Clinton refers frequently to her attempts at health care reform as First Lady. But, her bulky plan was incomprehensible, created in secrecy and kept insurance companies in charge. Her newest plan may be simpler but, she keeps things as they are with insurance companies' , HMOs' and Big Pharma's profits trumping the public interest. To be fair, both Obama's and Edwards' health care plans aren't much different. At least, Edwards is honest that (after some 'reforms' and public subsidies for the poorest), everyone will be REQUIRED to buy health insurance as they're currently required to have liability on their car. Is this what Obama and Clinton also plan to do—deliver tens of millions of captive customers to insurance companies who continue to raise the cost of premiums, co-pays and prescription drugs?
Hillary Clinton seems to be courting the right-wing as she downplays women's reproductive rights---even as 87% of counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider and insurance companies still refuse to pay for women's contraceptives—although Viagra is covered.
On issues tearing apart communities of color—the failed “war on drugs”, high incarceration rates and a grossly inequitable death penalty, Clinton is silent—echoing her husband's stands. But, then again, so are Obama and Edwards in their public speeches (though Obama offers drug courts, more drug treatment and addressing the big sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine on his website).. I guess even most Democrats feel there's still plenty of money to be made building corporate-constructed and run prisons, The “war on drugs” has been an invaluable model for expanding police powers and social control and so “successful” a model that the domestic front of Bush's “war on terror” was based on it.
With his “Two Americas” talk, work on poverty since 2004 and fiery vows to fight Corporate dominance, John Edwards comes closet of the three Democratic front-runners to (at least rhetorically) campaigning on what really unite most Americans' real interests. Obama and Clinton look like primarily symbolic “ground-breakers” who actually represent the top-down DLC and their Corporate sponsors—who've hedged their bets, giving each candidate $100M.
None of the three media-picked “front-runners” is willing to take on the huge (and ignored) issues that should be the heart of the 2008 debate: $500 BILLION in a Pentagon budget (plus “suplemental” bills averaging $100+B) that's half the national budget, draining resources from a crumbling infrastructure, desperate human needs, and shrinking access to educational equity, health care and home-ownership. Why isn't the Incredible Enlarging Military Budget (along with it's younger sibling the Department of Homeland Security) worthy of debate? What about the billions “disappeared” , un-accountned for, to private contractors in Iraq?
Will Clinton. Obama or Edwards is going to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue , issue Executive Orders to close Guantanamo and end water-boarding or restore the core civil liberties that Bush-Cheney have been busy burying under their relentless exploitation of the September 11th attacks?
None of them is putting these issues at the heart of their campaign speeches.
What do the top picks offer on global warming, peak oil and their impact on every aspect of our lives
...fahhgeddaboutit.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
