« Obama Says He's Partnering With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care | Home | GOP Official: If We Only Lose Eight Senate Seats, We Win »
Obama Says He's Partnering With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care
Obama's speech in Raleigh launching his economy tour is underway, and towards the end, during a discussion of health care, he drops a surprise aside that wasn't in the speech's prepared remarks:
"By the way, I'm going to be partnering with Elizabeth Edwards, we're going to be figuring all this out."
More on this when we can establish the details.
Late Update: The key political context here, of course, is that back in April, Elizabeth revealed that Obama's health care plan wasn't her favorite. Enlisting her as a public voice on health care could obviously help with the Obama camp's outreach to women and help win over skeptics in general.
Late Late Update: For an idea of just how effective Elizabeth Edwards might be as a surrogate on health care for Obama and against McCain, take a look at this take-down by Elizabeth of McCain's plan.
Advertisement

Comments (93)
Saw that and wondered whether or not he threw that in as a pander or if there is something behind it
June 9, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt Obama would use Elizabeth Edwards' name like that unless there was something to it.
June 9, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wholeheartedly agree, and would go a step further. Remember way back when Obama sat down with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their house (shortly after Edwards suspended his campaign)? My guess is he made a commitment to continue to keep them involved and push their agendas if he was the nominee - poverty and health care.
I have a feeling this is an example of Obama making good on a promise he made to the Edwards(es?) and their supporters.
June 9, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
She was in the audience. On the dias
June 9, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me there's no way anyone would dare use Elizabeth Edwards' name as a pander unless she approved it. I sure wouldn't want to get on her bad side...
June 9, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama's people might finally have gotten around to reading Edwards' health care plan, which was far superior to Clinton's or Obama's. Doubtless Elizabeth Edwards had a hand in crafting the Edwards plan.
I hope Edwards' Website is still up, because I think people should take the time to read it. You can't just read the health care plan by itself, because it's integrated with other aspects of Edwards' platform. That was what drew me to it: It actually included the way Edwards planned to pay for it.
It's a very smart thing to bring E Edwards in, in many ways. Health care is one area in which I have a problem with Obama, and I'm now feeling better about his candidacy (not that I wouldn't have voted for him).
June 10, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I am pretty sure that he is slowly going to prepare for a "shift" on health care.
Let Hillary and Elizabeth take care of it to justify what would arguably be a flip-flop on the mandates.
June 9, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama just throws things around, not a pander, I would think.
Sounds great to me! Perhaps, Elizabeth will be a spokesperson on the trail with him???
June 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was brilliant. Many of us Obama supporters are great admirers of Elizabeth Edwards. And I'm sure that there are many Clinton supporters who also feel that way. I'm glad he said this and hope she'll be very involved in any planning on health care.
June 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smart choice.
June 9, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Edwards is a true progressive hero and I'm incredibly happy to see her involved with the Obama campaign and/or administration in basically any way possible.
I'm a little worried about one detail though-- does this mean that romneycare/mandate garbage is going to sneak back into Obama's plan? :(
June 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you have against universal healthcare?
Thanks.
mp
June 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards was the ONLY candidate to embrace Universal Healthcare one payer system. It is the only one that should truly be implemented. This is wonderful news.
June 9, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Barack does support it, but he says that we can work toward it. Changing the entire system all at once would be too much.
June 9, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure he'd be fine with an immediate change provided there is enough fire and passion for it among the American people in general. Obama doesn't strike me as someone who wastes times in useless crusades. In a democracy, you can't get too far ahead of the people you're supposed to be leading.
June 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Rep Kucinich?
June 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was meant as a reply to the assertion that John Edwards was the only candidate to favor a single payer plan. It seems to me that Kucinich was also pushing single-payer.
June 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kucinich is a shriveled little gnome with a too-tall New Age wife. So his views don't count.
June 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
O/T - My mother and I pretty sure Kucinich found that wife in some online exchange program. It's the only thing that makes sense. LOL
June 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, I had not heard this. Could you help clarify? Looking on Google, the closest I can find is a handful of articles in which Edwards noted that his health care plan, once implemented, could potentially be a path to single payer, if it was what the country wanted. This is certainly a good point and the Edwardses deserve kudos for saying it publicly! Is this what you meant by "embrace", though, or did I miss something?
The interesting thing is that the national health insurance programs proposed by Clinton, Edwards and Obama all were fairly similar and I think all could be said to have that same property-- I.E., the potential to be used as the basis for single-payer or some kind of hybrid single-payer-like health care plan in future. Hopefully Elizabeth Edwards' influence will help serve to move Obama's plan closer to the ideal of truly universal health care...
June 9, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure Edwards' plan was not single-payer. Clinton's wasn't, and it was supposed to be virtually identical to his.
June 9, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Edwards didn't have single payer. Kucinich was the only one with a true single payer plan. Edwards' plan was better then Hillary's, though.
June 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he's going to "flip-flop" on mandates. As Milton and Rose Friedman's son has just written, Obama has an instinctive aversion to anything forced:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/05/thoughts-on-obama.html
June 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought about Hillary supporters that might see that as a slight. I hope they don't take it that way. Those two ladies tackling this thing along with Barack would be great.
June 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean this to fan flames at all, so please don't take this out of the context of "let the healing begin..."
One cannot run a campaign where the only (or even the primary) consideration is whether or not Hillary supporters will be slighted or offended. That is no different than running out of fear rather than with vision and sincerity. Do not expect to see Barack Obama chasing his tail on that for the next 5 months. The single best way of winning the respect and support of Hillary's 18 million (some of whom surely don't hate Senator Obama) is demonstrating the judgment, intellect, and leadership necessary to move this country in the right direction.
I think it is as much of a leap to assume this has anything to do with Hillary or her supporters (either as a pander or as a middle finger), just as it would be naive to think that there isn't any semblance of a political motivation to this. Elizabeth Edwards is passionate about health care. It is a core issue for her. Her word carries a lot of authority on it. And North Carolina WILL be a swing state in November. Where did this speech go down? Raleigh, North Carolina. It's not a pander. It's not a flip-flop. It's not an insult. It's good politics.
June 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
June 23, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering if Obama's reach out to Hillary would be adopting a more universal healthcare.
June 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one can be a better ambassador to push healthcare reform than Elizabeth Edwards.
I saw Obama live on TV making the comment.
Interestingly, rather than making Edwards collabaration sound like a big deal, he just plugged it between two sentences making it sound like "of course, it's obvious."
I'll be surprised if he just "accidentally" threw her name in the discourse without prior consent or consultation.
June 9, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
mcc and Amelie, Yes! What I hope sneaks in is some kind of one payer system. Maybe there could be some kind of graduated approach...
June 9, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what Kucinich was pushing: HR 676 proposes a 15-yr. plan to get to single payor. It even includes strategies regarding retraining of folks no longer needed in a more efficient administrative structure.
June 9, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this another signal to HRC that he does not think that she (HRC) is as invaluable to his campaign as she thinks she is? Not that Ms. Edwards is a bad pick - I think she is a great one. But it is also a cause that Hillary championed but does not, at least at this point in time, include Hillary.
June 9, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may not have been meant as a slight to Hillary but a compliment to North Carolina when speaking in its capital.
June 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillarys last chance for fame is to run as McCains VP.
June 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That spot is taken by Joe Lieberman.
June 9, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wouldn't dare pander using her name! Elizabeth Edwards is a warrior, literally fighting for her life.
June 9, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see a pander..
June 9, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, campaign reporters, best to be on your toes when traveling with Sen. Obama.
Message sent.
June 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very good news. Not only to join w/ Elizabeth edwards but to strengthen his position on health care reform and universal coverage. The single pay system is the best! Cut out insurnace companies period!
June 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! The insurance companies contribute nothing to the health care of people, add only another layer of bureaucracy and bprofit to undeservfing parasites. Get rid of them!!
June 10, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
*fanning self*
June 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw that, act Kucinich to work with you on healthcare, he is the only one who actually has it figured out. I heart Obama, but neither him, nor Edwards, nor Hillary have a truly universal plan. They are all bandaid solutions leaving the rotten core of the profit-driven healthcare system in place. Until we realize that HEALTH needs to be our overarching value in healthcare, rather than PROFIT, we are going to have a broken system.
We need to go much farther than any of the major Democratic plans did.
June 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
*ask Kucinich
June 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smart man. Obama turning to Elizabeth Edwards defuses some of the Hillary-related resentment. Eliz Edwards has been working toward universal healthcare longer than Hillary, at least in this campaign cycle.
Remember, it was Edwards who brought his detailed plan on healthcare to the debate (and it became clear, soon enough, that it was Elizabeth's passion driving it). Later, Obama and Clinton got on-board w/healthcare plans. Much later.
HRC's claim to have been working on healthcare for 15 years was not quite true. She worked on it 15 years ago -- and again, after Edwards brought it up.
Obama continues to impress.
June 9, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is working on uniting the party, and he is going to include everyone he feels appropriate. This guy is just smart, surrounded by a great team.
And now the latest gallup indicates that Obama is gaining, he is now ahead by 48 to 42 for McBushSame...
I know it does mean much, but indicates that he is just in a good position. This is the end of the free ride for McBushSame...
Obama 08
June 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Partnering with Elizabeth and leaving out Hillary would certainly be seen as a slight by Hillary supporters especially if she is not given a significant position on Obama's campaign. I'm a clarification will be coming soon. On possibility is to have Hillary and Liz work together on health care. I don't know how that would work; could they work as a team.
June 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect a clarification will be coming soon. One possibility is to have Hillary and Liz work together on health care. I don't know how that would work; would egos allow them to work as a team?
June 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama specifically talked about working with Hillary on health care in last Tuesday's speech.
I'm envisioning a situation where Obama, Elizabeth Edwards, and Hillary all work together towards the goal of Universal Health Care - a "team of rivals", if you will. It's a pretty powerful image.
June 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a slight, just a step forward. Obama smartly doesn't just embrace Hillary's healthcare position, he brings aboard the person in the party with the most credibility on the subject. Just imagine the power of Hillary and Elizabeth hitting the trail together on a healthcare tour. Is it me or does the Democratic Party have a really deep bench this year? Think of all the great surrogates out there compared to the folks McCain is likely to roll out.
June 9, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, this is bare knuckled politics... and of course Obama doesn't want us to see it, but here's what's going on.
Elizabeth Edwards signals that Obama loves strong self sacrificing women... so he can stiff Hillary.
E. Edwards is being asked to work on health care... so he's putting a woman in charge of that issue... stiffing Hillary... but avoiding an accusation that he's anti-woman.
E. Edwards (may she live a long life) has a potentially fatal illness... and everybody knows that drama. What could be more sympathetic than a person with a fatal illness fighting for health care? I hate to point to the political advantage of a serious illness, but don't think for a minute that a smart political team didn't consider it.... and LOVE it.
This is a knife stab at Hillary, disguised as a bouquet of flowers for E. Edwards.
I have nothing against Hillary, other than the fact the she was unelectable, and as VP would doom the Obama ticket. So I appreciate the political dexterity that Obama's choice represents. The man knows how to put a knife in and get everyone to look the other way while it is happening. That's what I call the exercise of political power and leadership.
June 9, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all do it, but I think you're doing an awful lot of projecting there. I'm not saying he's not smart enough to do what you say, but wasn't it a rather obvious thing in North Carolina to say that Elizabeth was "on board" to help in any case? This would be true even if she were intended for a committee headed by Hillary. (I don't believe in this last scenario, based on my confidence in Obama's intelligence. But it is not ruled out by what he said at all. Merely ruled out by the folly of entrusting any delicate diplomatic matter, which the health-care negotiations in Washington will surely be, to a divisive character.)
June 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Edwards is an incredibly bright person and Barack Obama is bright enough to want to consider her thoughts on any subject. It'll be nice having a president who is willing to listen to others and big enough to make changes for the public good.
June 9, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, it was Edwards who brought his detailed plan on healthcare to the debate (and it became clear, soon enough, that it was Elizabeth's passion driving it). Later, Obama and Clinton got on-board w/healthcare plans. Much later.
Hm, not that it makes a difference, but I will note that much of the general outline of Obama's current health care plan can be found described in his 2006 Audacity of Hope book. (This is of course not the same thing as having a formal plan or treating it as a priority on the campaign trail! But just for the record...)
June 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid, stupid "in reply to" button.
June 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont like neither of the Edwards. they seem fake!
June 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is wonderful. I greatly admire Elizabeth Edwards, and she is a truly fierce advocate for healthcare reform.
I don't think this is a slight to Hillary. It's just that Hillary's participation in any aspect of the campaign will have to be part of a delicately orchestrated dance between the campaigns, so it's too early to expect any definitive declarations of what role Hillary will play.
But Elizabeth can jump right into it without any baggage or lingering issues. It's an easy fit.
June 9, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Hillary is not going to be a surrogate at this point. This isn't taking the issue away from her, it's showing he is paying attention to her signature issue, by hiring someone who very specifically said she preferred Hillary's plan to his. (And who, as Greg pointed out, kicks ass.)
I have absolutely no doubt that Hillary Clinton will be giving a chance to deliver universal health care in an Obama administration. This is one fantastic step in letting it happen.
June 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes sense to me that Obama would "partner" with Edwards to sort through the difficulties of health care reform/revolutionary change.
Obama has said several times that his model of governing is a kind of "team of rivals" (or something like that), and refers to President Lincoln's selection of advisors from people who at one time opposed him. This seems to be more than a political "stunt," but rather is an attempt to lay out competing visions as points of departure for problem-solving.
I also heard a Webb-Russert conversation yesterday about social class/race/ethnicity/history and voting patterns in Appalachia. The conversation was so thoughtful that I ordered Webb's most recent book as well as his book about the history of the Scots-Irish in the U.S. I hope Webb gets alot of media since he seems to be able to talk about white racial/ethnic identity in a way that engages people.
I hope media and bloggers alike are pushed to be as thoughtful as the people they will be covering (like Goolsbee, for example). The stakes are too high for ideas to be reduced to silly, stupid, "gates."
June 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It makes sense to me that Obama would "partner" with Edwards to sort through the difficulties of health care reform/revolutionary change.
Obama has said several times that his model of governing is a kind of "team of rivals" (or something like that), and refers to President Lincoln's selection of advisors from people who at one time opposed him. This seems to be more than a political "stunt," but rather is an attempt to lay out competing visions as points of departure for problem-solving.
I also heard a Webb-Russert conversation yesterday about social class/race/ethnicity/history and voting patterns in Appalachia. The conversation was so thoughtful that I ordered Webb's most recent book as well as his book about the history of the Scots-Irish in the U.S. I hope Webb gets alot of media since he seems to be able to talk about white racial/ethnic identity in a way that engages people.
I hope media and bloggers alike are pushed to be as thoughtful as the people they will be covering (like Goolsbee, for example). The stakes are too high for ideas to be reduced to silly, stupid, "gates."
June 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think political strategy folks:
Putting Elizabeth Edwards and Caroline Kennedy on the team, adds two strong brand names, broadens the appeal to women, while setting block outs against the Clintons.
It is a win win approach.
June 9, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
busdrivermike:
"Oh yes, campaign reporters, best to be on your toes when traveling with Sen. Obama."
I LOVE it!!!!
Also love the idea of bring in Elizabeth Edwards and (I am confident) Hillary Clinton on this issue. He's already mentioned that she'll have important role in this area.
As I understand it, both Obama and Clinton have said that if starting from scratch they would prefer a single-payer system but felt it wasn't really possible to get 'there' from 'here' -- but the Edwards feel that it is possible. So .... there isn't even necessarily conflict if they want to go in that direction.
I think this is a glimpse of what an Obama presidency would (will!!) be like, and I cannot wait. Actually tackling and solving problems? What a novel idea.
June 9, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is fantastic news!
June 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminded me of Mark Schmitt's description of Obama's Theory of Change.
It's how you deal with people with intractable demands -- put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee's mission your way.
Elizabeth Edwards had one of the most stinging critiques of Obama's healthcare plan: When a NH woman told a story of not-enough-money-to-pay-for-cancer-treatment, Elizabeth said, basically, that voters need to ask a candidate "how many people does your plan leave uncovered? and if the answer is not zero, you need to vote for a different candidate."
While Obama's plan is better than McCain's, it doesn't cover everybody... so if Obama thinks putting Elizabeth Edwards on his healthcare committee will get her to work toward the mission as he defines it, I think he's asking for trouble.
Elizabeth Edwards is going to shame him if Obama doesn't change his plan to cover everyone. She's a woman who's going to die before too many years, and already lived through the death of one son, and seen her husband lose two runs for President--in short, she's got nothing to lose and she's put a marker on the table of healthcare for all.
June 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis. Totally Agree.
June 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mandate" does NOT equal "Everyone."
June 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when John Edwards said he'd make people attach proof-of-insurance to their Income Tax filing, that's as close to everyone as a plan can get.
Maybe some hermit in Northern Idaho who doesn't file taxes could escape it, but there just aren't that many of that type in America.
(I know I've set y'all up for a great punchline, but in all seriousness, there aren't that many hermits living out on dirt roads in America.)
June 9, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normally I follow the Obama line. However, on this point you are all rehashing the positions taken in the debates.
These positions are bullshit. In Hillary's concession speech, she said something about not resting until everybody "has insurance".
But! But but but. Insurance is not medical care.
People are suspicious of universal insurance for one very good reason: if you bring 50 million uninsured into a medical system, the level of care will be diluted.
20% of the population lives in areas considered underserved medically. That's a government statistic. Throw in the number of people who have shitty insurance, and you will begin to realize that in the US, medical care-giving ability as a commodity is overpriced and poorly distributed.
The first part of the answer is to RIP the insurance companies. THEY CONTRIBUTE NOTHING to medical care. But Obama will not do this.
The second part is: INCREASE care-giving ability. Increase the amount of medical care available. That will drive the price down. Exert control over the medical professions through the licensing process. Do you think that nurses strikes and 100 hour weeks for interns are just forms of hazing? They are unmistakable signs of the SHORTAGE of medical care that exists.
Obama knows nothing about all this. Of course, neither did Hillary. They are smart, but maybe not smart enough.
Think about it. The terms in which you are debating the issue have almost nothing to do with reality. For another example, insurance company driven preferences have led schools to produce doctors and nurses that are actually afraid to give care in many situations.
Sure, we can keep quiet until after the election. But what good is any of it if they can't figure this much out?
June 9, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as a Canadian who knows a little about univerasal health care.....you're pretty smart and Obama better sharpen up his game plan.
June 10, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another reason why it is imperative for anyone who wants to have a sense of what an Obama administration may offer should go out, right now, and read Doris KJearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals."
June 9, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent move! Obama is classy! He has his "preferred plan" but we also know he's a compromiser.
June 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, he's good. Who better than Elizabeth Edwards to help with universal health care? And Hillary is not slighted, as Elizabeth publicly promoted her preference for Hillary's version, rather than Obama's. I'm all for them working on it together -- what an effective tag team: Hillary as meticulous details crafter and legislative insider in the Senate, and Elizabeth as contributor, astute proofreader and gentle presenter to the legislature Hillary understands so well.
As someone said upthread, for Obama to ask Caroline Kennedy and Elizabeth Edwards for help is to illustrate, without fanfare, what his standards will be in picking associates. How wonderful is it to have a candidate who exceeds our expectations?
June 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I understood, Obama is not trying to take the giant step towards 100% universal health care because he'd have to fight to push it through every step of the way. He's trying to put out a reform that he could get passed. Hillary let her perfect become the enemy of the good back in the early 1990's when she was working on the issue. She wouldn't accept anything less than her plan and it eventually failed because of such a stance.
The key is to first open the door, because once it's open, there will be no closing it because no politician is going to run on or look to look to uninsure people. So once the door is open, then you keep pushing it open a little wider and a little wider over time. Expecting to blast the door off the hinges means you will be in the fight of your life to get it passed and it will probably fail and you will have spent a helluva lot of political capital on the failed venture.
June 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, except I wanted HRC to lead the charge. What else will she do? She needs something important that does not have the word "president" in the title.
June 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect!
Once again, the Obama campaign is making all the right moves.
June 9, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bear in mind: health care reform can't be achieved by executive fiat - what would he do? Issue a signing statement or Executive Order? Nope.
It's going to have to come from Congress, and a Senator is pretty well-placed to submit legislative proposals ...
June 9, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Jonze - it's never been that Obama WANTS to leave out 15 million or even two people. He's said very clearly that his plan is based on the assumption that if health care is affordable, everyone will get it -- but if it turns out that assumption is wrong, *then* you make adjustments and deal with the problems that mandates and enforcements, etc. brings. (In the meantime, however, you've gotten a health care plan through Congress and it's already working for everyone *except* those who choose not to buy when it's affordable.) They ALL (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) had the same goal - the only dispute is about how to get there.
June 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes -- I think the differences in Obama's plan should be understood as an alternate route to the same goal. He first plans to get the majority of Americans into the system in a non-coercive way --that is, without mandates. That way, people will not perceive it as a "government takeover" or a punitive thing.
If there are holdouts who do not get into the system voluntarily, mandates can be imposed on them later. But at that point, the majority will already be "on the boat", and there will be a groundswell of support for bringing everyone else on board, so that greater efficiencies and savings can be achieved.
This demonstrates how Obama's political instincts are superior to Clinton's. It doesn't surprise me that she would put mandates up front, and he would push them to a much later point in the process. Just as with her '90s health care effojrjts, she proceeds on the assumption that she and her experts can simply impose a full plan on day 1.
This ignores the fact that any plan has to make it thru our political system in order to become reality. Better to phase it in and do it in a way that people feel comfortable with, than to bite off too much right at the start and end up choking.
June 9, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could understand Obama's plan as an "alternate route..."
or you could understand it as "dragging his feet" on Universal Healthcare.
Because the marker he set out (and he was the third person to put a plan out there, from the big 3 candidates) was what might have been an acceptable compromise had universality been blocked.
Maybe he's a confident negotiator to think he'll come out of the talks with more than he walked in asking for... or maybe he knows doesn't have much hope of getting the full ask (i.e. universality).
June 9, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS !!!!! FOR HILLARY !!!!!
OR MAYBE JOHN EDWARDS ???
June 9, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's also drawing his line in the sand about the Hill as VP thing. He's taking her key issues...without taking her. He is also finding other acceptable white wimminz who can maybe shore up this (mythical?) problem with them. If he can get his numbers up among the groups that challenged him most in the next couple of months he can put that HRC shadow to rest. Elizabeth Edwards is a good place to start. I've always thought her the more dynamic of that marriage. In fact, she would have been a better politician than John, I think. She's better on the stump, more engaging, personable.
June 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean that Jim Cooper is no longer Obama's point man on health care?
This looks like window dressing designed to appeal to the icky women who didn't vote for him.
June 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth is awesome. I for her husband in the primaries, but if the two of them ran against each other, it would have been for his wife. No contest.
She should be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
June 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he will have a team of rivals on his healthcare commitee. He will do the right thing I am not worried.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
------Mahatma Gandhi
June 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Obama did two things effectively in one sentence. In a significant way, Senator Obama effectively took Senator Clinton out of the health care equation by naming Mrs. Edwards as his lead health care public and thus effectively bringing in John Edwards as the go-to guy for blue collar workers.
This choice makes sense simply because Mrs. Edwards has first-hand knowledge of how to negotiate our healh care system after shgoing through the process because of her bouts with cancer. An incredibly ingenious strategy.
Now the question should be, what will Hillary -- the democrat health care guru -- do in an Obama administration if not health care? I guess that now leaves her out of the DHHS Secretary spot.
June 9, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another excellent move by Barack Obama.
June 9, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that as the NC events are unfolding, O's people are negotiating with HRC's people in Chicago about her role in campaign, money, etc. I assume Obama is partnering with EE is because she'll be a big help -- and she will -- but it also signals that he's moving forward on all fronts, just being held captive to those negotiations.
June 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Senator Obama has a serious credibility gap, given his flip-flopping on other issues, repudiation of his "friend and mentor" of 20 years and his partiality to the high-life.
This is another of his good political moves, to co-opt the dissenters on the healthcare issue (of whom, I am one). His speechifying on "universal" healthcare was obviously phony, since his plan plainly was not universal by any stretch of imagination. The only people making an argument in its favor were on his payroll.
The real question is, will Edwards have any real impact on policy decisions on this issue? Unfortunately, we won't have an answer to that question until next year.
Thanks.
mp
June 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose you'd rather have every American over the next hundred years lose their life and limbs in a milleniums-old debate for oil to subsidize Bush and McCain's retirement funds.
Hah! Fat chance. At the least, Senator Obama can call upon people who actually know a thing or two about the subject matter versus a presidential candidate (McCain) who'd rather see Americans lose their homes and wander the streets as it was in his childhoood during the 1930's Great Depression and who was quite at ease letting the American public know that he doesn't have a clue about the underbelly of the economy faltering.
Better yet. I'm sure he'll want to send all those men, women and children who no longer have homes to Iraq and have them bombed instead of that quick fix Bush had on sending all the Katrina victims to his home state of Texas in formaldihyde ladden trailer homes that he subsequently kicked them out of. You sound like a true american, indeed. So much for Christian values.
June 9, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but Obama is slowly building a coalition right now. It's exciting to see some political personalities getting put into place for the general. I'm interested to see who is else is gonna be utilized. So much talent out there this year...
June 9, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As most of you have noted, Elizabeth Edwards is indeed an excellent choice!
As for Obama's health care plan, the phased approach makes all the sense in the world to me. That is how major changes happen in my workplace, to be sure -- incrementally.
June 9, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is definitely an asset. Elizabeth Edwards is amazing. He's smart to get her on team Obama!
June 10, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has not confirmed that she is on this "team," and indeed refused to comment on the way out of the building after Obama's speech.
June 11, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Edwards is a fine choice to lead the move on health care. Smart and she knows the subject backward and forward. I find it poetic that she puts ahead her fight for the health of the nation in her last strong days before she suffers from her own inevitable health problems. She is the best person. It brings a tear to my eye.
June 10, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards has said nothing to confirm this. Obama's campaign told ABC that no formal talks on this had occurred. In other words, no conversations about it at all.
Clearly, Edwards had no idea this was going to be asserted. Thus no confirmation - or any comment - from her her or her husband.
Obama has the arrogance and ruthlessness to do something like this, and leave the Edwardses to figure out how to deal with it. They would be between a rock and a hard place, John just having endorsed Obama and ready to lose whatever he'd negotiated with Obama unless Elizabeth went forward with it.
I think Obama is a scary dude. Odd that he brings this up after the nomination, just like his several faith-based deals that, if stated before the nomination would have lost it for him.
Scary indeed.
June 11, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink