- ‹ previous
- 3277 of 7916
- next ›
In Iowa, a Complicated Threesome, as Edwards Aims at Obama
John Edwards has generally gone easy on Barack Obama. His wife Elizabeth in August did call Obama "holier than thou." Edwards has gently questioned Obama's commitment to establishing a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and he has wondered aloud about Obama's willingness to fight special interests and lobbyists, citing Obama's talk about bringing people together and rising above the political fray. But following a key rule of politics, Edwards has shot most of his arrows at front-running Hillary Clinton. That may be changing.
Obama has taken the lead in the most recent poll in Iowa, a do-or-die state for Edwards, who lags in third place behind Clinton. So today Edwards, who just last week was defending Obama from an Clinton's mockery, took direct aim at Obama. In a statement, Edwards denounced Obama's health care plan:
We need true universal health care reform that covers every single man, woman, and child in America. It is wrong to leave anyone without the care they need. A universal system will work better for all of us – delivering better care at lower cost. Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people. The truth is that some people will choose not to buy insurance even though it's affordable, knowing that the rest of us will pay for their emergency room visits.
Edwards is jumping into the fight that has been going on between Clinton and Obama regarding their respective health care proposals. It's not a tremendous blast. But is this a sign that Edwards will be gunning for Obama and that the Democratic race, as the Iowa caucuses approach, will turn into a circular firing squad--which is what's been happening on the Republican side? In politics, as in much of life, a threesome can get quite complicated.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
It's not surprising that Edwards' opening attack comes on health care: it is one of the only issues on which Edwards and Obama have a substantial policy difference. Edwards' plan is truly universal, due to the mandates he has included. Obama's plan isn't truly universal (no mandates), but his people say it will be universal in practice. But Edwards' attacks don't seem to have any stickiness these days -- so even though there is a real difference between him and BHO, and even though Edwards is right on this one, he still might not get anywhere.
Neither Hillary, Barack or Edwards have a health care plan or a finite plan for getting us out of Iraq. If they did, they would have started legislative action. Only Dennis Kucinich did(HR 676 and HR 1234, respectively).
I can't understand how "Democrats" can even think about voting for candidates(Clinton, Obama and Edwards) who:
1.)have no definitive plan for health care;
2.)have no finite timeline to get us out of Iraq;
3.)have consistently voted for the Patriot Act;
4.)have consistently voted to authorize arm shipments and over $4 Bil in aid to Israel to continue it's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory - the essence of our Middle East problem;
5.)continue to vote NAFTA for latin American countries;
6.)oppose impeachment of the vice president and president.
What was the 2004 election about - putting in a Bush in Clinton clothing?
In case we forgot, the three top issues for Democratic voters in the 2004 elections were: Ending the Iraq War; health care for 100 million uninsured or under insured Americans and; Impeaching this president.
Who besides Kucinich is doing it - no one.
Barry L hits it squarely.
Amen Barry,
Dennis is the only one in the running with the integrity and the plan to start setting this country right again.
Now if Ron Paul would stop wanting to take away a woman's right to choose, I could see a new progressive party ticket with the both of them.
Kucinich/Paul in '08 anyone?