Latest News

Poll: Voters Reject Health Care Mandate Without Public Option, Medicare Buy-In

2009-12-18T14:08:33Z

EDITOR'S NOTE: The story below includes references to polling conducted by the firm Research 2000. The reliability and accuracy of Research 2000's polling has since been called into serious question by a report published in June 2010 by a group of statistical analysts.

A new poll suggests that voters are not pleased by the idea of health insurance mandates without a public option or a Medicare expansion.

Conducted by Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), the survey finds only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats -- 37 percent -- favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do.

Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent.

"This poll shows voters in full-blown revolt against the Senate bill," said PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor. "Only one-third of voters support mandates without a public option, while nearly two-thirds want the public option and Medicare expansion. This will be a disaster of epic proportions for Democrats in 2010 if it's not fixed -- fast."

The same poll found that the White House message that the bill provides 30 million uninsured people with coverage is not selling. Only 36% of respondents thought requiring uninsured Americans to buy health insurance, and giving some people subsidies to help afford it, was the same as providing coverage for those 30 million.

Another recent poll commissioned by the PCCC and DFA found that one third of Democrats are less likely to vote in 2010 if the health care bill does not contain a public option.

Working off these results, the PCCC has a petition out urging Senators Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Roland Burris, and Sherrod Brown to "stand strong and block any 'compromise' without a strong public option." Over 65,000 people have signed so far.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Lieberman Could Run As A Republican In 2012

2009-12-16T13:24:54Z

In an interview with CNN, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he would consider running as a Republican in 2012.

"I don't know what I'll run as. I like being an Independent. So that's definitely a possibility," he said. "But I'd say all options are open."

Lieberman added "It's unlikely I'd run as a Republican but I wouldn't foreclose any possibility. I think the more likely thing is that I'd run as an Independent because that's what I am."

Watch video here.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Anthony Weiner Mocks Lieberman For Medicare Flip-Flop

2009-12-15T21:25:55Z

On Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) responded to the news that his support for a Medicare compromise helped inspire Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to oppose the idea.

The progressive congressman said in a statement, "If this wasn't so sad, it would be amazing." Responding to reform supporters who suggested progressives should have kept quiet about supporting the Medicare buy-in, he added, "that suggests we all agree to live in an Alice in Wonderland world of saying the opposite of what we mean." He implored the senator to "do the right thing."

Lieberman told the New York Times that part of the reason why he pulled his support for a deal that would let some people buy into Medicare at 55 was the enthusiasm of liberals like Weiner.

Weiner's full statement:

"This afternoon The New York Times and other news outlets reported that Senator Lieberman was backing away from his own health care proposal, in part because I liked it."

"If this wasn't so sad, it would be amazing. Here you have the most important legislation for millions of Americans' health and welfare, and apparently Senator Lieberman backs away from his own proposal. Why? Because I and a professor at Yale like it."

"All I can say charitably is I hope Senator Lieberman looks into his heart and does the right thing. This is not the time for anyone to act for politics, but to do the right thing. Let's be clear, this is an idea Senator Lieberman has proposed, repeatedly. That others embrace it should not be the criteria for leaders to make decisions. It would be tragic if this is what it appears, a decision based on hurting proponents of reform not helping the millions who need affordable health care coverage."

"Some may say reformers should never have praised this measure. But that suggests we all agree to live in an Alice in Wonderland world of saying the opposite of what we mean. Now is the time to talk and act on the merits of an issue. Now is the time for leaders to make the right choices, not political calculations."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Ben Bernanke Confirmation Targeted By Progressives With 'Stop Bailout Ben'

2009-12-01T13:29:39Z

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is up for confirmation this Thursday for a second four-year term. Despite rising public anger at the Fed over the secretive bailouts, the Senate Banking Committee is widely expected to approve President Obama's choice.

But Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) says it's "not necessarily" a foregone conclusion. Now, a group of progressives are trying to make it a real fight.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has launched a petition at StopBailoutBen.com, urging senators to vote against Bernanke. In an email to supporters, they highlight a conversation between the Fed chairman and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) in which Bernanke said "I don't know" which foreign banks got half-a-trillion U.S. dollars in exchange for foreign currency.

The full letter:

Pop quiz.

You are a U.S. senator deciding this Thursday whether to confirm Ben Bernanke for another 4-year term as Chair of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve recently gave over a trillion dollars in new bailouts to various banks, and Bernanke refuses to say who got the money. He actively opposes attempts by Congress to audit his books.

What do you do?

If you think senators should vote "no" on Bernanke if he refuses to say where trillions of dollars went, click here to sign our petition. Then, tell your friends.

Here's a fascinating exchange that happened recently between Chairman Bernanke and Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) about some of these unaccounted-for loans:

GRAYSON: So who got the money?

BERNANKE: Financial institutions in Europe and other countries.

GRAYSON: Which ones?

BERNANKE: I don't know.

GRAYSON: Half-a-trillion dollars and you don't know who got the money?

In total, over a trillion dollars are unaccounted for. Reps. Grayson and Ron Paul (R-TX) propose an audit of the Federal Reserve, but Bernanke opposes it.

Click here to tell senators to say "no" to Bernanke if he continues to say "no" to transparency. Then, tell your friends.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Sunday that Bernanke is "part of the problem" facing our economy and that he will vote "no."

But many senators are on the fence. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the head of the Senate Banking Committee, called the Federal Reserve an "abysmal failure" but said he was "waiting to see how members react" before deciding how to vote.

This week, senators need to hear from us. Click here to sign our petition. Then, tell your friends.

Thanks for being a bold progressive,

Grayson Filibuster Petition: Change Threshold To 55

2009-11-24T15:22:59Z

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has launched a petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to weaken the filibuster.

"Join me in calling for an end to this unfair system. Tell Majority Leader Reid to modify the rules of the Senate to require only 55 votes to invoke cloture instead of 60," Grayson writes.

Since the Democrats regained control of the Senate, Republicans have abused the filibuster rule like never before. Until 1970, no session of Congress had more than ten votes on cloture to end a filibuster. Until 2007, the record was 58. But since Democrats regained control of the Senate, filibusters have skyrocketed. The last session had a new record of 112.

The filibuster does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers had wanted it, they would have included it. Instead, this undemocratic rule allows small-state Senators representing as little as 11 percent of the country to thwart the will of the other 89 percent. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to end a filibuster from 67 to 60. Now, with the Party of No blocking majority rule on virtually everything the country needs, we need to do it again.

Of course, it's not that easy. It takes 67 votes to change a Senate rule, and it's unlikely Democrats will be able to get that many when they're struggling to corral 60 for health care reform. The rule was changed in 1975, when the number of senators needed to invoke cloture was dropped from 67 to 60. Chris Bowers suggests using the power of the vice president as presiding officer to force legislation through with 51 votes -- otherwise known as the "nuclear option."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

WellPoint Cuts Workers' Health Insurance Benefits

2009-10-05T15:19:35Z

WellPoint health insurance company, which has encouraged its employees to lobby against health care reform, is now cutting their benefits.

The insurance giant plans to raise deductibles and premiums for some of its employee health benefits. "Your cost per paycheck will probably increase," said a memo to Wellpoint employees that was obtained by Bloomberg News.

The company blamed the recession for the cuts. "Like many employers in today's economic environment, we are looking at all aspects of our business," including benefits, "and making adjustments to ensure we can continue to operate competitively in the future," wrote Chief Human Resources Officer Randy Brown.

WellPoint's CEO, Angela Braly, made nearly $10 million in 2008.

WellPoint illegally pressured California employees this summer to fight health care reform, according to Consumer Watchdog. "Regrettably, the congressional legislation, as currently passed by four of the five key committees in Congress, does not meet our definition of responsible and sustainable reform," said the company's Anthem Blue Cross unit in a company e-mail. The proposals would hurt the company by "causing tens of millions of Americans to lose their private coverage and end up in a government-run plan."

A House investigation found that WellPoint also rewarded employees for finding ways to drop policyholders who developed expensive conditions -- a practice known as rescission.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Mike Ross Targeted For Health Care Industry Money (VIDEO)

2009-09-18T11:02:24Z

Lawrence Lessig's Change Congress is going after Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) for opposing a public health care option supported by his constituents while taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the health care industry.

Not only does the ad urge Ross to vote for a public health care option, it challenges him to support publicly-funded elections so that he'll be less beholden to special interests in the future.

Narrated by Lessig, a Harvard law professor, the ad questions why Ross has fought against a government-run health care plan when a poll shows that 55% of people in his state support it. Ross, the ad notes, has taken $921,670 in campaign contributions from health insurers and the pharmaceutical industry since arriving in Congress.

After showing a clip of Ross lamenting his need to fundraise, the ad concludes, "Congressman, if you're so tired of raising money from special interests who oppose your constituents on issues like health care, then do something. Join the bipartisan bill to replace these corrupt special-interest-funded elections with citizen-funded elections and restore trust to Congress."

In an interview with National Journal in January, Lessig said, "After a while, more and more people begin to be convinced that, 'OK, my important issue is health care, my important issue is global warming. But I begin to see that until we solve this corruption issue, we're not going to get to solve these other issues at all.'"

Change Congress will be raising $15,000 online for an initial buy of 200 ads in Arkansas. Then the next $15,000 will buy 100 ads in DC. Additional money raised after that will go to more ads in Arkansas and DC.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Gibbs: Obama Protesters Not Motivated By Race (VIDEO)

2009-09-13T14:14:20Z

On CNN Sunday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he didn't think the protests against the president are racially motivated.

Host John King asked Gibbs about signs that said "Bury Obamacare With Kennedy," describing the sign as "distasteful." In reference to a column by the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, King asked if the president thought his race had something to do with such vitriol.

"I don't think the president believes that people are upset because of the color of his skin." Rather, he said, they were upset by the financial collapse and the economic crisis.

"I do think... this rhetoric often just gets way too hot," Gibbs added. "I think if we have a debate that's based on fact, and not based on hot rhetoric, or what gets us on TV each and every day... we can actually solve a big problem for the American people."

King also asked the press secretary about some more famous opponents: Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

On Wilson, Gibbs said the president accepted his apology and that the incident was a good lesson in civility for his six-year-old. As for plans to censure Wilson, Gibbs he would "let the House figure out how to deal with that."

After playing a tape of Obama saying death panels are "a lie, plain and simple," King asked, "Does the president believe that Sarah Palin is a liar?"

"Despite many media outlets saying that what former Governor Palin was saying wasn't true, she continued to say it," Gibbs responded. "I'll let Webster define what one calls her. I think in the absence of fact... sometimes what happens is we fill the void with stuff that quite frankly isn't true." He said Obama helped fill that void in his speech Wednesday night.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Progressive Obama Backers Take Out Full Page NYT Ad Targeting President

2009-09-09T12:09:46Z

In a full-page New York Times ad released Wednesday, Obama campaign workers demand that the president fight for a public health care option.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee raised over $100,000 online to fund the ad, which will be published in the paper this week. It features a petition signed by 400 former Obama campaign staffers, 25,000 Obama volunteers, and 40,000 Obama donors that states health care reform without a public option is not "change we can believe in." The full page can be seen at ActBlue, where the group is now raising money to turn it into a television spot featuring Obama organizers.

The 180,000-member organization raised $100,000 online in 72 hours to fund the ad. Over three thousand donated; the average contribution was $35.

The ad features a quote from Lance Orchid, Obama's Deputy Field Director in Georgia: "President Obama, I started making calls for you during the South Carolina primary from my recovery bed -- after a nearly fatal accident. I couldn't afford health insurance and racked up big bills. I worked for you because I believed you could bring real change on health care. The public option is that change -- please don't disappoint me and the millions of people who believed in you."

Obama is expected to voice his support for the public option in an address to Congress Wednesday night -- as he did at an AFL-CIO picnic in Cincinnati on Labor Day. For the PCCC, that's not enough.

"To avoid losing the grassroots army that got him elected, President Obama needs to do more than express a preference for the public option," PCCC co-founder Adam Green said. "He needs to draw a line in the sand and fight hard for it."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Jim Cooper's Constituents Not With Him On Health Reform

2009-08-24T18:35:09Z

Blue Dog Democrats have defended their reluctance on health care legislation by saying their moderate constituents can't stomach a bill that's too far to the left. A new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, however, shows that at least one Blue Dog, Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), is not representing his district's desires. Sixty percent of those polled disapprove of the lawmaker's actions on health care, and 61 percent favor a public option.

That's even higher than the 44 percent of Montanans polled that disapproved of Sen. Max Baucus' (D-Mont.) work on health care.

Cooper was instrumental in helping kill health care reform under President Clinton. Ezra Klein explained:

Cooper was, from the beginning, an enemy of reform, not a constructive participant seeking compromise. He did not survey the assembled bills and try and forge a deal. Rather, he did everything he could to undermine the Clinton plan, and played a key role in destroying its chances by shattering the Democratic legislative strategy ("Thwarted on the Republican side of the aisle, Dingell turns back to his Democrats -- and once again finds Jim Cooper standing in his way.") and peeling off Blue Dogs and business. Without even the pretense of party unity, there was never the underlying foundation to force negotiations among the key players -- and so, contrary to Brad's claims, Cooper should be remembered not for trying to cut a deal, but for undermining the conditions and legislation that would've allowed a deal to have been cut. He was out for his campaign contributors and, as a read of The System makes clear, his own glory. He wanted to be the dealmaker of health care. He wanted it so bad that he killed the damn thing.

The poll suggests that if Cooper again moves against a public option, it could affect his reelection prospects. Thirty-four percent of all voters and 47 percent of Democrats said that if Cooper opposed a public insurance option, they would be less likely to vote for him.

The congressman, however, isn't worried. In a statement to the Nashville Scene, he said:

"Private polls are inherently inaccurate, and most people disregard them. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the Daily Kos got what it wanted. The whole premise of the poll is that I oppose a public option, and that is simply not true. I have repeatedly said that I'm FOR a public option, and that there are multiple ways to do it. I agree with Sen. Chuck Schumer's position on the issue, and the Daily Kos is not attacking him.

"The Daily Kos can assign a false position to me if it wants, but it's not accurate."

While Cooper has stated his support for a public option, he has also said that Democrats don't have the votes to pass it without Republican support.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Tom DeLay Joins The Birthers In "Hardball" Appearance (VIDEO)

2009-08-19T21:54:16Z

In an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday evening, former House Majority Leader and future "Dancing with the Stars" contestant Tom DeLay joined the ranks of those who are not sure the president was born in the United States.

While other prominent Republicans have said that people have a right to question the president or that he should release his birth certificate to put the rumors to rest, few have gone as far as DeLay did in supporting the birther movement.

On "Hardball," Chris Matthews tried repeatedly to get DeLay to comment on the conspiracy, an issue that often makes Republicans uneasy on television. Finally he said, "You keep skipping over this birther thing. A half dozen members of what was your delegation, you built that delegation, you built that republican stronghold down there ... people like that are birthers and raise the questions of the president's legitimacy. The implication is this guy ought to be picked up because he was never naturalized and therefore, in the country illegally. Where are you on that one?" Matthews was referring to the six Texas Republican lawmakers who have co-sponsored Rep. Bill Posey's (R-Fla.) "birther bill."

This time, DeLay did not avoid the question. On the contrary, he seemed to place himself firmly in the birther camp. "I would like the president to produce his birth certificate," he said. "I can. I can, most illegal aliens here in America can. Why can't the president of the United States produce a birth certificate?"

DeLay even went so far as to ask for Matthews' help in securing the document. "Chris, will you do me a favor?" he asked. "Will you ask the president to show me... his birth certificate." Matthews declined, and pointed out that there was a newspaper announcement of the president's birth in 1961. DeLay questioned that as well: "Is a newspaper article an official document?" At that point, Matthews appeared to give up. "It's common sense we're talking about here," he said. "Common sense ... They gave us the document that was made available to anybody in Hawaii who asked for a birth certificate. That document they give you. That's all I know." He then changed the subject.

Watch:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Rick Sanchez Grills Rick Scott On Town Halls, Medicare Fraud (VIDEO)

2009-08-06T21:07:21Z

CNN's Rick Sanchez went hard after Rick Scott, leader of Conservatives For Patients' Rights, first on his role in the anti-reform town hall protests and then on his old company's Medicare fraud.

Scott questioned the organization's role in disruptive protests at Democratic town halls.

SANCHEZ: Yeah, yeah. Do you take credit... There is your website. We take it all the way to the very top. People can see it. It is CPR, Conservatives for Patients' Rights. There, you tell people where they can go, to these town hall meetings. You tell them what they can do. You show them videos of what's been done so far. Some people have used the word orchestrated. I'm not sure what word you would use. Do you take credit for making sure this is going on?

SCOTT: It would be nice to, right? I believe that people ought to show up to these meetings and be nicer about it. They ought to show up and tell them what they think. I think they ought to show up whatever side you are on. You ought to let people know. We are going through a significant debate about what ought to happen in health care. Show up and tell them what you think.

SANCHEZ: Let's be fair about this. You are not trying to get everybody to go. You are ginning up the people who are going to object on your side. You have a lot to gain.

Scott merely responded with his strong belief that "government-run health care will be bad for you as a patient and a taxpayer and bad for our country. Most important, it would be bad for you as a patient." So Sanchez went after Scott's stance as an unbiased observer, given that he founded Columbia/HCA, a health care company found guilty of huge Medicare fraud.

Scott was ousted by his own board of directors in 1997 in the midst of the biggest health care fraud scandal in U.S. history, a scandal that ultimately led to a payment of $1.7 billion to settle charges including the overbilling of state and federal health programs.

Scott defended his former company, saying other health care companies had paid fines too. Sanchez cut in: "You are the guy that is sitting here telling us we can't allow the government to do this because it won't work and they might take over or do some things that are wrong. How much more wrong can you be than what you just said? Not only has your company screwed up and you just admitted it ... You are saying, look at all the other companies, they did the same thing."

Scott dodged the accusations, denying any involvement in the fraud or in paying the fines. After accusing him of "playing with the facts," Sanchez concluded:

I guess the point I am making, though, is look... some people are going to look at your record and some of the things that you and I just talked about and say, this is the guy who is leading this charge. Is he the one that we should be listening to? Not exactly a perfect past when it comes to what's right for taxpayers and patients.

Watch:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Lieberman: Public Option Not Good On Politics Or Substance (VIDEO)

2009-07-01T15:15:23Z

Even with Al Franken finally seated, Democrats will have trouble getting their agenda through the Senate. Case in point: Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman, who told the New Haven Independent that public health care couldn't and shouldn't pass.

"I'm skeptical of it, both in substance and in the politics," Lieberman said to the paper. "And by the politics I mean I think we're not going to get the votes to pass the overall bill if that becomes a condition of it."

On the substance, Lieberman said: "Part of my concern is ... that inevitably if we create a public option, the public is going to end up pay for it and that's a cost we can't take on."

Watch:

Lieberman has declined to back a public option in the past.

Independent Bernie Sanders has challenged Democrats to commit to opposing a filibuster on health care, even if they don't vote for the bill.

"I think the idea of going to conservative Republicans, who are essentially representing the insurance companies and the drug companies, and watering down this bill substantially, rather than demanding we get 60 votes to stop the filibuster, I think that is a very wrong political strategy," Sanders said.

Obama: Gays Will Be Pleased By End Of My Administration

2009-06-29T21:11:03Z

President Obama celebrated the anniversary of the Stonewall riots to at the White House Monday, and he used the opportunity to address some grumblings in the gay community.

"We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love, and I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that," he said. "It's not for me to tell you to be patient anymore than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago. But I say this: We have made progress, and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises that I made, but by promises that my administration keeps ... We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."

Obama added that he was working with the Pentagon, as well as Congress, to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He called this period a "transition" toward that end but said it had to be done pragmatically, so the new policy works in the long-term.

Many gay donors dropped out of a recent Democratic National Committee fundraiser in protest of the Obama administration's legal brief defending the anti-gay Defense Of Marriage Act. Gay rights advocates are also dismayed that the president has yet to take action on the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

In an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd following Obama's remarks, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president's promise to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" would be fulfilled.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win

2009-06-12T13:38:31Z

American neoconservatives have often used the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to bolster their case for aggressive action against Iran. So the assumption might be that they would be rooting for Iranians to take care of the problem themselves by electing reformer Mir Hossein Mousavi in today's vote..

Instead, they're rooting for the anti-American bogeyman to stay in power.

Middle East Forum Director Daniel Pipes said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation that he would vote for Ahmadinejad if he could:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin suggested to National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez it might be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a loss might give Obama the impression that diplomacy was working.

LOPEZ: Should we want Ahmadinejad to lose the election this weekend?

RUBIN: The Obama administration tends to conflate advocacy with analysis. They see in the Islamic Republic what they want to see, not what the Iranian leadership's intentions really are. As such, should someone more soft-spoken and less defiant -- someone like former prime
minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi -- win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger. What Ahmadinjead did was to expose the ideology of the power
holders in Iran for what it actually is. Holocaust denial, for example, is nothing new to the Islamic Republic. Both Rafsanjani and Khatami also encourage it. Ahmadinejad's bluntness, however, forced even the Europeans to react.

[Ed. note: Michael Rubin insisted via email that he was not rooting for Ahmadinejad to win. The quote and link to the interview is above. You can judge for yourself.]

Other neocons, worried a shift in power will signal a fresh start relations with Iran, are already deflating a Mousavi win. The same pundits who constantly point out Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and nuclear ambitions as reasons to confront Iran now argue that the president doesn't matter. Martin Peretz wrote at the New Republic, "We've known for a long time that elected leaders do not carry the weight of those who have been anointed." Ilan Berman seconded at the American Spectator, "Whoever ends up becoming president will have little real power -- and even less influence over Iran's geostrategic direction."

In fact, Mousavi does disagree with Ahmadinejad on a key policy point. Unlike the current president, he would back nuclear talks with Iran and United Nations Security Council members.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!