Observing from beyond the solar system, a cultural outsider looks in.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Preparing the Field for 2012
At the risk of sounding like Cassandra (a prophetess who spoke the truth but was never believed) or Eeyore (a donkey who was always depressed), Democrats are not going to win the presidential election in 2008. I will celebrate if I'm wrong, but perhaps I'm making this post right now because I want to have at least bragging rights if I'm right.
There are multiple reasons why I believe I'm right about this. For one thing, we need to have a candidate that appeals to rural, southern, and red state voters. Failing to embrace this fact again and again, Democrats always seem to choose someone with solidly blue state appeal. Sadly, I also very much doubt that we have overcome sexism and racism to the point where they won't be factors in the general this time around, though on this, especially, I would like to be proven wrong.
One of the very saddest reasons that I believe the Democrats won't win, however, is that we have become so timid that we tend not to nominate candidates who stand for anything. We had a candidate this time around, John Edwards, whose ideas were so bold and progressives that he had a strong hand in setting the agenda for the other candidates. Unfortunately, he is out of the race, and now we're left with two candidates so timid and triangulating that they seem to have few ideas of their own and have adopted the mildest of his.
You might not believe Cassandra, and you might not believe polls either, but there are already polls out showing both Clinton and Obama losing to McCain, and that is before the Swift boating and cheating starts.
I'm so convinced that we won't win in 2008, that I'm already starting to think about how we win in 2012, and win with a real progressive.
It was clear from the media coverage of Edwards, or more specifically, lack thereof, that there are certain things that you cannot talk about in a presidential campaign without being marginalized by the media, and that those taboo subjects constitute some of the most fundamental reasons our democracy doesn't work. It was also clear that the media itself is a big part of this problem, and is undermining our democracy by actively trying to tell people who they can and cannot vote for.
Some of the things that Edwards talked about that got him shunned by the mainstream media, but loved by many progressives, were corporate influence on our government, lobbyists corrupting the system, campaign finance reform, election reform, and the problems with media consolidation. Edwards told us that the system is rigged, and the fact that his progressive message was so thoroughly shut out of it proves his point.
So how do we make it possible that a real progressive like Edwards could win in the future? Here are some of the things I think we need to do:
Elect progressives to positions of importance below the presidency within the Democratic Party, so that the party insiders are progressives. This means Congress and other positions (like those positions that currently are the superdelegates). Kick the DLC (the corporate wing of the party) out of the Democratic party to the extent that it's possible. Having more Democratic Party insiders who are actually on our side will create the infrastructure for a progressive win.
Demand fair, unbiased, and intelligent media coverage, and equal coverage of candidates. This takes exposing the problems with our media and maybe boycotts of bad media. It means opposing media consolidation and rolling back the media consolidation that has already happened, so that more voices are heard. It also may take developing media outlets of our own. Blogs are a small but important step.
Enact strong campaign finance and election reform. Get rid of the lobbyists, enact effective public campaign financing, and make sure election results can be verified.
All this may seem like a Catch-22. We couldn't elect a presidential candidate who talked about these things, therefore we will have trouble making these reforms. We will have trouble making these reforms, therefore it will be difficult to elect leaders who can help us. Nevertheless, this is what needs to be done.
All of the above will be exceedingly difficult, and it won't all happen before 2012. With luck and persistence, some of it will happen before 2012, increasing the likelihood of electing a real progressive president. The more progress we make on these issues, even if it's a bit at a time, the more likely it becomes that someone like John Edwards, a candidate who stands for something, could succeed.
Welcome to tonight's Edwards Evening News. Today, the Edwards campaign unveiled the America Belongs to Us campaign with a goal of getting one million voters to sign a pledge not to vote or caucus for any candidate who takes money from lobbyists and PACs. America belongs to all of us, and we're taking our country back! Click the image to sign the pledge.
Here's more on why America Belongs to Us from TomP's diary earlier today.
The "AMERICA BELONGS TO US" 2008 Pledge and website was anounced today by the Edwards campaign.
Lobbyists have taken control in Washington and America’s hard-working families pay the price. They've stopped universal health care. They've secured unfair and unsafe trade deals that have cost America good middle-class jobs. They've left our children at risk from unsafe toys. They've sabotaged clean energy legislation that would address global warming. And they've squashed efforts for cheaper generic prescription drugs. Enough is enough. America belongs to us.
If you want real change, Sign the Pledge:
Because I believe we need real change in America and an end to the broken system in Washington that works for special interests and not us, I pledge not to vote or caucus for a Democratic presidential candidate that accepts campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.
Edwards Walks the Picket Line with Striking Writers in New York
Yesterday, John Edwards walked the picket line in New York with striking members of the Writers Guild of America East. This is the second time during this presidential campaign that he has walked the picket line with striking workers, as Miss Laura pointed out in her front page diary earlier today. (It's definitely not the first time that he's showed up to support union workers, however, having participated in nearly 200 union events over the years.)
"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.
"But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there. Hillary Clinton says her plan will cover everyone through a 'mandate' but does not provide even the most rudimentary idea much less a detailed plan of how this 'mandate' would work. To get fundamental change in our health care system, we need a fundamental change in our politics. That starts with being clear and direct about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it."
Edwards' truly universal health care plan will ensure that every American has health insurance. He will require proof of insurance when income taxes are paid and when health care is provided. Families without insurance will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or another targeted plan or be assigned a plan within new Health Care Markets.
Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment.
Later today, John Edwards will announce the specifics of how his mandate works. And they're quite good. Whenever you come into contact with the health care system, or whenever you pay your taxes, you will be asked to provide proof of insurance, presumably a policy number or some similar identifier. If you cannot, you will automatically be enrolled in either a public plan that you qualify for (like Medicaid or S-CHIP) or the cheapest plan offered by his Health Insurance Market. Bills will then get sent out, and if they're not paid, will be collected just like the government collects on student loan debts, or taxes, or anything else, using tools up to and including collection agencies and wage garnishment. (It's notable, here, that Edwards doesn't shy away from saying what his stick will be.)
In this way, Edwards' plan is much less an individual mandate and much closer to a government mandate. The burden is less on the individual to seek new insurance and more on the government to simply enroll them in it. From there, they can opt in to a different insurer if they so choose, or simply stay with their default plan. It's a smart and efficient way to move towards universality, and, for now, it puts Edwards ahead of both Obama and Clinton on the substance of the policy, and the speed with which he presented it to the public.
John was relaxed and joked with all of us and he thanked us for our patience, hah...like it was an effort to see and listen to him...not.
I won't tell you what the ad was about as you will see it for yourselves in a week or two.
After the camera men were through, they took pictures of JRE just talking to the crowd, no sound, and it wasn't about politics, just ordinary people talking about this and that. I did ask JRE that when he won the Iowa caucus, would he wait for me to get to the celebration before he made his VICTORY speech... and he said for all to hear... Count on it!
I wanted to share this event with all of you to let you know that JRE is our man for President and that he is powerful and he will stand with us and for us to make America ours again.
UPDATE: Terre also tells me that Keith Olbermann will be interviewing John live from the campaign trail tomorrow on Countdown on MSNBC. Couldn't find confirmation on his web site, but anyway, Keith is always worth watching!
Also tomorrow:
John Edwards will deliver remarks to the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council Nov 29, 2007 6:00 PM Hotel Vetro 201 S Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa Click here to RSVP
It's pretty clear that corporate lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, DC, and that the corruption caused by big money interests giving legalized bribes to politicians is out of control.
John Edwards has never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist, not only in this campaign, but in any political campaign he has ever run, since his first race for the Senate. In this, he is different from the other candidates, and way ahead of them, in my opinion, although Obama has, to his credit, also rejected lobbyist money for his first time in this presidential race.
At Yearly Kos, John Edwards challenged Hillary Clinton to stop taking campaign contributions from lobbyists, and she refused.
MODERATOR: Senator Edwards has a very straightforward question here, which is will you continue to take money from lobbyists?
CLINTON: Yes, I will. I will. Because you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do.
Later, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton asserted that the solution to the corruption in Washington is public campaign financing. We already have a public campaign financing system in place for presidential elections. John Edwards then committed to take public campaign financing for the primary, and challenged the other candidates to do the same. Once again, Clinton has refused (as has Obama).
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton said the following when asked about her connection to disgraced donor Norman Hsu:
CLINTON: I think that we've done all that we can do at this point, including returning the money, but I believe that the only answer to this entire set of circumstances is public financing, something that I strongly support, that I'm going to try to do when I'm president, because there is no doubt that the cost of campaigns, particularly trying to get on television with our advertising, and all the things that people have to do in a modern campaign, are just out of control. It's not good for the country, and it's not good for the system.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton is actually in favor of some ideal form of public campaign financing that we don't have yet, however, we do already have a public campaign financing system in place for presidential elections. The existing public campaign financing system for presidential elections does not require mandatory participation, however, because the Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory participation in that system would be unconstitutional.
Many people, including John Edwards, have said that they would support an improved system of public campaign financing. Hillary Clinton appears to support that, too, although it's not clear what her proposal is.
A true commitment to public financing would involve both being willing to work within the existing public financing system and proposing serious reforms that would strengthen our existing public financing system, and obviously it would be easiest to actually accomplish this if it can be done in a way that could be upheld as constitutional. Although I'm no constitutional expert, it seems that John Edwards has done both.
Here's a little bit of history on our current public financing system for presidential campaigns, from Wikipedia:
All of these efforts were largely ineffective, easily circumvented and rarely enforced. In 1971, however, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, requiring broad disclosure of campaign finance. In 1974, fueled by public reaction to the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed amendments to the Act establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including public financing of presidential campaigns and creation of a central enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission. Other provisions included strict limits on contributions to campaigns and expenditures by campaigns, individuals, and other political groups.
The new law was immediately challenged on First Amendment grounds in Federal Court, resulting in a landmark Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo. The Buckley decision recognized that regulation burdened the rights of free speech and assembly, but held that the compelling government interest in preventing corruption or its appearance justified some restrictions on free speech. The resulting decision upheld contribution limits, so long as they were not so low as to prevent campaigns from amassing the resources necessary to communicate effectively with the public, disclosure requirements, and voluntary public financing. It found limits on expenditures to be unconstitutional infringements on free speech. It also restricted the reach of the law to speech by candidates and parties, that is, groups established for the purpose of electing candidates, and to communications that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate, using phrases such as "vote for," "vote against," "support," or "defeat."
I understand this quote to be saying that the Supreme Court has said campaign finance law can limit the maximum amount of donations, in order to prevent corruption or even the appearance of corruption, but cannot require candidates to participate in a public financing system, and cannot limit their spending. On Friday, John Edwards proposed a new public financing system that would go much further toward preventing corruption, but would fall into these guidelines.
Reforming Campaign Finance to Strengthen Small Donors: John Edwards believes elections should be about ideas rather than money. Few Americans can afford to make $4,600 contributions to gain access to presidential candidates, and the integrity of our campaign financing system depends upon smaller donors continuing to play an important role in the political process. Edwards' campaign is built upon the support of small donors – in fact, 93 percent of the campaign's donations come from donors contributing less than $100. As president, Edwards will create a new Grassroots Presidential Financing System to match small donations under $100 by eight to one, making two $100 donations as valuable to a campaign as a single $1,000 donation. He will also reduce the maximum contribution from $2,300 to $1,000 per person, to better reflect the incomes of most Americans. Edwards will create a system of full public financing for Congressional candidates and require corporations to disclose their political activity and spending.
Eight to one matches for small donations would sure go a long way toward maximizing the power of small contributors, while a lower maximum donation of $1000 would limit the influence of wealthy people and corporations. Edwards would also prevent lobbyists from giving campaign contributions, again, to prevent corruption.
Ending the Unique Power of Lobbyists: Edwards will prohibit all candidates and federal office holders from accepting contributions from lobbyists and will prohibit federal lobbyists from acting as fundraisers or bundlers for federal candidates. He will limit the ability of lobbyists to secure lucrative earmarks by enacting a Constitutional version of the line-item veto, where the president can require an up or down vote on special-interest spending. Edwards will close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street by reinstating the five-year ban on lobbying by former top government officials and by banning former lobbyists from taking executive branch positions related to their former clients. Finally, he will curb lobbyists' influence by increasing disclosure requirements for lobbyist activity and by prohibiting government executives from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists and their employers.
Strengthening the Voice of Ordinary Citizens: To ensure everyone's vote is counted, Edwards will require that all voting machines, including electronic ones, use paper ballots that can be verified by voters. He will also give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress, allow Election Day Registration in federal elections, fight voter suppression and intimidation and end the disenfranchisement of former prisoners who have served their time. In order to increase citizen engagement, Edwards will ask one million citizens to participate in biennial Citizen Congresses – national town hall meetings where regular Americans tackle national issues together, without the filters of interest groups and the media. Similar projects have given citizens a voice in community solutions across the country, including in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards unveiled a "One Democracy" initiative last week to enlarge the role of ordinary Americans in politics. The "Citizen Congress" is the most original part of this policy. If elected, he would convene millions of Americans in town halls throughout the country every other year to deliberate and advise public leaders on difficult issues such as healthcare, poverty, and foreign affairs.
The idea that government should talk directly to citizens about political issues, and that citizens should talk to each other, has the potential to reinvigorate American democracy. Citizen participation through influential assemblies such as Citizen Congresses would address three critical failings of the political system.
Here's a citizen journalist video report of John Edwards proposing his One Democracy Initiative, recorded by YouTube user dteubner. These are parts 2 and 3 of the speech, which gets into the meat of his proposals. Part 1 can be found here.
If you're interested in hearing more from that day in Keene, NH, you can download an MP3 here that includes the speech, as well as a question and answer session that followed it. Also, here is part of a Q&A session with CSpan viewers that aired before the speech (I didn't tune in early enough to catch it all).
Edwards has been talking up public financing and government reform and deriding the corrupting influence of lobbyists for quite some time now. Here he discusses these issues on a recent edition of Meet the Press:
During the Slate/Yahoo/Huffington Post debate today, Hillary Clinton once more defended Washington lobbyists with what seems to be verging on pride in taking money from them.
Well, I take from executives or people that work for them, just like I do from every part of the economy. And you know, I think it's a little inauthentic for people to say don't take money from lobbyists, but it's OK to take it from their spouses, their children, their associates, and from people that work for the companies that employ them. That is, you know, to me, kind of an artificial distinction.
It's not an "artificial distinction" to the Edwards campaign.
John Edwards' Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince today issued a strongly worded response to Clinton's assertions that there is nothing wrong with taking money from lobbyists.
"During the Slate/Yahoo/Huffington Post debate, which aired online today, Senator Clinton said the difference between lobbyists and regular Americans is an 'artificial distinction.' She is wrong. These lobbyists are legally required to register with the government to influence legislation. And, more than most, Senator Clinton should know that Washington is awash with campaign money from these lobbyists. It is wrong and it has to stop.
"Sometimes good people have been in Washington so long that they can't see what every American sees – the system in Washington has become corroded and corrupted and is failing the American people. By defending a broken system and lobbyists, Senator Clinton is defending the status quo and, knowingly or not, protecting those that have rigged the game.
"John Edwards believes it's time to end the game and be honest with the American people. It's time for us to have the strength to say no to Washington lobbyists' money so we can deliver the real change America deserves. That's why, once again, John Edwards renews his challenge to Senator Clinton to join with him in demanding the Democratic Party lead the way to real reform by refusing, as a party, to take campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.
"In fact, for further explanation of the difference between lobbyists and regular Americans, see the DC Circuit decision on the Rumely Case* that said the following about lobbying: '...It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative process. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and danger. That is not an evil; that is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process...'"
* Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
I agree with Jonathan Prince. For Clinton to say that lobbyists making legal bribes to politicians is essentially the same as citizens making political donations is patently absurd. Lobbyists are paid to represent certain interests in Washington, usually business interests, and since that is their job, they work on it single-mindedly and all the time. As Jonathan Prince points out, they also have to register with the government to do so, because they do have such extraordinary influence.
You and I can at best write letters to our representatives in Congress, or call them, once in a while in our busy lives. When we make political donations, it is not usually with the singular intent of influencing a politician on one issue, but more often just with the goal in mind of electing someone that at least sort of represents our many interests. Even if we work for a company that may wish to influence policy in a certain way, that does not necessarily mean that we agree with the interests of our company. Many of us don't even like our jobs, if we're lucky enough to have them.
To say that lobbyists are more effective than the average citizen at getting their way is a gross understatement. That is why John Edwards has repeatedly called for an end to the lobbyist game in Washington and a return of the government to the people.
Now, is there a problem with our current campaign finance system, where wealthy people can give $4600 to a candidate without batting an eye, while most people can barely afford to give a few bucks? Of course there is! That is why Edwards has also repeatedly called for public campaign financing. But, until we elect enough politicians like John Edwards that want to change the system, we have to live within the system we've got. If enough Washington politicians take the Edwards challenge and reject money from lobbyists, that would be a big step in the right direction.
While the media appointed front runners preen their superstar images and bicker between themselves, and the corporate media trivializes the issues, the Edwards campaign, from the candidate himself all the way down to the volunteers, fights on in a battle to save America, and by extension, the world. For anyone paying attention, there is no doubt that John Edwards is correct when he says "Washington, DC is broken. The system is rigged, and it's rigged against you." Among the presidential candidates, only John Edwards has vowed to fight and beat the corporate lobbyists that now control our government (as opposed to negotiating with them to take away their power, which won't work), and only John Edwards has the needed experience fighting and beating corporate interests repeatedly in his lifetime. Only John Edwards has never taken money from Washington lobbyists or political action committees (PACs) in any of his political campaigns, including his very first one for the Senate.
His fight won't be easy, but he's up to the challenge. Edwards has been taking on abusive corporations for over 20 years. His career as a trial lawyer proved that he's not afraid to fight and win battles that others think are unwinnable.
It's no exaggeration to say that the corporate interests in Washington, and their mouthpiece of a party, the Republicans, noticed this a long time ago and have been trying to take Edwards down ever since. It's no accident that almost every time the corporate media covers Edwards, they include some slur about his looks or his hair designed to make the former football player and courtroom tough guy look effeminate. It's no accident that they overemphasize his wealth and constantly remind us that he lives in a big house, inaccurately calling him a hypocrite. It's no accident that they fan the flames of anti-lawyer prejudice. Edwards is a real danger to their continued control of just about everything. They fear him greatly, so they will do anything they can to smear his good name and tarnish his image.
It's a testament to the man's integrity that they have never, thus far, found anything he has done that is actually dishonest, unethical, or illegal. They don't have much to attack him on, but they're prepared to be awfully inventive in their efforts to harm John and US.
John Edwards's battle against the corrupt corporate influences in Washington is truly a David versus Goliath struggle. John is well on his way to winning it, and he can, if enough average Americans have the good sense to help him. A recent Gallup poll showed that three quarters of Americans agree that politicians taking money from lobbyists is unacceptable, but whether or not that translates into support for John remains to be seen.
Democrats couldn't ask for a more perfect candidate. Intelligent, honest, and well spoken, easy on the eyes and easy to relate to, kind and accessible in person, tough, determined, and indomitable when it counts.
That pretty much sums up John Edwards, and when you add to that the fact that he's from the South, which has produced every successful Democratic presidential candidate in over 40 years, you have a man the Democratic Party would be foolish not to rally behind.
But thus far the Democratic Party has not rallied behind him, and this can be attributed to the corporate media's influence, plus the growing rift between traditional Democrats and DLC corporate controlled centrists. The battle John Edwards is fighting is not only a battle for the survival of American democracy, but also a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Will the Democratic party choose to represent the people, or the corporations? It remains to be seen. I'm supporting Edwards - the people's candidate.
In a new YouTube video from the Edwards campaign, John Edwards, speaking in New Hampshire, borrows a famous phrase from Nancy Reagan: "Just Say No!" The only drug Edwards is talking about here is the drug that Washington, DC is on -- lobbyist money.
This won't be the first time that I've seen Edwards's rhetoric compared to Reagan's, but there is a major difference. John Edwards is not anti-government; he is anti-bad-government. Edwards is using the Reagan phrase to combat the corruption in Washington, for which the Republican Party has been largely, though not exclusively, responsible.
Will corporate greed be all that we value as we move forward into this global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs paid fair wages, every American has health care, and corporate profits work for democracy, not the other way around?
Edwards says there is a clear choice ahead for the Democratic Party.
The choice for our party could not be any clearer. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats. Just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of another is not what we need. The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.
Now, the Clinton campaign has tried to make this all about Clinton, but it's clear that that's not what it's about. The Lincoln bedroom phrase may be recognizable shorthand for undue favors being given to political friends, but Bush has also rented out the Lincoln bedroom. Furthermore, the reference to the House and the Senate shows that this is about corruption throughout the federal government.
Rather than being distracted by accusations that this is an attack on another Democrat, I think we should ask ourselves, what kind of Democratic Party do we want?
Personally, I think lobbyist influence has run rampant in Washington for way too long. I'm with Edwards on this, and I'm glad he's finally speaking out more publicly about other politicians taking the lobbyist money that he has refused for his entire 10 year political career.
John Edwards made a magic, moving speech today to kick off his bus tour in New Hampshire. I'm going to have to just post it in its entirety, because I can't bear to cut it and I really have nothing to add. He says this so well. (Emphasis mine.)
This election is unlike any we have faced before. The stakes are higher. And the challenges we face as a nation are greater than at any time in memory.
We as a nation must choose whether to do what America has always done in times like these -- change direction and move boldly into the future for the sake of our children, if not for ourselves, or wander in the same stale direction we have traveled in our recent past.
The choice we must make is as important as it is clear.
It is a choice between looking back and looking forward.
A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared.
A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy.
Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again.
It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle.
It is the establishment elites versus the American people.
It is a choice between the failed compromises of the past and the bright possibilities of our future. Between resigning ourselves to Two Americas or fighting for the One America we all believe in.
As always, at these moments, the choice we make is not for us, but for our children and our great country. And this time, like no other time, the consequences for our children are truly profound.
Will we halt global warming, protect our environment and humanity from the cataclysmic consequences of inaction and leave our children a livable world rich in the resources that were left to us?
Will we prevail against terrorism by stopping those who would harm us and winning over the minds of those who have yet to take sides so that instead of an ever more dangerous and war-torn world, our children live in a nation that is safe, strong and once again viewed throughout the world as a truly moral leader?
Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?
Will we face our future as individuals, each of us asking, "What's in it for me?" Or will we return to the central value that makes our nation great? That we are all in this together and each of has a responsibility to the common good.
The choices we make will determine not just the quality of life our children will inherit, but the fate of the world we leave behind.
To succeed for our children where we have too often failed for ourselves, we must choose a new course. Those wedded to the policies of the 70s, 80s, or 90s are wedded to the past -- ideas and policies that are tired, shop worn and obsolete. We will find no answers there.
But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.
Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.
Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.
Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.
And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it.
The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.
The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.
It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.
And it's time for the American people to take responsibility for our government -- for in our democracy it is truly ours. If we have come to mistrust and question it, it is because we were not vigilant against the forces that have taken it from us. That their game has played on for so long is the fault of each of us -- ending the game and returning government of the people to the people is the responsibility of all of us.
But cleaning up Washington isn't enough. If we are going to meet the challenges we face and prevail over them, two principles must guide us -- yes, we must end the Washington game, but we must also think as big as the challenges we face. Our ideas must be bold enough to succeed and our government must be free to enact them without compromising principle or sacrificing results.
One without the other isn't good enough. All the big ideas in the world won't make a difference if they have to go through this broken system that remains controlled by big business and their lobbyists. And if we fix the system, but aren't honest with the American people about the scope of our challenges and what's required of each of us to meet them, then we'll be left with the baby steps and incremental measures that are Washington's poor excuse for progress.
As Bobby Kennedy said, "If we fail to dare, if we do not try, the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference; a world we did not want, a world we did not choose, but a world we could have made better by caring more for the results of our labors."
But if we do both -- if we have the courage to offer real change and the determination to change Washington -- then we will be build the One America we dream of, where every man, woman and child is blessed with the same, great opportunity and held to the same, just rules.
For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care. And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform. Instead, they've grudgingly allowed incremental measures that do nothing but tinker around the edges -- or worse, they've hijacked reform to improve their own bottom line. So today, more Americans go without health care than ever before. Instead of prescription drug reform that brought down the cost of drugs, the lobbyists for the big drug companies got us a prescription drug bill that boosts drug company profits but doesn't cut patient costs.
I have a bold plan to finally guarantee true universal health care for every single American and cut health care costs for everyone. My plan will require everyone -- business, government and individuals -- to contribute something to reach universal coverage. And I am honest about the cost: $90 to $120 billion a year, and I'll pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts for families above $200,000. If we end the game in Washington, we can finally have a health care system that treats the health of all our people with equal worth.
Dependence on foreign oil is smothering our economy and choking our environment. Everybody knows it -- politicians from both parties have been calling for energy independence for 30 years. So what did the oilmen in the White House do? They handed the keys to the corridors of government over to the lobbyists for the big oil companies and let them literally write the energy bill. Now, gas prices are through the roof, carbon emissions are unchecked, and global warming is likely getting worse.
When I am president, we will cap greenhouse gas pollution and ratchet it down every year. We will avoid mistakes like nuclear power and liquid coal. We will invest in clean renewable energies generated in America and create a new era in efficient cars, made by union members here at home.
And look at our economic policies -- from top to bottom, they're a twisted reflection of American values. Instead of expanding opportunity for all and preventing special privileges for any, they hoard opportunity and protect special privileges for the very few at the very top.
Trade policy is all about corporate profits for big multinationals and not at all about lifting workers' wages or creating American jobs. The tax code provides breaks for hedge fund managers -- amazingly, even Democrats backed down from asking them to pay their fair share when Wall Street lobbyists put the pressure on. By the time a decade of corporate opposition to a minimal increase in the minimum wage is overcome, even its own supporters admit that the increase isn't enough -- so another decade of corporate opposition begins anew, and workers lose again.
It's time we put our economy back in line with our values. Let's restore fairness to our tax code by insisting on a simple principle -- nobody in the middle class should pay higher taxes on the money they make from hard work than the wealthiest pay on the money they make from their investments. Let's restore opportunity and responsibility to our trade policy by requiring that every new trade deal puts workers and wages first. Let's reward work by strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, cutting taxes on working families and with a national commitment to end poverty within a generation.
And let's support our troops and end this war in Iraq. We should immediately withdraw 40-50,000 combat troops immediately and have the rest out in about a year. And when President Bush refuses to act, Congress should use its funding power to force him to act.
None of this will be easy, but all of it is possible.
I know. I've been doing it my entire life.
I am the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards. My father had to borrow $50 to bring me and my mother home from the hospital. I am here today because, like all the people my father worked with in the mill, my parents got up every day believing in the promise of America, and they worked hard -- no matter what obstacles were thrown against them -- to give me the chance for a better life.
That's the promise at the heart of the American Dream. What matters to our generation is of little consequence -- in America what has always mattered most is the consequences for our children and their children after them. And no amount of power or money gives anyone the right to break that promise with our future.
I have stood with ordinary Americans at the most difficult times in their lives, when all the power of corporate America was arrayed against them. I have walked into courtrooms alone to face an army of corporate lawyers with all the money in the world. I have walked off the Senate elevator and been besieged by an army of corporate lobbyists. And I have beaten them over and over again.
But let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience -- you cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them.
We cannot triangulate our way to real change. We cannot compromise our way to real change. But we can lead to real change. And we can start today.
Nearly ten years ago, I made the decision that I would never take a dime from a Washington lobbyist -- I wasn't going to work for them, and I didn't want their money.
Because in the courtroom, when you present your case to the jury, you can offer facts and evidence, you can argue your heart out -- and I have -- but the one thing you can't do, is pay the jury. We call that a bribe. But in Washington when an oil lobbyist gives money to office holders to influence our energy policy, they call it politics. That's exactly what's wrong with this system.
Money flies like lightning between corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. We need full public financing to reform the system once and for all. But we don't need to wait to reform our party. Two weeks ago, I called on all Democrats to reject contributions from federal lobbyists. To tell them -- we know that you give money to influence politicians on behalf of your corporate clients. Well, we're not going to take it anymore. Your money's no good here.
I repeat that challenge today. Let's show America exactly whose side we're on. We can reform our party and truly be the party of the people. And we can expose for all time who the Republicans in Washington are really working for.
There are 60 lobbyists in Washington for every member of Congress. The big corporations don't need another president that looks out for them -- they've got all the power they need. I want to be the people's president.
A few weeks, ago I met a man named James Lowe in Wise, Virginia. James spent the first fifty years of his life without a voice -- literally without a voice -- because he didn't have health care. All he needed was a simple operation to fix a cleft palate. That a man in the richest country in the world could go unable to speak for 50 years because he couldn't pay for a $3,000 operation is something that should outrage every American. We are better than that. America is better that that.
It's a stark reminder of our broken political system that leaves millions of Americans without a voice in their government -- a government that is supposed to work for them.
But it doesn't have to be that way. And we can change it together.
We must think big and end the game.
It's not about being ready to grab the reigns of establishment Washington and stand on the side of corporate elites. If it is, there are plenty who will do a better job than me at protecting the status quo, and preserving the policies and politics of the past.
It's about being ready to lift our country up, reform our party, and remake our government in line with the values of our people. It's about real change and a new vision that meets the challenges of the future and inspires the American people to work together for the common good.
We're all angry at what George Bush has done to our country. But with courage and conviction, with an unblinking eye on the future we believe in and an unbending knee on the road to get there, not only can we undo the damage, we can transform the world. No matter what life has thrown at us, Elizabeth and I have always chosen to be optimistic about the future -- and determined to make a difference as we strive toward it everyday.
I carry the promise of America in my heart, where my parents placed it. Because of them, I believe in people, hard work and the American Dream. I believe the future belongs to us if we only dare to seize it. And I believe to seize it, we must blaze a new path, firmly grounded in the values that first made America great. We must cast aside the established ways of Washington and replace them with the timeless values of the American people. We must end the game controlled by a privileged few and restore the promise that America owes to us all.
On that new path lies One America, where possibility is unbound and opportunity is the birthright of every American. Where the voices of the people are heard again in the halls of government, and government heeds their call. One America, where every individual takes responsibility for our common good, and the chance to reach one's God-given potential is every individual's common right.
If you think about it, it's hardly surprising that a mainstream media newspaper reporting in a town run by lobbyists misunderstands (perhaps willfully) the issue about lobbyists controlling Washington. Perhaps predictably, the Washington Post ran a column today that completely misses the point.
One thing I like about John Edwards is that he's not afraid to state what should be obvious to everyone, especially when it seems many others are afraid to (or won't) say it. Edwards is completely correct that lobbyists are running Washington and have rigged the system against you and me.
In a statement released just a little while ago, Edwards had this to say about the Washington Post's rather bizarre column:
"My campaign is about giving every American the same chances to succeed that I've had - but that can't happen while powerful interests and their lobbyists run Washington. They write our laws to give themselves every break imaginable, while regular families struggle to get by, let alone get ahead. If we are going to build One America, we need to end the money game in Washington.
"I've called on the Democratic Party and all candidates for federal office to stop taking money from Washington lobbyists. A column in today's Washington Post misunderstood the issue. Reforming our party isn't a substitute for changing our laws; it's a critical addition to changing our laws - a huge step we can take today to show the American people that we're the party of the people without waiting for Washington to catch up.
Edwards went on to re-iterate his call to Obama and Clinton to join him in this effort to pressure Democrats to stop accepting lobbyist dollars. Some have accused Edwards trying to force Obama to look like he's following Edwards by pressuring him to join Edwards's effort. I noticed that this time, Edwards is freely giving Obama a way out of this dilemma by mentioning his support for Obama's legislation. Edwards seems to be saying, in effect, nobody is following anybody, but let's just get the job done.
"There are two ways to reform our system. The first way is to pass legislation. I have publicly supported Senator Obama's plan for ethics and lobbying reform. I am also a strong supporter of public financing, and when I am the Democratic nominee for president, if the Republican nominee agrees, I will accept public financing of my campaign. But, as we have seen over and over again, every time we are actually able to pass a new law, all of the lobbyists find loopholes to keep the system rigged.
"The other legitimate path to reform is for our party, the Democratic Party, to reform itself by refusing to take money from Washington lobbyists. By doing this, we are telling Washington lobbyists that their money and their agenda are no good here anymore, and exposing for the American people who the Republican Party is working for - and it's not them. Refusing Washington lobbyist money is a huge step in the right direction - that we can take today - to return our country to a government of, by and for the American people.
"Both ways of reform are legitimate and important. But the real question is if Senator Obama and Senator Clinton really care about reform, which I believe they do, then why will neither of them join me and support both paths?"
Last week, I sent you a letter asking you to join me in taking a stand for millions of working and middle-class American families by calling on the Democratic Party to stop accepting campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and help put an end to the money game in Washington once and for all. Let me be clear, I am not calling on any campaign or candidate to return what has already been legally contributed. But I am proposing that we, as Democrats, stop accepting donations from federal lobbyists from this day forward. It's a bold challenge – and one that has drawn fire from more than a few Washington insiders. But that's why it's all the more important for us to make sure it happens.
I have never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists, and I am proud that you have stopped taking money in this campaign – in fact, it's why I asked you to join me in leading this important effort to help ensure that no DC lobbyist will stand in the way of real change.
I'm glad that John Edwards is staying with this issue. I hope other Democrats will join him.
It can easily be argued that John Edwards gave the strongest performance in the Democratic debate last night. Especially in moments when he took on Washington special interests and the sad state of health care in America, he showed himself to be the kind of fighter who will not rest until he does his best for the American people, which would be a big change from any president I can remember. (This is not to say that the two Democratic presidents I remember, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, weren't somewhat helpful, because they were. But, I don't remember Carter very well, and I know that Clinton made a lot of compromises he should not have made, such as NAFTA.)
In the debate last night, there were moments when Edwards was breathing fire. Most politicians sold us out long ago, and we the people need someone who will put up a good fight on our behalf. Edwards is that guy, and I hope at last that is becoming clear to everyone.
Before I get into the high points of the debate, I should take a moment to mention the new Edwards campaign video that everybody's talking about. The campaign obviously has had enough of a vapid mainstream media that can't seem to talk about the issues, because they are so obsessed with John Edwards's hair. In a powerful juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy, the Hair video asks us what is really important. The choice of music from the anti-Vietnam musical Hair is brilliant. It reminds us that then, as now, America fought a pointless war with obscure goals that our leaders seemed incapable of ending.
It would be nice to think that the reporters who have been perpetuating the hair story in the media are smart enough to know that they've just been roundly and justly insulted and decent enough to feel some shame over it. Time will tell.
During the debate itself, Edwards answered directly every question he was asked. His answers were blunt and to the point. Here are some highlights:
But I think the question is -- the question is: What is going to be done to stop this war?
The other people have raised the question earlier. And in fact, Senator Obama spoke just a minute ago about the White House agreeing that the parliament, the Iraqi parliament could take a month-long vacation because it was too hot, while our men and women are putting their lives on the line every day.
Here's my question. While the Iraqi parliament is on vacation, is George Bush going to be on vacation in Crawford, Texas?
What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.
(APPLAUSE)
It is the only way he will change course. He will never change course unless he's made to do it.
If you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?
And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.
I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.
(APPLAUSE)
And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them.
If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them over and over and over.
And just this past week -- in fact, you were with me on the third day -- I went on a three-day poverty tour in America.
The last day, I was with a man in western Virginia, in the Appalachian mountains -- 51 years old, three years younger than me.
He'd been born with a severe cleft palate, and he was proud of the fact that someone had finally volunteered to correct it. He had not been able to talk -- I want to finish this. He had not been able to talk until it was fixed.
Here was the problem. It was fixed when he was 50 years old. For five decades, James Lowe lived in the richest nation on the planet not able to talk because he couldn't afford the procedure that would've allowed him to talk. When are we going to stand up and do something about this?
We have talked about it too long. We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we're ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.
Asked by one of the YouTube members who submitted a video question whether the candidates would be willing to work for minimum wage while in the White House, Edwards answered with a direct and simple "Yes." Now, I recognize that John Edwards has money and so this would not be the same as a low income family surviving on minimum wage, but it is still an important symbolic gesture if, as president, he would accept the same wage that's earned by some of our nation's poorest workers.
Asked by another YouTube member whether he would protect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers, this was his answer:
As president of the United States, we will embrace and lift up all Americans, whatever their faith beliefs or whether they have no faith beliefs, as Stephen just spoke about. That's what America is.
Now, my faith is enormously important to me personally. It's gotten me through some hard times, as I'm sure that's true of a lot of the candidates who are on this stage.
But it is crucial that the American people know that as president it will not be my job -- and I believe it would be wrong -- for me to impose my personal faith beliefs on the American people or to decide any kind of decision, policy decision, that will affect America on the basis of my personal faith beliefs.
I thought John Edwards had by far the strongest answers in the debate, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here are some samples of what others had to say...
“FIRST PLACE: John Edwards. Analysis: John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you. Here was his key response, his voice rising as he went along: ‘Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power! The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!’”
...Edwards pressed his populist case as passionately as he has at any previous debate, presenting himself as the only one who would take the fight to banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and other special interests. His genuine outrage was readily apparent which was a far more effective way of showing his passion than when he merely speaks about how passionately he cares about things.
“The biggest spike of the night went to John Edwards. He may be trailing Clinton and Obama but on health care, one of his key issues, the meter movers thought he was tops.” The moment was when Edwards said, “We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we are ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.” Said Kaye, “Take a look at that, did you see that? The meter hit 90, all the way up to 90. That was the most favorable reading of the night.” CNN’s group of viewers was comprised of undecided Democrats and non-partisan independents in New Hampshire.
A plurality of our group (four of 12) thought Sen. Edwards won the debate. And we heard a word used to describe him afterwards that any campaign would want to be associated with their candidate: “genuine”. When asked, most of this group thought he was, indeed, “genuine.”
The questions in the debate, submitted by YouTube viewers, were often more pointed and more insightful than those offered in previous debates by reporters. Nevertheless, it seemed Edwards just couldn't get enough of answering questions. In a live webcast after the debate, Edwards answered additional questions, including the top 2 questions voted on by users at CommunityCounts.us.
It's kind of nice to see a presidential candidate who actually listens and responds.
