it's going to be an interesting primary. right now we have hillary leading--often substantially--in most of the polls, but with barely a hint grassroots support, and very little energy or excitement. obama is roughly the opposite; trailing at 2nd or often 3rd in the polls, but with substantial (and growing) grassroots support, and tons of energy and excitement in his campaign. how much of it comes from the rockstar factor, and how much of it can be turned into action? meanwhile, john edwards keeps somewhat below the radar (except for a few bungles that will not be remembered a year from now, except by the hardcore junkies) quitely hammering away at his "two americas" theme to anyone who will listen, and richardson similarly shows off his very impressive resume, and easy campaining skills, ready to jump to the first tier at any moment.

I disagree, Stephanie, I haven't been at all impressed with his pandering against Wal-Mart (i.e. touting that his son chided a classmate for wearing shoes bought at Wal-Mart, saying that "If a 6 year old understands it, why doesn't everyone else?"). Maybe that's just me though.

If you ignore Hillary (wish, wish) we have some interesting candidates. I look forward to seeing them develope. Edwards (as traitor to his class) um, textile millworker's son ??

"Populism"? Does that come before or after bombing Iran? To me, his apology for his 2002 vote authorizing military force means nothing when he then tells AIPAC "All options are on the table, and I mean ALL options". There is no way to say that with Southern gentility. Turning around after that inflammatory statement and telling liberals how much he believes in diplomacy doesn't help. We need to know what he believes in and what he would do in the future. "All options" logically would have to include the current official US policy of preemptive/preventive war unless the candidate says otherwise. That is the policy that led to us killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and may soon lead to attacking Iran. He needs to repudiate that Bush/Cheney doctrine as Jim Webb and Wes Clark have done, and show that he will abide by the constitution and international law before I can care about his populism. A compassionate populist ought to be able to show us that he understands what is wrong with wars of aggression and murdering and torturing people.

"Puh-leeze. Ignore all national polls."

'Puh-leeze' yourself. ignore nothing.

the point remains: it's going to be an interesting primary.

Clinton/Edwards/Obama just spent the past two weeks sucking up to Israel and hawking War with Iran - if this is the est 'yawl can come up with then we are well and truly screwed.

Populist? Sick as I am of the Southern Captivity of American politics, I generally like Edwards, but geez louise, if this guy, with his mansion and private plane, tries to paint himself as a populist, and worse, if we uncritically buy that description, lord help us.

I seriously doubt America is ready for either a female or black president. That being said, Edwards is the most realistic candidate Democrats have as of today.

If you travel beyond our blue state and talk to people, as I have done, you will realize the most surefire way to elect another Republican is to nominate Hillary or Obama.

DeanOR & ThomasWare: John has since clarified his statements, making it clear he does not think an attack on Iran would be smart. lin qiao: Don't forget he was a millworkers son, and the first in his family to go to college. Don't forget how even some people born into wealth, like FDR, have been on class issues. Being a rural populist myself, I want someone who will focus on economics, and John Edwards is the only candidate who discusses economics beyond health care and education. As well, he is the only serious candidate that I've heard say they support public-financing of elections.

Jall said:

"he does not think an attack on Iran would be smart."

I am generally relatively enthusiastic about Edwards. But, the way he/you talk about this is part of the problem. Attacking Iran is not only NOT SMART in a strategic sense.

It's wrong at every level. Just a tad bit of historical perspective on middle east policy, especially on Iran, would go such a long way.

All (agressive) options should not be anywhere near the table. Rather, it's time to crack open the conflict resolution textbooks and get to peace-making.

Oh he's a populist ALL RIGHT...That's why they needed a 28,000 square foot mansion. For all the people they plan on taking in.

It's great to read some actual progressive posts here. Thanks to DeanOR, ThomasWare, and Bert S.

Those who think a hawkish foreign policy is necessary for "electability" are not only wrong, they're Republican.

http://www.counterpunch.org/ccr02212007.html

The Death of the Health Insurance Industry and Reduced Profits for the Drug Cartel Why Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney and Schwarzenegger Don't Support Single-Payer Health Care By Corporate Crime Reporter

If you care about populist issues, read this story. There's nothing more popular than single-payer, universal health insurance. Why won't Edwards support it?

Kari: it's more like $64 billion in lost market capitalization, if you assume a 15% haircut on the top 5 U.S. listed pharmaceuticals. If you add in the top 20, plus all the start-up and emerging biotechs that will file bankruptcy, and assume the related healthcare stocks (like General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Baxter, etc) go down less than 15%, it's very easy to model more than $200 billion in lost market cap with socialized healthcare.

Well, yeah the mansion is not very populist looking. But I don't hold it against him.

In our system, if you want to succeed in politics you've gotta have parties, entertain, hold shin-digs and fundraisers. You also need a safeplace headquarters for your entourage.

But, there is a progressive way to have any rich person conform to populist policies.

It's called PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.

Don't like that Edwards has a big house. Treat him like anyone else in a high income bracket. And let's have policies to assure that he's paying more proportionately.

After Bush, there's a lot of catching up to do.

Those revenues can then be used for fund schools, health care, food stamps, housing for the homeless and a safety net.

If Edwards tries to get out of paying taxes and/or does not support progressive tax policies, then you can call him on his populist image.

On a similar note, Hannity on Fox News always takes an easy pot shot at Bobby Kennedy for being an environmentalist but using a private jet to get around.

Well, yeah, it's kind of contradictory. But Hannity is just playing a cheap trick.

If we're concerned about the environmental impacts, we should treat Kennedy like anyone else. Let's establish high BTU taxes as an incentive for conservation. Then, we could use the added revenues to fund environmental programs and more.

Kari provokingly asked: "What's more important: achieving universal health care - or insisting on one particular financing scheme?"

To which I ask:

Is there an example of a large country that achieves universal healthcare without single payer?

Well, I know it's not authoritative, but Wikipedia say NO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

If true, I don't think the US track record bodes well for us potentially being the exception to the rule.

A new system, notwithstanding likely efficiencies, will not result in all those people loosing their livelihoods. A very large number would likely be absorbed into the public system.

Mergers and changes in ownership happen all the time.

We can handle the change, especially given the added security that we would all enjoy.

Sorry, after reading that Wikipedia article a little more closely, I am no longer certain what it concludes. I was a bit too hasty there. I guess it's time to go to sleep. No more blogging for me tonight.

"As well, he is the only serious candidate that I've heard say they support public-financing of elections."

actually, obama is big on campaign finance reform, read about it at tom paine.com

Of course, if all that money and jobs aren't spent on health care administration, perhaps businesses currently weighed down by all the costs of health care could hire more people. Who knows? They might even get more competitive in the international market and export fewer jobs.

The whole idea that we're holding onto a crappy system because it has jobs and market capitalization doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

if Gore doesn't step in, Edwards totally has my vote. I just hope that by the time the primaries get to us, the mainstream media hasn't already pushed him aside with 'all clinton/obama' coverage

Committing to peaceful resolution of conflicts is not "pandering to isolationism." Au contraire, you'd work through international institutions MUCH MORE diligently to achieve peace.

Putting a moratorium on preemptive war with Iran would make a lot of sense and would be a sign of appropriate leadership given the context of the last 6+ years.

Many congressional leaders are talking about doing just that, and we should support them.

We've lost any ability we had to make policy informed by intelligence, rational perspective or the general public interest. Leaders from Colin Powell on up lied to justify the war. Enough Dems looked and continue to look the other way.

Given the corrosion of our institutions, I'd say there is more than ample justification for taking some foreign policy options off the table. Changing the presidential administration is a good first step. But there would be a lot more work to do to reform our institutions.

What we need is serious and disciplined peacemaking.

So only a poor underprivileged person can tackle poverty. You have to dine daily on Ramen Noodles or Campbell's tomato soup (if they are on sale) to speak out against the shrinking middle class or worse thousands of children who go to bed starving...and even more who have no access to the healthcare they need to sustain a healthy childhood.

John Edwards may be wealthy, and so he bough a big damn house…but to say because of that he isn’t genuine about helping the poor is absurd. John Kerry, the nominee in 2004 was rolling in it through his own money and that of his wife, heiress to the Heinz money tree. There is a difference however on their respective credibility when it comes to tackling the poor and achieving healthcare for more, if not all. John Kerry talked about it, and John Edwards lived it. Trial lawyer…yes he was, but he won case after case helping the little man fight the big bureaucratic insurance companies and corporate giants that preyed on the helpless. And his wife spent years dedicating her time and efforts to philanthropic causes. He’s financed college education for the underprivileged, birthed an educational cause for poverty at his alma mater, and he’s the first candidate on either side of the aisle to lay out any kind of universal healthcare plan.

The reason we’re stuck with George Bush for 8 years is because people don’t apply a reasonable amount of common sense and effort in truly examining a candidate. Where a candidate lives doesn’t make a damn worth of difference in what kind of President he can be. Our current President lives on a farm ranch in Crawford, Texas and has done more to harm the unwealthy than help them. John Kerry had more residences than many candidates combined and his ability to tackle poverty was not questioned to this degree. Politics is negative and nasty because that’s what we portray about politics in our comments. If you don’t favor a candidate and you don’t have a good reason than keep it to yourself. It saves you from the embarrassment of plucking baseless excuses from think air like “his house is too big to care about poverty,” “or he’s too wealthy to be a populist.” It also saves people like me the aggravation of having to absorb these ridiculous attitudes.

<hr/>