violations that killed Mr. Torres-Gomez.

"Federal safety officials have called for a $2.78 million penalty against the Cintas Corporation, the nation's largest supplier of uniforms, for violations at its Tulsa plant, where a worker died when he was pulled into a large dryer
Representative Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, said yesterday, "OSHA's findings prove that Cintas inaction led to the death of Mr. Torres Gomez despite the company's ridiculous allegations that he tried to commit suicide or was too stupid to operate the machinery."

NY Times
Hmm.  Cinitas spin.  It's enough to kill.

Cintas spokeswoman Pamela Lowe said it was Cintas' main public relations agency, doing "a wide range of corporate communications for us."
"I'll tell you that Cintas is pleased with the work that Burson has done," she said.

LA Times
Connect the dots.  Triangulation.  Union Busting.  Blackwater.  Here's another: The Security Industrial State Lobbyists Paying for Future "Access" to Hillary Clinton:

Just days after the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9/11 homeland security spending, watchdog groups say.

Edwards Campaign Calls Out Clinton for Lobbyist Fundraiser Today (quoting abc news)
No amount of PR can hide the truth.
Mr. Torres-Gomez' son Emmanuel Torres-Gomez testifying before a Congressional committte:

On March 6, 2007, my father was killed while working at a Cintas laundry in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was reportedly dragged into an industrial dryer by a conveyor belt. This has been devastating for us. In 2005, the Occupational Safety and Health  Administration fined Cintas for not putting guards on a dryer at a laundry in New York. The equipment that was unguarded in that case was similar to the  equipment involved in my father's death. If the company had added the guards, which it knew was required by OSHA, my father would be alive today...
My father's death was preventable.

My Father's Death was Preventable
Please also check out Uniform Justice. Do what you can to help the Teamsters and UniteHere unionize Cinitas and prevent another horrific death like that suffered by Eleazar Torres-Gomez.  
Which side will The Democratic Party be on?  The Side of Money or the Side of The People?
John Edwards is right:

"we don't want to replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats."

For some, it may be a matter of life and death.

Tags: john edwards, hillary clinton, corporate dems, mark penn, cintas, blackwater, 2008 elections, Recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 529 comments

  •  Tips (153+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    reef the dog, Sharon, tmo, Paleo, nolalily, cosbo, BigOkie, mattman, RunawayRose, formernadervoter, be inspired, rhubarb, suswa, HarveyMilk, RFK Lives, catchawave, givmeliberty, busternjake, opinionated, bronte17, sfgb, evilrick, MahFellaMerkins, mrclean, Alohaleezy, Eddie C, psnyder, jsmagid, Dallasdoc, Subversive, Kidspeak, attydave, mcfly, chillindame, dufffbeer, lcrp, ChiGirl88, ybruti, las casas, Hillbilly Dem, rmx2630, Gowrie Gal, sarahlane, angrybird, fijiancat, historys mysteries, cantwait08, 3goldens, rstnfld, ichibon, asskicking annie, kuvasz, frandor55, Lepanto, Chaoslillith, freemark, EvilPaula, annefrank, babatunde, Geekesque, WisePiper, Lisa Lockwood, playtonjr, bookwoman, sgary, murasaki, Alan Arizona, surferal, gwilson, tarheelblue, jsamuel, sherlyle, ej25, BlueInARedState, andydoubtless, KimHynes, Junior Bug, isis2, greenearth, Lefty Coaster, Native Light, Sagebrush Bob, Potus2020, LJR, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, 14justice, kurt, chapel hill guy, nannyboz, pkbarbiedoll, leighkidd, DBunn, seabos84, McSnatherson, bigchin, Shasta Dad, fisheye, SharonColeman, godislove, uniongal, BruceMcF, moosely2006, dallasdave, America08, lynmar, Duccio, NCDem Amy, biggus, sherrylynn, dissonantdissident, james risser, Blue South, ashlarah, Newzie, rrheard, pioneer111, RIP Russ, MadAsHellMaddie, Predictor, Terra Mystica, TomP, chicago minx, Mighty Ike, jgilhousen, AJ WI, FirstValuesThenIssues, John Poet, planetclaire4, BlueStateLiberal, RSA TX, RedJet, Funphil, young montana voter, brooklynbadboy, golconda2, NCCarboys, Archangel, IamLorax, peaceloveandkucinich, left my heart, Chrispy67, journalschism, LaEscapee, waiting for hope, CeeusBeeus, MizC, lenzy1000, MariaIvette, Ellinorianne, Yoshi En Son, Mike Taylor, Chad Michaels, bdnss

    for TomP and JRE's taking on Corporate Dems.

    •  Truly excellent diary David. (22+ / 0-)

      People need the WAKE UP! Corporations are running this country and Clinton is the biggest corporatists the democrats pack. Her campaign is all about POWER and has little or nothing to do with the people.

      She has no original ideas of her own. She avoids answering questions and hangs out with people like Penn. The writing is clearly on the wall. Whatever happened to comprehension.

      Spears/Hilton '08

      by cosbo on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:23:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Forgot to add...tips and thanks for TomP! (12+ / 0-)

      Spears/Hilton '08

      by cosbo on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:24:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I gotta tell you (7+ / 0-)

      I just want a Dem to win, I dont necessarily care who it is, but I instinctively start liking Hillary more with all of these attacks against her.

      She isnt the Demoness she is being made out to be, and it is starting to get annoying to see Edwards come across quite frankly as someone who is holier than thou.

      •  She isnt as she is being made out to be (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        annefrank, journalschism, lenzy1000

        Tell that to Al Gore.

        White House Civil War

        Promised real power as Bill Clinton's vice president, Al Gore found he had a rival for that role: the First Lady. And when Hillary decided to run for the Senate, a tense competition got ugly. In an excerpt from her new book about the Clinton White House years, the author reveals how conflicting agendas—the triangle of a scandal-ridden lame-duck president, the wife he'd betrayed, and his designated successor—sapped Gore's 2000 campaign as the bond between two couples dissolved into distrust, anger, and resentment.

        http://www.vanityfair.com/...

      •  Did you know about the Lieberman-Kyl amendement? (5+ / 0-)

        She voted "yes" on that.  I truly hope I'm wrong, but I fear that could be the hook that Bush hangs his Iran war on.  Clinton's vote wouldn't have changed it, but she had a chance to take a stand and try to sway some of her colleagues to vote the other way--in other words, to lead.  She didn't do that.  That vote makes her unfit to be president in my eyes.
        It's true that a lot of people criticize her here, but there are reasons to criticize her.  There's too much riding on this next election to go with her, as far as I'm concerned.  At best, Clinton presidency would be a waste of the historic chance we're going to have to change things for the better in this country.  This is the most important election in the U.S. since 1860 and 1932.  It really is.  We need a president who can take advantage of the mood the country is in and lead it forward, not somebody who is temperamentally an administrator--somebody whose inclination is to try to keep things on the same track and not to make waves.  Would Clinton have been the right choice in 1860 or 1932?  I really don't think so.  Nor is she now.  We need someboy who will make a few waves.

        ÞÞÞ Ðe Drummondtown Non-Sequitorial Society 300þ Anniversary: 1834-2008 ÞÞÞ

        by Mumphrey on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:41:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (0+ / 0-)

          quite frankly a quick look at Edwards voting record shows he is a recent convert to several issues that past votes would have made him almost equally anathema.

          He is, to his credit and I would play it this way too, using his freedom of not currently being in elected office to criticize the votes of others without having to make those votes himself.

          But I am not completely convinced based on his past voting history, that he would be as "pure" as some believe him to be now, were he currently still in the Senate, and having to make some of these votes.

    •  Good diary and Rec'd. nt (5+ / 0-)

      John McCain: Vowing to connect real leaders with real bowels

      by chicago minx on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:08:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  want a tip? (0+ / 0-)

      Always take wooden nickels, they're collectibles.

      I am embarrassed to say that I almost decided to support Edwards based on his 'brave stand against corporations'

      After finding out that his "national health plan" is actually a generic hillarycare national health insurance subsidy program and that if elected, he has no definite date in mind for an Iraq withdrawal, as far as I'm concerned, he might as well have hired Penn himself and served side-by-side with HRC on the Walmart Board of Directors.

      Given Obama's positions are roughly identical, unless Al Gore runs, I don't have a horse in the 2008 Democratic nomination race.

      The differences between the top tier candidates are cosmetic, a matter of packaging for different political market demographics and we have been manuvered yet again into voting for the "centrist" of our choice and trying to make ourselves believe that choice matters.

      However, I think it's vitally important that all Democrats vote for the 2008 Presidential candidate.

      A landslide will force elected Democrats to prove once and for all whether they're in DC to work for us or for HRC's real people (as in CEOs) represented by K Street.

      While it is possible that the next Democratic President will put on the kind of show that'll put him/her on Mt. Rushmore and get Congress compared with FDR's New Deal Congress, I think it's far more likely that tens of millions of low-information Democrats discovering that Democratic "national health care" = "compulsory murder by spreadsheet" and "get out of Iraq" = "stay in Iraq" will decide that the Democratic Party needs to follow the Whigs into history.

      I suspect that the 2008 Democratic nominee will be the last national candidate the Democratic Party runs.

      The good news is that we get to be part of political history. The bad news is that most of us will be building the progressive replacement for the Democratic Party in 2009-2012.

      "Won't get fooled again" might make a good motto for that new party.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 04:16:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Aside from his endorsement of Hillary, (0+ / 0-)

        if Clark had been running, would you have any reservations about him?  

        I feel exactly  as you say above, but I can excuse Clark's endorsement of her because we have to pick somebody, so you can only do the best  with what you've got. ...Although I'm not sure why he thinks Dodd is not the best man for the job. If not for his unconstitutional and highly imprudent Iraq vote he's top shelf in my book.

        •  well, Clark was right about Iraq, I think (0+ / 0-)

          but he's out of the race.

          I had occasion to look at Dodd's health care program... and was disappointed to find it generic hillarycare.

          The definition I'm using of hillarycare is mandatory purchase of government-approved private insurance for individuals not covered by employers except for the public plan the sick and the poor are going to get stuck with.

          I expect hillarycare (or Hillarycare) to get passed and signed in the first 30 days of the next President taking office, because the health insurance industry who essentially wrote it will pull out all the stops to get it passed. (probably including a horse head in the bed for people who really need a clue)

          When tens of millions of Americans get a letter in the mail telling us we MUST buy private health insurance, there's going to be big trouble for Democrats.

          The day I get that letter, I'm going to see if I can find my Democratic Party voter registration form, so I can burn it.

          When the Feds start enforcing the law via punitive means (HRC said she can imagine a future in which if one doesn't have proof of insurance, one can't get a job). . . it's over for the Democrats. That issue hits people right in the wallet.

          The only reason why the MA plan hasn't blown up yet is that they haven't started enforcing that law. I heard around here that the cheapest private plan for an individual in compliance is $2500/year.

          People who can afford health insurance are already paying for it.

          The fact that the Beltway consensus says otherwise is a simple indication of just how little they understand of life outside the bubble.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:53:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK. Who's putting single payer in place? (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry, Dennis Kucinich will not be elected president this time and probably not next time. Too bad. Next guess?

            It will only happen when the American people demand it from congress and have it pushed through. It will take Americans put aside the potato chips, get off the couch, stand up and demand it from all the candidates and congress to get the next president to up it into place. That's how we'll get it.

            Man, sometimes I really crack myself up. LOL.

            You've got to be cou-ra-geous, to play the odds that love will win. Whatever city you're in. Was / Not Was

            by Noodles on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:54:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think we'll have to wait until after (0+ / 0-)

              the Democratic Party blows up.

              There are a lot of families on the margins, I suspect that the "public" version of this plan will replace a lot of plans already in place with a deterioration of service afterwards, and the ones who are making just a little too much to qualifiy are NOT going to sit around eating potato chips when they finally receive enough threats to start looking into "approved" plans.

              There's nothing like getting told that one's family has to balance mandatory health insurance against food and rent to suddenly develop a sense of political awareness.

              When people actually realize what our elected "leadership" really has in mind. . . as in what may very well be in effect, the most regressive tax in American history, all hell is going to break loose. Even if only 10% of the population is going to get hammered, that's enough to swing quite a few elections.

              However, I expect politicians from both parties to ignore the polls until it is way too late due to constant reassurance from health insurers that for practical purposes, unlimited campaign budgets will overcome any reluctance the voters might have to re-elect them.

              Note what the polls look like on Iraq, note how easily politicians find it to ignore them, and note that this is consistently true of issues where the American public is more progressive than centrists are.

              IOW, if we get the health insurance subsidy program Democrats are promising, it'll probably be replaced by single payer in 2011 or 2013 after a gigantic political war.

              Surviving politicians will have gotten that hillarycare = getting fired by voters except in the wealthiest districts.

              Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

              by alizard on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 02:57:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think the situation will be resolved (0+ / 0-)

                I'm a recently registered Democrat after years as an independent. I came on board because I've found a lot of Dem's who want to turn the party on its head and are not happy at all with the leadership. Rather than reinvent the wheel with a 3rd party it makes more sense to aggressively go after the spineless corporatists and change the leadership. Besides, the GOP will likely blow up at this point before the Democratic party, another reason for us to get a firm grasp on the reigns of power.

                FWIW, at least the premise of Edwards' plan, which is feasible in theory, is to open a door to single payer. Frankly, trying to put an industry that creates tens of billions in profits out of business could be a wee bit difficult. They have nothing to lose by spending tens of billions to fight the movement against it.

                But what is suggested by Edward's plan (and it may not do all of the following  but this is IMO a plan that would work) is to force the insurance industry to compete head to head against a single payer system that operates at about 3% overhead vs. 30% overhead. And does not need to generate any profit on top of those expenses.

                Then you take away their denial of service, force the industry to take your insurance with you no matter where you work or live, force rapid reimbursement back to doctors a'la medicare, and they will be in trouble. The real trick will be getting congress to allow the public to "buy" their insurance through Medicare as well. If we can get the system to open that door and provide better service it will become impossible for insurers to compete. Especially if we then demand value added to their services. They'll be undercut at every turn and too weak to fight the trend towards the path of least resistance when it comes to getting your health care.

                I also wonder - and I'm not convinced that this is true - if a single payer system is ramped up a bit slowly might single payer work better in the short run. Rather than having single payer in one fell swoop and shocking the system, if it is put into place over say, 4 or 5 years, might not it get through its growing pains more efficiently? I'm not insisting that this is so, just putting it out there to consider.

                You've got to be cou-ra-geous, to play the odds that love will win. Whatever city you're in. Was / Not Was

                by Noodles on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 05:02:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't buy the 'natural progression' (0+ / 0-)

                  to single payer you describe.

                  Do you really think that any plan with a credible path to single payer will meet with less political opposition than single payer itself would? The only way to get it is to take on the health insurance industry and win, and elected Democrats don't have the stomach for the fight.

                  I think that if Edwards (or anybody) wins, the 60 days or so between the bill's introduction and passage will be spent removing the safeguards that were put in to satisfy our concerns and cutting back the public plan to the bare minimum required to nominally replace all the low-income public plans in place.

                  With respect to "reinventing the wheel", my assumption is that the wheel is going to be blown into very small pieces when the low-information voter strategy turns and bites Congressional incumbents and whoever the President is in the ass. Giant insurance bills and reduction of services to people served by existing public plans can't be explained away by a few 30 second ads. . . or many 30 second ads.

                  At that point in time, the voters are also going to notice that troops aren't coming home in significant numbers.

                  I see no other possible outcome than all hell breaking loose. The deal the Democratic Party has made with the American people is "Give us the power to make things better for you." If the Democratic Party openly trashes that deal when it is in unquestioned power, all hell is going to break loose.

                  There won't be a Democratic Party to take back because the word Democrat will be radioactive and will probably be used as a synonym for "sellout" (after all, we're running out of people who remember who Quisling is) for generations to come.

                  I think we'll get a progressive party who won't hesitate to take on health care insurers because they ran against the incumbents who failed the American people, I think the DLCers who are not comfortable with a people's party will join the Wall Street GOP to create "the new" Republican Party. . . and the crazies will create a theocratic party of their own.

                  Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 12:48:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards UHC will end private insurance as we (0+ / 0-)

        know it.  Your statement that his universal health care, or as you called it, his "national health plan"

        is actually a generic hillarycare national health insurance subsidy program

         just shows that you either did not read the plan or did not understand it.

        Edwards plan, which was released in February and does not resemble Hillary's '93 homage to HMOs, forces private insurers to directly compete with a government plan.  

        Employers and uninsured individuals could choose between them.  In addition, there would no longer be such a thing as "pre-existing conditions."  Private insurers would have to cover all that applied and payed premiums. They would also be required to cover mental health parity, chronic care and preventive care.  The government plan would also include dental and vision care.  

        Private insurers currently have up to a 30% administrative cost compared to the government's 2-3%.  If they fight this plan, they would be conceding that they cannot provide to the American consumers the value that the government can.  If they are able to provide the services at the value the government can, why haven't they?  They will not want to concede that they have been defrauding the American public all this time, though the case is easy to make.

        Now is the time for a complete overhaul of our health care system.  Before you knock the only candidate who will do that, be sure that you know the basic elements of his plan.

        I am an Edwards Democrat!

        by ashlarah on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 08:47:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  go look at this chart (0+ / 0-)

          of side-by-side comparisons of the top tier candidate health care plans.

          All three (HRC's original was provided too late to make the chart) require mandatory participation in health insurance, usually private with minor differences. BTW, the cheapest private plan that qualifies under the similar MA state Romneycare plan is $2500/year for an individual. (saw this in one of the diaries)

          The "public" component in each plan appears to be intended a place to dump the sick and the poor in the interests taking them out of the risk pool to making the private version more profitable, and the people who are really going to get hammered are the people making just a little too much to qualify for the "public" plan.

          I also strongly suspect that the "safeguards" are going to be negotiated away, and the public plan will be an inferior replacement for existing government plans for low-income people.

          The secondary purpose of these plans appears to be to get votes from people who think they're voting for single-payer, not for mandatory private insurance. Somehow, I don't think that they're going to find time in 30 second campaign TV ads to explain the difference. The primary one is obviously to boost health insurance industry profits.

          If Edwards (or Obama or Hillary) wanted a single payer plan, that's what the comparison I pointed you at would tell us. The private-public mix doesn't eliminate the problem of health insurance inefficiency, it exacerbates it and codifies it into law.

          If you want private insurance and can already afford it and don't have it, buy it yourself.

          Enjoy your Kool-Aid, and you can keep it to yourself, too.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 03:13:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have your confidence in tables (0+ / 0-)

            Read Edwards plan, not someone's interpretation.

            Third: New Health Care Markets. The U.S. government will help states and groups of states create
            regional Health Care Markets, non-profit purchasing pools that offer a choice of competing insurance
            plans. At least one plan would be a public program based upon Medicare. All plans will include
            comprehensive benefits, including full mental health benefits. Families and businesses could choose to
            supplement their coverage with additional benefits. The markets will be available to everyone who
            does not get comparable insurance from their jobs or a public program and to employers that choose to
            join rather than offer their own insurance.

            http://www.johnedwards.com/...

            Competition for private insurance.  Was that in your table? I sure didn't see it.  Maybe you should find a less simplistic table.

            I'm too old for kool-aid or for clever but not necessarily wise cracks.

            I am an Edwards Democrat!

            by ashlarah on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 09:40:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Let's be honest and non-hypocritical (20+ / 0-)

      Many Democrats were in awe of and envied Rove's "skills."  They wanted to take him down not because he was a liar and cheat but because he was an effective liar and cheat for the other side.  They would be just fine having a "Rove" in the DEM camp.  

      Those who were appalled at what Rove did to win those elections for GWB and the GOP are mostly in the liberal/progressive wing of the party.  And quite frankly, we're not the ones holding the reins of power in the party.  We're just the foot soldiers and voters that will once again be told to STFU, close your eyes, get in line and vote DEM.  Oh, and send mo money.  

      What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

      by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:56:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I truly hope you're wrong. n/t (5+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        suswa, bronte17, ichibon, sgary, moosely2006

        White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)

        by nolalily on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:05:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hope is the evidence of things not seen (12+ / 0-)

          Only JE among the big three in this race provides us with the opportunity to finally move toward significant progressive change.

          You want Hillary?
          Then it's more NAFTA
          It's more corporate friendly telecom bills (good bye internet)

          Oh, single payer payer?   The only program that will solve the health care crisis...fuh get aboutit.

          And, its lack of support for more unionization

          You can forget about moving on minimum wage.

          And you want more illegal bombings (1999 Yugoslavia---which by the way solved nothing)?

          Then, vote for Hillary.   And, then, don't complain.

          Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

          by formernadervoter on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Only JE among the big three..." (6+ / 0-)

            Not sure how so many reach the conclusion that "only my guy" can do X.  There's little in Edward's record as a Senator to convince me that he's a progressive. Shifting from being a conservative DEM to a progressive is a significant change and all such real changes happen neither overnight nor without a major crisis in confidence, particularly not in middle age.

            Gore's defeat in 2000 may have been that life shattering experience for him.  May explain why the Gore we began to see in 9/02 was different from the one we saw in 2000.

            Edwards may be fine.  Obama may be fine.  But neither is imbued with a solid progressive orientation/worldview.  There is only one person in the race that is a solid progressive and he doesn't have a chance.  The others are more or less clustered together and while there are diffences among them, the are small when compared to the difference between this cluster and DK.  So, while one may be less conservative than another, I don't know that it serves us well to label the least conservative as a "progressive."

            What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

            by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:51:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So Edwards took a read of the country (16+ / 0-)

              and realized that a truly compassionate approach to politics would work.

              And realized that universal health care was actually important.

              And saw the value of unions to working Americans - a class of people who have been in a state of siege.

              And understands that feeding the military-industrial complex is the biggest scam on the planet.

              And wants to devote resources, ideas and feet on the ground to help the victims of Katrina.

              I dunno.

              I'd call all of those ideas progressive.

              So, I'm afraid I disagree with the idea of stripping the "progressive" label from Edwards.

              Change the media ownership laws and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

              by moosely2006 on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:18:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Merely pointing out the difference (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                dus7

                between a candidate that is inherently a progressive and one that "took a read of the country."  The latter is a politician.  Not that there's anything wrong with that nor that many such politicians don't do good work for the country.  But that's following not leading.

                At certain moments in the history of the US experiment in democracy, true leaders emerge.  Several at the inception, one in 1860 and another in 1932.  Those are the ones who take this country to a new place.  The vision of leaders comes not from holding a finger to the wind to check on the pulse of the nation, but to sense that internally and add oxygen to those small collection of twigs struggling to burst into flames and warm us.

                What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

                by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:06:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The Dutch abandoned their old mixed (0+ / 0-)

                public/private system in 2006.

                Premiums varied widely for people with the same income and they wanted to get rid of the dependency upon employment.

                Das Krankenversicherungsgesetz beendet die Situation, dass Menschen mit vergleichbarem Einkommen deutlich voneinander abweichende Beiträge zahlen und dass die Versicherung von der Beschäftigungssituation abhängt.

                Competitive pressures were causing great problems.

                Die Versicherer werden in einen stärkeren Wettbewerb miteinander treten, um für ihre Versicherten bei den Leistungsanbietern das günstigste Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis herauszuholen. Die Leistungsanbieter müssen ihrerseits leistungsorientierter arbeiten, erhalten aber auch mehr Möglichkeiten, genau die Leistungen anzubieten, die die Bürger brauchen und wünschen.

                http://de.wikipedia.org/...

            •  I agree with you ... (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              brownsox, Justanothernyer

              For all practical purposes, there is a cluster of "mainstream" Dem candidates, who broadly agree in substance, although they all have their particular line of bullshit for the primaries. The only one who represents a substantially different vision is Kucinich. (Off in a 4th dimension somewhere is Gravel, and out in N-dimensional space is Nader.)

              Since my ethical perspective is different - probably a lot less ethical; see my sig - Kucinich is no consideration for me. It's just a matter of picking the best horse in the pack.

              I flirted Obama through the spring and summer, waiting for him to take it to the next level. I know that Washington is dysfunctional; he could have pulled me in by explaining why, but all I heard was the same old bullshit, which I can get anywhere. Meanwhile the mare has shown great form on the track, so I have put my bet on her.

              The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

              by al Fubar on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:41:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well... (8+ / 0-)

              I think there were many progressive stances that Edwards took, that were IMO more meaningful because he represented a red state. In regards to a woman's right to choose, he voted against a ban on partial birth abortions five times, he has been for a Federal Freedom of Choice Act for years which would ensure a woman's right to choose no matter who gets elected to the courts, he voted in favor of military women being allowed to have abortions overseas, he voted in favor of allowing abortions on military bases, he authored the Women in Trauma Act...I could go on and on.

              So, I don't think he's as conservative a Dem as people think he was. He did cast a few conservative votes, like voting for the IWR, but as whole he had a good record. Just like Gore, I think something has changed Edwards, and I think his voting for the IWR is what did it for him. He's always been an advocate on consumer rights issues and he has a long history of working on poverty issues, but I think his view of foreign policy changed a lot because of his vote on the IWR.

              Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!

              by sarahlane on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:35:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  NO, we don't want an effective liar and cheat (36+ / 0-)

        on our side.  That does not work for the American people.

        But you are right, there are many on our side that are emulating the Repubs.  Unfortunately our frontrunner Hillary is defending her use of a "Rove-like" operative.  Mark Penn has similar "skills".

        •  You would be in the liberal/progressive (5+ / 0-)

          faction as I stated in my comment. We tend to put principles above "winning by any means necessary" which is all Rove ever did.  He was a skilled practioner of election dirty tricks and not much more.  All the other GOP skill at messenging and framing comes out of their "think tanks" and Rove merely applied what they presented.

          However, where we live is not where the power in the Democratic Party lives.  They just haven't gotten as the GOP, but they're working on it.  More and bigger "think tanks."  We may not like this trend but will we balk?

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:26:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We are trying Marie, we are trying (15+ / 0-)

            and I love Edwards steel in his spine to defend principles.  
            See Edwards in Kentucky talking to the people - absolutely amazing in his command of questions and answers.  

          •  I'll beg to differ a bit (18+ / 0-)

            The power in the Party shifted when Gov. Dean was elected DNC chair - very much with the help of us liberal/progressive faction folks. Gov. Dean is both smart AND principled. I very much believe he knows what he is doing and that electoral success can, and very much should, be achieved without the likes of Mark Penn.

            The shift is certainly not as far as us liberal/progressives would like, but it is real and important.

            Remember all the stories in the traditional media about how unhappy all the money people were with Gov. Dean? How dare he not cater to their every whim! How dare he spend his time working to organize people unable to bundle hundreds of thousands of dollars!

            Democracy for America was (and to a degree still is) Gov. Dean's prototype for the 50 state strategy. DFA clearly demonstrated that self-directed grassroots organizing (supported with training, tools, themes, etc.) works.

            The more success it (the 50 state strategy and spin-off efforts) breeds, the more low-dollar donors are able to float the financial boat, the greater the shift.

            So bottom line is we neither need nor want the likes of Mark Penn and if Sen. Clinton thinks she does, then maybe we don't need her either.

            Democracy is a contact sport...

            by jsmagid on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:55:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gov Dean is fine (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              pioneer111, Terra Mystica

              and wasn't referring to him.  Unfortunately, his power base in the party isn't the only one nor is it the most powerful, but it might be the largest in numbers.

              What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

              by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:25:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Like I said, (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Native Light, moosely2006, lenzy1000

                a bit....

                The DNC chair used to be integral to the corporate power base in the Party (think Terry McAuliffe)- no longer. That, IMHO, is a very big step in the right direction. Certainly not the last step by any means, but hugely important.

                I should also mention that Act Blue and all it represents (something again if not started by, then given a huge boost by the Dean campaign) - the rise of virtual bundling by the netroots - is another important step in the right direction (perhaps a bit of an overlapping step with important elements of the 50-state strategy).

                Democracy is a contact sport...

                by jsmagid on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:09:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Question: do you think (2+ / 0-)

                  that Dean will survive if Hillary wins?  I don't know that answer to that.  Tend to doubt that he would be formally removed.  So, guess my question is, does Dean  get to retain his power?  If not, would he leave?

                  What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

                  by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:28:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The DLC opposed Dean chairing the DNC (7+ / 0-)

                    probably because Centrism has no core values but is advantageous for po$itioning - NOT inspiring grassroots participation. That's why John Edwards keeps saying we need to RECLAIM the core values of the Dem Party - (abandoned during the Centrist Clinton years).

                    Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.

                    by annefrank on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:38:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Interesting question (0+ / 0-)

                    which I admit I've not given any thought. First thought is that it's probably another good reason to support Edwards.

                    In the past, I believe the nominee has had substantial influence in the process, especially a victorious nominee. The position is for a 4 year term with a new chair elected in January after the election. I've no idea if Dean would want to run for a 2nd term as chair - it's got to be a pretty tough life to lead, endless travel, appearances, fund raising, almost like being a candidate for 4 year straight, and that after running for President in '04.

                    What I think will be different is that Dean was raised to chair primarily on the support of the DNC members from the state Parties and who he has given much greater financial support than had been the case in the recent past.

                    I suspect that it will be difficult for Hillary or anyone else to get someone elected chair who doesn't at least mouth support for Dean's approach at least not without a fight.

                    Democracy is a contact sport...

                    by jsmagid on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 05:18:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with pioneer (0+ / 0-)

            and I'm not really that liberal.

      •  Never been in (26+ / 0-)

        "awe" of Karl Rove or "envious" of his supposed skill. Been horrified by Karl Rove much like I'm "horrified" by anybody who believes the means justify the ends.

        "I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back." ~ Ann Richards (Governor of Texas, 1990-94)

        by suswa on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 10:09:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes, lets be honest... (5+ / 0-)

        Many Democrats were in awe of and envied Rove's "skills."  They wanted to take him down not because he was a liar and cheat but because he was an effective liar and cheat for the other side.  They would be just fine having a "Rove" in the DEM camp.

        ...and call this what it is: spin.  It's an exercise in false equivalency to make the GOP look better and the Dems look worse, much like the "bipartisan" Abramoff scandal.

        Yes, there might be some Democrats that admire Rove.  Some is not many, which is good so we'll have fewer people to primary.

        •  Whoa - step back (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          asskicking annie

          and don't try to read so much into my comment because none what you're stating is there.  Difficult to see how anything I said makes the "GOP look better."  Unless labeling someone as a liar and cheat is better than labeling them as evil SOBs.  Second, as there is no DEM "Rove," the charge of "false equivalency" is weak.

          The "bipartisan Abramoff scandal" was nothing but a GOP talking point and it didn't stick.  Because DEMs at least rebutted it, but mostly because the charge was, at best, weak.  However, you're forgetting the equivalence on Enron.  That one worked.  Not because true equivalence existed but because enough DEM politicians had played footsie with Enron that they were in a weakened position to go after the crimes not just of Enron but other energy companies that had engaged in similar, albeit not as extreme, behavior.  A second reason why they backed off is that Enron was made possible by series of legislative and executive administrative changes at FERC and SEC - bipartisan legislation and agency rule changes under both GHB and Clinton.

          "DEMS suck less" may satisfy you, but shooting the messenger that points out that DEMS still suck with ad hominem attacks that the messenger must be a GOP is, in addition to being puerile, boring.

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:22:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  a lot of talking (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            lenzy1000

            around my point: saying "many Democrats admire Rove" is just as much spin as the "bipartisan Abramoff scandal."  Unless you happen to have some polls and a list of prominent Democrats to back up the point.

            •  No Democrat is going to admit that, (0+ / 0-)

              not even to themselves, because Rove is the enemy.  That was the point of my first comment.  Americans admire winners -- that's socialized into all of us.  Some of us discriminate between those who play fair and win and those who cheat and win, but we are a minority.  For example, what percentage of Americans would be embracing GWB today if Iraq were a calm, peaceful country and he could claim that "we won" even though the governmental organization of Iraq was essentially a US puppet regime?  60%?  70%? 90%?

              Whatever that number is, I know that I would be in that tiny remaining sliver that would remain appalled at what we had done.  That 10% that never changed our  opinion of GWB from what it was on 9/10/01 to what it was on 9/30/01.  What are the chances that population of dKos readers come exclusively from that 9/30/01 ten percent?      

              What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

              by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 01:46:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  so it's straight up conjecture then (0+ / 0-)

                For example, what percentage of Americans would be embracing GWB today if Iraq were a calm, peaceful country and he could claim that "we won" even though the governmental organization of Iraq was essentially a US puppet regime?

                Then he would have won 2004 in a landslide.  But Katrina and Abramoff and all the other scandals still would have hit.  Bush's poll numbers have gone but one direction since he was elected: down.  The only exceptions were 911 and the start of the Iraq war.  Stabilizing Iraq would have added a big boost, but then it's back to going downhill again.

                •  I didn't define when (0+ / 0-)

                  Iraq became a land of peace and plenty, but I'll play along and stipulate that it was before 11/04 if you'll define the popular vote percentage for that landslide election win.  Then with that in his pocket, how many of those scandals subsequent to 11/04 would have surfaced and how many would have been seen as important?  IMHO, I doubt that the Abramoff scandal in the abstract hurt GWB.  Katrina more so.  Still, without the time consuming distraction of managing public perception on Iraq, the Bush/Cheney team would have had more resources to manage all the other scandals.  And unlike Poppy's team, they are more skilled at exploiting their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses.

                  However, that doesn't get to the heart of my question which is how many Americans today would approve of the US illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is they felt that the US had won?

                  What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

                  by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 02:14:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I admire his manipulation of the language (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Marie, ichibon

                the same way I admire a great white shark. I don't want to be one, I know they do harm, but they are perfect (almost!) at what they do.

                Now if we could remanipulate the language so that words mean what they mean again. Sigh.

                My new bumper sticker: Cheney-Satan '08

                by adigal on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 03:37:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  No, I do not agree (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ichibon

        I think most Democrats were able to see that the poll-driven lunacy of the Bush administration was a lousy substitute for good governing.

        We're glad he's gone, we dislike his type of backroom amorality, we do not aspire to emulate him.

        You may, but if so, don't let people know.  They are likely to start shunning you.

        •  I get shunned for pointing (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          annefrank, ohcanada

          out that the DEM Party isn't devoid of "backroom amorality."  Now why would I point that out if I liked/approved of that type of politics?

          Has everybody but me forgotten about the anti-Dean TV ad that used an image of OBL and ran in 12/03 in IA?

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:59:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It might be poor form (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Marie

          to interrupt a political discussion of points based on merit to "inform" a fellow Kossak that he/she "will be shunned," if they continue a certain line of discussion.

          It hovers on the edge of a personal attack and leans toward "soft-handed" censorship.

          I think we're better served and learn more when we don't resort to getting personal.

          Change the media ownership laws and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

          by moosely2006 on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:35:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yay! (9+ / 0-)

        Keep it going, Marie!

        I'm tired of "it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. Just for the Democrat." That worked real well in 2004, didn't it?

        I for one am sick and tired of this crap. If HRC is the nominee, all I can do is shake my head. We had an opportunity to really make a difference in 2008 yet it seems as if we're going backwards instead of forward. What happened to the party with ideas and beliefs? Has that party left? Are we to uphold the dogma or let it flitter away?

        Enough is enough! If people want status quo, then who am I to judge. That being said, it'll be a depressing day for me November 2008. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way.

        "The only phone call she'll get at 3am is Bill calling for bail money and asking Hilary to bring him a pair of pants" - Bill Maher

        by Nedsdag on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:28:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That may be so... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        moosely2006, lynmar

        ... but having our own Karl Rove would be like having our own brownshirts or our own Blackwater.

        In the end, I don't think anyone who truly believes in what the Democratic Party stands for is going to tolerate having a Rove on our side.

        Let that particular cancer eat away at the Republican Party... I don't want it to taint us.

        (1) D.I.E.B.O.L.D.: Decisive In Elections By Ousting Liberal Democrats.
        (2) R.A.T.S.: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia.
        (3) -8.75, -8.10

        by Archangel on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:39:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you sure you'd know (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          annefrank

          if there were "Roves" in the DEM Party?  Rove was unique because he was tied to GWB at the hip, and therefore, he couldn't lurk in the background as most political consultants do.

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I quite agree on the substance ... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        campskunk

        Minus, of course, your ethical judgments - I'm prepared to defend mine, but I don't know that the discussion would get anywhere.  

        But yeah, many Dems - I would say the vast majority - have been crying out for someone who will fight back, and isn't afraid to take out the brass knuckles. That is why we are suckers for every damn heroic doomed charge, and cheer on even abysmal failures like the MoveOn ad. The Clinton name is associated with something better than that, winning presidential elections. And for all that Bill Clinton's presidency fell dreadfully short of the Platonic ideal of a progressive, in the Aristotelian world of real politics he did pretty damn good.

        Take it to the Republicans, beat their ass, and do a good job of governing afterwards - that is Hillary's basic argument, and it goes down well with most Dems.

        The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

        by al Fubar on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:03:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, we will not become the enemy (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        FirstValuesThenIssues, lenzy1000

        We will teach the people what puppets and strings the folks behind the curtain are pulling. Then Americans can pull down the curtain and say: not on our watch.

        The Republicans are very unpopular in matchups against the Democrats. Despite a few million in paid and free PR in September, Americans remain opposed to continuing course in Iraq. That is a clear message that is being ignored.

        Congress, however, still has its strings pulled by its corporate-fixated leadership. When you give them a seat at the table, they will override the people's 2006 election message.

        Support Andrew Rice for US Senate: link vs. Jim "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe

        by tsunami on Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 12:22:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]