RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Clinton-Edwards two step
November 13, 2007 3:09 PM
FIRST ... John Edwards introduced a TV ad in Iowa, threatening Congress to take away health insurance from Members of Congress if they haven't passed universal health care by July 2009.
"When I'm president, I'm gonna to say to members of Congress, and members of my administration, including my Cabinet, 'I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm gonna to use my power as president to take your health care away from you.'" Edwards says to applause. "There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care."
Watch the ad HERE.
THEN Clinton spokesman Phil Singer took a whack at the ad.
"In 2004, John Edwards was critical of other Democrats for proposing universal health care," Singer said. "Now he says he'll get it done by employing an unconstitutional tactic. That's not the way we're going to get universal health care in America. We'll get universal health care by electing someone who has the strength and experience to actually get it done -- Hillary Clinton."
NOW Edwards spox Chris Kofinis is hammering Clinton for Singer's comment.
"Today, Senator Clinton made it crystal clear where she stands: she defends health care for politicians while millions of Americans and their families go without care," Kofinis says. "Voters have a clear choice between John Edwards, who will fight to finally pass universal health care, and Senator Clinton, who seems intent on defending the Washington establishment."
This is a silly debate on one level -- I don't actually think there's any way a president can take Congress's health insurance away. (His Cabinet's may be another matter.)
And even if he could, the move might seem awfully cruel for those members of Congress with bad health (or relatives in bad health) who depend upon health insurance.
That said, it's political bait and the Clinton folks just tried to snack on it.
Why take the bait?
Unless … you're worried ….
-- jt
UPDATE: Our homies at FactCheck call foul on Edwards' ad, calling its threat "misleading and empty."
November 13, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (23)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I love Edwards' idea. I've thought for years that members of Congress should be paid the going federal minimum wage. The only problem would be that only the wealthy would be able to afford to serve in Congress. But isn't that the way it is now anyway?
Posted by: DKNY | Nov 13, 2007 4:08:02 PM
Sounds like the Clinton campaign is worried and rightly so.
I took the Edwards proposal to mean that he'd propose legislation and then use the bully pulpit to get Congress moving on getting universal healthcare for Americnas. I actually like the idea. If they don't do it the American people will be awfully mad that they are keeping their plan and not giving the American people universal care. It's a pretty clever idea.
Posted by: pmorlan | Nov 13, 2007 3:57:57 PM
I think Edwards is over-stating his case. He certainly doesn't have the power, even as president, to take away Congress' health insurance. Perhaps, he is promising to lead the charge for a proposed bill which would do that. I frankly cannot see that passing. No one is more self-interested than members of Congress. However, Clinton is taking the bait because her campaign is crumbling under pressure. She is very good at railing against the establishment, but she does not know how to answer criticism now that she is leading the polls. Edwards is a much more effective litigator than Clinton. He knows how to argue a case. Clinton would be wise not to make a federal case out of this. However, Clinton hasn't shown much wisdom in the past week or so.
Posted by: Sean O'Brien | Nov 13, 2007 3:33:57 PM
Post a comment
