At a critical juncture in the pre-primary vote, Paul Krugman spelled out the substantive difference between John Edwards and Barack Obama.
And it's a huge one.
Krugman minces no words in clearly delineating this: Barack Obama believes he can unite insurance corporations with the interests of the American people.
John Edwards believes that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will never give up a thing and that they will continue to work against the interests of Americans.
Krugman:
At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America is that our politics are so "bitter and partisan," and insists that he can get things done by ushering in a "different kind of politics."
At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect, that America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big changes.
Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well, naïve.
Would that we oould live in a world, at this time, of a 'different kind of politics'. But here's the problem...every single president in my adult life, since Ronald Reagan has run for office saying that they'd put an end to partisan politics and that they would "reach across the table and unite us all". It hasn't happened.
John Edwards, who made the rounds on the Sunday morning shows, yesterday, clearly made a distinction between who he is going to go to war with and the politicians on Capitol Hill. He's going to go after the insurance and oil industries but wants to reach out to our elected leaders.
Edwards on insurance and oil corporations after Carolyn Washburn, editor of The Des Moines Register, suggested at the debate that Edwards shouldn't be so harsh on wealthy and special interests:
Mr. Edwards replied, "Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen."
Mr. Obama has a history of working closely with big Insurance.
Boston Globe:
The bill originally called for a "Bipartisan Health Care Reform Commission" to implement a program reaching all 12.4 million Illinois residents. The legislation would have made it official state policy to ensure that all residents could access "quality healthcare at costs that are reasonable." Insurers feared that language would result in a government takeover of healthcare, even though the bill did not explicitly say that.
Obama had written three successful amendments, at least one of which made key changes favorable to insurers.
Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy - the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access. In the same amendment, Obama also sought to give insurers a voice in how the task force developed its plan.
Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry's concerns into consideration.
"Barack is a very reasonable person who clearly recognized the various roles involved in the healthcare system," said Phil Lackman, a lobbyist for insurance agents and brokers. Obama "understood our concern that we didn't want a predetermined outcome."
In one attempt at a deal, Obama approached the Campaign for Better Health Care with insurers' concerns, asking if the group would consider a less stringent mandate than requiring the state to come up with a universal healthcare plan. The coalition decided not to bend, said Jim Duffett, the group's executive director.
"The concept of the Health Care Justice Act was to bring the sides - the different perspectives and stakeholders - to the table," Duffett said. "In this situation, Obama was being a conduit from the insurance industry to us."
Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers and after a legal precedent surfaced during the debate indicating that it would be unconstitutional for one legislative assembly to pass a law requiring a future legislative assembly to craft a healthcare plan.During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had "worked diligently with the insurance industry," as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation's reach and noted that the bill had undergone a "complete restructuring" after industry representatives "legitimately" raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.
"The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry," Obama said, according to the session transcript
Perhaps this is what Mr. Obama means when he says he will "reach out" and keep a big table. John Edwards believes that the Insurance and Oil fatcats will only do everything in their power to maintain their stranglehold.
Krugman apparently thinks so as well, writing about Obama's reaction to John Edwards' stance:
On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards by name. He declared that "We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic."
Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that "us" includes the insurance and drug lobbies?
O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.
As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? "I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying," he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.
As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.
Krugman also goes on to recognize the 'strong populist tide running in American right now."
For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what’s wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."
The CNN and Fox News focus testing on the Des Moines Register debate came up big for John Edwards' assault on coporate power. Consequently, he states that Edwards was the "clear winner" of that debate.
America is screaming out at our presidential candidates. They're looking for the one candidate who will help them slap down the same interests who've worked against them time and again as the news media, according to Krugman, "recoil from populist appeals." Witness the Des Moines Register's smackdown of Edwards "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric."
Edwards made a very smart move. When asked about the non-endorsement of the Iowa paper, he told television audiences that he and the editors had a 'vigorous debate" over philosophy. It's a shame that the Des Moines register debated against stirring the pot with Insurance and Pharma.
This will be the defining moment going into the Iowa Caucus.
As for Mr. Krugman's verdict on Senator Obama?
Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.
The differences between Edwards and Obama is right before our eyes. There is no historical evidence that would lead us to believe insurance and oil companies will ever decide to be "nice guys" and work in our best interests.
Edwards has been in the courtroom against them time and again. Never once were they ever ready to give away anything.
That's the reality.