January 22, 2008

The upcoming 2008 Presidential Primary (February 5th) is particularly exciting for the disability community as we continue to strive for greater representation in society, the Democratic Party and at the Convention. On behalf of the Officers and Executive Committee members, I am writing to ask that after you vote for the Presidential candidate of your choice, that you support all and any of the following 23 people with disabilities who may be on your ballot running to be delegates regardless of which candidate they are supporting.

Name	Congressional District - Representative	504 Club Member	Candidate
Brooke Ellison	1 - Bishop	No	Clinton
James Sanders Jr.	6 - Meeks	No	Obama
Thomas Duane	8 - Nadler	Life Member
Elaine Berlin	8 - Nadler	No	Edwards
Arthur Schwartz	8 - Nadler	Life Member	Obama
Anastasia Samoza	8 - Nadler	previously	Clinton
Norman Rosenthal	9 - Weiner	Yes	Obama
Belinda Dixon	13 - Fossello	No	Clinton
Dilia Schack	13 - Fossello	No	Clinton
Kenneth Dash Sr.	14 -Fossello	No	Clinton
Sylvia Friedman	14 - Maloney	Life Member	Edwards
Arthur Leopold	14 - Maloney	No	Obama
Ida Torres	14 - Maloney	No	Clinton
Pamela Bates	15 - Rangel	Yes	Clinton
Gloria Alston	16 - Serrano	No	Obama
Barbara Werber	23 - McHugh	No	Clinton
Lynne Tillotson	24 - Arcuri	No	Obama
Lori Gardner	24 - Arcuri		Clinton
Denise Williams-Harris	25 - Walsh	No	Clinton
Janice Dunne	26 - Reynolds	No	Obama
Bryce Hopkins	27 - Higgins	No	Edwards
Sue Samuels	28 - Slaughter	No	Obama
Mushtaq Sheikh	29 - Kuhl	No	Clinton

If you are not presently a member of the 504 Dems, please join.

Most Club communication occurs via our listserv (join at 504Dems-subscribe@yahoogroups.com) but we're working on reviving our newsletter. Our goal would be to primarily e-mail it. So please include your e-mail on your membership renewal form and indicate if you are interested in joining the listserv, or just receive the newsletter.

Edith Prentiss, President

president @ the504dems.org or 212-781-8309

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
New York Times
February 1, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met for debate here Thursday, sitting side by side and sharing a night of smiles, friendly eye-catching and gentle banter. Cordial as the encounter was, the candidates did not mask their own divisions, even as they previewed the attacks one of them will ultimately make against a Republican rival.

Still, it was almost as if the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other.

At the end of the nearly two-hour encounter, as the audience of Democrats and Hollywood celebrities rose to its feet at the Kodak Theater, Mr. Obama held Mrs. Clinton's chair as she rose. The two rivals, almost hugging, held each others' elbows and whispered in one another's ear, offering a striking image that captured the tenor of the debate.

"When we started off, we had eight candidates on this stage. We are now down to two," Mr. Obama said. "I think one of us two will end up being the next president of the United States."

Gone were the sharp and sometimes personal attacks that have characterized a year's worth of debates, particularly a combative session last week in South Carolina, which both sides conceded had tarnished their images.

Still, the candidates were at pains to lay out their differences on issues like national health care, the Iraq war and experience in their last appearance together before voters in more than 20 states weigh in Tuesday on the presidential nominating fight.

As she has through much of the campaign, Mrs. Clinton found herself defending her 2002 Senate vote to authorize war against Iraq — a position that has been enduringly unpopular with Democrats. The vote has forced her to discuss her shifting stands on Iraq instead of the antiwar principle she has sought to embrace in the campaign.

"I think now we have to look at how we go forward," she said. "There will be a great debate between us and the Republicans, because the Republicans are still committed to George Bush's policy."

Mr. Obama, given his opposition to the war from 2002 onward, argued that he would be in a strongest position to challenge the Republican nominee over Iraq.

"I think it is much easier for us to have the argument when we have a nominee who says, 'I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy,' " Mr. Obama said to applause. "They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways."

"The question," he said, "is, can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission from the start, and that we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war?"

Still, unlike when they last met for debate, when they attacked each other over personal conduct as well as issues, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama aimed their sharpest words at Republicans.

Mrs. Clinton criticized President Bush over his stewardship of the economy, while Mr. Obama chided Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of the two Republicans leading in their race, for supporting Bush-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans after initially opposing them.

"Somewhere along the line the Straight Talk Express lost some wheels," Mr. Obama said, referring to one of Mr. McCain's political slogans.

Both lavished praise on John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who dropped out of the race this week and whose endorsement they are actively seeking.

Mr. Obama said he and Mr. Edwards were determined to fight special interests and big business. Mrs. Clinton twice noted early on that her universal health care plan — which, unlike Mr. Obama's, includes a requirement that all Americans have health care — was very similar to that of Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Obama countered that about "95 percent" of his plan and Mrs. Clinton's were the same, but that he believed his proposal went further to reducing costs.

But their tone Thursday night was largely friendly. Each candidate laughed agreeably and nodded at the other's remarks, and they praised each other at different points and looked ahead to the battle with the other party.

"They are more of the same," Mrs. Clinton said of the Republican candidates. "Neither of us, by looking at us, is more of the same — we will change our country."

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton sidestepped a question about whether either would select the other as a running mate. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the moderator, called it a "dream ticket" in the eyes of many Democrats. In fact, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have built up resentments toward each other over the campaign and seem unlikely to want to pair up for the general election.

"We've got a lot more road to travel," Mr. Obama said, "and so I think it's premature for either of us to start speculating about vice presidents." When pressed, he said, "I'm sure that Hillary would be on anybody's short list."

Mrs. Clinton responded in kind. "Well, I have to agree with everything Barack just said," she replied, to laughter from the audience.

Later, Mrs. Clinton was forced to fend off a question about her ability to "control" former President Bill Clinton from interfering in her administration should she become president in 2009, given his assertiveness on the campaign trail. (Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged that her husband has become "carried away" at times recently.)

"The fact is that I'm running for president, and this is my campaign," she said to applause. She added: "At the end of the day, it's a lonely job in the White House. And it is the president of the United States who has to make the decisions. And that is what I'm asking to be entrusted to do."

On one flash point — immigration — Mr. Obama cited his role in immigration reform legislation in Washington last year. He voiced his support for states giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers.

"People don't come here to drive, they come here to work," Mr. Obama said.

It was an issue that stirred controversy in a debate last year, which Mr. Obama sought to raise by pointing out that his rival gave "a number of different answers on this over the course of six weeks."

"Now she does have a clear position, but it took awhile," Mr. Obama said Thursday. "The only reason I bring that up is to underscore the fact that this is a difficult political issue."

It was the first dust-up of the evening between the candidates, occurring near the end of the first hour. Mrs. Clinton smiled and offered her reply.

"I just have to correct the record for one second," she said, explaining that she initially supported the concept of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants so she could help Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who was being criticized over the issue. Turning to Mr. Obama directly, she said: "You were asked the same question and could not answer it. So this is a difficult issue."

Asked by Mr. Blitzer whether she was "missing in action" during the immigration debate, Mrs. Clinton was quick to reject the suggestion.

"I cosponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004, before Barack came to the Senate," she said.

In a week where Senator Edward M. Kennedy endorsed the candidacy of Mr. Obama, as did Caroline Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton was asked why they had chosen her rival and whether she would represent the kind of change that would inspire a nation.

"I have the greatest respect for Senator Kennedy and the Kennedy family," Mrs. Clinton said. "I'm proud to have three of Bobby's kids supporting me — Bobby, Kathleen and Kerry supporting me."

She added, "I think having the first woman president would be a huge change for America and the world."

The candidates could not question one another in the debate, but took questions from viewers. A 38-year-old woman in South Carolina, who sent her question in by e-mail, said she had never voted for someone not named Bush or Clinton. She wondered how Mrs. Clinton would represent change.

"You have to make the case for yourself," Mrs. Clinton said. "And I want to be judged on my own merits. I don't want to be advantaged — or disadvantaged."

The debate also featured questions about the strengths of Senator McCain and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts — the two leading Republican presidential candidates. Asked about Mr. Romney's experience as a chief executive officer, Mr. Obama drew laughs when he reminded the audience that Mr. Romney has significantly outspent his rivals, investing millions of his own money.

"Mitt Romney hasn't gotten a very good return on his investment during this presidential campaign," Mr. Obama said, adding that he would match his financial management skills with Mr. Romney's. (Hours before the debate, Mr. Obama's campaign announced that he had raised $32 million in January alone.)

Not only was the debate much less contentious than Wednesday night's debate among the remaining Republican candidates, but it was also far more muted than recent Democratic debates — an obvious calculation on the part of both candidates, who have been criticized for being overly harsh and personal. Democratic leaders feared that the negative tone would carry over to the general election, tamping down voters' enthusiasm.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/7119

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
January 14, 2008
New York Times

LAS VEGAS - After staying on the sidelines in the first year of the campaign, race and to a lesser extent gender have burst into the forefront of the Democratic presidential contest, thrusting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton into the middle of a sharp-edged social and political debate that transcends their candidacies.

In a tense day of exchanges by the candidates and their supporters, Mrs. Clinton suggested on Sunday that Mr. Obama's campaign, in an effort to inject race into the contest, distorted remarks she had made about the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama tartly dismissed Mrs. Clinton's suggestion, adding that "the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Mr. Obama's campaign then attacked Mrs. Clinton for failing to repudiate one of her top black supporters for "engaging in the politics of destruction" with an apparent reference to Mr. Obama's acknowledged drug use in the past. And throughout the day, supporters of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama each accused the other of injecting race in search of political gain.

The exchanges created apprehension among many of their supporters who viewed this moment - if perhaps inevitable, given the nature of the contest - as divisive for Democrats. At the same time, it offered a portrait of a party struggling through entirely unfamiliar terrain that has been brought into relief by Mr. Obama's victory in Iowa and Mrs. Clinton's in New Hampshire.

Two factors have helped create the atmosphere in which race and gender are coming to play a more prominent role. The first is that Democrats now increasingly view both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton as credible and electable candidates, given their victories.

In addition, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now moving into a series of contests, particularly in South Carolina but also in California, where black voters could play a pivotal role.

Indeed, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama spoke from the pulpits of black churches on Sunday, Mr. Obama in Las Vegas and Mrs. Clinton in South Carolina.

The candidates and their campaigns have not been innocent bystanders to all this. In fact, since her loss in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton has, subtly but unmistakably, pushed gender, engaging in a series of events intended to present her in softer ways. Many Democrats believe that Mrs. Clinton won New Hampshire after a decisive swing of women into her camp, particularly after a debate on the Saturday night before the primary in which John Edwards and Mr. Obama joined forces in criticizing her.

"I never thought we would see the day when an African-American and a woman were competing for the presidency of the United States," she told black parishioners at a Presbyterian church in Columbia, S.C. "Many of you in this sanctuary were born before African-Americans could vote. So this is not a piece of history that is happening to someone else; this is happening to us."

Mr. Obama, reflecting the different way he has talked about race during his own campaigns, took pains in speaking at a church service here on Sunday to avoid portraying his election as historic because of the possibility of putting an African-American in the White House.

"We're on the brink or cusp of doing something important; we can make history," Mr. Obama said, speaking to a few hundred worshipers at the Pentecostal Temple Church of God. "I know everybody is focused on racial history. That's not what I'm talking about. We can make history by being, the first time in a very long time, a grass-roots movement of people of all colors."

Mrs. Clinton said Sunday, in an interview on the NBC program "Meet the Press," that she was hopeful race and gender would not be an issue in this contest.

Still, supporters of Mr. Obama said in interviews Sunday that they were concerned Mrs. Clinton and her allies might be deliberately raising the issue of race at the very time that Mr. Obama had shown signs of taking off.

"I don't want to believe that, but I've got to tell you I'm wondering," said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Maryland Democrat who is black and an Obama supporter. "I don't want to believe it is true."

Mrs. Clinton and her supporters denied that. Geraldine A. Ferraro, who was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, said she thought Mr. Obama and his campaign were fanning the issue to draw black voters away from Mrs. Clinton before the primary in South Carolina, where about 50 percent of the electorate is expected to be black.

"As soon anybody from the Clinton campaign opens their mouth in a way that could make it seem as if they were talking about race, it will be distorted," Mrs. Ferraro said. "The spin will be put on it that they are talking about race. The Obama campaign is appealing to their base and their base is the African-American community. What they are trying to do is move voters from Clinton by distorting things. What have they got to lose?"

In a sign of how the issue was churning the waters, Mr. Edwards, also speaking at a church in South Carolina, expressed pride in Mr. Obama while criticizing Mrs. Clinton for what some have seen as her suggesting that President Lyndon B. Johnson deserved more credit than Dr. King for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign," said Mr. Edwards, who grew up in North Carolina. He added: "I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Rev. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that."

Mr. Obama spoke in general terms Sunday about the attacks on his candidacy on a day when Mrs. Clinton specifically challenged his record on opposing the Iraq war.

"I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign, and I don't think anybody who's watching would deny that," he said. "I gather that she's determined that instead of trying to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she's trying to convince folks that I wouldn't be a good one."

Aides to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama expressed squeamishness at the direction the conversation was heading. And publicly, the campaigns spent much of the day shadow-boxing on an issue that advisers to both of them described as volatile. The issue broke through when Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who appeared at a rally with Mrs. Clinton in Columbia, S.C., seemed to allude to Mr. Obama's use of cocaine as a young man.

"To me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book - when they have been involved," Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson later issued a statement saying he was referring to Mr. Obama's work as a labor organizer in Chicago, which he described in his book "Dreams From My Father."

Asked about Mr. Johnson's statement, Mr. Obama said, "What's there to respond to?"

"I'm not going to spend all my time running down the other candidates, which seems to be what Senator Clinton has been obsessed with for the last month," he said.

Reporting was contributed by Julie Bosman in Myrtle Beach, S.C.; Patrick Healy in New York; Katharine Q. Seelye in Columbia, S.C.; and Jeff Zeleny in Las Vegas.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6998

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

January 4, 2008

The candidates have spent a year and tens of millions of dollars in Iowa, and Thursday night the first actual voters offered their first assessments. Some candidates and their strategists were hoping the caucuses and the New Hampshire primary next week would settle the race, weeding out the contenders for the two major parties' presidential nominations. Watching the campaign in cold, snowy and mostly empty Iowa, we were hoping for something else - that this year's Iowa-New Hampshire rush to judgment will be the last.

For all of Thursday night's drama, the results in Iowa did not
preclude a race going into New Hampshire, and, we hope, beyond - to South Carolina, Florida and the cluster of primaries on February 5. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton, but she's got plenty of money left, and John Edwards got a boost. Mike Huckabee's win was unlikely to deter Mitt Romney or the Republicans who did not contest Iowa: John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani.

Keeping this race alive so significant numbers of Americans in more populated states can participate would begin to make up for the ludicrous spectacle of the past year, which enriched the television networks and the political consultants (some $300 million already spent) far more than it enriched the political dialogue. We hope both parties will wake up and end the undemocratic system in which the choice of a new president rests far too heavily on nonbinding votes in January by voters that don't necessarily represent the rest of the country.

We don't question the enthusiasm or the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation. New Hampshire has a non-Hispanic white population of about 95 percent. Iowa's Democrats are more liberal and more protectionist than the nation's Democrats. Its Republicans are more conservative, and religiously driven, than the nation's Republicans. And yet, The Boston Globe reported that Mr. Romney spent $7 million on ads in Iowa. That's nearly $4 per registered voter.

We do believe that the time has long passed for both parties to not only break the Iowa-New Hampshire habit but also end the damaging race to be third, with states pushing their primaries closer and closer to New Year's Day.

Instead, the country should adopt a more sensible and more representative system of regional primaries, in which states are divided into regional groups that vote on a designated day. The honor of going first would rotate year to year among the regions. That would give a far broader range of American voters a say in this vitally important choice.

Make no mistake, there are choices to be made in this first election in many, many years in which both parties' nominations are being contested. Most of the Republican contenders (with the exception, most of the time, of Senator John McCain) offer the same kind of politics of division that has so polarized this nation over the last seven years. It is a politics that thrives on religious and social intolerance and fear.

Mr. Huckabee, the Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, cloaks himself in affability and Christianity. But he bullied Mr. Romney into pleading with religious conservatives to accept his Mormon faith as Christian enough for a Republican nominee and, after professing charity, has recently become a scourge of undocumented immigrants.

Fear often appears to be the only plank on which Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, is standing, when you can tell where he is standing at all. Mr. Giuliani, who parlayed the 9/11 tragedy into a lucrative business and now speaks, bizarrely, of the "9/11 generation," has switched his views a dizzying number of times - on immigration, on abortion, on New York.

Almost as dizzying, in fact, as the pirouettes executed by Mr. Romney, who wants American voters to forget his record as governor of Massachusetts - where he endorsed gay marriage and reproductive choice - and believe what he says now that he wants to be president. Among Mr. Romney's tailored-for-the-campaign proposals is to double the size of the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which even President Bush knows must be closed.

All of the Republicans want to continue President Bush's disaster of a war in Iraq, including Mr. McCain. He, however, has taken a courageous stand for immigration reform, which seemed to doom his candidacy last year, and is a strong advocate of the need to confront global warming and to stop the abuse of prisoners in Mr. Bush's system of secret prisons.

The Democrats are united in their opposition to the war, but none have spelled out a persuasive plan for getting American troops home without setting off a wider conflagration.

Senator Obama generates enormous excitement with his youth, and his promises of change - even if it's not entirely clear what he intends to change or how. Senator Clinton, meanwhile, wavers between wanting to be seen as ready to serve as president because of her eight years in the White House with her husband - and trying to satisfy voters' yearnings for new ideas and new ways.

Mr. Edwards has a strong populist message, but it sounds a bit odd coming from a former tort lawyer and hedge fund executive who ran as a completely different person in 2004. One of his ads features an out-of-work Maytag employee who said Mr. Edwards promised his 7-year-old son: "I'm going to keep fighting for your daddy's job." We're still waiting for Mr. Edwards to explain how he, or any politician, can turn back the tide of economics and globalization. We'd prefer if he explained how to make it work for all Americans.

None of this has led us to a choice in the nominating contests, never mind for the presidency. The majority of Americans are in the same position. That's why they should be allowed to see and hear more of these candidates, and not have to settle for the judgments of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6927

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By PATRICK HEALY, January 4, 2008

DES MOINES - The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Governor Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa on Thursday night, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.

The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible. One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing over 100 pounds and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.

The two winners burst the aura of strength and confidence that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney had tried to cultivate for months, and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.

Mrs. Clinton's loss was especially glaring. Her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.

Without question, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Mrs. Clinton's lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters - twice as many of whom backed Mr. Obama over her - will ever come around to Mrs. Clinton.

And Mr. Romney, who outspent Mr. Huckabee 6 to 1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy

All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Mrs. Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband's presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.

"If Hillary doesn't stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry's senior strategist in 2004.

Clinton advisers declined to say Thursday night if she would now pursue a different strategy against Mr. Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Mrs. Clinton's multilayered, sometimes contradictory message - offering an experienced hand, for example, but also running as a candidate who could bring change - fell flat in this first contest.

"We built a campaign for the long haul - we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. The danger for Mrs. Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.

Further undercutting Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Mr. Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.

At the same time, it was also historic that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a woman. For Mr. Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.

The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Mr. Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear. He seemed to come out of nowhere - a former governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) - and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.

As when Pat Robertson made a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses in 1988, Mr. Huckabee enjoyed substantial political support from evangelical Christians and took advantage of a muddled Republican presidential field to gain his 11th-hour victory.

For Mr. Romney, of Massachusetts, his loss will register as a deep blow to his candidacy - a failure bound to worry establishment Republicans and wealthy donors who have viewed him as their man. It will also energize and inspire Republicans who are backing Senator John McCain in the New Hampshire primary.

Mr. Romney's drive to the Republican nomination was supposed to begin with him looking formidable and confident coming out of Iowa. Mr. Romney, his wife and his sons planted themselves here for months and poured in money, including millions of his own; he now heads to New Hampshire clearly wounded and a target for even more rivals, like Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson, and Mr. McCain, of Arizona.

Mr. Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate's Christian faith, and who were deeply wary about seeing a Mormon, Mr. Romney, become president.

But Mr. Huckabee also struck many populist themes that have deep appeal to middle-class Iowans and farmers, promising to tailor his economic priorities to their needs and taking tough stands on a key issue here, immigration.

But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Mr. Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Mr. Huckabee's record of raising taxes in Arkansas.

"If Huckabee scares the Republican establishment and makes the party fear losing, you could see a rapid rallying around a second candidate," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not working for any candidate. Still, he said, "Nothing makes a man look like a leader more than a winner."

Mr. Robertson's Iowa victory in 1988 - when he came in second to Bob Dole and edged out the ultimate nominee, George H. W. Bush - gave him little bounce in New Hampshire, given the lack of a fervent evangelical base. "I'm going to be the nominee," Mr. Robertson said right after his victory, crediting God in particular with his success. But his fortunes faded after a drubbing soon after in New Hampshire.

Mr. Huckabee talked about God on the Iowa campaign trail, as well, but on Thursday night there was one other word that he - as well as Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mrs. Clinton, former Senator John Edwards - discussed especially and emphatically: "change."

As Mr. Edwards put it, "the status quo lost and change won" in the caucuses. Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee repeated the words incessantly in their victory speeches, brandishing the word as a talisman that overcame Mrs. Clinton's decades of experience and Mr. Romney's leadership bona fides. Yet change was not only the political message; change was the two men themselves.

Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6925

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By GAIL COLLINS, New York Times January 3, 2008

DES MOINES

As the presidential candidates tell them every single day, Iowans deserve to be the nation's kingmakers because they are exceptional citizens who take their responsibilities very, very seriously. So tonight, even though it's very cold - even though it's Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl - the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny. Perhaps as many as 15 percent of them!

"Money will become irrelevant once somebody wins the Iowa caucus," said John (I Currently Have No Money) Edwards. "The winner of the Iowa caucus is going to have huge amounts of money pouring in." Edwards, the Democratic third-runner, has spent more time in Iowa than many Iowans, who have a tendency to flee to Florida in the winter.

People, ignore whatever happens here. The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state. Let alone the sliver of that state with the leisure and physical capacity to make a personal appearance tonight at a local caucus that begins at precisely 7 o'clock. Let alone the tiny slice of the small sliver willing to take part in a process that involves standing up in public to show a political preference, while being lobbied and nagged by neighbors.

Ah yes, good work fighting for democracy around the globe, American troops, Pakistani lawyers, international election observers. The tiny slice of the sliver of the small state approves.

Tonight, the Iowa Deciders will divide into 1,781 local caucuses. Past history suggests that a few of these gatherings may not draw any attendees whatsoever and that several others will consist entirely of a guy named Carl. Attendance has no effect on the number of delegates involved, and we hardly need mention that the whole thing is weighted to give rural residents an advantage. Iowans in politically active neighborhoods where 100 people show up may find their vote is worth only 1 percent as much as, say, Carl's. This gives them the opportunity to experience what it is like to be a New Yorker or Californian all year round.

Iowa Republican caucuses, which involve writing a name on a piece of paper and going home, are like Athens in the Age of Pericles compared with the Democrats, who are closer to Turkmenistan in the age of Saparmurat Niyazov. Tonight the Democratic caucus-goers (We are expecting way more than 100,000!) will divide up into groups supporting each of the different candidates. (Secret ballots are for sissies.) Then some of the smaller groups will be dissolved under rules so complicated they are known only to the local insiders and experts hired by the candidates to decipher them. (Sometimes these turn out to be the exact same people!)

"What if the largest groups are not immediately apparent because more than one nonviable Presidential Preference group contains the same number of eligible attendees and will not realign?" the party guide asks rhetorically. This is the simplified version of the rules prepared for the benefit of the media, but the answer, obviously, is that you flip a coin. ("A game of chance is used to determine which groups may remain.")

On the Republican side, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are at a grave disadvantage because of a failure to campaign enough in Iowa. (You'd think Florida was a state or something.) Fred Thompson is so desperate to go home that he's practically begging people to vote for somebody else. Mitt Romney is by far the best organized. His victory in the important Iowa straw poll last summer demonstrated that he would really be a president who knows how to rent a bus. Meanwhile, the very enthusiastic evangelicals are going to try to prove that if a commander in chief has a heart like Mike Huckabee's, it won't matter whether he knows where Pakistan is.

Obama backers believe Barack will win on a record-breaking turnout of new participants, some of them being actual Iowa residents. (Checking is for babies.) Or everything could come down to the minor candidates' supporters - rule by the tiny piece of the slice of the sliver.

In the Democratic caucuses, if your group is the smallest in the room you might have to: A) Relive the moment in ninth grade when you were the last one chosen for volleyball and then B) Walk over and join a different team. Dennis Kucinich has told his followers that if - by some wild chance - they find that they are not one of the most popular groups, they should switch to Barack Obama. Kucinich's positions on most issues actually seem closer to John Edwards's, but last summer Edwards was caught on tape whispering to Hillary Clinton that Dennis was really not a serious contender. Petty, perhaps, but in a contest that begins with the presumption that nobody is qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth without making at least two visits to Pottawattamie County, it resonates.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6921

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
January 1, 2008

DES MOINES - Iowa is packed with presidential candidates and hundreds of campaign aides, advisers and contributors. Twenty-five hundred representatives of news organizations have been granted credentials to cover the caucuses Thursday night, twice as many as in 2004. Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side.

But what if it is not decisive?

What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats - former Senator John Edwards and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama - are separated by a percentage point or two, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech (or the burden of conceding)? A number of polls going into the final days have suggested that after all of this, the Democratic caucus on Thursday night could end up more or less a tie.

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed - can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? - aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier.

"It would be like a six-month trial and a hung jury," said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "I think it is really possible."

Rather than clarify the state of play and consolidate this crowded field a bit, an outcome like that would almost certainly muddle things further and potentially extend the time before Democrats know their nominee.

For different reasons, Iowa is not likely to determine much for the Republicans, either. Only Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, are going all-out here, and whatever happens between them, the Republican race already seems likely to go on at least until the cavalcade of primaries across the country on Feb. 5.

But for the leading Democrats, an inconclusive ending here would be a much more complicated result.

Because none of them would be judged a decisive loser, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama would all be able to go on to the New Hampshire primary next week, no questions asked. And you can bet on this: the other Democrats in the race - Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., Representative Dennis J. Kucinich and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico - would feel less of the morning-after-Iowa pressure to pull out.

It would be hard for any candidate to play the "I beat expectations" game and claim some sort of chimerical victory, much the way Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the winner after coming in second in New Hampshire in 1992 - although Mr. Edwards, who for much of the year campaigned in the shadow of his two rivals, would no doubt try.

"Frankly, if there's a three-way tie, that changes the dynamics of what has been reported the entire year: that it's a two-person race," said Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, the Iowa campaign director for Mr. Edwards, who has put in more than a year preparing for this week. "It changes the way people look at the race, and they'll see it as a three-way race."

It is a good bet, in fact, that one candidate would try to claim a victory, even if it was by a single percentage point or less. Still, that is not likely to get him or her on the cover of Time or Newsweek (that would be the old-school way of measuring the political impact of winning in Iowa). The other two would be left fighting for the right of second place. And politics being politics, it is likely there would be a campaign trying to present a three-way tie as a victory.

Beyond that, New Hampshire, which for Democrats has seemed something like a stepchild in this year's nominating process given all the attention being paid to Iowa, would get a chance to have some real influence over the nomination. For 25 years, there has been debate and study about how the outcome in Iowa affects New Hampshire voters. This time around, because of the decision by the New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to set the primary on Jan. 8, voters will have just five days to examine the candidates and make their decision.

One of the bedrock political assumptions of the year - and certainly one that has informed Mrs. Clinton's campaign - is that winning Iowa and New Hampshire would set the table for sweeping the 20 or so states that vote on Feb. 5, the day when many Democrats believe that their contest will effectively be decided. But if Iowans end up being equally divided among what many party leaders view as an unusually strong cast of candidates, who is to say that voters in the Feb. 5 states won't be as well?

None of this is meant to suggest that such an outcome would mean that what has taken place here over the past year is insignificant. Quite the contrary. Watching these candidates, Democrats and Republicans, deliver their final speeches, take the last rounds of questions from Iowans and shake the hands of supporters one more time, it is apparent that most of them are much better at campaigning than they were a year ago.

Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, an old Iowa caucus hand who has moved here to help out in the final days, said as much in explaining why he would be comfortable with even an inconclusive outcome. "The experience here in Iowa," he said, "has been tremendous for the entire campaign."

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6909

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By LESLIE WAYNE
New York Times
January 1, 2008

DES MOINES - Spurred by a recent Supreme Court decision, independent political groups are using their financial muscle and organizational clout as never before to influence the presidential race, pumping money and troops into early nominating states on behalf of their favored candidates.

Iowans have been bombarded over the last few days with radio spots supporting John Edwards that were paid for by a group affiliated with locals of the Service Employees International Union, which just kicked in $800,000 - on top of $760,000 already spent.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, rolled across Iowa on Monday in a customized black-and-gold bus emblazoned with his picture and the logo of the International Association of Firefighters, which has spent several hundred thousand dollars supporting him. And at campaign events in Iowa, backers in AFSCME union shirts turned out Monday to show their support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York. Those appearances come in addition to the union's $770,000 advertising campaign promoting her candidacy.

The groups are prohibited from coordinating their efforts with the campaigns. But the candidates, while often distancing themselves from these efforts, certainly benefit from their activities. Iowa airwaves have been filled with commercials from these groups as they take advantage of the June ruling that lifted a ban on broadcast messages from independent groups within 30 days of a primary or caucus.

Independent groups also act as a vehicle for negative advertising that campaigns are reluctant to engage in. The Club for Growth, for instance, has spent $700,000 so far, largely on broadcast spots here and in other early voting states that criticize Mike Huckabee's record on taxes while he was Arkansas governor, an effort that has received several hundred thousands of dollars from an Arkansas political rival of Mr. Huckabee, a Republican.

The shifting stand on abortion by Mitt Romney, a Republican former governor of Massachusetts, has come under attack in broadcast advertisements here and in New Hampshire from the Republican Majority for Choice, a group of Republican women who support abortion rights.

In the final two weeks before the caucuses on Thursday, independent groups have so far spent at least $5 million in Iowa, with much of the money benefiting the campaigns of Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton. During the last presidential primary election cycle, these groups spent nothing on advertising before the caucuses, largely because of the prohibition on such activity in the 30 days before nominating contests. But independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org played a major role in the 2004 general election.

The June ruling, in a case involving a Wisconsin anti-abortion group, allowed television issue advertisements from third-party groups - whether unions, corporations or wealthy individuals - to run right up to an election day. Under the McCain-Feingold law, which limits the role of money in campaigns, these spots had to cease 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general one.

"This more permissive standard," said Kenneth Gross, a veteran campaign finance lawyer, "means there will be more money, more ads and more saturation."

Unlike national political parties and their candidates, many of these interest groups face no limits on how much they can take in from their contributors and often do not have to disclose their donors' names until after an election. As a result, it is difficult - if not impossible - to determine just how much money they are spending. While there is, ostensibly, an independent relationship between a campaign and these groups, restrictions on coordination between the two are considered so murky that they are often difficult to apply.

In Iowa, the efforts on behalf of or against the candidates involve not only television and radio advertisements, but also the nitty-gritty of a campaign: direct-mail brochures, bus tours, pep rallies, telephone calls, educational efforts to explain the caucuses, and traditional get-out-the-vote efforts. Independent groups pay for billboards, banners, yard signs, caps, T-shirts and mugs and set up Web sites on behalf of their favorite candidates, efforts that often look as though they were produced by the campaign itself.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is the only leading Democrat who has not attracted support from any of these groups in Iowa. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards are the biggest beneficiaries of independent efforts, largely because of the union support the two have garnered. And yet both candidates are proponents of stricter campaign finance rules.

Mr. Edwards, in particular, has made tightening such rules a cornerstone of his campaign, putting him in a delicate position as he denounces expenditures coming indirectly from some of his closest supporters, like locals of the service employees' union.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Edwards has called on the groups, known as 527s for the section of the tax code they fall under, to stop running advertisements supporting him. But he has said he will not ask them directly.

"I do not support 527 groups, Mr. Edwards said. "They are part of the law, but let me be clear: I am asking this group and others not to run the ads. I would encourage all the 527s to stay out of the political process."

Mr. Dodd is getting a spirited boost from the firefighters' association, which is traveling with him on a 23-city tour on a bus with an enormous picture of him and the union's logo on its side.

"You can see that bus from two miles away," said Harold Schaitberger, the union's president, who flew in from Washington to lead the effort for the 287,000-member union.

Mr. Schaitberger declined to say how much the group planned to spend, other than that it would be "a considerable sum."

The bus tour shows how the lines are blurred: a previous tour cost the union $100,000, while this one, using the same bus, is being paid for by the campaign. The union has also posted "hundreds" of four-foot-by-eight-foot Dodd signs, he said. Federal records show that the group also spent over $10,000 in the last few days on billboards and $102,000 on full-page advertisements in Iowa's 23 largest newspapers last Sunday.

Emily's List, a political action committee that supports women running as Democrats, is making a special effort for Mrs. Clinton. Its campaign is titled "You Go Girl!" and is directed at women who have never attended a caucus.

The group's own polling showed that Mrs. Clinton had a two-to-one lead among women who had not previously attended a caucus. As a result, that group, which Emily's List pared to 60,000 names, became the focus of its efforts with a direct-mail campaign, a phone bank and a "You Go Girl!" Web site. All efforts feature women with Midwestern accents explaining how the caucus works and urging them to support Mrs. Clinton.

"Getting someone who has not caucused to go out is the hardest effort," said Maren Hesla, director of the effort, which she says has cost $300,000 so far and "we're not done spending."

The Web site is also linked to a number of Google search terms. If an Iowan searches terms like "safe toys," "stocking stuffers" or "after-Christmas sale," a banner advertisement with the link to the Web site will appear.

Mrs. Clinton is also the beneficiary of a $770,000 television advertising campaign from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The spot features Iowa voters talking about how Mrs. Clinton can "start this job on Day 1," which is one of her campaign's themes. The union estimates that it will spend more than $1 million on this television campaign.

Mr. Edwards's efforts to distance himself from third-party efforts has not halted the ardor of some union groups campaigning on his behalf.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners has formed a group, Working for Working Americans, that has paid around $500,000 for television spots supporting Mr. Edwards. The advertisements focus on the issue of job loss and cite the closing of the Maytag factory in Newton, Iowa. They say Mr. Edwards would end the practice of giving tax breaks to companies that move jobs overseas, and urge voters to "give voice to your values" while showing pictures of Mr. Edwards. Federal records show money for the spots came from the union's general fund.

Mr. Edwards is also benefiting from more than $1.5 million from the Alliance for a New America, which has primarily been running a radio campaign in Iowa. While most of the money has come from service union locals, one big donation of $495,000 that came in last Friday was given by a longtime Edwards supporter.

The name of the donating entity is Oak Spring Farms, which lists its address as Central Park South in New York. The entity is a partnership between Rachel L. Mellon, the 96-year-old widow of Paul Mellon, and her lawyer, Alexander D. Forger. Oak Spring Farms had previously given $250,000 to Mr. Edwards's One America committee, a 527 committee he set up to fight poverty.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6908

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

John Edwards' momentum is unmistakable. Three polls since December 27th show that John has moved up, making the race in Iowa too close to call!

Yesterday afternoon a Lee Enterprises poll of 500 likely caucus goers showed John gaining 5 points, while Senator Obama saw his support drop 4 points. John and Obama are now tied at 29%, with Hillary Clinton right behind them at 28%.

View the full poll and then sign up to volunteer and keep the momentum going: http://johnedwards.com/r/56547/3103/

John's message of real change is resonating with Iowa caucus goers and we need to be prepared here in New Hampshire to capitalize on this momentum. In other words, we need every single one of you to come together and help us reach out to New Hampshire voters so that when John arrives in New Hampshire on January 4th, after his victory in Iowa, we are ready to keep the momentum going.

There are only 10 days left.

Sign up to volunteer in New Hampshire or phonebank from home:
http://johnedwards.com/r/56549/3103/

- Beth Leonard
New Hampshire State Director

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6897

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Disabled Voter's Committee
of the Iowa Democratic Party's
Disabilities Caucus

November 15, 2007

Purpose: The following collection of candidates' statements is hereby provided so that Iowa voters who have disabilities can use the information in making their choice of the next President of the United States.

Note: Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich do not have Iowa campaign offices. Senator Barack Obama is the only candidate who specifically addressed the issues listed on the Iowa Democratic Party Disability Caucus Issues List. Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards and Governor Richardson answered a questionnaire from the A.A.P.D.; all information relating to issues is from that document and the candidates' websites and other published materials. The materials were all used with permission of the candidates' campaigns.

Issues: These are the issues that the Disability Caucus of the Iowa Democratic Party Disabled Voters' Committee chose as the most important because of their significant impact on the live of people who have disabilities. The Committee asked all the Presidential candidates for their positions on these issues.

1. Do you have a comprehensive, universal healthcare plan?

Sen. Joseph Biden supports universal health care to ensure that all Americans, including those with disabilities, have access to affordable, quality health care. He thinks we will get to universal health care by: (1) focusing on reducing the cost of health care; (2) covering all kids; (3) giving everyone access to, at a minimum, the same health care plans that members of Congress have; and (4) lowering the cost of providing health insurance for employers and providing catastrophic coverage.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a plan that stresses simplicity, cost control, and consumer choice. It is the American Health Choices Plan, which greatly improves care for Americans with disabilities by guaranteeing them coverage. People with disabilities will have more health insurance options under this plan because they will be able to choose from an array of private health insurance plans that offer benefits like those offered to Members of Congress, as well as a public program similar to Medicare. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage or charging higher premiums for individuals with pre-existing conditions and they will be prohibited from charging significantly higher premiums based on medical condition, age, gender, or occupation. The American Health Choices Plan preserves and expands existing critical support programs that fill gaps in private insurance. It will also provide tax credits to assure that no American's health insurance premium exceeds a certain percentage of income and the Best Practices Institute will fund medical research and disseminate this information to health care professionals and patients. The American Health Choices Plan requires coverage of important prevention service to diagnose and treat illnesses before they become serious and require expensive intervention because it involves the use of privacy-protected information technology and the empowerment of physicians to be a part of the quality development process. In addition, since persons with disabilities who have chronic health conditions may often need coordinated care services, the Clinton plan revises reimbursement to health care providers to provide incentives for the development of innovative models of care including "medical homes" and chronic care management.

Sen. Chris Dodd would ensure that all Americans will have quality, affordable health coverage. He will create a health insurance marketplace called Universal HealthMart that is based on, and parallel to, the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP). The Dodd plan would include business and individual contributions based on the ability to pay. It will have premiums that are affordable based on leveraged negotiating power, spreading risk, reduced administrative costs, and incentives for technology and prevention care. It will also have portable coverage; insurance purchased at Universal HealthMart will follow individuals.

Sen. John Edwards understands that health case is of special concern to people with disabilities. His plan guarantees universal coverage for everyone in America. Under his plan, families without insurance will receive coverage at an affordable price and families that have insurance will pay less and get more security and choices. Managed care should be a choice for people with disabilities and they need access to specialists that is now artificially limited by narrow definitions of medical necessity.

Mike Gravel proposes a universal healthcare voucher program in which the federal government would issue annual healthcare vouchers to Americans based on their projected needs. All Americans would be fully covered and would be free to use their vouchers to choose their own healthcare professional. No one would ever be denied health insurance because of their health, wealth, or any other reason.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich would streamline national health insurance to create "Enhanced Medicare for Everyone". It would be publicly financed health care, privately delivered, and would put patients and doctors back in control of the system. Coverage would be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention, and include prescription drugs, dental care, mental health care, and alternative and complementary medicine.

Sen. Barack Obama is committed to ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage by the end of his first term in office. He recognizes that people with disabilities experience difficulties gaining access to quality health care. As president, Sen. Obama will require all health care providers to collect, analyze, and report data on the quality of health care given to vulnerable populations, including those with disabilities. This will improve care and health outcomes. His plan will also help people with disabilities by emphasizing care coordination and integration, which can dramatically improve care for patients with multiple conditions and doctors. Sen. Obama also supports additional training of health care workers so that they are better able to address the needs of the disabled populations.

Gov. Bill Richardson's plan for universal coverage would ensure that Americans with or without disabilities would have access to affordable, guaranteed coverage.

2. What is your plan for total consumer control of prescription drug programs?

Sen. Joseph Biden will work to expand access to Medicare Part D for people with disabilities. He supports allowing the Federal Government to directly negotiate for better drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies which would lower the cost to consumers. He will also close the "doughnut hole" gap in coverage that occurs once someone hits $2,250 in coverage.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has been actively involved with ensuring fair and equal access to Medicare Part D prescription drugs. She introduced legislation in the Senate to help the most vulnerable seniors and disabled Americans transition to new Medicare plans. As president, she will continue to fight for fair access to Medicare Part D prescriptions and to ensure that policies do not undermine continuity of care for any population served. Sen. Clinton also believes that we need to have a better understanding of the best pharmaceutical treatment options for all patients. Thus, she proposes establishing an independent public-private Best Practices Institute, which would be a partnership between the public and private sector that would let doctors, nurses, and other health professionals know what drugs, devices, surgeries, and treatments work best.

Sen. Chris Dodd will assure that people with disabilities have fair access to Medicare Part D by requiring Medicare to negotiate drug prices and immediately eliminating the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare Part D drug plans.

Sen. John Edwards believes that the federal government must ensure that Medicare Part D participants are able to access the prescription drugs they need to maintain their health and independence. As president, he will rewrite the drug bill to put patients and people above drug companies and HMO's, empower the government to negotiate better drug prices, and allow the safe reimprtation of drugs from other countries.

Sen. Barack Obama worked with Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the Department of Health and Human Services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.

Gov. Bill Richardson will establish programs in each state to ensure that people with disabilities are made aware of all options available to them under Medicare Part D.

3. How will you adequately fund Medicaid waivers and other programs that facilitate independent living?

Sen. Joseph Biden was an original cosponsor of the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act (MiCASSA), which would provide a variety of personal assistance services under the Medicaid program to enable disabled individuals to live at home rather than in institutions. He cosponsored the Family Opportunity Act to allow low-income families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program. He cosponsored the Lifespan Respite Care Act, which would facilitate the provision of temporary rest breaks (respite care) for caregivers who take care of a chronically ill or disabled individual. Sen. Biden sponsored legislation to protect children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities by providing non-profit groups that work with or care for such individuals with easy access to thorough, efficient criminal background checks through a national center on volunteer and provider screening.

Sen. Hillary Clinton understands that people with disabilities need assurance that individuals who provide direct-care services in home- and community-based settings are in sufficient supply and are well-trained. Therefore, addressing the shortage of health-care professionals and increasing choice of providers is critical to improving access to care for community-based services. The American Health Choices Plan addresses this issue by providing funding to schools of nursing to recruit and train faculty. Sen. Clinton believes that the Medicare homebound rule has been enforced in a far too restrictive manner and, as President, she will embrace a fair modification of Medicare rules so that Americans with disabilities are able to live their lives fully, without fear of losing their Medicare benefits. Sen. Clinton co-sponsored the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act, which provides individuals with disabilities and older Americans with equal access to community-based attendant services and supports. She believes the Olmstead opinion was a tremendously important moment in the disability movement and will support efforts to help states comply with it.

Sen. Chris Dodd will support creation of additional community-based options for individuals with disabilities because he understands their right to live their lives to the fullest in whatever setting they choose. In a Dodd Administration, Medicaid policy will not be stacked against community living. Sen. Dodd's Living with Dignity Initiative includes specific steps to attract, support, and retain home health aides and attendants; he will provide resources to improve wages, training, and working conditions for aides and will also establish strong workplace safety regulations such as ergonomics regulations.

Sen. John Edwards supports providing choices for people with disabilities to live in the community and will support legislation that strengthens freedom of choice. He has proposed a Living with Dignity Initiative that will fund state efforts to expand home care and reform the long-term care, including tax credits for long-term care, asset and income protection programs that prevent families from spending above their incomes, and experiments with long-term care insurance. He will also support the recruitment and retention of home care workers through better wages, training, and working conditions. His plan guarantees quality, affordable health care for American; it will strengthen Medicaid support for long-term care and emphasize home and community-based care to allow caregivers to keep their family members nearby.

Sen. Edwards believes that people with disabilities should be able to fully enjoy the benefits of living in a home of their choosing and in a community of their choosing. His Living with Dignity Initiative includes specific steps to attract, support, and retain home health aides and attendants.

Sen. Barack Obama believes that individuals who want to remain in the community and can safely do so should be provided the necessary assistance and supports. Therefore, he would increase funding for both HCBS and Independent Living Programs and prioritize efforts to streamline application and administrative requirements for states which choose to implement or expand these initiatives.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports providing choices for people with disabilities to live in the community. He would increase the wages of care attendants.

4. How would you create a standardization of government entitlement programs, e.g., housing, medical care, and income supplementation?

Sen. Barack Obama would standardize and coordinate government entitlement programs to make them more user-friendly. He believes that too many Medicare and Medicaid "dual eligibles" are subject to time-consuming
and complicated administrative processes that delay access to care and can result in lower quality care. He supports streamlining the benefits process for individuals with disabilities so that people receive the care they require in a timely manner. Both programs should give individuals with disabilities more information about the care to which they are entitled to receive under both programs so that decisions about care can be made in a unified manner. He also believes that the demonstrations projects that the Community Choices Act of 2007 seeks to create to improve coordination between benefits received by dual Medicare and Medicaid recipients are an important step to undertake in addressing this problem.

5. Do you support an ADA affirmative action provision like the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Sen. Joseph Biden co-sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act, which extended the civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities. He will ensure that United States Supreme Court and other federal judges follow established precedent and Congressional intent with respect to the ADA and all other civil rights laws, thereby preserving equal rights for people who have disabilities and other minorities. Sen. Biden understands that the greatest barrier to full integration of individuals with Disabilities into mainstream society is not the limitations of their individual disability, but rather, it is the physical and attitudinal barriers imposed by society.

Sen. Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of a Senate Resolution that recognized and honored the fifteenth anniversary of the ADA because she is a strong believer in the value of the ADA. As president, she pledges to uphold the values intrinsic in the ADA and she will welcome advocacy groups to meet with her administration and voice their concerns. She will appoint judges who understand and respect the value of civil rights.

Sen. Chris Dodd supports an ADA Restoration Act because of the incremental erosion of the rights guaranteed by the ADA by the courts.

Sen. John Edwards is committed to protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities with full enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. He will ensure that the ADA remains consistent with the original intent of Congress.

Sen. Barack Obama is a former civil rights lawyer. Therefore, he knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. He is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the ADA so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Sen. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation. He supports the ADA Restoration Act, a law that would bring us closer to the ADA's ideal of barring discrimination against anyone on the basis of disability.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports an ADA Restoration Act because the ADA has been seriously weakened by Supreme Court decisions.

6. Do you support insurance coverage for mental health treatment that is equal to treatment for physical health treatment, i.e. mental health parity?

Sen. Joseph Biden was a cosponsor of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act and remains committed to the goals of that Act as a cosponsor of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007.

Sen. Hillary Clinton believes that government must ensure parity in health insurance coverage of mental health benefits. She cosponsored the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007, which prohibits employers and health plans from imposing durational treatment limits and financial limitations on coverage for mental illness that do not apply to all other medical conditions.

Sen. Chris Dodd has long supported and will continue to support efforts to ensure mental health parity for all Americans because he believes that it is essential that we require employers and health plans to cover treatment for mental health conditions on the same basis of all other illnesses. A Dodd Administration would not only pass mental health parity legislation, it would strongly enforce it.

Sen. John Edwards believes mental illness and physical illness must get the same insurance coverage. He has long supported mental health parity legislation; he co-sponsored the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act.

Sen. Barack Obama supports efforts to increase federal support for researching and fighting mental illnesses, as well as legislative efforts to mandate that private insurers cover physical and mental illnesses in a similar manner. He will make combating mental health and substance abuse disorders a higher priority. This is why he supported the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007, which requires employers and insurance companies that offer mental health coverage to provide parity between mental health and physical health coverage.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports mental health parity legislation because he believes it is time for us to treat behavioral health issues the same as we treat other medical disorders.

7. How will you reduce the number of individuals with serious mental illnesses who are in the criminal justice system?

Sen. Barack Obama believes that tackling the problem of the high number of mentally ill prisoners will require a concerted effort to reach out to and provide treatment for the mentally ill before some end up in the criminal justice system. He supports efforts to increase federal support for researching and fighting mental illnesses, as well as legislative efforts to mandate private insurers to cover physical and mental illnesses in a similar manner. He will make combating mental health and substance abuse disorders a higher priority. He supported the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. Sen. Obama will also help state and local governments improve the availability of mental health services, train their law enforcement personnel to recognize the signs of mental illness in offenders, and give prosecutors more tools to deal appropriately with mentally ill offenders. He is a strong supporter of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004, and, as president, will ensure that it is adequately funded. He also supports improving our background check system to keep guns from ending up in the hands of people who are mentally ill.

8. How do you plan to fully include people who have disabilities in all phases of disaster planning and hazard mitigation?

Sen. Joseph Biden will guarantee that people who have disabilities are fully included by appointing activists with disabilities to the Homeland Security agencies. He will also fully fund Homeland Security.

Sen. Barack Obama passed legislation to require states to properly plan the evacuation of special needs individuals because one of the most devastating aspects of Hurricane Katrina is that most of the stranded victims were society's most vulnerable members—low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, and Americans with disabilities. He knows that too many states and cities do not have adequate plans in place to care for special-needs populations. He believes that the legislation is only the first step in ensuring that the most vulnerable individuals in local and national emergencies are adequately safeguarded.

More Issues: Here are other statements from the Presidential candidates with respect to issues of importance to people who have disabilities.

IDEA

Sen. Joseph Biden has repeatedly voted in favor of the federal government fulfilling its original commitment to pay forty percent of the costs of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Sen. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called for full funding of IDEA. She also cosponsored the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which would significantly improve access to instructional materials for students who are blind or have other print disabilities by creating an efficient system for acquiring and distributing these materials in special formats, including Braille, large print, synthesized speech, digital text, and digital audio. Sen. Clinton also cosponsored the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act, which strengthened IDEA by expanding monitoring and enforcement mechanisms and enabling parents and schools to resolve disputes adequately while also improving access to professional development for all teachers.

Sen. Chris Dodd believes that the time has come to fully fund IDEA and his action will reflect his commitment on this issue. He will take a more aggressive approach to enforcement by instructing the Department of Education to establish clear, objective, and publicly available criteria for applying sanctions, funding and directing an immediate review of compliance across the states, and ensuring that sanctions are then fully applied.

Sen. John Edwards intends to strengthen federal enforcement of IDEA by the Department of Education so children with disabilities receive the free, appropriate education they deserve and to which they are legally entitled. He will appoint strong enforcement officials, nominate fair judges, provide adequate resources, and exercise leadership to make enforcement of IDEA a priority.

Sen. Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and has supported increases in funding to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

Gov. Bill Richardson would withhold federal funding for school districts that are out of compliance with IDEA.

Transportation

Sen. Joseph Biden would expand access to affordable, accessible transportation for people with disabilities; he has consistently supported expansion of accessible public transportation options.

Sen. Hillary Clinton is very aware that providing meaningful transportation opportunities to people with disabilities is an invaluable first step in empowering individuals to fulfill their potential and live self-sufficiently. She has consistently supported the Community Service Block Grant Program, which traditionally helps fund and support transportation projects (among other projects). She has also tried to secure funding for agencies that provide transportation services to those individuals who have disabilities.

Sen. Chris Dodd includes as part of his energy plan to increase access to affordable and convenient mass transit systems that are fully accessible to people with disabilities across all regions of the country.

Sen. John Edwards understands that accessible transportation is a critical component of increased work opportunities for people with disabilities because for most jobs, you cannot work if you cannot get from your house to the job site. He supports increasing federal funding for nonprofit groups to meet the transportation need of people with disabilities when public mass transit is not available and he intends to increase funding and enforcement of transportation access requirements under federal law. Sen. Edwards believes that, since the federal government has the power through Section 504, it must enforce the law to ensure that efforts like clearing snow and removing standing water are done because these can be very important in ensuring accessibility.

Sen. Barack Obama believes Congress must enact pending transportation reauthorization legislation without further delay and make provisions for accessible options for individuals with disabilities, including highways, mass transit, commuter rail, and air transportation improvements.

Gov. Bill Richardson will work with the disability community and the National Council of Disability to address the transportation shortages and problems throughout the U.S.

Voting

Sen. Joseph Biden supported the Help America Vote Act and will work to ensure its enforcement, including the requirements that enable people to case their ballot privately and that every polling location be accessible for people with disabilities.

Sen. Hillary Clinton authored legislation, the Count Every Vote Act, which requires that at least one voting machine per precinct allows voters who have disabilities and language minority voters to cast a vote in a private and independent manner.

Sen. Chris Dodd, as the primary author of the Help America Vote Act, worked to ensure that new voting protections for persons with disabilities were included in the final legislation. He is cosponsoring new legislation to provide for a voter-verified paper ballot record while preserving full access for persons with disabilities.

Sen. John Edwards will ensure that voters with disabilities are able to vote privately and independently, consistent with the requirements of HAVA. He will help every precinct provide enough trained poll workers and secure voting machines that are physically accessible to all. He believes that voting rights is an example of an area where the disability community provides the best information about which ballot systems work best and his administration will have an ongoing dialogue with the community to ensure meaningful disability voting rights protections.

Sen. Barack Obama believes that Americans with disabilities would be among the most disenfranchised by recent efforts to require mandatory photo identification at polling places because more than three million Americans with disabilities lack a government-issue form of identification. Therefore, he opposed unreasonable voter identification requirements and believes that the constitutional rights of individuals with disabilities should be safeguarded.

Gov. Bill Richardson made each of New Mexico's 1,200 polling sites HAVA compliant.

International Civil Rights

Sen. Joseph Biden supported the United States signing, and then ratifying, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Sen. Hillary Clinton believes the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was undertaken with the same goals that the U.S. had in enacting the ADA, namely, the goals of empowering individuals with disabilities and integrating these individuals into all aspects of society. She will champion these principles as president.

Sen. Chris Dodd supports U.S. ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because people with disabilities around the world deserve these rights and protections.

Sen. John Edwards supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Sen. Barack Obama supports the United States' ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the first human rights treaty to be approved by the UN in the 21st Century.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6869

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Yesterday we received some very big news—and I wanted to share it with you.

In 10 key states, the state councils of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) endorsed John Edwards for president. That means more than 930,000 members of the fastest growing union in North America believe John is the candidate who will bring real change to America—and they will be working on the ground to elect him president.

The Washington establishment has been trying to turn the Democratic primary contest into a coronation for months. But the nearly 3 million union members who have endorsed John Edwards so far know that he is the one candidate in this race who will bring the change we need, and who can campaign and win anywhere in America—red states, blue states and purple states.

Join with them today to support our campaign. As SEIU members prepare to put their resources into the key early states, your contribution—which could be matched through federal funds—will allow us to buy advertising time, deploy additional field staff and expand our on-the-ground efforts.

Click here to help expand our efforts in the key states.

SEIU members in Iowa, California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota have voted to put their muscle behind John Edwards. They are hard-working men and women who deal each day with the issues that matter—the same issues Washington continues to ignore. They know that powerful lobbyists and the special interests they work for are blocking change—and they know John is the one candidate in this race who can take on these special interests and win.

That's why they're prepared to back up their words with action and shoe leather to ensure victory for John. Can John count on you to help as well?

Click here to help expand our efforts in the key states.

Make no mistake—this is crunch time. We're less than 90 days away from the first primary contest. With your contribution, the support of nearly 3 million union members in key states, and the power of matching funds through public financing, we are on track to win.

But to win the White House, the Democratic Party needs to nominate a candidate who can take on the special interests and win—a candidate who can be elected in red states as well as blue.

Yesterday, SEIU members in 10 states said they believe John Edwards is that candidate—and that they are prepared to back up their words with action. Will you join nearly 3 million working men and women who are standing with John and show your support today?

Click here to help expand our efforts in the key states.

Thank you for your support. John is counting on you.

Sincerely,

--David Bonior
National Campaign Manager
October 16, 2007

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6487

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
New York Times
October 14, 2007

LORIS, South Carolina - In the beauty parlors that are among the social hubs for black women in the Carolinas, loyalties are being tested as voters here contemplate the first Democratic primary in the South.

Clara Vereen, who has been working here in rural eastern South Carolina as a hairstylist for more than 40 of her 61 years, reflects the ambivalence of many black women as she considers both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I've got enough black in me to want somebody black to be our president," she said in her tiny beauty shop, an extension of her home, after a visit from an Obama organizer. "I would love that, but I want to be real, too."

Part of being real, said Ms. Vereen, whom everyone calls Miss Clara, is worrying that a black president would not be safe.

"I fear that they just would kill him, that he wouldn't even have a chance," she said as she styled a customer's hair with a curling iron. One way to protect him, she suggested, would be not to vote for him.

And Mrs. Clinton?

"We always love Hillary because we love her husband," Ms. Vereen said. Then she paused. Much of the chitchat in her shop is about whether a woman could or should be president.

"A man is supposed to be the head," she said. "I feel like the Lord has put man first, and I believe in the Bible."

Black women are a crucial constituency in South Carolina, which may hold its voting as early as January 19. In 2004, about half of the state's Democratic primary voters were black (in Iowa and New Hampshire, black voters made up about 1 percent or less of Democrats). And 29 percent of all Democratic primary voters here were black women, according to exit polls, giving them a pivotal role.

"It's a key voting segment," said Carey Crantford, a Democratic pollster based in Columbia. "They hold the balance of power, all other things being equal."

Most polls here show Mrs. Clinton leading and Mr. Obama second, while John Edwards, who won the state's primary in 2004, has been a distant third. Pollsters caution that polling in a contest like this can be unreliable because whites might not be telling the truth when they say they will vote for a black man, and blacks might not be telling the truth when they say they are undecided.

Still, Mr.Obama appears to have a big lead over Mrs. Clinton among black men, said Adolphus G. Belk Jr., a political scientist at Winthrop University who co-directed a recent study of black voters. Black women, Dr. Belk said, are divided equally between Mr.Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and significantly, perhaps a third are undecided.

"They stand at the intersection of race, class and gender," he said. "Black men say to them, 'Sister, are you with us?' and at the same time white women say, 'Sister, are you with us?'"

In interviews with more than three dozen black women both here and in Columbia, the state capital, most said they were still puzzling over which way to go. Some said that specific issues like health care and education were important to them, but most thought their votes would be based on intangibles and determined in the end by prayer.

Vanessa Gerald, 38, a stylist at Carrie's Magic Touch, a salon around the corner from Miss Clara's, said she was torn because Mr. Obama was "trying to help his people, which Hillary is too." Ms. Gerald said she would "have to go with my faith" in making her final decision but was thrilled to have such a choice.

"This is history here," she said, puckering up a client's hair. "On both sides. Either way, it's history. So let's see what history going to bring in."

In trying to reach these voters, the Obama campaign has organized a network around beauty salons, a central gathering spot for black women, particularly in rural areas like this one.

Ashley Baia, 23, the Obama organizer here in Horry County, is like a modern-day circuit rider, traveling from salon to salon on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, the busiest days for getting a hairdo. Ms. Baia makes repeated visits, hoping to develop relationships with the owners and customers and giving spiels in which she notes that after law school, Mr. Obama skipped going to a big firm and went to work instead on the South Side of Chicago as a community organizer.

Betty McClain, 51, a bus driver who was waiting to have her hair done at Miss Clara's, said after Ms. Baia left that she liked what she heard about Mr. Obama. But she likes Mrs. Clinton, too. "She's already been president before," Ms. McClain said approvingly, dismissing Bill Clinton's role in his own administration. "He was just there," Ms. McClain said of Mr. Clinton. "He was just the husband, that's all. She really ran the country."

This shows what the Obama campaign is up against. Voters tend to know more about the Clintons than they do about Mr. Obama.

Another striking theme that emerged in the interviews was how often these women described an almost maternal concern for Mr. Obama's safety, which they take seriously by noting that he was given Secret Service protection in May, earlier than any presidential candidate ever except Mrs. Clinton, who already had protection as a former first lady. The assertion this year by Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, that as a black man he could be shot "going to the gas station" has done little to quell their fear.

This was a topic in Carrie's Magic Touch. One customer, Maria Hewett, 63, a retired factory worker, told the others she would probably vote for Mr. Obama despite her fear that he could be a target.

"Things happened with presidents in the past, and they weren't African-Americans," Ms. Hewett said, sitting in one of two big barber chairs, her hair in curlers. "President Kennedy was a good person, and somebody took him down," she said, prompting a chorus of "that's true, that's true."

Still, she added, "Hillary's husband has a lot of wisdom and knowledge, and that will help her." This elicited another round of "that's right, that's true."

"Whoever it is," she concluded, "we just ask the Lord to bless them and take care of them."

Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democratic state representative from Orangeburg, South Carolina, who has not endorsed anyone in the primary, said she had heard black women say they were afraid for Mr. Obama. "This really troubled me," Ms. Cobb-Hunter said. "Maybe it's a Southern thing. They want to protect him from the bad people, and in order to protect him, they won't support him. They want to see him around, making a difference."

She was virtually the only black woman interviewed who brought up Mr. Edwards, who was born in South Carolina. "He can be elected because this is still America, and white men still rule," Ms. Cobb-Hunter said. She is under pressure from both the Edwards and Obama campaigns for an endorsement.

Mr. Obama's campaign is focused on his message of hope and, increasingly, religious faith. Mr. Edwards spotlights poverty and rural areas. Mrs. Clinton's campaign is emphasizing her experience and highlighting her commitment to after-school programs, teacher-retention programs and health insurance for children. The campaign, which has an extensive list of endorsements from local officials, is organizing supporters thematically, like "Health Care Workers for Hillary" and, of course, "Women for Hillary." Mrs. Clinton's first commercial, a radio spot, is aimed squarely at black women.

The battle for their votes is heating up. Mr. Obama visited the state on October 6 and 7, Mr. Edwards visited on October 11 and Mrs. Clinton came on October 12 and 13, toting the prized endorsement of Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat and a major figure of the civil rights movement. As the race intensifies, Mr. Obama is expected to showcase one of his chief supporters, Oprah Winfrey, and Mrs. Clinton to showcase former President Bill Clinton, who remains enormously popular with black voters. Both campaigns here are headed by black women.

For many women, Mr. Obama's safety and Mrs. Clinton's husband were only part of the equation. They said they were also trying to calculate whether a black man or a white woman had a better chance of being elected. Which would encounter more resistance from the white male power structure? Would a black man stir up racial tensions that would boomerang and set African-Americans back?

"I think it will be difficult either one of them to hold that position because there are still so many inequalities that exist, especially here in the South," said Angel Clark, 42, a health career counselor who had just finished a walk in Columbia, South Carolina, with thousands of others, mostly women, to raise awareness of breast cancer. She is still undecided.

Depending on how Mr. Obama does in the earlier states, South Carolina, with its huge black population, could become do-or-die for him. Some of his supporters say that S.C. stands for "Stop Clinton." Campaign aides said that many here would be looking to Iowa to see the degree to which white voters will vote for a black man.

Tonya Thomas, 46, and Tina Thompson, 45, both involved in early childhood education, discussed their internal struggle over whom to support as they talked with a reporter after the breast cancer walk. Ms. Thomas said she liked Mrs. Clinton but was not "totally sure."

"Men have been running the country for a while, and I'd like to see a woman in office," she said. "Personally, I don't feel the country is ready for an African-American," she said, adding matter-of-factly, "He would be killed."

Ms. Thompson said she was leaning toward Mr. Obama. "I don't think they'd let a woman run the country," she said.

But, Ms. Thomas pointed out, "She does have Bill," whereupon she and her friend burst into laughter. "I hate to bring him up," Ms. Thomas said sheepishly, "but I do like Bill, and it's a way to get him back."

Ms. Thompson considered this. "Yes, he would be there for her," she said. Asked if she was now leaning toward Mrs. Clinton, she said she might be. But, she added, "You never know."

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ADAM NAGOURNEY & JEFF ZELENY
September 23, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/us/politics/23dems.html?
em&ex=1190779200&en=30b28e4edafe56a2&ei=5087%0A

WASHINGTON, September 22 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her early lead in the Democratic presidential contest, showing steady strength as the candidates head toward the first voting early next year.

She has been challenged for fund-raising supremacy and news media attention by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina beat her to the punch in introducing big policy proposals. But nothing that her main rivals have done has so far has derailed Mrs. Clinton, leading them to begin rolling out aggressive new strategies aimed primarily at her, including courting black voters in South Carolina and stepping up attacks.

She has maintained solid leads in most national polls. And while polls in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire are of limited value in predicting the outcome, they too show her more than holding her own entering the period in which primary voters begin to make up their minds.

"I think they've run a great campaign," David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's senior adviser, said of Mrs. Clinton, of New York. "She's been a very disciplined candidate. They?ve been deft in trying to get ahead of this tidal wave of people out there who really want change. They are doing the best they can with it."

But Mr. Axelrod, pointing to what he saw as Mrs. Clinton's foremost vulnerability, said: "The question is ultimately, Is she credible - whether people buy her as an agent of change in Washington. If they do, she'll do well."

A senior adviser to Mr. Edwards, Joe Trippi, said: "You used to be able to say the front-runners - her and Obama - but I don?t think that's the case anymore. It's pretty clear that she has sort of pulled away."

Mr. Obama is moving to deal directly with what his advisers said continued to be his weaker flank - concerns about his experience - with a burst of television advertisements that began this week in Iowa and will continue next week in New Hampshire. Mr. Edwards, trying to shake things up in a race where most of the attention has been focused on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, has started what aides say will be an escalating series of attacks on Mrs. Clinton.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards face tough decisions in the weeks ahead.

They see the same path to victory - which includes turning the contest into a two-person race with Mrs. Clinton - but are concerned that attacks on one another would only end up helping her.

Mr. Obama's decision to address the experience issue so directly came despite the concern of some associates about inviting new attention to a weakness. And Mr. Edwards's decision to tackle Mrs. Clinton could have the unintended effect of helping Mr. Obama in states like Iowa, where caucus voters often recoil at the sight of two-candidate spats.

There is almost daily evidence that the Democratic presidential campaign has moved into a lively new phase in which campaigns are not passing up any opportunities to win over voters.

Mr. Obama's aides are organizing black hair salon owners in South Carolina, a deep-seated social network that advisers said would be critical to pushing a historic black turnout that Mr. Obama hopes can deliver him victory there. In Iowa, the Obama campaign is signing up high school students who will be old enough to vote in the general election and can participate in caucuses.

Mrs. Clinton, after winning a burst of attention by rolling out a detailed health care plan this week, is planning similar speeches in the weeks ahead on education and energy. Mr. Edwards, who campaigned in all 99 Iowa counties in 2004, hit his 76th county on Friday as he made his way across the state to see if the people who supported him in 2004 were still with him.

The three leading contenders have also adopted decidedly different views of how the race will play out. Mrs. Clinton's advisers argued that it would probably end on February 5 when about 20 states vote. Though only 50 percent of the delegates will be selected by that day, the Clinton advisers suggested that one candidate would be so far ahead that there would be huge pressure on the other Democrats to rally around the leader.

Mr. Obama has begun preparing for a much more protracted campaign, arguing that it will be in effect a hunt for delegates that could last well into the spring. To that end, he is competing in some unlikely places - New York, for example, where he is holding a rally in Washington Square Park on Thursday - because under Democratic rules, delegates are allocated to candidates based on the percentage of votes they win.

And Mr. Edwards is looking for a victory in Iowa to bounce him to victory in New Hampshire, drawing a shot of attention and contributions that his aides argued would allow him to sweep through the February 5 states.

But if there is one dominant sentiment in the Obama and Edwards camps these days, it is concern that Mrs. Clinton continues to do so well. On Friday, Mr. Obama released a television advertisement in which he talked about the lessons he learned about health care from the death of his mother, the kind of emotional personal anecdote that candidates normally hold back until the end.

Though these three candidates have dominated the race, there are signs that Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has made inroads. Other candidates - in particular, Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut - are seen as far less likely to win any primaries. But they could affect the tone of the race based on the issues they press and if they choose to try to take on one of the leading candidates.

Although polls at this point in a campaign are notoriously unpredictable, the fact that Mrs. Clinton is leading in many of them is clearly influencing the way candidates, and the news media, view the race. And Mrs. Clinton is trying to use her standing to overcome a perceived obstacle: that she is tarnished by her White House years and cannot win a general election.

These same polls stirred some concern among Mr. Obama's supporters that he has not yet capitalized on the early excitement that surrounded his campaign.

"It would have been nice if he had taken the lead during the summer and increased the lead going into the fall, but in realistic terms, this is as good as it can get," said Tom Miller, the Iowa attorney general, who is a supporter of Mr. Obama. He added, "The key was to get the burst, stabilize it and make a run in the end."

Mr. Axelrod said that Mr. Obama's campaign had made a deliberate decision to hold off the bulk of its advertising money until now, when more people are paying attention, and that he was not concerned about polls or perceptions. Mr. Obama spent $1.5 million on television advertisements in Iowa, a substantial amount that Iowa Democrats said has not appeared to improve his standing significantly.

And some of Mr. Obama's advisers said Mrs. Clinton had done a far better job in dealing with one of her biggest tasks - trying to present herself as a candidate of change, notwithstanding her 15 years in Washington - than Mr. Obama had with the experience question. In the final week of August, Mr. Obama expressed frustration to some of his close associates at the course of his campaign, saying he felt his message was adrift, and personally took to rewriting some of the basic themes.

"I was confused initially on this whole experience argument," he told supporters here recently, "because I've been in public service for 20 years as a community organizer, as a civil rights attorney, as a law professor, as a state senator, as a United States senator. And so I was a little puzzled, but I came to realize what they really mean by this argument is that I haven't gotten enough seasoning in Washington."

Reflecting his successful fund-raising, Mr. Obama has spent millions to build a field operation in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, and has enough money to build organizations in other states.

"We wouldn?t be putting staff in Colorado and California if we weren't comfortable with our financial picture," said David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager. In Iowa alone, the Obama campaign is preparing to open its 31st field office, which is more than Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Clinton have.

"They are doing the fundamental organizational building that Dean overlooked," said John Norris, an Obama supporter in Iowa, who managed John Kerry's winning caucus campaign over Howard Dean four years ago. But the Democrats have all shied away from sustained attacks on one another. Mr. Axelrod, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Edwards in 2004, said he had learned the pitfalls of attacks in a field of multiple candidates.

"This history of these things is you can?t treat the process, to borrow Obama?s phrase, like a game of bumper cars," he said. "You bump someone, you never know who else might drive past you."

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

This Friday, John Edwards will deliver a major policy address on counterterrorism that will be a defining moment for the 2008 campaign—and something people will be talking about for weeks to come.

As we all know, electability is key to our victory in 2008 and, for the first time in many years, the candidate who has the boldest plan for America is also the most electable.

That's why John has asked me to invite you to attend this event to hear for yourself his vision for America—and all of us can work together to achieve transformational change for our country.

To RSVP for this speech, click the link below:

http://johnedwards.com/events/rsvp/20070907-speech

Here are the details:

• What: A major policy speech by Senator John Edwards on counterterrorism


• Where:
  Pace University, Michael Schimmel Auditorium
  Downtown Manhattan Campus
  One Pace Plaza
  Entrance at 3 Spruce Street, between Park Row and Gold Street 212-346-1200


• When: Friday, September 7, 11:30am

The 2008 presidential election is one of the most important in our lifetimes. In New York and New Jersey — and across the country — we face a crucial choice. We can do what America has always done in times like these—change direction and move boldly into the future, or we can wander in the same stale direction we have traveled in our recent past.

John Edwards is the candidate with bold solutions—and who is offering real leadership to transform America. That's why you need to join us this Friday at Pace University to hear John as he outlines his plan on counterterrorism—and how to make America safer.

http://johnedwards.com/events/rsvp/20070907-speech

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

--David Bonior
Campaign Manager
September 5, 2007

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

If anyone had any doubt what this election is about, they won't after hearing what John Edwards said this morning:

"It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle. It is the establishment elite versus the American people.

"Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington— trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows — it's time to end the game."

You know he's right — you've seen the lobbyists throwing cash at the politicians. You've heard the politicians walk away from their easy promises. But nobody calls them on it — because go-along-to-get-along is the rule in Washington, D.C.

Well, John Edwards is calling them on it right now, and they hate it. So they're coming after him with everything they've got.

When insiders from both parties are personally attacking John Edwards, you can bet on one thing — he's making waves, and the establishment doesn't like it when you rock their boat.

But here's the thing — it's not their boat. It's ours.

So join our call to take our democracy back and fix the broken system in Washington — sign our petition today, and send a powerful message to the Democratic Party.

www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/lobbyists

Enough is enough — it's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

John's right — we don't need to wait for Congress or the president. We can reform our party today.

Two weeks ago, he called on all Democrats to reject contributions from federal lobbyists. He repeated that challenge today.

We can reform our party and truly be the party of the people. And we can expose for all time who the Republicans in Washington are really working for.

Join our campaign to fix this broken system in Washington, D.C. and show America exactly whose side we're on — add your voice to our petition today.

www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/lobbyists

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

We need real change in America — universal health care, a halt to global warming and an end to the war in Iraq — but to get that change we have to fix the broken system in Washington.

As John said earlier today, "We cannot triangulate our way to real change; we cannot compromise our way to real change. But we can lead to real change. And with your help, we can start today."

This is what it means to be a Democrat. Not baby steps or happy talk — but to stand, up, be counted, and fight with everything we've got for what we believe.

So join us today — and thanks for everything you do.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Prince
Deputy Campaign Manager
August 23, 2007

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

The AFL-CIO Forum in Chicago last Tuesday night was full of sound bites, one-liners and promises of what each candidate would do for America if elected to the White House. But one question stood out among all the others.

Steve Skvara, a retired steelworker, asked the most important question of the night. His story is just one of millions that we, unfortunately, rarely hear, but which are all too common in America today.

Mr. Skvara spent 30 years working at the LTV steel plant in East Chicago, Indiana. His job came with health insurance benefits and a pension that he thought he'd have for the rest of his life. Then LTV claimed bankruptcy cutting his health insurance and part of his pension.

Mr. Skvara and his wife, Sandy, suffer from injuries sustained in a car accident a decade ago. Mr. Skvara's pension barely covers his own medical needs. But they can't afford coverage for Sandy.

Hard-working Americans won't get the real universal health care they need unless we're willing to fight the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies for it. We can't just trade our insiders for their insiders. We have to change the system altogether. John Edwards is the only candidate with the strength and commitment to take on—and beat—the special interests that have prevented hard-working Americans like Mr. Skvara from getting health insurance.

www.johnedwards.com/watch/tell-a-friend/steve-skvara

John Edwards believes that people like Mr. Skvara should have access to real universal health care. This campaign is about standing and fighting for every American to take back what has been stolen from many of us: trust that our government will not only protect us from foreign enemies and their attacks but help hard-working people have the resources to deal with life's crises—like illnesses, injuries and job losses.

Pass this video onto to someone who you think should see it. If we're going to change this country and how it treats American workers, we have to continue growing this community.

Thank you for all you do,

Joe Trippi
Senior Advisor, John Edwards for President
August 10, 2007

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

On Saturday in Chicago at the YearlyKos convention, John Edwards challenged the entire Democratic Party to reform itself and end the practice of taking campaign money from Washington lobbyists.

"We don't have to wait for a new law - the Democratic Party can end the game today - and from this day forward say to Washington lobbyists - your money is no good here anymore."

"The system in Washington is broken - it's rigged to serve the interests of those with the most money to throw around, rather than the best interest of the American people. The type of change America needs will never be achieved if we just replace the insiders from one party with the insiders from another party. That's why the Democratic Party must lead the way in taking a bold step toward reform that will return the power in Washington back to where it belongs."

But there are those in the Democratic Party who are unwilling to end their addiction to money from federal lobbyists - they do not understand that people like you will help fund a party that is truly a party of the people.

So reforming the Democratic Party begins with us - with John Edwards and you showing the way. Contribute what you can to the campaign today and prove to the Democratic Party that people will respond to a campaign that says "no" to Washington lobbyists.

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/reform

The Republicans can keep taking money from all of the Washington lobbies - corporate lobbyists, insurance industry lobbyists, pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and oil industry lobbyists - because they've been doing the bidding of these lobbyists for far too long.

But the Democratic Party can reject all of the Washington lobbyists' money and reform itself - solidifying our stature as the party of the people and forcing the Republican Party to either join us, or forever make clear to the American people who it is that the Republicans in Washington are working for.

And so your contribution today is more than a contribution to John Edwards -- it's more than a contribution to show the Democratic Party the path to reform. It's a contribution towards making our government for, by and of the people.

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/reform

Today in Iowa, John talked about how we need to stop writing and signing trade deals that benefit special interests at the expense of American workers. And he talked about how we can't fix our trade policy as long as politicians take money from federal lobbyists and let them rig Washington against regular people.

If we are going to fix our trade policy, end the war in Iraq, win universal health care for every American, and end at game in Washington that rewards corporate greed at the expense of working people and our country's future - we must be prepared to say not only that Washington is broken - but that real change will only happen if the Democratic Party truly becomes the party of the people once again.

Thank you for being part of the campaign to make it so.

Sincerely,
Joe Trippi, Senior Advisor, John Edwards for President
August 6, 2007

P.S. - Watch the clip of John calling for reform at YearlyKos here:
www.johnedwards.com/watch/lobbyists

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Earlier this week, more than 30,000 people added their voices to the call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign.

Today, we are asking you to add your voice. Congress is about to leave for their August recess—which means that from this day forward, the pressure on Gonzales has to come from you.

Please, stand with 30,000 other Americans today and tell Alberto Gonzales to resign:

www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/gonzales

Why does Gonzales need to go? He has undermined the integrity of the Department of Justice, and turned it into a political arm of the Bush White House.

Just this week, The Washington Post reported that Gonzales' Justice Department urged a federal prosecutor to "slow down" in his case against the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin.

The Justice Department made the request at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, according to the Post. And when the prosecutor settled the case anyway, his name appeared on a list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired.

Yet despite the mounting evidence of political meddling in the firing of U.S. prosecutors—and the likelihood that Gonzales perjured himself before Congress last week to protect Bush's illegal spying on Americans—Dick Cheney this week called the Congressional investigation of Gonzales a "witch hunt" and told CBS that he's a "big fan" of one of the worst Attorneys General in our nation's history.

We're no fans of Gonzales. We're fans of the Constitution. And to restore the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice, Gonzales has got to go.

Please, sign your name today—and forward this message on to 5 friends or family members who agree that it's time for Gonzales to resign:

www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/gonzales

When we reach our new goal of 40,000 signatures, we will deliver our BIG message to Gonzales—a giant Constitution with all 40,000 names on it.

Please, sign the petition today. Help us keep the pressure on—so that even in the dog days of August, Gonzales won't be able to ignore the will of the American people, or the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/gonzales

Thank you for taking action.

Sincerely,
Joe Trippi

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

July 31, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Edwards, Obama and the Poor
By DAVID BROOKS

Suppose you were going to decide your vote for president entirely on the issue of who could best reduce poverty. Who would you vote for?

You'd start by focusing your attention on the candidates who have invested the most time in the issue, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

You'd find that both have a multilayered view of poverty. We used to have debates in which liberals emphasized the lack of jobs and conservatives emphasized personal behavior. But in the post-welfare-reform world, it's pretty obvious that everything feeds into everything else. For Edwards and Obama, poverty flows from a lack of jobs and broken families, bad schools and bad role models, no training and no self-control.

For both candidates, you have to attack everything at once. You have to holistically change the environment that structures behavior. The question is how to do it.

Obama and Edwards agree on a lot, but in this matter they emphasize different things. As Alec MacGillis of The Washington Post observed, Edwards emphasizes programs that help people escape from concentrated poverty. Obama emphasizes programs that fix inner-city neighborhoods. One helps people find better environments, the other seeks to strengthen the environment they are already in.

Edwards would create a million housing vouchers for working families. These would, he argues, "enable people to vote with their feet to demand safe communities with good schools." They'd help people move to where the jobs are and foster economic integration.

The problem with his approach is that past efforts at dispersal produced disappointing results. Families who were given the means to move from poor neighborhoods to middle-class areas did not see incomes rise. Girls in those families did a little better, but boys did worse. They quickly formed subcultures in the new communities that replicated patterns of the old ones. Male criminality rose, but test scores did not.

Obama, by contrast, builds his approach around the Harlem Children's Zone, what he calls "an all-encompassing, all-hands-on-deck anti-poverty effort." The zone takes an area in Harlem and saturates it with childcare, marriage counseling, charter schools and job counselors and everything else you can think of. Obama says he'll start by replicating the program in 20 cities around the country.

The problem here is that there are few historical examples of neighborhoods being lifted up at once. There are 4,000 community development corporations around the country and they have not lifted residents out of poverty. The positive influences in the center get overwhelmed by the negative peer influences all around.

The organizations that do appear to work, like the Harlem Children's Zone (there's no firm data yet), tend to have charismatic leaders like Geoffrey Canada who are willing to fight teachers' unions and take on bureaucracies. It's not clear whether their success is replicable, let alone by the federal government.

What we have, then, is two divergent approaches, both of which have problems and low odds of producing tremendous success. If you find that discouraging, welcome to the world of poverty policy.

If I had to choose between the two, I guess I'd go with the Obama plan. I'd lean that way because Obama seems to have a more developed view of social capital. Edwards offers vouchers, job training and vows to create a million temporary public-sector jobs. Obama agrees, but takes fuller advantage of home visits, parental counseling, mentoring programs and other relationship-building efforts.

The Obama policy provides more face-to-face contact with people who can offer praise or disapproval. Rising out of poverty is difficult — even when there are jobs and good schools. It's hard to focus on a distant degree or home purchase. But human beings have a strong desire for approval and can accomplish a lot with daily doses of praise and censure. Standards of behavior are contagious that way.

A neighborhood is a moral ecosystem, and Obama, the former community organizer, seems to have a better feel for that. It's not only policies we're looking for in selecting a leader, it's a sense of how the world works. Obama's plan isn't a sure-fire cure for poverty, but it does reveal an awareness of the supple forces that can't be measured and seen.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 25, 2007

CONTACT:
Colleen Murray
919-636-3203

Chapel Hill, North Carolina — On the eve of the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Senator John Edwards called for Congress to pass new legislation strengthening the ADA. At the same time, Edwards' campaign announced that he had been endorsed by several prominent leaders in the disability rights movement.

"As we prepare to celebrate the 17th anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, we must reclaim the ADA. Hostile, conservative judges have put new barriers in front of Americans with disabilities who seeking nothing more than the right to work and live with dignity," said Edwards. "Congress should pass the ADA Restoration Act to ensure that the law remains consistent with Congress' original intent and restore civil rights protections to people with epilepsy, depression, diabetes, cancer and other conditions."

Edwards has long supported initiatives to break down the barriers that separate people from disabilities from opportunity in America, including:

• Enforcing the right of every child to receive a free and appropriate education in schools that are fully accessible.
  
  
• Creating new internship and mentoring programs that break down barriers for young people making the transition from school to work.
  
  
• Providing accessible transportation so people with disabilities have a way to get to work.
  
  
• Making the federal government a model employer to lead the way toward a fully-inclusive American workplace.
  
  
• Securing the rights of people with disabilities to live independently with the services and supports they need, which is essential to guaranteeing equal opportunity.

Edwards is also committed to including closed captions on all campaign television advertisements and is in the process of captioning all videos on JohnEdwards.com. The campaign's Web site is designed to be accessible to all visitors.

"Many people with disabilities live in poverty because they are denied full and equal opportunities in education and employment. Their transportation needs are ignored. They also face discriminatory and dehumanizing inequities in health care," said Laurie McCray, New Hampshire parent advocate. "I am confident that as president, John Edwards will be a strong and compassionate advocate for people with disabilities so they can have successful and meaningful lives."

California Democratic Party Disabilities Caucus Chair August J.P. Longo said, "Senator Edwards never forgetting to include people with disabilities in his speeches and platform tells us that he will not forget us in his Administration."

"During the days when ADA was being considered I wrote to Senators and Representatives regarding this important legislation. Now as we celebrate the anniversary of the ADA I can say that I did that. That is the type of action that John Edwards inspires all of us to take" said Jon Raiss, Michigan Democratic Party Disabilities Caucus Chair.

The leaders in the disability rights movement endorsing Edwards are:

• Jon Raiss, Michigan Democratic Party Disabilities Caucus Chair
• Laurie McCray, New Hampshire Parent Advocate
  
• August J.P. Longo, California Democratic Party Disabilities Caucus Chair and President of FDR Democratic Club
  
• Ed Smith, Former Democratic National Committee Member
• Deb Cotter, National Disability Rights Advocate
• Steve Sfekas, Co-Chair of 2006 Maryland Governor's Transition Group on Disabilities

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Something happened in last night's CNN/YouTube debate.

A stark difference between the candidates became clear. When John Edwards said what needed to be said, if we want "real change, big change, bold change... we can't trade our insiders for their insiders." And then urged all of us to stand up for what really matters.

Watch the video that everyone is talking about - and help continue last night's momentum by showing your support for John Edwards by contributing today:

www.johnedwards.com/hair

Take a look at the moment in the debate that everyone needs to see and help spread the word by sending the link on to your friends and family.

www.johnedwards.com/hair

According to CNN, viewers rated that moment the highest of all the candidates - but more importantly it has sparked thousands to join our cause.

Because if you believe this country needs fundamental change - not compromise, not triangulation, not empty rhetoric - then there is something important that all of us need to understand from John's words last night:

"The people who are powerful in Washington - big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies - they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they're going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

Those interests are not going to fund our campaign. Far from it - they are going to do everything they can to stop us. And, that is why if we are really ready to stand up for what matters:

• Ending the war in Iraq.
  
  
• Taking on the insurance companies and HMOs to fight for universal health care.
  
  
• Taking on the oil industry and fundamentally changing our energy policies to end global warming.
  
  
• Taking on the powerful who care about nothing but profits and greed at the expense of working people, the middle class and the poor.
  
  
• And returning our government of the people to the people.

It's up to us.

Either we fund this campaign and make the difference or it falters because I guarantee you no one else will.

What really matters?

What you do now - really matters.

Contribute and spread the word about the one candidate and the one campaign that will change America.

www.johnedwards.com/hair

Thank you for everything you do,
--Joe Trippi
  John Edwards for President
  Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Dear fellow John Edwards supporter,

My name is Heather McGhee and I work on domestic policy for John Edwards. This week, I've been traveling with John on the Road to One America tour. What I've seen has shown me the power we each have to change this country—even where the challenges are the most daunting.

Yesterday, I walked with John and Elizabeth as they continued the Road to One America tour in New Orleans, Canton and Marks, Mississippi, where Martin Luther King, Jr. launched the famous Poor People's March in 1968.

We visited the home of Mrs. Sammie Henley who hosted Dr. King in 1968. Her house was surrounded by flood waters, and Dr. King had to paddle a boat to her front porch. He famously described places like Marks as "an island of poverty" surrounded by an ocean of American wealth. Unfortunately, it certainly still feels that way today.

You can see pictures, videos and stories from the tour at:

www.johnedwards.com/road/day1/

Today, the tour will take us to Cleveland, Ohio, Youngstown, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

As part of the American "Rust Belt," these cities' economies have risen and fallen with the steel industry. Now, the loss of manufacturing jobs, a wave of foreclosures and falling home prices have made these communities targets of predatory lenders and mortgage brokers.

But in these cities as in the others we have visited, residents and local officials are fighting back and coming up with ways to protect their neighborhoods.

You can follow along throughout the day as we visit these communities and uncover stories of challenge and hope, at:

www.johnedwards.com/road/day1/

Creating that opportunity begins with economically diverse schools that encourage higher achievement among all students. It's simple: If we want to break down divisions and create opportunity in our economy the place to start is our schools.

There are many major steps we must take to truly build One America. But one thing I've seen clearly this week: There are heroes out here, already showing us the way.

Take Anita Grabowski who is organizing poultry workers in Mississippi who are cheated out of wages in one of the most dangerous industrial jobs in America. Her organization, MPOWER, has been organizing low-wage poultry workers to collect the wages they're owed and the health care they need when injured on the job. Or how about "Cafe Reconcile" in New Orleans that has pulled a community together to give at-risk youth the second chance they deserve to build a better life for themselves.

John and his campaign are working this week to uncover the stories that aren't being told about poverty in America and the people on the ground who are fighting to restore economic fairness. But telling the story is only the first step. We need to turn words into action and local solutions into national policies. And to do that, we need your help.

Help spread the word about we're seeing out here on the road, by forwarding this link to your friends and asking them to join us on the road to One America.

www.johnedwards.com/road/day1/

Thanks again for listening. We'll continue to keep you posted from the road.
-- Heather McGhee
   Deputy Policy Director
   John Edwards for President
   Tuesday, July 17, 2007

P.S. All this week, John Edwards One Corps volunteers are organizing local actions to fight poverty in their community. If you're ready to roll up your sleeves and take action, this is the perfect way for you to get involved. Sign up to join a local action near you, or plan your own, at:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/oc/oneamerica

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

One in 8 Americans currently lives in poverty. George W. Bush is ignoring all 37 million of them. We need to stop ignoring poverty - and make ending it a national priority.

John Edwards is launching the Road to One America Tour next week to shine a light on the 37 million Americans who live in poverty. If we don't stand up for them, who will? George Bush and his corporate buddies won't. The lobbyists in Washington won't. And since the media can't stop talking about Paris Hilton, you can bet they won't help shine a light on it.

Will you help end poverty by giving $8?

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8

That's why we need you. You can stand with us by making a small but meaningful contribution of just $8 to support the only campaign dedicated to ending poverty in America in 30 years.

Since George W. Bush took office, 5.4 million more Americans slipped into poverty. Some people are working two jobs, and still can't put food on the table or buy the medicine they need to survive. This is not our America. John wants to end poverty in America within 30 years, and with your help we can do it. This campaign will not stay on the sidelines and ignore this problem—and we hope you won't either.

Stand with us and take on poverty in America by giving just $8 today.

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8

Some people say it's hypocritical for someone who has money to talk about poverty. They think we should ignore the issue, instead of standing up for Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.

But ignoring it, calling John a hypocrite and talking about haircuts while 37 million Americans continue to struggle for their next meal are all just distractions to get us off what really matters in this election: getting this country back on track. And that's why we're launching the Road to One America Tour next week—shining a light on the parts of our country that are being ignored by President Bush. Help our campaign to end poverty in America by signing our petition, giving just $8 and passing this on to your friends and family.

Poverty affects all of us. George W. Bush has chosen to ignore it. This campaign has chosen to do something about it — but we need you. Stand with us, and help us end poverty in America.

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/1-in-8

Thank you for all you do,

Joe Trippi

---

The problem is, neither does John Edwards. All politicians system-wide use propaganda to push their agenda of the moment to get elected, and just as the Iraq war wouldve been launched by a President John Kerry, so would negligence of Katrina victims continue under Edwards, and even Obama (look at Ray Nagin's tatters).

My question at present would be where are all the working class people of color disabled in the inclusion movement? We seem to be drifting towards cross-class collaboration in a 'we're all disabled together' fashion, which while good for culture and learning ignores stark realities of class and the fact that the rich are the ones behind inclusion being necessary in the first place. They, not workers, were behind the bad designs and cultural exclusion that makes today's drives necessary.

Nico Phillips

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

The people have spoken! This week, MoveOn.org, the League of Conservation Voters and other progressive groups brought over 100,000 Americans together to watch all the Democratic candidates present their plans to solve global warming and then vote for the best.

Their choice? John Edwards by a landslide. John's plan got more votes than our two closest competitors - combined.

This is a victory for substance. The media may want to obsess over trivial things, but Americans are ready for bold change—and that's exactly what John Edwards has to offer.

If we can get our message of substance to the Democratic voters and caucus goers in Iowa, New Hampshire and the other key early states, we can win there too.

Can you chip in $25 to help us spread the word on the issues that matter in the key early states? Please give what you can at:

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/form

We see it on the ground and we see it online: When voters take a close look at what the candidates have to say on the real issues, John's bold ideas carry the day. Here's what some of the voters had to say this week:

A leader's biggest job is to inspire and inflame our hearts and minds to take on whatever challenges face us... Big problems need big ideas. Crises require passionate commitment. John Edwards seems to me to have the vision necessary to begin healing our earth.
-Kathleen F., Abbeville, SC

All efforts at progress rest on a simple truth: the public good is more important than any private interest. John Edwards understands this. His emphasis on poverty and political economy interface perfectly with efforts to combat global warming. Go Edwards!
-Jason O., Brunswick, ME

As a resident of New Orleans, I appreciate how John Edwards understands the close connection between Global Warming, Hurricanes, Coastal Protection, Green Jobs, and Poverty ... all of which affect New Orleanians directly.
-Grant C., New Orleans, LA

The D.C. pundits can talk about hair until they're blue in the face. We know what matters. And so do voters and caucus goers.

That's why we know that if we can raise enough to get our message straight to the key early states, we'll be right where we need to be come Election Day. Now we just need your help to get there:

Please pitch in $25 or whatever you can afford right now, at:

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/form

Thanks for all that you do,
-- Ben Brandzel
   John Edwards for President
   Thursday, July 12, 2007

P.S. Speaking of substance, only four days until John begins his historic Road to One America tour to shine a spotlight on the injustice of poverty in America and build a movement to stop it. You can learn more and get involved at www.johnedwards.com/1-in-8

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Dear fellow Edwards supporter,

Right now, we have a critical chance to spread the word about John Edwards' ground breaking plan to solve global warming—but we have to act fast.

Between now and tonight at midnight Pacific time (3:00 AM Eastern time), please go vote for John's global warming plan in the MoveOn.org "Virtual Town Hall" on climate change:

http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/climate/townhall2.html

When the media is obsessed with the money race and silly distractions, it's up to us to turn the spotlight on the issues that actually matter in people's lives. And that's where this campaign really shines.

MoveOn asked all of the candidates to talk about their plans to address global warming, and now it's up to the public to pick the best proposal. Tomorrow morning the national press will cover the results, and later MoveOn will run an ad highlighting the top plan—so this is a huge opportunity.

Please go hear John explain his global warming plan and cast your vote right now at:

http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/climate/townhall2.html

Why is John's plan to stop global warming the best in the pack? It's the substance.

When John introduced his plan, The League of Conservation Voters called it:

"the most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date...[it] understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it."

The environmental magazine Grist called it:

"far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan the three front-runners."

Here's the quick summary:

John's energy plan calls for an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - according to the latest science that's the reduction necessary to actually halt the worst effects of global warming. And it calls for freezing the growth of our electricity usage for a decade through national efficiency programs.

John's against all federal subsidies for liquid coal, and stands for a complete moratorium on new coal plants that cannot capture their carbon pollution.

John's calling on America to lead the world towards a new climate treaty that would sharply reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

And John's plan would help spur a new energy economy to break our dependence on foreign oil while creating 1 million new jobs.

We know climate change is a global crisis that's already upon us - we owe it to ourselves and our children to find the courage for truly transformational change. John Edwards has that courage. But as always, John and this campaign depend on people like you and me taking action to turn that vision for change into reality.

So before the polls close at Midnight Pacific time (3:00AM Eastern time) tonight, please take a minute to watch John outline his plan and then cast your vote at:

http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/climate/townhall2.html

Thanks for all that you do,
-- Ben Brandzel
   John Edwards for President
   Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

ELECTION 2008

Democratic Presidential Candidates Propose Pragmatic Approaches to Universal Health Care To Avoid Pitfalls of 1990s Health Reform Effort

A number of Democratic presidential candidates -- including Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) -- support health care reform approaches "that borrow from the Massachusetts model," a law enacted last year in that state that "took key elements of the 1993 Clinton plan and made them practical politically," the Washington Post reports. Obama and Edwards have released plans to achieve expanded coverage using elements of the Massachusetts plan. Clinton has outlined an agenda to address health care costs, and is expected to focus on quality and "insuring everyone" later this year, according to the Post.

The Post reports that Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped with the Massachusetts law, has consulted with the three leading Democratic candidates and is "possibly the [Democratic] party's most influential health care expert and voice of realism in its internal debates." Gruber said, "Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over." He added, "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better -- I just think they're political non-starters."

However, Ezekiel Emanuel -- a physician and bioethics expert who has consulted with some candidates and who is Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D-Ill.) brother -- advocates replacing the current health care system with a plan that would allow people to buy health coverage with vouchers. Emanuel said that the proposals of the leading Democratic candidates are not "bold," adding, "I don't think they solve the problem."

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates -- including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who signed the 2006 health reform bill into law -- have depicted the Democratic candidates' proposals as "socialized medicine," the Post reports.

John Sheils, a health care expert at the Lewin Group, said that the Democratic candidates' proposals might not be entirely realistic. "There is an idea you can somehow do all these things controlling costs without anybody doing anything they don't want to do," Sheils said (Bacon, Washington Post, July 10, 2007).

Opinion Piece
"We believe that health insurance providers can promote health, improve quality and reduce costs, thereby creating the means to provide universal access," Aetna Chair and CEO Ronald Williams and Aetna Chief Medical Officer Troyen Brennan write in a Post opinion piece. "We are glad to see presidential candidates support these same goals," they write, concluding, "We hope that politicians and the public recognize that providing access to care that is proven effective and efficient is going to be critical to meaningful reform and that health plans have real expertise to bring to the table" (Williams/Brennan, Washington Post, July 10, 2007)

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ROBIN TONER New York Times July 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 5 - There is no better measure of the power of the health care issue than this: Sixteen months before Election Day, presidential candidates in both parties are promising to overhaul the system and cover more -- if not all -- of the 44.8 million people without insurance.

Their approaches are very different, reflecting longstanding divisions between the parties on the role of government versus the private market in addressing the affordability and availability of health insurance. Republicans, by and large, promise to expand coverage by using a variety of tax incentives to empower consumers to buy it themselves, from private insurers. Conservatives warn, repeatedly, of Democrats edging toward the slippery slope of "government-controlled health insurance," as former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York puts it, and promote the innovation and choice offered by private insurers.

The major Democratic candidates propose strengthening the private-employer-based system, through which most working families get their coverage. But many Democrats also see a strong role for government, including, in some plans, new requirements that individuals obtain insurance and that employers provide it, along with substantial new government spending to subsidize coverage for people who cannot afford it.

Still, while they argue over solutions, both parties acknowledge the problems and their political urgency. Republicans, whose primaries usually turn on other issues, often wait until the general election to roll out detailed health plans; this time they are plunging into the debate far earlier. Democrats are competing furiously among themselves over who has the bigger, better plan to control costs and to approach universal coverage, a striking change from the party's wariness on the issue a decade ago after the collapse of the Clintons' health care initiative.

And both parties are closely watching the action in the states as potential blueprints for a centrist compromise, especially in Massachusetts, which just began a major plan intended to require that every individual have insurance.

In short, says Jonathan Gruber, an economist, health expert and Clinton administration veteran, the times are "radically different."

In fact, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois unveiled a plan intended to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans, but not requiring coverage for all, some Democrats in rival campaigns argued that he had not gone far enough. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, once vilified as overreaching on health care, is now more often faulted in her party as moving too slowly. Mrs. Clinton's 1994 plan, attacked at the time from the left, right and center, is presented in the new Michael Moore documentary, "Sicko," as a tragic missed opportunity.

This amount of attention, this early, comes in response to the growing anxiety among voters — and much of American business - about the cost of health care. Premiums for family coverage have risen by 87 percent since 2000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The number of Americans without insurance has grown steadily, to what the Census Bureau estimates as nearly 45 million, from 37 million when the Clintons first confronted the issue.

Businesses say that health costs are a huge liability in their struggles to compete in a global economy, most vividly in the auto industry. And health care is now rated the top domestic issue in some recent polls among Democrats, independents and voters over all. Among Republicans, it was surpassed only by immigration in June, according to the latest Kaiser survey. A Democratic pollster, Geoffrey Garin, says: "There are a bunch of issues that candidates can take a pass on. This is not one of them."

On the Republican side, few candidates have been better prepared to deal with the issue than former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who helped push through that state's health plan with bipartisan support. But Republican primary voters tend to be leery of new government requirements, and, arguably, of Massachusetts as a role model. Mr. Romney, on the campaign trail, talks generally about getting "everybody inside the health care system," through "market reforms" state by state to make private insurance cheaper and more available. But not, he says, "with a government takeover."

Sally Canfield, policy director for the Romney campaign, says that Mr. Romney is proud of his record, but "the Massachusetts plan was crafted for Massachusetts," and that a national plan would be different. For example, aides said he did not support a federal version of the Massachusetts requirement that individuals obtain insurance.

Mr. Romney's rivals are casting themselves as equally committed to improving the health care system, but even more determined to use free-market principles to do so, which they hope will prove them more attuned to the Republican base. Mr. Giuliani plans to produce a major proposal in the next month, aides say, that will elaborate on his commitment to "affordable and portable free-market solutions."

Mr. Giuliani says he wants to give individuals more control over, and responsibility for, health insurance, encouraging them to buy their own coverage on the private market and giving them "a very big tax deduction" to do it. Right now, most Americans under 65 get their coverage through their employers, who have the benefit of significant tax advantages, pooled risk and group rates.

Mr. Giuliani's approach echoes President Bush's call for an "ownership society," which was popular with economic conservatives but widely criticized as putting too much risk on individuals. "Every one of the Democrats wants government-mandated health insurance," Mr. Giuliani said recently. "We have to go in exactly the opposite direction."

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, will also outline a health care plan this summer, aides said. They said it would be intended to make coverage "affordable and available," using tax credits and the expansion of programs like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but would include no new mandates on individuals.

Analysts say the Democrats are clearly drawing lessons from the health care battles of 1993-4, when a similar public groundswell for change collapsed in a matter of months. The 1,342-page Clinton plan at that time was bewilderingly bureaucratic and easy for opponents to characterize as something that would actually worsen the status quo for many insured Americans.

This year, the major Democratic proposals - including Mr. Obama's, one from former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and a plan expected from Mrs. Clinton - are arguably ambitious and costly, but do not try the wholesale reinvention of the system, or move explicitly toward the government takeover Republicans so often predict.

"There's not a lot of untested political ideas out there," said Robert Blendon, a professor in health policy at Harvard.

The major Democratic plans announced so far try to cover nearly everyone by shoring up the employer-based system, creating new public insurance options and establishing new health insurance purchasing pools that offer a variety of private and public plans to people who cannot get coverage through work. People who could not afford coverage would get subsidies. Given those supports, some Democrats (including Mr. Edwards and -- it is widely expected but not yet announced -- Mrs. Clinton) back the idea of requiring every individual to obtain insurance.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama call for financing their plans with revenue from ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; those cuts are set to expire in 2010.

Diane Rowland, executive vice president of Kaiser, said candidates were responding not only to recent failures, but also to recent successes, notably in Massachusetts and potentially California.

"To get something enacted, you need a lot of people who think they will gain from it," Ms. Rowland said. "It's a new way of talking about health reform, because it shows people with health insurance what they could gain. These proposals are not just about the haves versus the have-nots."

Few have taken that advice more to heart than Mrs. Clinton, who is rolling out her proposals to control costs and improve quality before her ideas for covering the uninsured, which are expected in the next few months. She recently, for example, proposed a "Best Practices Institute" to assess the most effective treatments and procedures.

Another hallmark of this year's plans, in both parties, is a reliance on better health information technology and disease management to hold down costs -- not the more rigorous regulatory structures proposed in 1994, which critics asserted would soon lead to rationing.

By the time Election Day rolls around, polls indicate that the issue will be front and center, setting the stage for another great battle to overhaul the system under the next president. Veterans of the Clinton administration say it all feels familiar.

"If the Democrats win, it will be very hard not to take this issue on," said Mr. Gruber, who is helping to carry out the Massachusetts plan. "It will be as promising as it was in the early 1990s."

Edith. M. Prentiss

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Marvin,

Despite what the Edwards campaign would have you believe from their e-mail which you just forwarded, no presidential candidate owns this event.

As you know, I am a Hillary Clinton supporter and I'm hosting a Live Earth house party thru MoveOn.org, as are other HRC supporters. I was about to send you my invitation and ask you to forward it to the 504 list serve (which I still have difficulty getting into direct) when your Edwards e-mail arrived. So I'm responding first--to set the record straight and then will send you my MoveOn invite, which I would appreciate your forwarding to the list serve.

Thanx,
Trudy

Dear fellow John Edwards supporter,

The John Edwards community has been on the forefront of the effort to stop global warming. This weekend could be a watershed moment in that effort worldwide, and we have a key role to play.

As you've probably heard, Saturday's "Live Earth" concerts will reach an estimated 2 billion people worldwide. To transform all that awareness into action, the campaign behind the concerts created the "Live Earth Pledge" — asking supporters to raise our voice and roll up our sleeves to solve the global climate crises.

The pledge commitments are quite familiar to John Edwards supporters: revolutionizing the energy economy to reduce CO2 emissions, halting all new coal production without carbon capture technology, and taking steps to reduce carbon consumption in our personal lives.

If each of us signs the pledge and then gets just one more person each to join us in the next 72 hours, we can add the full weight of the John Edwards community to millions of other voices at this critical moment. So please sign the pledge yourself, and then ask your friends and family to do the same — it's time to put our address books to work for the cause of a generation.

You can sign online, at: www.johnedwards.com/liveearth

Or you can sign by texting the word 'EARTH' to 30644 from your mobile phone.

Also, on Saturday (July 7th) MoveOn.org, the League of Conservation Voters and other progressive groups are organizing hundreds of "Parties for the Planet" in living rooms all over the country.

It's a great chance to join with other likeminded folks in your area, tune into the Live Earth broadcast, and watch John Edwards and other Democratic presidential candidates lay out their plans to solve global warming as part of the next MoveOn.org "issue primary".

To find a Party for the Planet in your area and RSVP, just go to:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/index.html?action_id=86

These are the moments that remind us why this campaign is so different, and so worthwhile. While the pundits obsess over haircuts, John Edwards is committed to using this campaign as a vehicle for real change, right now.

On global warming and the other big issues that affect our lives, John is asking for more than our money and more than our vote—he's asking us to lead.

Thank you for answering the call.

Ben Brandzel
John Edwards for President
Thursday, July 5, 2007

P.S. We had a great finish for our end of quarter fundraising last week—ending with over $9 million dollars for the quarter and over 100,000 donors for the campaign. Amazing! We need to keep up a strong fundraising pace to stay on target in the months ahead, so please consider an early donation to help us get a head start on meeting our 3rd quarter goal:

www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/form

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By LESLIE WAYNE, New York Times June 22, 2007

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards defended the center yesterday as a legitimate tool against poverty.

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization's purpose was "making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation," its federal filings say it financed "retreats and seminars" with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, set out to keep his political options open by promoting issues he cared about, like poverty.

"He wanted to learn, travel and be in a position to be a viable candidate," said J. Edwin Turlington, a Raleigh lawyer who was the manager of Mr. Edward's 2003 presidential exploratory committee. "He had the ability to raise money to fund his activities. He had a vision, and he knew it would take money."

Mr. Edwards mixed policy and politics in a way that allowed his supporters to donate to the causes he believed in — and to the organizations he had set up. He also set up two political action committees, something commonly done by politicians thinking of running for president.

But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status.

Because the organization is not required to disclose its donors — and the campaign declined to do so — it is not clear whether those who gave money to it did so understanding that they were supporting Mr. Edwards's political viability as much or more than they were giving money to combat poverty.

The money paid Mr. Edwards's expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants, attacked the Bush administration and developed an online following. He led minimum-wage initiatives in five states, went frequently to Iowa, and appeared on television programs. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street.

"He was not a U.S. senator; he had no office," said Ferrel Guillory, a political program director at the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. "So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it."

Mr. Edwards depended for his activities in large part on donations from supporters. In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 "soft money" organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.

From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile.

"It's a permanent campaign," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group based in Washington. "It's about shaking every money tree possible and finding every means to finance a permanent campaign. It's like having different checking accounts, with different rules, and the goal of keeping your name and agenda in the public eye."

The two foundations and the two political committees all shared an address in Washington and jointly raised around $4 million. Most donations to the political committees came from his core supporters, trial lawyers and unions, and in one case from an anonymous donor, who gave $250,000. Many donations ranged from less than $10,000 to $50,000. For example, Boyd Tinsley, the violinist and backup singer for the Dave Matthews Band, gave $50,000, as did the Service Employees International Union, whose organizing efforts Mr. Edwards has supported.

The Edwards campaign defended the activities of the nonprofit.

"One of the Center for Promise and Opportunity's main goals was to raise awareness about poverty and engage people to fight it," Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager, said yesterday. "Of course, it sent Senator Edwards around the country to do this. How else could we have engaged tens of thousands of college students or sent 700 young people to help rebuild New Orleans? It's patently absurd to suggest there's anything wrong with an organization designed to raise awareness about poverty actually working to raise awareness about poverty."

"Of course, some of the people who worked for Senator Edwards in the government and on his campaign continued to work with him to fight poverty and send young people to college," he added. "Perish the thought: people involved in politics actually trying to improve peoples' lives."

Mr. Edwards also developed mutually beneficial relationships with public and private institutions. He founded the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, which provided him with a platform. In return, he raised $3 million to sustain it. He was hired by the Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund, to "develop investment opportunities," according to a 2005 Fortress news release. That led to meetings with such people as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany; Henry Kravis, founder of KKR, one of Wall Street's most successful investment funds; and the chief executives of General Electric, Citigroup, Coca-Cola and DaimlerChrysler.

"Fortress became a vehicle for foreign travel," Mr. Turlington said, "but it was also a way to spend more time with sophisticated financial people."

The Edwards campaign declined to disclose the amounts raised or spent by the two similarly-named nonprofit agencies — the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation — since their 2005 tax filings, which are the most recent to have been filed.

The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which started with $70,000 in 2005, gave out $300,000 in college scholarships in 2006, said Pamela Garland, the executive director of the College for Everyone Program that is part of the foundation. The center, often praised for helping poor students in Greene County, N.C., get into college, is on track to give out $476,000 this year, Ms. Garland said.

Mr. Edwards broke his ties to that charity once he announced his candidacy for president. "It's really just me now," said Ms. Garland, who began her job last May. She credited Mr. Edwards with devising the program, raising the money and speaking to high school students, using his own up-from-poverty story to inspire them.

At the same time, the larger nonprofit group had a more politically active agenda. Its directors included Mr. Turlington, the Raleigh lawyer; Miles Lackey, Mr. Edwards's former chief of staff; Alexis Bar, his former political scheduler; and David Ginsberg, Mr. Edwards's current deputy campaign manager.

The $1.3 million the group raised and spent in 2005 paid for travel, including Mr. Edwards's "Opportunity Rocks" tour of 10 college campuses, consultants and a Web operation. In addition, some $540,000 went for the "exploration of new ideas," according to tax filings.

Nonprofit groups can engage in political activities and not endanger their tax-exempt status so long as those activities are not its primary purpose. But the line between a bona fide charity and a political campaign is often fuzzy, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies.

"I can't say that what Mr. Edwards did was wrong," Mr. Owens said. "But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he'd fall over it."

Of the explicitly political entities, Mr. Edwards' OneAmerica Committee 527 organization allowed donors to give without limitations. The money was transferred to his leadership political action committee. Leadership committees were initially created to allow prominent politicians to raise money for distribution to needy office-seekers. But Mr. Edwards spent the entire $2.7 million he raised for OneAmerica, including $532,000 raised by the 527, on himself, an increasingly common trend among politicians.

EM Prentiss

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

His health care overhaul aims to spur research and drive down prices

By SVEN GUSTAFSON
Associated Press
Houston Chronicle,

June 14, 2007 11:50PM

DETROIT - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Thursday proposed cutting health care costs by overhauling the patent process for breakthrough drugs and requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care.

The former North Carolina senator offered details of a universal health care proposal he released in February during an appearance at the East Riverside Health Center, a federally funded community clinic.

Edwards' plan would offer cash payments in place of long-term patents for companies that develop certain breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide.

He said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce generic and other versions of those drugs to drive down prices. Campaign officials said the payments could be voluntary for drug companies and would be aimed at spurring the development of drugs that cure diseases.

"Dealing with the health care crisis is about more than just coverage," Edwards said. "Our health care system is entirely too expensive. We put more money into health care than any country in the industrialized world and we get one of the worst products out in the other end."

He also said his plan would require health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of the premiums they collect on patient care, adding that 30 percent of insurance premiums currently go toward administrative expenses and profit. He said New York, Minnesota, New Jersey and Florida already impose similar requirements.

His plan also would require that all Americans sign up for health insurance and would enact various reforms aimed at lowering administrative costs for providers and improving chronic and preventive care for patients. About 47 million people currently lack health insurance in the United States.

Edwards has faced criticism for his universal health care plan, in part because it would raise taxes and could cost $90 billion to $120 billion.

Edwards said Detroit, where General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group spend $16 billion annually on health care costs and are expected to pay $114 billion in future retiree benefits, is indicative of health care ailments felt nationwide.

"These companies and their unions made a promise to workers," he said. "And that promise was that they'd have health care coverage. And now it's time for the government to meet its share of the responsibility of ensuring that those promises are met."

Edwards previously has proposed that employers be required to provide health coverage to workers or pay into a government fund to support insurance and allow workers to choose among plans.

A rival Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, has proposed providing health care to millions of Americans and making medical insurance more affordable, financed by tax increases on the wealthy.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Information provided by AAPD
back to 2008 Presidential Election



AAPD, ADAPT, NCIL, SABE Questionnaire – Senator John Edwards Response

June 12, 2007

1. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
   
   1. Do you support the creation and appointment of a permanent Assistant to the President for Disability Policy at the White House?
      
      The federal government can and should do much more to help Americans with disabilities achieve independence, productivity, and inclusion. Too often, these issues are not even on the agenda in Washington. Policies affecting people with disabilities can only succeed if they are crafted with the help of people who understand firsthand the challenges Americans with disabilities and their families face. As president, I will ensure that a senior member of the White House staff is dedicated to ensuring that these issues are brought to my personal attention and given the top priority they deserve.
      
      
      
   2. How will you make sure qualified people with disabilities will be a part of your political team and, if elected, as part of your administration?
      
      To be effective, a presidential administration must include a diversity of perspectives. I am already working to ensure the perspectives of people with disabilities are included in my campaign by assembling a group of policy advisors, including people with disabilities, issue experts and advocates. If elected, I would appoint qualified people with disabilities to important jobs throughout my administration, not only jobs that are focused on disability policy. For me this is not just a matter of fairness: it is about having the best possible Administration, which means including a great diversity of perspectives and backgrounds.
      
      I would also make the federal government a model of diversity for the private workplace. Federal agencies should actively recruit qualified people with disabilities and remove the obstacles for working Americans with disabilities, such as supporting initiatives for telecommuting and flexible work schedules.
      
      The president must hear the needs and concerns of the 56 million people in America who have disabilities. The issues that people with disabilities are fighting for, like protecting civil rights, better education, good jobs and health care, will only make America stronger in the future. I am committed to maintaining open lines of communication with Americans with disabilities.
2. EMPLOYMENT
   1. What steps would you take to reduce employment barriers and improve employment outcomes for Americans with disabilities?
      Work is central to our lives, not only for economic independence but also to give our lives dignity and meaning. However, two out of three working-age Americans with disabilities are out of work today. Excluding anyone from mainstream American life is morally unacceptable. It also needlessly wastes great potential. Reducing barriers can create tremendous economic opportunity for our country.
      One of the goals I have set for America is lifting 12 million Americans out of poverty in a decade and eliminating poverty in America over the next 30 years. It is something we must do to restore our moral authority in the world. Restoring our moral authority means leading by example and making clear that hard challenges don't frighten us, but call us to action.
      In America, every person should have the chance to live up to his or her potential at work and in our communities. We cannot achieve that goal without addressing the barriers that confront Americans with disabilities when they seek to work. Too often, people with disabilities are denied that opportunity because unfair obstacles get in their way. I believe we must break down these barriers, and I have a comprehensive agenda to give every American equal opportunity.
      First, we must concentrate on young people with disabilities who have higher dropout rates and lower college enrollment rates, making future employment more difficult. We must remove barriers to education. Those who do graduate have more difficulty finding a first job and getting their careers on track. Education must be accessible in elementary and secondary schools and in vocational schools, community colleges, universities, and graduate programs. I will ensure that the Department of Education strictly enforces the law and brings together experts to address means to eliminate these barriers.
      We lose far too many Americans with disabilities in the transition from school to either the workplace or higher education. My Breaking Down Barriers initiative will give young people meaningful job experiences and create a sense of the possibilities of their future. It will provide them valuable skills and contacts for finding a job after graduation, helping them on the path towards success and self-sufficiency. I support vocational rehabilitation programs and the expansion of employment-based settings for federally-funded job education.
      Second, we must extend the possibility of independent living. For people with disabilities, living within their own communities is essential to job opportunities. Work from home opportunities exist in greater quantity and quality when a person with a disability has family and home resources to utilize each day. Full oversight of state implementation of the Olmstead requirements will be a core objective in my administration. I will also create 1 million new Section 8 housing choice vouchers and support ongoing funding of existing vouchers, creating greater housing opportunities for people with disabilities. A portion of these vouchers will serve low-income people with disabilities. To ensure accessibility, I will instruct the Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine whether local housing authorities are complying with requirements to provide a list of accessible units; regular publication of these lists is the only meaningful way to demonstrate compliance.
      Third, the federal government has an important role in ensuring access to transportation. Accessible transportation is a critical component of increased work opportunities for people with disabilities. Funding and enforcement of transportation access requirements will be central to the mission of the Department of Transportation.
      Fourth, we owe a special debt to veterans with disabilities. I would restore vocational training programs for disabled and occupationally challenged veterans. The Bush administration terminated the well-regarded program at the Department of Labor that offered skill training and job placement for disabled veterans. I would renew the program to help meet the post-Iraq needs of large numbers of military personnel returning from active duty, as well as older generations of veterans.
      Fifth, to fight stereotypes and misconceptions, my Administration will work with national business leaders to create employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Employers who have a positive experience will be likely be more willing to hire someone with a disability in the future.
      Finally, we must vigorously enforce the law. I am committed to protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities. Full enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act is critical to continued job opportunities for people with disabilities. We should be sure that federal agencies are ensuring compliance by federal contractors, going beyond the current minimalist approach described by a recent report of the National Council on Disabilities. The Civil Rights Division and Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice will become more involved in the enforcement of the ADA and especially the Olmstead decision. Open communication with the disabilities community will be essential to the mission of the Justice Department in enforcing these federal protections for the disabilities community in both the public and private workplaces. As president, I would nominate judges who are committed to protecting the rights of all Americans. While I served in the Senate, I was proud to vote against the judicial nomination of Jeffrey Sutton, who argued that federal protections of the ADA were not needed.
   2. How would you reform the federal income support programs (Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance) so that beneficiaries enjoy a greater standard of living and participate more fully in the labor market?
      Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Income should not be an all-ornothing proposition for people with disabilities. SSDI asset requirements should permit beneficiaries to accumulate more assets without losing all benefits. I also believe we can provide incentives for SSDI recipients to earn reasonable income without losing Medicare and all supplemental income benefits. By doing so, we can promote economic opportunities for people with disabilities as well as strengthen the Social Security system.
      While we are eliminating disincentives for people with disabilities to accumulate assets, we also ought to help them actually build assets. For example, there is a lot we can do to expand home ownership within the disability community. People with disabilities should be able to buy a house and get loans to make universal design accommodations and other equity-building home improvements. I will also create a strong, national law banning predatory lending practices, which are targeted to vulnerable homeowners and result in equity-stripping and often foreclosure.
   3. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, between 1993 and 2004, federal workers with significant disabilities left the federal workforce at rate more than seven times the general reduction in the federal workforce during that period. What actions would you take to ensure that qualified workers with disabilities are given meaningful opportunities to participate in the federal workforce at all levels?
      The disappointing trend of people with disabilities leaving the federal workforce has not happened by accident. The percentage of federal employees with targeted disabilities – which are blindness, deafness, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, mental illness, mental retardation, convulsive disorders, and distortion of limbs or spine – did not increase at all from 1984 to 2005. I am committed to realizing the goal of Executive Order 13163: 100,000 qualified individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce.
      
      
      Americans with disabilities still face too many obstacles and discrimination in the workplace. I will make federal agencies a model for private workplaces by actively recruiting people with disabilities and removing obstacles, including creating initiatives for telecommuting and flexible work schedules.
      As president, I will fully enforce Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Architectural Barriers Act, and all other civil rights laws supporting access to employment for people with disabilities. The White House and the Department of Justice will work with the disabilities community to increase access to employment opportunities and identify and end workplace discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal government.
      I will reach out to appoint people with disabilities to high-ranking government positions. Visible integration of people with disabilities into the highest ranks of federal employees will send the right message of diversity and inclusiveness.
      I will also expand health care coverage for assistive technology and health care access for federal employees with disabilities.
3. HEALTH CARE FOR ALL
   1. What steps would you take to ensure that people with disabilities have access to affordable, quality health care that is responsive to their needs?
      I understand that health care is of special concern to people with disabilities. Not only do they have particularly important needs, but their independence often depends on good health care.
      We must act now to guarantee universal health care coverage for everyone in America. I am proud to be the first major presidential candidate to propose a specific plan to transform America's health care system and guarantee quality affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America. Under my plan, businesses will either cover their employees or help pay their premiums. The government will make insurance affordable through new tax credits and by leading the way toward more cost-effective care. New "Health Care Markets" will give families and businesses purchasing power and a choice of quality plans, including one public plan based on Medicare. Finally, once these steps have been taken, all American residents will be required to take responsibility and get insurance. Insurance companies will not be allowed to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions or disabilities.
      Under my plan, families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price. Families that have insurance today will pay less and get more security and choices. Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.
      Beyond guaranteeing coverage, there is much that we can do to ensure that people with disabilities receive quality care. Medical training and education should help primary care physicians, dentists and allied health practitioners to work with adults with disabilities. Currently, federal funding for training physicians to treat patients with disabilities is focused on pediatric practitioners, but most people with disabilities are adults. Under my plan, we will establish a non-profit or public organization – possibly within the Institute of Medicine – to research the best methods of providing care, drawing upon data from Medicare and the new Health Care Markets and from medical experts from across the nation. Understanding and disseminating best practices for treating patients with disabilities will be an essential part of this initiative.
   2. How or will you use managed care principles to deliver healthcare services?
      Managed care has shown some success in managing the health needs to people with chronic health conditions and it should be a choice for people with disabilities. However, people with disabilities need access to specialists and care that is not artificially limited by narrow definitions of medical necessity.
      There are also other ways to integrate care across multiple settings. I have called for investments in information technology and other initiatives to ensure that individuals with disabilities do not fall victim to the fragmentation of care. Something is wrong, for example, when the quirks of disparate payment systems – Medicaid reimbursing for institutional care, while Medicare pays for doctors – prevent health care providers from sharing information that could help patients.
   3. How would you improve the quality of health and rehabilitation services provided to veterans with disabilities?
      
      The VA has already seen over 200,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. We must do everything we can to properly care for these brave men and women and help them get timely access to care by fully funding veterans' health care. I am committed to providing the funding the VA needs to care for those who have sacrificed for the rest of us.
      Traumatic brain injuries have been described by the Veterans of Foreign Wars as the "signature wound of this war." Rather than addressing these problems, the Bush Administration is pretending they don't exist. As president, I will increase the research and treatment of these injuries and the conditions that follow from them, including epilepsy, related seizures and other conditions that can cause disabilities. I will also increase funding for the VA's prosthetics programs and polytrauma centers.
      As a nation, America did not give enough to veterans returning from the Vietnam War, leaving thousands without the care they desperately needed. We need to admit our mistakes and learn from them. As president, I will require that all service members returning to the U.S. or leaving the military be provided with a new "Homefront Redeployment Plan," including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screenings, benefits information and seamless transfer of medical records.
      When the members of our armed services become veterans, we have to make sure the system doesn't fail them. As president, I will create a new national chain of care to ensure that no veteran again falls through the cracks. Because many veterans receive treatment outside the VA system, this chain will coordinate treatment and benefits in outreach centers and clinics in every county where a veteran resides, both within and outside the VA network. I will also improve training for health personnel to recognize and treat PTSD, establish uniform standards for mental health care to address the wide range of quality of care, increase counseling resources within TRICARE and VA networks and permit access outside of the networks when necessary, and ensure that outreach is extended to family members who can help recognize symptoms. Caring for the newest generation of veterans must be accomplished without neglecting the continuing needs of veterans from previous generations.
   4. How would you improve the quality of health and rehabilitation services provided to Native Americans with disabilities? Do you support the reauthorization of the Indian Healthcare Act?
      
      Native Americans face unique health challenges: less access to health care, high rates of certain chronic conditions, and an infant mortality rate that is nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for white Americans. The U.S. government has an obligation to address these inequities and live up to its historic commitments to Native Americans.
      The first step is to adequately fund the Indian Health Service. While in the Senate, I voted for increased IHS funding. I also support the badly needed improvements in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. To ensure that Indian health gets the attention it deserves, I support elevating the position of the Director of Indian Health Services to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Health. I have proposed increasing research on medical disparities and creating a new health unit within the U.S. Department of Justice to address discrimination in health care.
      As I said above, training to educate health care practitioners on best practices for treating people with disabilities is essential, and it is part of my plan to improve the quality of care for every American.
   5. How will you assure people with disabilities have fair access to Medicare Part D prescriptions?
      
      A recent report by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) documented that patients suffering from mental illnesses are unable to get the prescription drugs they need through Medicare Part D. That is unacceptable. The federal government should enforce rules preventing Medicare drug plans from switching patients to new drugs, which can upset months or years of work for patients and their health providers to find the right combination of specific medications.
      The federal government must ensure that Medicare Part D participants are able to access the prescriptions drug they need to maintain their health and independence.
      When I am president, I will rewrite the drug bill to put patients and people above drug companies and HMOs. I will clamp down on skyrocketing drug costs by empowering the government to negotiate better drug prices and allowing the safe reimportation of drugs from other countries. The Medicare prescription drug benefit is needlessly expensive due to giveaways to drug companies. Steps to reform the program should include addressing the "doughnut hole," where many beneficiaries with high drugs costs find themselves without coverage.
   6. How will you address the inequities caused by the Medicare "homebound" rule?
      Medicare emphasis on institutional care, rather than home and community-based care, is out of date. Unreasonably narrow eligibility rules for in-home benefits fail to consider current medical technology, which have made it easier for people with disabilities or chronic health conditions to travel. Perverse Medicare rules may force people with serious disabilities to give up opportunities to leave home and have as normal a social experience as possible outside the house to maximize Medicare benefits.
      I will promote community-based care by fixing these unfair, outdated and bureaucratic rules that prevent Medicare beneficiaries from getting the things they need to live at home, such as wheelchairs. I support the Medicare Independent Living Act.
   7. Do you support ongoing Congressional efforts to ensure mental health parity in health insurance (S.558, H.R. 1367)?
      Yes, I believe mental illness and physical illness must get the same insurance coverage. I have long supported mental health parity legislation. I co-sponsored the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act when I served in the Senate. Mental health parity must be a national priority. Under my plan to guarantee quality, affordable health care for all Americans, every plan in the regional Health Markets includes comprehensive benefits -- including full mental health coverage.
4. LONG TERM SERVICES AND SUPPORTS
   1. How would you address America's increasing need for home and community-based long-term services and supports (such as personal assistance services, respite care, and other supports)?
      Yes. I believe strongly in giving people with disabilities the choice of care in their communities. I cosponsored the predecessor to the Community Choice Act when I was in the Senate to offer personal attendant services though Medicaid. The Community Choice Act will help states comply with their Olmstead responsibilities.
      I have a longstanding commitment to the cause of supporting people with disabilities to live independently. I also supported the Long-Term Care Security Act of 2000 (HR 4040).
      1. Do you support the Community Choice Act of 2007 (S.799, H.R. 1621) and/or the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act of 2007 (CLASS Act of 2007)?
         
         I support providing choices for people with disabilities to live in the community and will support legislation that strengthens freedom of choice.
         
         
      2. What other steps would you take to help states implement the Olmstead v. L.C. Supreme Court decision and help address the institutional bias in the current Medicaid system?
         The Supreme Court's Olmstead decision held that the ADA required states to offer services to individuals with disabilities in the most integrated, community-based setting possible. This was an important victory for disability rights. Unfortunately, states are still struggling to implement Olmstead. The federal government must help states by supporting the transition to communitybased services and offering technical assistance.
         I have proposed a "Living with Dignity" Initiative built on basic American principles: choice for families, the chance to get care in the home and community whenever possible, dignity and respect for both families and workers, and accountability for providers and the government.
         My Living with Dignity Initiative will fund state efforts to expand home care and reform the long-term care, including tax credits for long-term care, asset and income protection programs that prevent families from spending down their incomes, and experiments with long-term care insurance. I will also support the recruitment and retention of home care workers through better wages, training, and working conditions.
         In addition, my plan to guarantee quality, affordable health care for every American will also strengthen Medicaid's support for long-term care and emphasize home- and community-based care to allow caregivers to keep their family members nearby.
   2. Will you propose integrating acute and long-term services by using integrated managed care principles?
      
      I believe that people with disabilities should be able to fully enjoy the benefits of living in a home of their choosing and in a community of their choosing. They should be able to have their primary and specialty health care needs met by a system that recognizes their desire for independence, inclusion and productivity. Arbitrary quirks in health care payment systems should not limit the settings and varieties of delivery systems for primary and acute care.
      
      
      Integrated managed care holds the promise of focusing on patient needs rather than reimbursement rules. When implemented correctly, the integration of acute and long term care can make it easier for people with disabilities to live independently.
      However, the risks are high because managed care providers have incentives to deny care. It would be wrong to rush to implement integrated managed care without waiting for thoughtful program design, which stresses effective safeguards, coordination of care, and evaluation. I believe this process requires the full participation of the disabilities community. I would support demonstration projects that are thoroughly evaluated, and include people with disabilities in both the design and the evaluation. Without adequate oversight, patients will end up worse off, and that is unacceptable.
   3. How will you address the shortage of community direct care attendants?
      Millions of people with disabilities rely on attendants to help them live and work in their communities. These workers assist people with disabilities with activities of daily living, medication administration, preparing and eating meals, getting to work, gaining life skills and handling other daily affairs.
      Demand for these workers is growing. Hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities are on waiting lists for services and the demand will grow 62 percent by 2010 as these Americans get older. Unfortunately, these positions have a high turnover rate each year because of poor wages and job demands, putting the quality of life for people with disabilities at risk. My Living with Dignity Initiative includes specific steps to attract, support and retain home health aides and attendants. These workers ought to be treated with the same dignity and respect that we ask them to give to their patients. As president, I will provide resources to improve wages, training, and working conditions for aides. I will also establish strong workplace safety regulations such as the ergonomics regulations discarded by President Bush.
   4. How will you address the lack of coordination between Medicare and Medicaid policies?
      Medicare and Medicaid were developed for different purposes, but neither focused on the needs of people with disabilities. Medicare offers the strength of allowing people the freedom to choose their providers. Medicaid offers an appealing list of benefits, although it is limited by inadequate reimbursement in some states. However, the interaction between the two programs creates inappropriate incentives.
      Medicaid provides long-term care but remains biased toward providing that care in institutional settings. Nursing home care remains a Medicaid entitlement, while people with disabilities who prefer home and community-based care are often put on a waiting list. As a result, low-income Americans with disabilities who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare tend to (1) have less choice in how they are treated and (2) receive their care in more restrictive – and more costly – settings than a more integrated system would permit. In addition, states don't invest in treatment initiatives that would improve patient care for Medicare-eligible patients because the savings will disproportionately go to the federal Medicare program.
      Because Medicare and Medicaid operate on two different levels of government, it can be very difficult to synchronize reforms. But the task must start with strong federal leadership. As president, I will appoint an administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services who understands the needs of people with disabilities, and I will work to assure that both programs work to deliver the best possible care in the least restrictive setting.
5. HOUSING
   1. What would you do to increase the availability of affordable, accessible, integrated housing opportunities in the community for low and moderate income people with disabilities and their families?
      Integrating people with disabilities into every part of society is the only way to guarantee equal access to all of the opportunities of society. It is also the morally right choice for society to make. Housing policy is central to this effort because integrating people with disabilities must start with where they live.
      As I said above, a portion of the one million new Section 8 housing vouchers will serve people with disabilities – increasing greater integrated housing opportunities for people with disabilities, particularly those leaving institutional care. At least 5,000 of these vouchers over five years should be dedicated to people with disabilities making the transition from institutional care to independent living. I will direct HUD to ensure compliance with accessibility requirements that local housing authorities publish a list of accessible units. I will also expand outreach and education efforts to ensure that eligible Americans with disabilities know how to apply for vouchers.
      We must also reform Section 811 housing – the segregated housing program for people with disabilities – to move toward more affordable, more accessible, integrated housing. In addition to ensuring affordable housing, the federal government has to do more to ensure that housing that receives federal funding – including tax credit financing – is accessible. We need to work to remove the obstacles that people with disabilities face when they go to visit their friends and family.
      Finally, as I said above, I want to expand home ownership and home rental opportunities within the disability community.
      
   2. How will you assure the vigorous implementation of all Fair Housing Laws?
      Vigorous implementation of Fair Housing laws starts with appointing officials committed to protecting the civil rights of every American. The next step is providing sufficient resources for effective enforcement. It continues by nominating judges who are committed to protecting the civil rights of regular Americans. Judge Alito's Fair Housing decisions, for example, show the damage that the judiciary can do.
      The last and most important step is leadership. As president, I will direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make the enforcement of Section 504 a priority alongside the Fair Housing Act.
      There is so much more HUD can do: ensure that housing built with federal low-income housing tax credits complies with accessibility requirements, actually follow up on the findings of the groundbreaking "Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities: Barriers at Every Step" HUD study; and study the effect of increased federal grants to faith-based organizations. As a very first step, I would ask my HUD Secretary to explain how HUD has implemented the 2001recommendations of the National Council on Disabilities and justify its reasoning for anyrecommendations it has ignored.
   3. How will you assure that HUD implements programs that will assist states in complying with the Olmstead decision?
      
      Ensuring compliance with the Olmstead decision must be a central part of HUD's ongoing civil rights work. Moving people with disabilities from institutional care to less restrictive settings is now the law of the land. Yet hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans continue to live in congregate care settings because accessible and affordable home-based care and housing are not available. HUD needs to play a major role in ensuring that the legal standard is reflected in the real world.
      First, HUD's civil rights and compliance staff should ensure that their state agency counterparts are communicating with health services agencies to make them aware of their Olmstead obligations.
      Second, as our country's primary housing agency, HUD – working together with state and local agencies must ensure the availability of affordable and accessible so that the Olmstead holding is not an empty promise. Today, multi-year waiting lists are a barrier to achieving the vision of Olmstead.
      Third, to help ensure an adequate supply of appropriate housing, I will target a minimum of 5,000 housing vouchers over five years to help individuals move from institutional care to independent living and take the other steps described above to increase the supply of affordable and accessible housing.
      Fourth, I will help local housing authorities to work with disabilities groups, aging organizations and Medicaid programs to ensure that individuals in their communities have the opportunity to live in the most integrated setting possible.
6. TRANSPORTATION
   1. What would you do to expand access to affordable, accessible transportation for people with disabilities, especially in rural areas?
      Accessible transportation is a critical component of increased work opportunities for people with disabilities. For most jobs, you cannot work if you cannot get from your house to the job site. Only 69 percent of people with disabilities have a way to get to a job.
      Funding and enforcement of transportation access requirements will be central to the mission of the Department of Transportation. In addition, HUD funding for accessible local transportation and DOJ enforcement of the ADA are critical components to ensure local transportation that is fully accessible for people with disabilities. As a strong supporter of mass transit, I believe we must invest in providing more mass transit and ensuring that it is accessible to people with disabilities and meets their needs, such as "kneeling" buses that make it easier to board. I support increasing federal funding for nonprofit groups to meet the transportation needs of people with disabilities when public mass transit is not available.
      Things that sound little can be very important to ensuring accessibility. Clearing snow, removing standing water, providing shelter from wind and rain can make the difference between a bus or train stop that is accessible and one that is not. Train systems should have worker training to provide assistance across gaps between train cars and stations, with appropriate universal signage. The federal government has the power through Section 504 to ensure these efforts are made. It should use it.
      In addition to mass transit, the Justice Department can also enforce accessibility requirements for taxis and other common carriers. And common sense will ensure security needs are managed with dignity for people with disabilities -- the Transportation Safety Administration should use uniform, reasonable screening for people with disabilities that do not cause unnecessary pain, discomfort or delay in air travel.
      Beyond mass transit, which is often not a viable solution in rural America, we can do more to support mobility for drivers with disabilities. Electronic toll collection passes (e.g., EZ-PASS) make toll-paying much safer for individuals who rely on hand controls to operate their vehicles. They are more a necessity than a convenience. I would require states to waive fees for the passes for low-income people with disabilities.
      Hurricane Katrina highlighted that the need for reliable, affordable, accessible transportation is not limited to accomplishing everyday life and work functions. It can be – and – was the difference between life and death for hundreds of people in New Orleans and the Gulf Coat. People with disabilities were disproportionately affected – such as those who died in the hurricane and its aftermath or who were stranded in the Superdome because their needs were often overlooked or completely disregarded. Our emergency preparedness planning absolutely must do a better job of reflecting the needs of people with disabilities.
7. EDUCATION
   1. How would you ensure that students with disabilities are included within and accommodated as part of the accountability measures of No Child Left Behind?
      One of the benefits of No Child Left Behind is that all students are included within a school's accountability system. Special education is a part of general education. Holding schools accountable for their success at teaching children – including children with disabilities – will help us strengthen our schools. As president, I will make sure the Department of Education focuses on the need to treat children with disabilities inclusively within the No Child Left Behind accountability framework. However, much of the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be improved. The accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind need to be overhauled. They are often illogical and arbitrary, and they have damaging effects in the classroom. And we need higher quality assessments to more accurately measure all students' learning.
      I support more research, technical assistance, and professional development about what constitutes valid and reliable assessments for the full range of students with disabilities.
   2. Do you support full federal funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
      For more than a quarter-century, the federal government has rightly insisted that every child with special needs receive a free and appropriate public education. However, it has failed to provide even half of its share of the cost, placing excessive burdens on local school budgets and undermining efforts to provide an excellent education to all children. I have repeatedly voted to fully fund special education and to make the funding mandatory. As president, I will continue to support full funding for the education of children with disabilities.
   3. What ideas do you have for strengthening federal enforcement of IDEA?
      As president, I will strengthen enforcement by the Department of Education so children with disabilities receive the free, appropriate education they deserve and are legally entitled to. The first principles are the same as with Fair Housing – appointing strong enforcement officials, nominating fair judges, providing adequate resources and exercising leadership to make enforcement a priority.
      A strong partnership between the Departments of Education and Justice is key, and I will seek the most qualified people with disabilities to fill leadership positions at both agencies. Sharing data between the two departments will permit faster response to complaints and better evaluation of individual education plans. Full funding will assist IDEA enforcement in both the DOE and DOJ. My administration will draw upon the experience of educators, administrators and advocates who have successfully implemented IDEA programs as models for other states and communities to follow.
      At the same time, I oppose Republican efforts to roll back key provisions of the IDEA. Whether it is denying access to attorneys by putting artificial caps on fees or stripping children with disabilities of civil rights, we must stop rollbacks of IDEA.
   4. What ideas do you have for increasing the high school graduation rate of students served by IDEA?
      We must address the higher dropout rates and lower college enrollment rates for students with disabilities. The starting place must be fully funding IDEA.
      Providing Individualized Education Program when requested, with meaningful complaint opportunities for parents who cannot obtain one, or negotiate a meaningful one, will help keep children with disabilities in school and help them graduate.
      For students with disabilities, planning for the transition from school to adult life must start early. I will make sure that the Department of Education works with states to put effective and accountable transition planning into place.
      Many dropouts realize dropping out was a mistake. America is about second chances, so I don't see why we shouldn't have "second-chance schools" to lift up former dropouts, offering them one-on-one attention and a chance to earn a diploma at night or at a local community college. In addition, my Breaking Down Barriers initiative will help high school and college students with disabilities find internships, so they can experience the working world and be encouraged to stay in school. This initiative will also provide them valuable skills and contacts for finding a job after graduation, helping them on the path towards success and self-sufficiency.
   5. How would you improve services for students transitioning from school to employment? From high school to higher education?
      The challenges of helping young people with disabilities matriculate to college and get their first job are equaled only by the reward for society of integrating them into the workplace. There is so much we can do – so much we must do – to help students make these transitions successfully.
      Too many students lack the encouragement and guidance they need to apply to college. The challenges are even greater for students with disabilities. In some large cities, a single counselor must serve more than 700 students. I will help every low-income high school eligible for Title I hire a new college counselor, helping students choose college-track courses and navigate the admissions and financial aid process.
      As president, I will support vocational rehabilitation programs and the expansion of employment-based settings for federally-funded job education.
      I also believe the work-study experience that my Breaking Down Barriers initiative will offer to young people with disabilities will help many make the transition from school to work.
8. TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
   1. Do you support legislative measures to require that Internet technologies be made accessible to and usable by people with disabilities?
      I believe that as the internet becomes ubiquitous, it must become more inclusive. Just as we made sure that now old-fashioned copper-wire telephone service was accessible, we must do the same with new technologies that have the same importance. I would support legislation to achieve that goal. The 2006 National Council on Disability report is an excellent starting place.
      Because the technology is changing so quickly, as president, in my first year in office, I will convene a task force with significant representation from the disabilities community to rapidly update the 2006 report and make legislative recommendations for my administration to ensure that internet and IP-based services are accessible. Key areas will include accessibility for Voice Over Internet service, instant messaging, and captioning for internet television.
      Aside from legislation, my campaign is committed to making our web site and internet video transmissions accessible. We have already taken several steps to do so.
   2. What measures would you propose to ensure that consumer electronic and telecommunications devices are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities?
      I support updating telecommunications policy to ensure that new applications like internet-based telephone service and video services are made accessible. We should update the original Communications Act to make sure that as the internet replaces older telephone systems, access for people with disabilities remains guaranteed.
   3. How would you ensure enforcement of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act?
      
      Congress enacted Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act to make sure that the federal government uses both its procurement policy and its law enforcement power to make information technology and software as accessible as possible. But these laws can't just sit on the books. We must enforce them.
      As with Fair Housing, effective law enforcement depends upon able staff appointments, a fair judiciary, adequate resources and strong leadership. I am committed to appointing enforcement officials and nominating judges who are committing to protecting the civil rights of all Americans.
      I will communicate clearly that enforcement of laws that ensure accessibility to essential life activities and means of commerce will be a priority in my administration. And I will provide the funding necessary for the Justice Department and the FCC to make sure that the federal government is using its purchasing power and enforcement ability to achieve the goals of more accessible technology for all Americans with disabilities. I will also ensure adequate training for DOJ and FCC employees to implement these laws and rely upon ongoing dialogue with the disabilities community to determine technology access needs and implement suggestions for greater universal access.
   4. Would you support restoration of full funding for the Technology-related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act programs?
      
      
      Yes. Strong federal leadership is essential in order to close the growing digital divide between people with and without disabilities. Federal support for state programs leverages additional public and private support. Advancements and distribution of assistive technology opens doors of opportunity for people with disabilities and older Americans.
9. VOTING
   1. What steps would you take as President to ensure that voters with disabilities are able to vote privately and independently, consistent with the requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)?
      America must do much more to guarantee every citizen a meaningful right to vote. Denying Americans with disabilities the right to vote privately and independently is inconsistent with our nation's most fundamental values.
      I will help every precinct provide enough trained poll workers and secure voting machines that are physically accessible to all. I do not believe that touch-screen machines without paper ballots can guarantee voting integrity. Touch-screen voting machines that also record votes on verifiable paper ballots may satisfy my concerns about both integrity and access. Voting systems must also protect ballot privacy for people with disabilities.
      Voting rights is an example of an area where the disability community provides the best information about which ballot systems work best. My administration would have an ongoing dialogue with the community to ensure meaningful disability voting rights protections, including real-time election day enforcement.
      I also support election day registration, which would increase voter turnout while ending the fiasco of provisional ballots, purge lists and bad-faith suppression of voter registration drives.
   2. Would you require the Census Bureau, in its surveys of people with disabilities, to ask questions regarding whether the respondents are registered to vote and whether they voted in the last election?
      It is not good enough for government to just mandate accessibility standards for voting machines. We must follow up and measure whether, in fact, the standards are working. Are people with disabilities able to participate fully in our democracy?
      As president, I will ask relevant government agencies, including the National Council on Disabilities and representatives of the disabilities community to determine the best ways to measure whether accessibility standards are working. These ways may include use of the census, as well as other means.
      In addition, I support using the ADA definition of disabilities in the decennial census. Because so many public and private programs rely on the ADA definition for assessing needs, it makes sense that we obtain national, state and local data based on the same definition.
10. CIVIL RIGHTS
    1. Of the existing members of the U.S. Supreme Court, which justices do you consider models for the kinds of federal judges you would appoint if elected president?
       I am committed to nominating judges at all levels who are committing to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Among current Justices on the Supreme Court, I particularly admire Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
    2. Do you support an ADA Restoration Act, such as the bill introduced in the last Congress?
       Yes. I have long supported measures to restore protections for people with disabilities that the courts have eliminated through narrow legal interpretation. We must ensure that the ADA remains consistent with Congress' original intent and restore civil rights protections to people with epilepsy, depression, diabetes, cancer and other conditions. As president I will support legislation to accomplish this goal.
    3. What steps will you take to protect the diminishment of the civil rights protections under the ADA?
       
       The Americans with Disabilities Act must live up to its broad goal of achieving equal opportunities and breaking down barriers for people with disabilities. Fair treatment of people with disabilities is civil rights issue, and it must be a priority. As president I will support measures to help people with disabilities achieve full integration in society.
       We need to ensure the ADA is applied and interpreted consistently with its original intent – not weaken it. That is why I have opposed attempts to weaken the ADA like the ADA Notification Act, which tried to put unnecessary procedural barriers in the way of individuals enforcing their civil rights.
11. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
    1. Do you support U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocal?
       Yes. The failure of the United States to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol is inexcusable. Once the leader in civil rights for persons with disabilities, the U.S. failure has been a step backwards for the American Disability Rights movement.
       I support ratification of the Convention and its Optional Protocol. This is a first step in committing America to its implementation in areas of the world where our technical knowledge on how to create integrated living, educational and health care access will create opportunity for persons with disabilities. For example, the United States has been a leader in implementing assistive technology. We should be sharing our knowledge with the world. Embracing the Convention and showing leadership in its implementation can help restore America's image in the world as a leader in the advancement of human rights.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

We see it all the time — when voters learn about who John is and the country we're all working to build, they want to help out. So today, we're launching a big, fun new way to spread the word and raise some dough. The only question is: Are you ready to party?

On Wednesday, June 27th we're throwing "Parties for Change" in 500 living rooms like yours across all 50 states. At each party, we'll gather local folks to watch a great new video, enjoy some food and conversation, raise some cash, and talk live with John about how we can make a difference.

Can you host a Party for Change at your place Wednesday evening, June 27th? Just sign up below to get started:

http://party.johnedwards.com/

Hosting a party is easy: We'll send you a step-by-step guide, a free party kit with the DVD, and even some bumper stickers and other goodies for you and your guests.

All you do is sign up online, set a fundraising goal for your party, invite your friends to come over and chip in, put out some munchies and enjoy a great time Wednesday night. (If that night is impossible you can try a different day, but the live calls with John are all Wednesday night).

Here's what James K. of Oakland, CA said about his John Edwards House Party this spring:

It was a great experience overall, and surprisingly simple to set up. We had a great conversation about why we support Edwards, and it was really cool to hear him answer questions from parties like ours. Most importantly, we all left fired up about this campaign, and now we all have new friends to work with!

Can we pull off 500 parties in one night? Absolutely. Just last week, this amazing online community came together and beat our goal of 10,000 contributors by John's birthday on June 10. And we've only just begun to grow.

This campaign is built on bold, specific ideas for changing this country—which isn't what the media likes to talk about. That means it's up to us—the thousands of us who share this vision— to spread the word person by person and raise money to directly reach voters nationwide.

So on Wednesday the 27th, let's Party for Change. Sign up to host yours below:

http://party.johnedwards.com/

Thank you,
David Bonior
Campaign Manager
John Edwards for President

P.S. If you can't host a party Wednesday the 27th, please support Party for Change with a contribution to help fund the effort: $30 dollars will help cover the costs of all the materials needed for one party:
www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/form

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post