The Young Democrats of Greater St. Louis are holding a Iowa returns watch party/mock St. Louis caucus on Thursday, January 3rd. From the release:

St. Louis, Mo. – Gearing up for the primary election season the Young Democrats of Greater St. Louis will welcome Democratic activists to The Royale Food and Spirits for an old fashioned caucus to pick a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party.

The event will begin at 8pm at the Royale Food and Spirits at 3132 South Kingshighway. The results of the caucus should be available around 9:30pm January 3rd while the rest of the night will be dedicated to watching the Iowa returns. You are invited to send a camera and/or reporter to watch the St. Louis Caucus as well as the Iowa Caucus results.

The Caucus will be hosted by 9th Ward Democratic Committeeman Ron Auer and will be monitored by Kyle Dubbert, Republican Supervisor of the Saint Louis City Election Board. While the caucus is non-binding, it will reflect the much anticipated Iowa Caucus and emphasis the caucus Missouri used to hold.

I’ll be there to support John Edwards, and below the fold, I’ll tell you why.

I won’t say anything about the other Democratic candidates. I think Democratic Party has generally fielded good candidates this time around, and they are all running on platforms more progressive than Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. I would support any of the other candidates in the general election, should they gain the nomination.

John Edwards, with student volunteers on spring break 2006 in New Orleans.

For me, it boils down to the fact that in 2008, only 3 years after Bush appeared poised to begin the privatization of Social Security, the world  looks brighter. The progressive aims of universal health care, ending the war in Iraq and going to war only as a last resort, the transformation of our energy policy into one based on clean and renewable forms of energy, and curbing the outsized influence of corporations on our government, these are not just things I want but can only dream of; they are things that the rest of America wants, too. The moment is ours, if we push for it.

Enter John Edwards, an articulate yet plainspoken fighter for Democratic values. His political speeches combine discussions of policy with emotional arguments that hit you right in the gut. When you hear him speak, there’s no doubt where stands: for an end to the war, for universal health care (not just affordable access to health care), for unions, for a new drive toward clean energy, against the influence of big money in politics. It’s a much stronger version of Gore’s “the people vs. powerful” from 2000, and light years beyond Kerry’s “Hope is on the Way” schtick from 2004.

Prime examples:

His “Will You Stand Up?” speech at the DNC Winter Meetings in February:

And his recent “America Rising” speech in Boone, IA:

Now, if all John Edwards had going for him was a few good speeches, I wouldn’t think twice about supporting someone else. But when you look deeper at his policy proposals, they’re fantastic. From open government to tax simplification to his universal health care plan to food safety, you can  see more details at http://www.johnedwards.com/iss… And as the environmental journal Grist notes of John Edwards’ energy plan, he has “had a pied piper effect on the other candidates”, causing them to be bolder on everything from the environment to trade to health care.

And as great as all of this already is, it would mean little if John Edwards couldn’t win. But he actually has an excellent shot at winning the White House back for the Democrats. A recent CNN poll had Edwards cleaning the clock of leading Republicans in head to head polls. I’m also confident that he can help elect Democrats down the ticket; it’s not coincidence that Claire McCaskill asked him to campaign for her in Springfield, MO last summer.

As an unabashed Edwards supporter, I had planned to write an endorsement on this blog some time ago. Little did I know that leading lights in the progressive blogosphere like Atrios, Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller, MissLaura and the good folks at the Agonist would beat me to the punch. In addition to what I have said here, I would urge you to consider what they have to say, and to vote for John Edwards on February 5th.

Central, these days, to the discussion on health care reform, is what George Lakoff refers to as the neoliberal position of thought. . Neither purely progressive nor purely conservative, this mode of thought shares progressive values and the ethics of care, insisting on maximizing health care coverage, and at the same time accepts a conservative version of market principles that guarantees profits to insurance companies.  An inherent tension between the two goals, the government to provide real quality health care and the profit-maximizing insurance marketplace, is thus created.

Of the Democratic presidential candidates, most favor the neoliberal position on health care reform. They believe that the market can be efficient and serve moral ends. They believe that markets can be effectively regulated to serve human interests and so, argue for technocratic changes to existing markets as a means to achieve progressive ends. They are unfazed by health care solutions that involve profit-maximizing private insurance companies.  They think they are on the move.  Republicans snidely refer to this jumble as “socialized medicine”.  But then, you know the republicans, anything, no matter how screwy, to get the fear factor in play.

The fly in the ointment is that profit-maximizing private insurance companies need to make  – profits!  Once upon a time, back in the day, it was all-good.  Profit maximizing insurance companies insured, for the most part, houses and lives.  Since not too many house burned down or blew away, they could take your premium dollars, invest them and maybe even turn a total profit on your account.  Same for life insurance because most of that insurance is term and is set to expire before you do.  Sweet!  But health insurance is another story.  Yuuk!  Everybody gets sick and weak and older.  Lots of benefits to be paid!  No profit in that!  And then they figured it out.  By excluding the tired, poor and sick and by denying claims to those who had purchased coverage, they could make a profit.  Health insurance became an industry that made money by not delivering the services it was paid to deliver. Yes!  And nothing is going to change no matter how much technocracy is employed.  Profit-maximizing industries are not going to stop doing what they do.  And with health care projected to become a 4 trillion dollar industry by 2012, wild horse won’t drag them away from that feeding frenzy. 
  So, good luck, Hillary, John and Barak in trying to regulate this baby into something that “serves moral ends”.

Lakoff cautions against the dangerous trap of “Surrender in Advance” thinking and states:

Those who pragmatically focus on appeasing what they assume will be unavoidable political opposition to their proposals also run the risk of moral surrender.  For instance, assuming strong, possibly insurmountable conservative resistance to government based health care solutions, they will embrace profit maximizing private insurance solutions because they believe that 1) political opposition can be muted and 2) the “free” market, properly regulated, can serve moral purposes. Proponents of these neoliberal solutions often overlook the fact that the very source of the health care crisis is the structure of the insurance: the less care they authorize, the more profit they make, and profits come first and are maximized.

Lakoff argues that the sanctioning of technocratic solutions for health care causes a failure of articulation of more progressive values.  Those values, health care for all, empathy and responsibility, protection and empowerment, go unstated. We are inundated with market management mechanisms that are next to impossible figure out.  We are so overwhelmed by complicated program principles that we are not even able to combat the Republican Propaganda Machine as it drearily drones out its mantra of “socialized medicine”.  Americans hear only the conservative moral view, and consequently, move toward that viewpoint. I am thinking of Pogo right now.

My dictum, in thinking of health care reform, is “all of the people, all of the time”.  A simple standard of measurement can be: “Does this improve the health care security of all of our fellow citizens in concrete ways?”  Progressive values for health care reform must be kept in the forefront of discussion to avoid being lost in the murky depths of technocratic improvisation.  I haven’t been hearing much of the progressive platform lately.  What I am hearing is that Americans will be able  (or compelled) to purchase “coverage”  (which means insurance) to the extent of their ability to pay, or perhaps they might be able to lobby (beg) for a subsidy or something (following extensive means testing of course), as represented in the ongoing saga of the SCHIP, but that they will have a choice over public or private insurance mechanisms.  Whatever the case, they will have some “coverage” depending upon their ability to pay. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Hillary, John, Barak, are you listening?

Right now, Rudy Giuliani is riding high in the saddle. He leads the Republican field in national polling, he just raised the most cash of any Republican in the third quarter (he was just in Clayton, MO for a $1,000/plate shindig), and he does best among his rivals in head-to-head matchups with Democratic candidates. But all is not well in Rudyland.

For starters, Christian conservatives on a national level are threatening to split with the Republican Party if the GOP nominates a candidate insufficiently committed to “family values.” Focus on the Family head James Dobson explicitly stated this in a New York Times op-ed piece:

Reports have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion[…]After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous. [emphasis mine]

Dobson also rejected electability arguments for candidates like Rudy:

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles.

On a local level, St. Louis’ Archbishop Raymond Burke is reprising his role from 2004. Instead of pointing his finger at the Democrats, this time he’s aiming at Giuliani. Asked whether he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former NY mayor attended Mass in the Basilica, Burke replied, “If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law and I know that person knows it, yes I would.” (DHinMI has a fascinating look at this topic on Daily Kos.)
 

So what does all of this mean for Missouri?

A recent SurveyUSA poll shows Rudy Giuliani as the Republican candidate most likely to take Missouri in the general election. Even then, he only edges Clinton (48-45), while Obama bests him narrowly (46-44) and Edwards wins handily (48-42). Among anti-abortion voters (half of all voters in Missouri), Giuliani is also the strongest Republican in all head-to-heads, except when facing Obama – Fred Thompson has a slightly better margin there. But this is from polling done right now, before a bruising GOP primary makes pro-lifers well aware that Giuliani is not a candidate likely to toe the anti-abortion line. Remember that Bush beat Kerry in Missouri 52-47 while carrying the anti-abortion vote 73-26. GOPers need them to have a prayer (no pun intended) at carrying the state.

So what happens when Dobson & Co. announce that they’re sitting this one out? What happens when papers around the state carry headlines about Archbishop Burke’s condemnation of Giuliani’s position on abortion? Conversely, you can imagine that Giuliani might be able to find some sort of compromise with social conservatives, but he won’t be able to practice Bush’s dog whistle politics to do so – he’ll need grander gestures that could peel off moderates to the Democratic side. As a bonus, Giuliani’s problems with the base would hurt Republican candidates down the ticket in Missouri, especially if he actually campaigns with them.

And this is the strongest Republican candidate in Missouri. So fear not, fellow Missourians, we have a good chance at winning back the state in the Electoral College, the governorship, the lieutenant governorship, and at gaining a majority in the congressional delegation. We even have an outside shot at winning a majority in the state legislature!

     
Hi all.  TomP here with the Edwards Evening News Roundup.
John Edwards released his Education Plan this week.  We’ll talk a little about that tonight.  I also have two short John Edwards’ videos about education: one is a clip from his speech in Des Moines introducing the Plan and in the other he answers questions on preschool and college. 
I also have a story showing that John Edwards fares best in Missouri in the general election.  Unlike his opponents,

Edwards crushes the entire Republican field. He wins by 5 against Giuliani (47-42), by 10 against Thompson (50-40) and by 24 against Romney (56-32).

This and a lot more, around the fold.

1.  Education.
John Edwards’ Plan will radically overhaul No Child Left Behind, expand early education, support teachers and create a “School Success Fund” to help struggling schools.
Go Here for details on the Education Plan
Teacherken, a kossack with both a deep interest in and expertise about education said this about Edwards’ Plan in a highly recommended diary today.  His title say sit all:

A very good Education Plan from John Edwards
snip
At this point I am neutral in the presidential contest.
snip
I am a professional educator, and for me education is as important as any other issue with the possible exception of protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I am not, in writing this piece, endorsing a candidate.  But I can say without hesitation that I view this plan as a remarkable document, a very good start at laying out the guidelines for making serious and positive changes that will sustain and improve public education in this country.  I have never met the candidate, although I was fortunate enough to be able to speak about education with his closest adviser, his wife, whom I found well informed and willing to listen. 
snip
Again, I have my points of contention, but they are more than outweighed by the overall excellence of what Edwards has put forth.

 
A very good Education Plan from John Edwards
Here are two videos of John Edwards talking about education this week.
John Edwards talks about the importance of teachers and his plans for public education in America. Edwards introduced his education plan at a middle school in Des Moines, Iowa on September 21, 2007.

John Edwards answers a question about his plans for preschool and college at a community meeting in Guthrie Center, Iowa on September 21, 2007.

2.  John Edwards fares best in general Election in Missouri:

Edwards continues running way ahead of his Democratic rivals
Survey USA keeps coming out with general election polls pitching major Democrats versus major Republicans, and John Edwards keeps running way ahead of his Democratic rivals. First came news from Alabama and Kentucky. Then came Ohio.
Now, SUSA has released a poll from Missouri:
Clinton wins two out three. She loses the marquee matchup against Giuliani, 48% to 45%. That is the only matchup of the nine the Democrat loses. Obama wins against Giuliani 46% to 44%.
Clinton and Obama have exactly the same numbers against Thompson and Romney. They both win 48-45 against the former and 51-40 against the latter.
Edwards crushes the entire Republican field. He wins by 5 against Giuliani (47-42), by 10 against Thompson (50-40) and by 24 against Romney (56-32).

Campaign Diaries
Go here for Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #12620

3.  What’s going on tomorrow:
Live Webcast Here:
The Presidential Candidate Forums

The Presidential Candidate Forums, organized by the Federation of American Hospitals and Families USA, feature candidates being interviewed by a panel of prominent journalists from ABC News, National Public Radio, the Wall Street Journal, and the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The forums, taking place at the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Barbara Jordan Conference Center, will be taped for broadcast by MacNeil-Lehrer productions and webcast by kaisernetwork, Kaiser’s health news and information service.

Up Next:
Monday, September 24, 2007 at 11 a.m. ET
Former Sen. John Edwards(D-N.C.)

4.  A Good article you may have missed.
I found an article tonight on John Edwards in the Christian Science Monitor from September 20:

John Edwards: working-class values and a closely held faith.
While Christian beliefs help gird his antipoverty campaign, he believes that politicians who identify closely with one religion cannot be inclusive.
By Ariel Sabar | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
snip
For Mr. Edwards, a Southern Baptist-turned-United Methodist, faith is deeply felt but intensely private, a refuge after family tragedy and a daily source of wisdom, but not a platform for politics.
“It’s a very dangerous business – that intersection” of religion and politics, Edwards said in an interview with the Monitor. “I don’t like to talk about my faith openly. I do in answer to questions, but I don’t usually bring it up myself.”
snip
“My belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world,” Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, said at a presidential forum on faith in June. “But I think I also understand the distinction between [my faith and] my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country.
“One of the problems that we’ve gotten into,” he added, in an apparent allusion to President Bush, “is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs.”
snip
Edwards’s embrace of working-class America is matched by sometimes sharp attacks on the country’s elite. He has vowed to end Bush-era tax cuts for well-to-do Americans, refuses campaign money from lobbyists and political action committees, and has taken bare-knuckled stances against big business.
snip
“There is a huge class consciousness to John,” a friend, US bankruptcy Judge Rich Leonard of Raleigh, who didn’t return telephone calls from the Monitor, told a North Carolina newspaper a few years ago. “I think it plays out in so many of his political decisions. I think his primary, overriding political view is to put the starting point in the same place for everybody.”

It is a long and fair articel.  Well worth reading in its entirety:
working-class values and a closely held faith
5.  Diaries. 
Finally, a quick call out of diaries you may have missed today that are about John or Elizabeth Edwards in some way:
  a.  By Nyceve:Can we talk?
  b.  By Wade Norris: Elizabeth Edwards on Labor, Unionization, Big Business and the future Edwards Administration
  c.  By Mantix: Defending John Edwards
  d.  By Teacherken: A very good Education Plan from John Edwards
  e.  By JeramiahFP: Susan Estrich, Fox’s Pet Democrat, Attacks Elizabeth Edwards Again
That’s it, for a long EENR.  If I missed your Edwards diary, I’m sorry.  These are just a few I saw.

Note: As in all of my posts, I’m speaking for myself, and not any other writers at this blog. I was impressed by the answers we got last week from the Democratic candidates for next year’s Missouri Attorney General race. I haven’t yet decided whom I will vote for, much less whom I will spend my time and energy advocating on behalf of, if I decide to do that in this race. The answers were informative and concise, and I liked that Jeff Harris included links to find more information on his platform. I’m looking forward to seeing how they respond in the future.

I did want to make clear one candidate who I am supporting in an upcoming election, and that’s John Edwards. (In case someone detects a bias in a future post, I can confirm that it is real.) I’ve been a supporter of John Edwards for the US presidency since he announced his campaign in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans last December.

I’ll admit that I didn’t pay much attention to John Edwards in the last presidential cycle. As someone who was very upset about the US invasion of Iraq, I completely ignored those who voted in favor of the 2002 authorization of military force. Still, when primary time rolled around, I was surprised at many of my antiwar friends who supported Edwards. Apparently someone with a powerful critique of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few struck a chord among progressives.  Who knew? Since he powerfully recanted his vote for the war (first prowar figure to do so – one week before Jack Murtha,) I kept my eye on him.

So what’s John Edwards been doing since 2004? After supporting his wife during her cancer treatment, he started a poverty center at UNC-Chapel Hill, gathered 700 student volunteers to spend their spring break cleaning out homes in New Orleans,

By Meddogs  7/31/07


The passion of John Edwards was admirable, during the CNN/YouTube  Democratic Presidential debates, when he spoke of the 51 year old man from West Virginia who, one  year earlier at the age of 50, had finally had corrective surgery for his congenital cleft palette.  Prior to this repair, the man had been unable to speak.  Wow!  Fifty years waiting for corrective surgery to enable speech.  That sounds like some kind of rationing to me.


We can recall George H. W. Bush, the venerable Poppy, dissing National Universal Care, because there  “will be waiting lines”.  He also spoke disparagingly re rationing of care.  We wonder if Poppy ever saw a 50 year waiting line or thought about “never gonna happen cuz you ain’t  got no money” rationing.


Sorry to disappoint Poppy,  but we got lines and we  got rationing in the good old US of A.  But, like our healthcare, it too  is “privatized”.  That means it is private and no one gets to know about it unless  someone (usually from the rejection line)  has the moxie to call the somewhat functional main stream media and try to kick up a public  fuss.  Even if they do it is usually suppressed pretty quickly. Pretty quickly that is unless there is a violent death involved from maybe, oh I don’t know, maybe a distraught patient kicked off Medicaid shooting folks up with an Uzi from a rooftop somewhere.  But, after an initial flurry, that too is suppressed and no one ever discusses the causes of the Uzi attack which happened to be NO Medicaid, therefore, no medical oversight. This could be called “privatized rationing”. 


Nations with real national health care plans have public accountability.  The Physicians for National Health Program, foremost experts on Healthcare Reform, say it as follows:


The U.S. Supreme Court recently established that rationing is fundamental to the way managed care conducts business. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can’t, you don’t. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. That’s rationing. No other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the U.S. does.


If there is this much rationing why don’t we hear about it? And if other countries do not ration the way we do, why do we hear about them? The answer is that their systems are publicly accountable and ours is not. Problems with their health care systems are aired in public, ours are not. In U.S. health care no one is ultimately accountable for how it works. No one takes full responsibility.