My take is that his share of the “vote” constitutes the “base-line” Democratic vote in 2008….These are the people who prefer the “generic Democrat” to whomever the Repubs serve up. The less enthusiastic reception for Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama results from her being, well, too much Hillary/too much Clinton [and perhaps too much same-old in terms of policy, despite her gender], and him being too brown, too foreign, and perhaps too much in the Stevenson/McCarthy intellectual vein.

Said another way, Edwards carries less baggage than Clinton or Obama, at least as perceived by likely voters in the electorate as a whole.

I wonder what numbers Richardson would register? He is certainly less well known, but I would guess that he is the one candidate that would most closely represent the true Dem/Repub split, as of 9/07.

that show Edwards as more electable than the other Dem candidates. The ‘unelectable’ argument doesn’t seem to hold much water.

http://tinyurl.com/2e5xds

I think by your definitions of these terms, this is indeed a tautology. However, as your disease analogy seems to point out, others might feel there is a difference between different companies, as there is between, say, a head cold and AIDS. Both viral, but if given the choice…

It’s that leverage that I thought of when I read Marc’s Off The Bus piece. Couldn’t help but wonder if the SEIU wasn’t nudging Edwards along to take up some other issue that he hasn’t yet. To the extent that the SEIU can nudge Edwards along, and Edwards can nudge the other candidates going into the primary, SIEU’s interests are well served. However, by endorsing no one, the SEIU can stretch that too far, and risk alienating them all, no?

When it all comes down to it, there truly cannot be a progressive profit-oriented entity. Capitalism is capitalsim. So you could have a perfectly awful oil or coal company and a perfectly good HMO, and both would be as guilty, as are you and I, of not being progressive in terms of participating in a mode of exchange that is anything but…

Saying that there is “better” capitalism (ie the fraudulent notion of “ethical investing”) and “worse” capitalism – esp when it comes down to a public good like health care (so HMOs are disgusting) – is like saying that ther could be “better” or “worse” disease.

This is a very long, complicated debate, but I would suggest that Kaiser introduced the first model of medical “cost controls” that guaranteed members both “wellness” coverage and first-dollar coverage of all significant injuries and illnesses.

For the record, in the early 70s, the UAW and progressive unions supported Kaiser (and were instrumental in designing its program), and were primary supporters of the HMO imple mentation statutes.

“Certainly, Kaiser executives are not of a non-profit mind. Kaiser chief executive officer George Halvorson takes around million a year, and dozens of Kaiser top officials get 0,000, 0,000 and 0,000 a year.

In its so-called rebuttal to Michael Moore, Kaiser ends up taking pride in having “served as a model for the HMO Act of 1973″ — the very legislation that legalized the big HMOs skewered by SiCKO.

Enter SEIU

United Healthcare Workers-West (UHW-W), a large subunion within the Service International Employees Union (SEIU), represents many Kaiser workers. One might expect UHW-W to recognize in SiCKO a wonderful opportunity to expose and denounce Kaiser Permanente’s systematic incentives to minimize the care provided to members. The barely hidden profit drive makes work at Kaiser intense, frustrating, and stressful for many Kaiser employees.

Instead, UHW-W attacked Michael Moore for “smearing the reputation of one of our nation’s most progressive, reform-minded, pro-worker health-care organizations: America’s premier not-for-profit, pre-paid, integrated health-care delivery system, Kaiser Permanente.”

UHW-W does acknowledge that Kaiser packed a dazed, disoriented Carol Ann Reyes, 63, into a taxi and had her dropped in the skid row area of Los Angeles. After all, viewers of SiCKO cannot forget the observation camera that recorded Reyes walking aimlessly in the street, still in a hospital gown and diaper, trying to figure out where she was and what she should do next.”

Read the whole thing. Of course this isn’t as bad as the AFL/CIO(A)’s involvement in American Imperialism, but it shows a truly disturbing mentality..

But I disagree strongly that unions should not support primary candidates. If all prospective candidates go into the campaign knowing that the unions will sit out the primaries, there is little to leverage them to support what has been referred to as a populist economic agenda, not to mention policies to advance labor organizing.

My boss when I worked for the UAW 30+ years ago–the hillbilly genius, Buford C. Holt–always reminded us that labor unions by their nature are unpopular with most Americans, and would always be a minority bloc in politics here. That makes it essential to wield labor’s very real power wisely, because if it is used ineffectively, it will give politicians and wielders of power an excuse to do what they most want to do, and that is to disregard labor. Certainly that has been the tack taken by many Democrats over the past 35 years.

Anyways, as much I would for SEIU to endorse Edwards -cause he has a great domestic policy, the best healthcare proposal, and is really dreamy-I don’t think they have anything to lose by waiting it out.

But SEIU has a second problem, I think. If Edwards does not get the support of SEIU and other progressive unions, future Dem candidates might say,”well, John Edwards did more for labor than any prospective candidate since…Henry Wallace??? If he couldn’t get their endorsement, then what is the point of our even trying?”

The SEIU people Marc quotes imply that the union will support an “anti-Hillary” candidate in the primaries. Natasha is suggesting that they wait until after the primaries. I would say if the latter is the case, it certainly should not be announced or even discussed in public, because doing so could dissuade any of the candidates from accepting labor-supported initiatives at or before the Dem convention.

I think I agree with your point, but didn’t SEIU endorse Howard Dean in the primaries in ’04 ? I’m not as sour on Hillary as some, although I’m pushing for Obama and still have “hope”, but I think that if your point is that money spent on Kerry in the general election was wasted, that’s certainly arguable although I don’t see that a group like SEIU had any alternative but to try to help elect Kerry.

How about this ? Even in the general election, working class interest groups like SEIU should tie most of their advertising and education money to issues – like the war and health care. Clearly Average Joe is going to vote Democratic if they care about those core issues – but driving Democratic votes, even in the general, based more on issues than the personality, whoever it might be, doesn’t “waste” the money. If the candidate loses (unlikely in ’08, but certainly possible), the issue education still stands and has inherent value over the longer term. If the candidate wiins – more likely – they’re facing an electorate with a stronger base tied to key issues and, optimally, they’ll be under more pressure to produce some positive results – which ultimately is all that really matters.

I think there’s too much emphasis on candidates’ personalities and personal agendas, positive and negative. You could elect Dennis Kucinich and without the environment surrounding the Oval Office changing he couldn’t do much more to pass progressive legislation than Hillary. (One reason I find Obama refreshing is that he’s been totally upfront about this when I’ve heard him speak at campaign events. And I don’t think its a cop-out, so much as a challenge to his supporters not to put too much faith in him as an individual who’s going to magically solve the world’s problems for them.)

John Kerry

4 more words:

Sixty five million dollars

1 more word:

wasted.

Better to hold out until after the primaries.

“it’s worth noting that SEIU’s already found a way to be extremely influential in this race that further cements its status as probably the most forward-looking major union. Everyone’s noted the similarity of the major candidates’ health care plans and the fact that Edwards led the way in this regard. But it’s worth saying that before there was Edwards, there was SEIU saying it would only consider endorsing candidates who devised a specific plan for universal health insurance. That’s what created the conditions for Edwards’ bold stroke and also what made it necessary for the other candidates to play catch-up once Edwards’ plan was unveiled. So now we’re at a point where no matter who wins, SEIU will have made a major advance on one of its key issues, and where by taking up a slightly broader perspective than raw self-interest the union builds further support in the wider progressive movement. “

I think I agree with your point, but didn’t SEIU endorse Howard Dean in the primaries in ’04 ? I’m not as sour on Hillary as some, although I’m pushing for Obama and still have “hope”, but I think that if your point is that money spent on Kerry in the general election was wasted, that’s certainly arguable although I don’t see that a group like SEIU had any alternative but to try to help elect Kerry.

How about this ? Even in the general election, working class interest groups like SEIU should tie most of their advertising and education money to issues – like the war and health care. Clearly Average Joe is going to vote Democratic if they care about those core issues – but driving Democratic votes, even in the general, based more on issues than the personality, whoever it might be, doesn’t “waste” the money. If the candidate loses (unlikely in ’08, but certainly possible), the issue education still stands and has inherent value over the longer term. If the candidate wiins – more likely – they’re facing an electorate with a stronger base tied to key issues and, optimally, they’ll be under more pressure to produce some positive results – which ultimately is all that really matters.

I think there’s too much emphasis on candidates’ personalities and personal agendas, positive and negative. You could elect Dennis Kucinich and without the environment surrounding the Oval Office changing he couldn’t do much more to pass progressive legislation than Hillary. (One reason I find Obama refreshing is that he’s been totally upfront about this when I’ve heard him speak at campaign events. And I don’t think its a cop-out, so much as a challenge to his supporters not to put too much faith in him as an individual who’s going to magically solve the world’s problems for them.)