Elizabeth Edwards Praises Hillary's Healthcare Plan

Political Wire:

Elizabeth Edwards praised Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan on ABC News this morning, saying "I just have more confidence in Senator Clinton's policy than Senator Obama's on this particular issue."

Meanwhile, Time notes that Mrs. Edwards has joined the Center for American Progress which "has been operating for the past two years as a kind of Hillary Clinton Administration-in-waiting."

Read the whole story: Political Wire

Comments

[PioneerKing]

News flash:

The Edwards endorse Hillary on Friday.

[grrrfren]

Hillary had her chance at fixing health care 15 years ago and she screwed it up. Thanks to her failings, the country is still without a national health care plan today. I think it's time to give someone else a chance to try their hand at this. Obama's plan may be more achievable because it is incremental, starting out by mandating health care coverage for children first. Once that goal is achieved, the larger goal of mandating health care for all could be targeted. Sometimes it's better to be realistic and not try to take on too much like Hillary did back in the '90's. Her hard-headed approach only led to failure. Thanks alot, Hillary

[whatchamean]

who cares at this point what the Edwards are doing. Hillary stands for everything they are against and yet they withhold their endorsement of Obama. Why? he did not kiss their ring and Hillary did. Simple as that. They wanted their platform featured as a lead for Obama in his campaign and he did not immediately aquiese. They have shown their true colors as far as I'm concerned.

[gba]

It seems like you care

[rojo7449]

You know all this because......

You were at all their meetings?

You have the Edwards' house bugged?

You are a typical Obama supporter who doesn't need facts.

[ObamaSuperDelegate]

i agree

[AjicNYC]

Hillary tried to do that in 92 as 1st lady not an elected official and i think she got pretty far . please what have other recent first ladies done.

[Teri]

white women stick together. her husband is a southern white man, she is a southern white woman, of course she is against a black man who has done better than her husband and better than her "sister" monster clinton. it is so obvious. she is a loser and so is her husband. barack doesn't need either of them. so please go back to your 25,000 sf house!

[gba]

No, but many women of all colors want decent and universal health care

[qwr]

Well, you're not going to get that from either Hillary or Obama. No point in pretending that a mandate for coverage provided by the same old insurance industry equals "universal health care."

[Pharos]

Many men too, but I appreciate your point :-)

[joeinvt]

Someone has the audacity to suggest that someone might have a better idea about something than Obama and another Obama supporter plays the race card. One can only hope that you are typical only of the haters who seem to post on HuffPo in support of Obama and not representative of him or his followers in general.

[qwr]

I don't know what the mystery is here. The wife of a failed Presidential candidate, who has been a housewife for most of her life, and whose qualifications are dubious, is invited to join a think tank full of Clintonistas. She then says positive things about Clinton. No mystery here at all. EE can't say no to money, just as JE could not say no to Fortress Investment. Besides the failed Patients' Bill of Rights, what has JE done? He has enriched himself. That's it.

[johnfoirdfw]

Her qualifications include citizenship and entitled she is entitled to her opinion and the right to participate in the process. Perhaps we could show a bit of respect and manners on this site?

[TurnThePageGA]

To the posters below Nobody is Swiftboating Elizabeth. I do think she has an unrealistic hope that a Brokered Convention would turn to John Edwards to lead the party in 2008. Sorry, Liz but it ain't gonna happen. The nominee will be Obama or if there is a Brokered Convention it would have to be soemone like Al Gore. Neither of these candidates supporters are gonna support someone was in the race and got beat already. It's a Pipe Dream Liz.

[gba]

She might prefer Al Gore (and who doesn't)

[verlaine]

If Elizabeth Edwards can't think of something positive to say about Obama, she really needs to SHUT UP.

Obama is clearly the overwhelming favorite to get the Democratic nomination.
Elizabeth Edwards does the party no good when she praises Hillary's healthcare plan. She is clearly trying to undermine Obama's campaign.

John Edwards had has chance and he blew it by running a lousy lackluster campaign.

The race between Obama and Clinton has gone on far too long. It's time for Democrats to close ranks and end this campaign.

If John and Elizabeth Edwards can't bring themselves to endorse Obama, they need to SHUT UP.
If they are stupid enough to endorse Hillary, they will only prolong John McCain's free ride

Hillary can't win. She's liar and a fraud and a lightening rod who will unify Republicans to vote against her.

[sk7326]

Sort of. He was also done in by being the lame candidate. When there were two "groundbreakers" and one owned the presumptive nominee narrative, being a plain jane white guy was not going to help. Even if his policy was far and away the most progressive of the top candidates, which is why the MSM really did not want to advance his effort. He is a legitimate populist (albeit not like Kucinich) which is why both the dems and the right wing hate machine attacked him first (on his wealth, even though FDR and JFK were no paupers).

Also, we still live in the United States. I support Obama and I hope his supporters grow up, if this is any indication, because these campaigns are meant to be difficult.

[qwr]

What makes him a "legitimate populist"? His support among the left baffles me. He talks a good game, but in politics and in business, he is a sellout, and he even authored an Iraq war resolution. Come on. There is nothing legitimate about Edwards. Look at his record. Horrible.

[Pharos]

I only hope you are right but I'm just reliving the Eugene McCarthy - Hubert Humphrey disaster again, makes me sad.

[Independent voter]

Mrs Edwards heroine, the dark queen of sleaze, had a perfect opportunity to implement universal healthcare. The queen had a Democratic President, a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democratic majority in the house.

But the queen of lies screwed the pooch and got NOTHING accomplished as a result of her massive ego, secret closed healthcare meetings and her incredible hubris.

As a result of this failure, tens of millions are still uninsured and millions have suffered needlessly. I think that hillary should have been rewarded with a stake through her heart - but that depends on what the meaning of stake is.

[Independent voter]

Both edwards are clinton toe suckers and sellouts to the lies that johhny boy told during the debates.

[Independent voter]

hillary's "plan" is to FORCE all americans to buy health insurance from the same scumbags that are funding hillary's campaign. If you don't pay, you get your wages taken away.

Now tell me Elizabeth, what's so freakin' great about that plan. Everybody can buy heath insurance today. You and pussy boy are sellout.

[rimofheaven]

I don't agree with her. Neither to I believe her opinion to be an unbiased one. She has a little to gain from a successful Clinton candidacy. However, at least she has the guts to try and make a difference where she can. N.C. is coming up, and if Hillary can win convincingly in PA. an unofficial Elizabeth Edwards endorsement could help turn the tide in N.C..

[AjicNYC]

ok so why is OBAMA"S plan better???

Hillary has a much better plan.

See people used to rely on facts to make a decision. I know its kind of like hard because that like means you have to like read more than like 2 lines. But the information is out there and one plan is better than the other.

[qwr]

Here is the argument for both sides. Let's admit that the only difference is a mandate, and that for the lowering of costs, Obama's is marginally better. Clinton argues that if a mandate doesn't exist, then the young and healthy will opt out. (Both plans allow people to buy insurance outside of the plan, so the mandate is only for the uninsured.) By including the young and healthy, the cost of the govt. insurance, in theory, should be lower. Obama counters that the young and the healthy, at least those between 18 and 25, can be covered under their parents' plan. Moreover, Clinton is only factoring in the young who do not have insurance through other means--they are the only ones who would "save" money for others by paying and not heavily using services.

Obama's main argument, that I find the most convincing, is that because Clinton has not given specifics about the costs and about subsidies, to institute a plan with a mandate as a starting point will create an underclass who would rather pay the penalty than buy insurance. This has happened in Mass.

So, we have the creation of an underclass vs. the lowering of costs for those who can afford it.

I find both arguments convincing, but immaterial. Neither offers a single-payer plan, and these are just plans. What is the most important is the political will to get things done, and Clinton will not get anything done. I truly believe that.

[compassionone]

The difference in Health Care plan between democrats should not be the basis for anyone's endorsement.

Hillary will be fighting an almost impossible battle for universal health care on a first term. It smacks with Socialism too much so there will be lots of resistance all across the board.

The system is so damn broken. We would do better to focus our attention on fixing the broken pieces before rolling it out to everyone under a enforced mandate.

I'm a democrat but I don't want mandates. Most Americans don't want government telling them what they have to do!

[AjicNYC]

no you are wrong ( sigh) it is not socilaized that swhat she tried in 92 /93 this is through HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS.

[compassionone]

Maybe I am wrong...

What I'm most objecting to is making health care a top priority of the campaign or for endorsing since maybe only 10-15% of the population considers this a top concern. Most of us already have health insurance through our work.

If Clinton were President I doubt she could put her plan through as it is proposed any way. She will have to make concession and will end up looking like Obama's or somewhere even closer to what we have by the time the needs of the doctors, insurance companies and the rest of our needs have been taken into consideration.

I do feel for the health advocates who want a champion to help them move their concerns for autism, breast cancer, health care coverage for everyone when they need support, etc

[Pharos]

Every law ever written tells you what to do, like it or not.

[Syco]

I don't think she likes Obama considering he is in the lead and not her husband.

[gba]

I do think she wants UHC

[Pharos]

We were almost starting an intelligent discussion of the issues and you had to chime in with personal attacks.

[Syco]

Not a personal attack.
I don't have anything against her.
Besides what I said makes perfect sense.

[DocJerome]

I think John Edwards will endorse Sen. Clinton if he endorses anyone before a definitive outcome is determined. I always felt that there was a lack of courage concerning his candidacy and the poverty angle was a way to gin up votes from "core-democrats" which plays well in the party, only if you can genuinely sell it. He could not.

Perhaps he will be fortunate enough to get an opportunity to serve in some capacity, should a Democrat win the general.

[klondiker]

And, so begins the swift-boating of Elizabeth Edwards.

The mean-spiritedness of Obama supporters is evident in their willingness to denigrate anyone who doesn't fall in line behind their messiah. Elizabeth Edwards is an honest, progressive person, who's spent a lot of time fighting for progressive causes. Don't you owe her a little decency? The hateful comments that are being lobbed at her on this site are second only to what people on right-wing blogs say about her.

[AnninCA]

I agree. It's become clear that stupid Rush L. has scored a bulls-eye. He always said that Dems were vicious but pretended not to be.

He has been proven right on this.

I'm now officially Independent because of this.

I won't be a part of any party that behaves this way.

It is absolutely, 100% against my personal morality code.

I think it took this election to help me get the focus right. I was put off over the past 2 or 3 years by the anti-war people. They seemed over-the-top.

But I hadn't yet realized just how insane they were.

The Democrats of this Obama movement talk worse than any Republicans, are more unreasonable, and do very little other than demean anyone who doesn't bow down to Obama.

It's offensive.

[SLone08]

In the last few days I've seen you agree with Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and praise Fox News.

Hmm... and you accuse Obamaniancs of being just like the Repubs? Interesting...

[rimofheaven]

Hi.
I'm an Obama supporter, and I don't fit your description. What you are saying however, rings true with many Hillary supporters as well. This not an attack. It has been my experience so far to find that many of her supporters in my town (Calais, Maine) tend to come off as pushy, white, females. Obama supporters tend to be a little more diverse physically, ethnically, and politically up this way. When my family and I went to the town hall to vote, the Clinton voters were visibly inconvenienced by the Obama supporters. They even had us wait in the hall to vote while they sat in the actual meeting room. This behavior actually caused some Clinton supporters to change their support from Hillary to Barack on that very day. Anyway, just thought I'd share that with you.