Edwards At Stonyfield

Middle Class? (4.00 / 1)

Shouldn't the Democratic Party be the party of the working class, the middle class and small business?  To me, that is one of the real problems the country is facing - not only is the working class suffering, but there is a tremendous squeeze on the middle class.  The gap between the very wealthy and everyone else poses a real threat to the country.

---

by: Frodo @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:53:06 AM CDT

It used to be that (0.00 / 0)

the "working class" was part of the middle class.

I don't particularly like formulations that assign different demographic groups, especially economic groups, to parties. I like to believe that the policies I favor are in the enlightened self-interest of the wealthy, too.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:56:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Middle Class Is The Working Class (4.00 / 1)

Poor
Working Class
Rich

That's what America looks like to me.
3 Americas ?
Whittling it down to 2 ?

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:15:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards Scares the Establishment (0.00 / 0)

both the GOP and Establishment are praying Hillary gets the nomination.

Edwards would be the best general election candidate and has the most progressive health care plan....

If you want real change Edwards is the only one to bring it.

just look at Obama's recent comments about "playing chicken with the troops"

compare this to Edwards' framing putting the onus on the president to veto a bill that funds the troops.

IN this election progressive values and electability both converge on Edwards.

"time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war"- John Edwards

---

by: inevitibility @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:10:38 AM CDT

There seems to be a greater tendency to go negative (0.00 / 0)

among Edwards supporters, based on a small sample here and on dKos.

It doesn't help your candidate.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:27:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

right.. Kos, Taylor Marsh and Jerome Armstrong (0.00 / 0)

are all wingers...

Every major progressive blogger has pointed out this particular bad frame on "chicken with the troops"...

You may disagree with them but they don't "have  a candidate" and have said so..  as far as I know these bloggers try to help Democrats

I assume you're not trying to argue that senator clinton is NOT the establishment candidate...

also, if you saw Drudge's Headline "America Loves Hillary" it was pretty clear there was tit for tat between the Drudge report and Senator Clinton's campaign to get the scoop...

"time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war"- John Edwards

---

by: inevitibility @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:34:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree! (4.00 / 1)

When supporters - of any candidate - try to make points by dis'ing the other candidates, it isn't right.  The Democratic candidates are not the enemy; there may be differences in issues positions among them, but that does not make any of them evil.  It is odd on the Edwards side,  they were so positive in 2004, which is one of the reasons he ended up on the ticket, I think, everyone liked Edwards.

---

by: Frodo @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:07:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There must be some frustration (0.00 / 0)

hearing about the "two rock stars" all the time.

But it's just plain bad marketing. Avis used to say "We try Harder," but it didn't mention Hertz.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:23:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

TTGN (4.00 / 1)

Tendency to go negative as defined by what terms ?
I think a higher tendency to go negative on Bush, sooner,
would have been a positive for all of us. Maybe I am suffering the old imprecation, that there's nothing worse than a reformed sinner. I actually wanted to believe in this President's words because I am an American, and hoped for the best. He lied. Now I want him impeached.
.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:24:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

but also beware (4.00 / 2)

there are people who like to pretend to be a supporter of someone to trash another- their own position.  This will become more prevalent as primary season progresses, and is an argument against "blind" posters.

(on the Keene Sentinel site there are some interesting comments by Free States about "government schools"- there is debate whether they are legitimate or not)

I have visited all the democratic major candidate site, and find them almost uniformly positive- especially Edwards'.  I don't for a minute think John Edwards would support dissing the others- and instead supporters should consider making their case rather than tearing down.

So, eveyone should also be aware of the effects of their words, if they are intending to sway anyone.  As well, some comments should be taken with a grain of salt. 

---

by: Kathleen O'Donnell @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:48:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This user is part of the dkos sample, (0.00 / 0)

so it's a smaller overall sample than you might be thinking. 

But, yes: inevitibility should cool it a little.  We're fine with thoughtful criticism of any candidate, and with making an enthusiastic case for any candidate, but you have to be open to dialogue, which this user does not particularly appear to be.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 13:32:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards at UNH (4.00 / 2)

I was lucky enough to be in the front row last night as John & Elizabeth Edwards spoke.  I found them to be honest, unscripted, and optimistic.  I loved his comment about creating "green collar jobs" instead of referring to employment in the traditional white vs. blue collar. 

Edwards is so real, so normal.  Elizabeth is unbelievably warm & genuine.  If voters are looking for character, honesty, and integrity this time around, they don't have to look any further. 

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!

---

by: pdinardo @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 08:10:40 AM CDT

could someone (0.00 / 0)

please explain to me how Edward's health care plan differs from "pay or play?" 

NH Kucinich Campaign

---

by: susanb @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:35:49 AM CDT

It seems to have components of... (4.00 / 1)

..."pay or play," if that means a system like Massachusetts new law. Employers must provide insurance or pay into a fund; individuals must buy coverage.

But he estimates that his plan will require $90-120 Billion in new taxes, so there is a government subsidy component too.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 11:43:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The big difference, IMHO (4.00 / 1)

Is that there is a government option for coverage (which I think is the same as what is colloquially called "Medicaid for everyone"?). And the idea is if that option performs well and is chosen we may transition into single payer.

That's a good plan if the Administration and Congress stay Dem -- might be a great transition.

If the Repubs take power though, watch for them to set up every barrier possiible to the success of the govermenet option.

My guess is the Edwards plan, with its pragmatic approach but ultimately idealistic end, will be the gold standard of health plans. The best thing Hillary or Obama could do, IMHO, is to talk Edwards plan up, maybe adopt it wholesale. Having some unity on the Health Care plan would be a big boon in the general, and I just do not get the feeling that there is enough difference between what the candidates are proposing that they should brawl over it.

Plus, would that be refreshing for once, for Obama or someone to endorse a rival's health care plan and say, hey, I know a good idea when I see one. I think it would be a stunning moment, and reflect well on the candidate.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 17:26:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just so long as.. (4.00 / 1)

..it wouldn't pay for gamete enginee....

Never mind.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 19:52:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

asdf (4.00 / 2)

1.  Expands medicare to cover a much larger number of people than are currently covered

2.  subsidizes health care costs for those who don't have it up to 80,000.

3.  creates regional health markets and lets employees and employers choose either the government (single payer) plan or a private plan

4.  requires all employers to provide healthcare OR pay into a fund to do it

it is only pay to play for people who are not children, not poor, but are able bodied and do not want to work.. 

You can go here:

http://johnedwards.c...

click on the PDF by scrolling down and read the 7 or 8 pages about it..

"time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war"- John Edwards

---

by: inevitibility @ Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:03:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]