A Post Citizens United World: This week's podcast, with Jamie Eldridge

State Senator Jamie Eldridge has long been one of our favorite guests on LeftAhead, but it's been a while since we've last had him on and were very excited when he quickly agreed to jump on the show and talk about what's really become one of the the most important issues facing us today: how do we live in a post-Citizens United world?

It's a difficult topic to address. There's the drastic implications of the Citizens United decision itself, as well as the conservative/corporate-loving bent of our courts to deal with -- courts in which things could get worse before they get better.

There's also the power of the special interests who have ample money and resources available to thwart even that which can still be done in a post-Citizens United world today.

The game seems rigged against us, yet the question becomes are we going to sit here and take it?

There's a reason why many in the progressive left of this state admire and respect Jamie Eldridge above and beyond many others -- and what he has to say on this podcast reflects so many of them. He knows how to mix progressive with pragmatic, having a political style that speaks to our aspirations while not letting perfection become the enemy of the good. He understands the really important issues that are going on and has an almost Elizabeth-Warren-like ability to talk about them in ways that anyone can understand and get behind. Most importantly, though, he's not afraid to get behind the really difficult issues, the issues that require real courage and leadership to tackle -- and anything meant to realistically challenge the implications of a post-Citizens United world today falls under that category.

Senator Eldridge really speaks to the fact that you can run as a proud democrat, one who's not scared of their own core convictions, and win in districts that have little in common with Cambridge, Brookline, Amherst or Somerville -- not in spite of your beliefs, but because of them.

I strongly recommend listening in on the podcast -- it was the sort of show that flew by so quickly, I wished our format allowed us more time. Alas.

As always, you can get the show on LeftAhead, BlogTalkRadio.com/lefties, iTunes, or on the BlogTalkRadio audio player to the right.

Finally, as an announcement, we're having a special Thursday morning edition of LeftAhead tomorrow, featuring special guest Ayanna Pressley. It's probably been an election cycle since we've last had her on and the Boston City Council city-wide seat is very competitive this year, so it should be a good show.

A National Global Warming Solution

This is a serious piece of the puzzle, from Environment Massachusetts:

Boston, MA- A major draft bill released today by Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy & Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-MA) sets the stage for Congress to pass historic energy and global warming legislation, according to Environment Massachusetts.

The draft bill uses a framework advanced by major U.S. businesses.

"This is a pragmatic bill that tries to balance a historic opportunity to unleash clean energy to rebuild our economy and stop the climate crisis, with the diversity of views on the Energy & Commerce Committee," said Environment Massachusetts Field Organizer Winston Vaughan.

The draft legislation released today in Washington D.C. follows in the footsteps of major bills passed last year by the Massachusetts legislature designed to tackle global warming emissions and boost state efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

"I commend Chairmen Markey and Waxman for their ongoing leadership in the area of global climate change, which is the most pressing environmental issue of our time." Said Representative Smizik (D-Brookline), Chair of the newly formed Global Warming Committee in the State House. "Last year in Massachusetts, we passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which will require the Commonwealth to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. A strong federal climate change program is critical to addressing this pollution problem and will help states like Massachusetts achieve their emissions reduction goals. I look forward to supporting Chairmen Markey and Waxman as they work to garner support from their colleagues in Congress."

Other Bay State Legislators also expressed their support "As we work to build Massachusetts' clean energy economy and put Bay Staters to work building solar panels and wind farms, we'll need a strong partnership with the federal government," said Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) Vice-Chair of the State Senate Environment Committee. "Today's bill from Chairmen Waxman and Markey is a great step in that direction."

The draft bill sets standards to repower America with clean energy, including a requirement that the nation obtain 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, like wind and solar power, by 2025. The draft bill also requires the United States to reduce its global warming emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 through a combination of domestic action and efforts to help stop tropical deforestation."

Smizik and Eldridge really make the critical important point: we did great work in Massachusetts passing a major bill that will reduce our emissions, but at the end of the day this is a global problem and therefore requires a global fix. America needs to lead on this issue - and the Markey/Waxman bill would be an absolutely amazing first step.

Going Home, Let the Blogging Commence

I'm EXHAUSTED. Red-eye flight. Weee! My Denver convention is over as the Democratic National Convention begins (I missed the BMG crew by an hour). Some highlights:

• I sat literally 4 or 5 feet away from Senator Wilkerson at a brunch. She didn't recognize me.
• Denver's no Boston, but worth the visit. Georgeous museums, civic park (state house, city hall, public library, etc) but ugly skyline (if only they bulldozed the skyscrapers - they worked hard to ruin their backdrop) and absolutely horrid public transportation.
  
• Coors Field, though, is wicked cool. I saw Aaron Cook and Edinson Volquez, two bonafide aces on the field. 4-3 game, Rockies won.
  
• People are nicer here. I swear it.
  
• I can't freaking breath! Seriously, between my allergies and the thin air, I'm getting wicked sick. Most people have faired better, but everyone's noticed the difference.
  
• Deval Patrick gave an absolutely wonderful speech at said brunch. I hope to find it on Youtube. I'd wish him good luck for his prime time gig at the DNC, but he doesn't need it.
• Again, with the brunch. Jamie Eldridge waved me over as I came into the room, insisting I sit with him. I was going to wish him luck in his contest, but again, I don't think he needs it. He's a winner and our state needs more like him.
  
• The entire state party has shipped out to Denver; they stayed at the same hotel. John, Gloribell, Alex, Stacey... you name it. As much organizing as we all thought this thing took, it clearly takes a lot more. No one's stopped working since I've been here.
  
• I have one or two posts I've been saving for when I'm back home, I just need to type them up. Regular blogging will probably start tomorrow or Tuesday (depending how hard I crash after this weekend trip). Until then!
  

On Tuesday: Eldridge

I endorsed Jamie Eldridge in June, but tomorrow's the day that matters. For a reminder of why Congress needs Eldridge, it's all about leadership. It's one thing to say the right things, it's another to be bold enough to contribute to that goal. Eldridge has fought hard and accomplished much in his tenure at Beacon Hill and he ought to have a chance to fight for the same causes on the other Hill, the Capitol. Whether it's glbt rights or health care, Eldridge has fought the longest and hardest of all the candidates - he was a whip on the marriage equality vote in June and a college Dem fighting against Don't Ask, Don't Tell way before most people came to the realization that such a draconian policy is both bad for equal rights and bad for our military. On Iraq, Eldridge has been a cut above all the rest in his boldness on getting out - even if that means cutting military funding. On Health Care, he's the only sane candidate out there: this country needs Single Payer, where everyone has quality health care and it'd even cost less, and he'll fight the good fight to get us there.

We have an election tomorrow where the winner will almost certainly go on to win the general election; voters don't have to worry about questions such as "electability." All of the candidates vying for the Democratic Nomination can win. People of the Fifth should remember that and vote for the candidate who will do the most to ensure their children are out of Iraq, have adequate health care and have all of their civil rights intact. One candidate has a stronger record on all of those issues than his opponents. That candidate's name is Jamie Eldridge.

Friday's Musings: Ma-05, Ma-05, Ma-05

Here's some food for thought:

• Today is August 24th, the MA-05 primary is on September 4th. That means activists only have ten days to convince voters before the actual primary that their candidate deserves to win. Then, they don't have one day to rest - because that's when it's time to get out the vote.
• There are a lot of good candidates in the MA-05 race, but only one great one: Jamie Eldridge. He's the only one who stood up and declared he wouldn't vote to fund the war in Iraq. He's the only one who will boldly support Health Care for All. He's running the exact kind of campaign we want candidates to run, pandering not to corporate interests, but the people.
• BMG saw the light and has endorsed Jamie Eldridge. Now, the progressive netroots have overwhelmingly called for Jamie's victory.
• The most important aspect of this race is we have a golden chance here to actually elect a progressive. Whoever wins this primary will almost certainly win the general election - and serve for years to come. If we get a progressive in office, especially one like Jamie, who's proven to have the cajones to stand up to tough leaders within our own party before (Tom Finneran), we'll have a loud voice demanding action on Iraq and health care for all at the national level - not someone who will turn mute or give in, but will actually make demands and show true leadership.
• Even though Donoghue, Finegold and Tsongas aren't "bad" candidates or people, they won't be the change we want. We can't lose this golden opportunity because of a special surname. This election represents a chance to affect change in the entire country, Fifth Congressional District voters ought to feel as though its their duty to elect the type of person that would advocate for that kind change that could actually make America better.

What's Wrong With the Fifth:

One of the interesting/appalling things about the Fifth Congressional Race - no matter what horse you back - is the fact that it's getting very little attention and coverage. So far, many of the people who actually know that there's even going to be a special election see Niki Tsongas as either impossible to defeat or doubt she's going to screw up on the job. These people know that she's not going to support the war or mess with social security, so what does anything else matter in the grand scheme of things anyway? Consequently, the average voter's quest for knowledge hasn't even gone as far as the distance to the nearest Dunkin Donuts. People don't know if they want a ice coffee with sugar or the Iced Caramel Swirl Latte. There's a big difference here, folks.

We're talking about a seat of particular national importance: not only will whoever wins the general election vote on issues that impact the entire nation, but Democratic Party members have a chance to elect from myriad choices representing a diversity of ideas and expertise. It's not like we're going to see a spirited race here after the primary. Want a social conservative? Vote Meceli. Want someone with tons of local experience? There's Donoghue. Want Fallon Health Care for All? Pick Tsongas. Want a true progressive? Turn the lever for Eldridge. However, for too many, ignorance is bliss.

Part of the reason few are in tune is because of the way things have changed. I recently watched an episode of Greater Boston on WGBH that featured Natalie Jacobson. She's on her way out as a local TV anchor and had some words that tangently related to the race. One of the things she complained about is how the media has changed and become obsessed with the celebrity - all age groups. It's easy, cheesy "news" where you get to see how the stars live (and screw up). Part soap opera, part vicariously living through others, people's eyes are transfixed on the quickly-moving images on the screen, just like our long-lost ancestors paid instant attention to the rustling of trees: it was to avoid lions, tigers and bears. Now, with media's new-found expertise into how minds work, it's to tune into Paris Hilton, K-Fed and Hillary's love life. Oh my. Genetically speaking (as Al Gore points out in his new book), we're fused to pay attention to quick-paced, meaningless stories - not important news that has more than one or two angles. So the Greater Boston media is skipping the race.

Obviously, this trend is bad for the country - and the Fifth Congressional District in particular. So, how do we combat this nonsense? The written media is mainly unhelpful. Some of the local papers have done a decent job, but generally the best coverage has come from the Bay State blogosphere - which maybe 1% of 5th Congressional District voters read to begin with. Bloggers and readers alike have questioned how to get relevant themes from blogs into the public sphere. Without the time and resources to create any new, sweeping tool to help in that quest, the best thing we can do is talk about the race. We must keep bringing it up to our friends, neighbors and (most importantly) people we know in the Fifth until they realize that this race is, in fact, even more interesting than Lindsay Lohan's rehab rest and potential sapphic tendencies.

So, people who care, keep on trucking. Write a Letter to the Editor. Go door to door. Talk to your co-workers. Complain to your local news desk. I don't have any better advice. Do what you can do to be, as many great people have said before me, the change we want. Issues like single-payer health care are of paramount importance to the nation. It's time people know about the candidates who either support or don't support what will impact our lives every day for the better. It's the only way this Democratic system works, especially in the Fifth Congressional District.

Podcasting with Jamie Eldridge

My cohosts Lynne, Mike and I had our weekly Podcast, LeftAhead, tonight - featuring Jamie Eldridge as our special guest. He comes in at 39 minutes and stays for the duration, which was plenty of time to get into specifics on all sorts of issues. Despite the fact that we've endorsed him, we ask him some pretty tough questions because we're pesky bloggers that want to put out good material.

We chat MA-05, figure out what exactly single-payer health care really is, marriage equality, Blogs of the Week, immigration and a whole boatload of issues. Mike says he'll edit the segment down into several issue-related spots, so go pester him on his website to make sure he does. Other than that, it was a great episode and I hope everyone will check it out!

The Fight Is Not Done

Yes, let's all take a small breather. God knows, when I finally got home yesterday, I crashed for hours. I couldn't even pull together a legitimate post when I first got home from Boston. So, I took a breather. I slept in today, too, to continue that trend. Now, it's time to remind everyone that the job's not done yet. We've gone this far, now just a little further.

First, we need to finish the job in Massachusetts. As Chris Mason reminded us all recently, our state's hate crime laws do not include statutes for gender identity. Therefore, the people who allegedly committed a hate crime in Lowell earlier this month may not be charged with a hate crime: they were using anti-gay epithets, the victim self-identifies as a transgendered woman. The law is fuzzy for this non-lawyer, so a hate crime may still be applicable, but it will certainly complicate something that should be very simple.

At Beacon Hill, there are two other extremely important fixes this state must make to protect marriage equality. Both, coincidentally, have to do with 1913. Everyone from MassEquality to Susan Ryan-Vollmar at Bay Windows has told me 'we need to wait on reversing the 1913 law that bans out of state marriages, until after we get rid of the amendment.' I disagreed - I thought it would be the perfect vehicle to drive momentum on the issue after January's initial loss - but mostly bit my tongue.

Well, now we won. It's time to collect on 1913. More than 75% of legislators agree that marriage equality must be protected, yet it's still a separate-but-equal institution until the day any consenting adult can marry the person they love in Massachusetts, whether they're from here or not... and that's just not the case with 1913 around. Surely, 50%+1 of both houses would agree and can change it by the end of the summer? Heck, just think of the added tourism we could get from glbt visitors around the country wanting to tie the not?

1913 was a very, very bad year... not only do we have to sufffer the racist and homophobic 1913 law, but the constitution was amended in 1913 as well. What was the amendment? It added a new provision that allowed people to gather a certain set of signatures and push ballot amendments onto the legislature that only required 25% of legislative support over two consecutive years to reach voters for a final say in changing the constitution. If we don't repeal that amendment, 94 years too late, we'll be exactly where we were yesterday three years from now: fighting for our rights. I'd rather not see that, so it's time MassEquality and the like start arguing for constitutional changes that will actually protect rights instead of threaten them.

If we do those three things, Massachusetts will come a long way toward full equality. However, there's only so much progress we can make on Beacon Hill: the rest of the challenges we face comes from our federal government. First and foremost, DOMA, the law that prevents our marriages from being recognized in most other states and prevents gay partners from receiving federal benefits, has to go. There are two routes to take in destroying that vile piece of homophobic legislation - and I don't know which will be easier. For starters, because of the Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constitution, DOMA is almost certainly unconstitutional. However, until 1913 is repealed, it will be hard to challenge DOMA in the court. Furthermore, with the judicial system swarmed by uber conservatives, it will be hard to get them to listen. The second method is just as difficult: repealing it in the legislative arena. Not only is it an uphill battle, but it faces an almost certain veto by President Bush or any Republican who wins the next election. Heck, if the Democratic landscape doesn't change and Hillary Clinton wins, can she be counted on signing a repeal to DOMA when her husband enacted the law to begin with - and she doesn't support marriage equality either?

DOMA must be stripped. It has to go. It's the only way to ever make marriage equality exist for everyone in this country. State Constitutions have stripped the rights to marry in 32 states, with another 17 banning it through basic law. To undo that damage, it would take decades of difficult, grassroots work. However, it may only take a few years to kill DOMA. Once DOMA is dead, at the very least people can get married in Massachusetts and have that marriage exist anywhere in this country - with all the rights and responsibilities that come along with it. Once the barrier is broken, too, surely more states will follow the Bay State's lead.

There are also many other national acts that must take place. Some of them will probably get done sooner rather than later, like protections against workplace discrimination and an expanded national hate crime law. However, now that Marty Meehan is soon-to-be gone, we need some champion of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'd like to think Jamie Eldridge would become that guy if elected, but we need someone to be. Don't Ask Don't Tell is especially bad because there are already tens of thousands of gay people serving in the military; everyone says we need to honor the troops, yet those tens of thousands are told they have no honor if they come out with pride.

In Massachusetts, we need to do what we can here - because we can have a far greater say. Our efforts can have a direct, immediate impact to everyone who lives in the Commonwealth's borders. However, we also need to show how great marriage equality is - how the sky is not falling - because we have an entire country to convince on civil rights and we need as many allies as we can get. It will take a lot of hard work and many national coalitions to get DOMA and DADT removed. We have a part to play in that, but the best way we can help is to actively show how great equality is for everyone. We took a giant leap in that effort yesterday, by ensuring equality for years to come. Now, it's time to work toward finishing the job.

Why Jamie Eldridge is Going to Win

It isn't any secret that I've become a fan of Jamie Eldridge - but I just don't like him, I also think he's going to win. I think I have a pretty good track record of picking races, too (Deval Patrick in March '06, for starters). Here's why Jamie Eldridge is going to win:

• He doesn't need tons of cash. If he can win on public financing, with an opponent, he can beat the well-funded Niki Tsongas & Company.
• Despite several good candidates, the blogosphere has largely recognized Jamie Eldridge as the best, progressive candidate. I've noticed that in races where the blogs are divided (i.e. John Bonifaz's campaign, up until the very end), we don't make much of a difference. However, when the blogs become a chorus of support, it's either useful for the campaign or is reflective of a larger political base of excitement that's seeped into the blogs. Either way, the blogs are singing the praise of Jamie Eldridge and it will make a difference.
• His race is exciting. At the health care forum, I truly witnessed it. Lynne told me it was the same at the Iraq forum. If the progressives and grassroots in the 5th district have lined up behind Eldridge, watch out.
• In a Democracy for America poll, Eldridge's campaign took 70% of the support from DFA's district members. That's 70% out of all five candidates. The great importance of that is he'll probably get their official endorsement and support, but it's definitely a good gauge of his support among progressives too.
• Even Tsongas supporters have conceded to me her support is soft. Just read this guy and wonder if she's going to be the next Tom Reilly (albeit a helluva lot more likable).
• With 5 candidates, if all the progressives in the district line up for Eldridge, he wins.
• Furthermore, while he isn't from one of the larger cities in the district, he's the only person from his entire area and the people in the large cities are going to divide their support (i.e. Donoghue and Tsongas in Lowell).
• Primaries have low turnout, especially those that take place in the summer. Special elections tend to be even lower turnout. I wonder how high the turnout is going to be the day after Labor Day? Because that's when this election is taking place. Who's going to show up at the ballots during a Labor Day Special Election Primary? The people genuinely excited about their candidate - or the people who would normally vote based on name recognition or even region?
• Eldridge may not be that far down in the polls today, with an entire summer to make up whatever the minute difference is. I've heard several rumors that in Tsongas's internals, he's pulling a close second.

So there we go. Jamie Eldridge is going to win this thing - in this blogger's eyes. However, I will remind all primary voters to vote your heart. Whoever wins this primary will win this race, even if it's someone scary like Meceli (pro-life and anti-gay). So, like in almost any other primary in Massachusetts, I'm giving my annual reminder: don't vote based on any preconceived electability that may or may not be true, vote for the person you think will best serve the 5th Congressional District, Massachusetts and - most importantly of all - America.

My Fifth Congressional Endorsement

I just finished this week's LeftAhead podcast with Mike and Lynne, where we officially endorsed Jamie Eldridge for the Fifth Congressional Race. I pre-wrote my own reasons, which I'll post below, but I do want to say ahead of time that I will still report all facets of this race. Since the MSM isn't going to be covering this as it should, someone needs to.

Anyway, here's what I wrote.

Just like at the start of the Lt. Governor's primary race, I came out in initial favor of the 'anti-progressive' candidate. I liked Deb Goldberg for a long time then - and I liked Niki Tsongas for a long time now, too. Yet, I've never met a flirt I've ever been compatible with - and Niki Tsongas isn't going to be the first. I really like her, as a person. She certainly has a bit of a charm about her, but "charm" isn't what this race is about. It's about what's best for the Fifth Congressional District and the entire United States of America.

Barry Finegold, Donoghue and Meceli aren't the right choices either. All of them lack the clear and cohesive vision, backed by powerful, fearless - and progressive - leadership on the most important issues facing America. Will the country ever, for example, enact a true Universal Health System if candidates like Donoghue were elected throughout the country? She's already conceded defeat on a universal system, Republicans and DINOs have no reason to make a compromise look anything like reasonable if we've conceded everything from the start.

Don't get me wrong, this endorsement isn't a deduction: I haven't looked at each candidate and found them incompatible. Eldridge has come to be the clear choice of his own volition, proving to me in person just why voters in the fifth district ought to have him as their Representative. In fact, you can just look at his contrast with Donoghue to understand why. While Donoghue is talking about how we'll never get a Universal System and how we need to give in to the special interests to bring more coverage, Jamie Eldridge fought for a better system already. The resulting Mass Health Care bill isn't something that has come close to meeting his approval, but leadership like his helped bring us one giant leap forward to actual Universal coverage. He didn't go in there with a glass-half-full attitude and was able to bring about some sort of compromise that no one - at the time - thought possible. It's progress, something Eldridge has consistently strived for.

Matt Stoller of mydd.com had a post asking people who they thought was the best, most progressive, candidate in the Fifth Congressional District. Stoller is right in saying that this seems to be a golden opportunity to elect one of the few actual progressives in Congress. Jamie Eldridge is that person. He was first elected under the Massachusetts Clean Elections law, the only candidate to take advantage of that bill before Tom Finneran destroyed it. He's been a clear and strong leader on gay rights - including saying he'll be the man to replace Marty Meehan as a national voice for ending the horrible, discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Most importantly, he believes in the progressive movement - as the vast majority of my readers do, as evident by his policies and actions. He'll never be the Democrat to toe the DLC line. He'll never be a DINO. He'll never be weak and back down, like so many Democrats across the country just did by re-authorizing Bush's blurnder in Iraq, without any time lines. If Jamie Eldridge can stand up to Tom Finneran, he can stand up to any member of the DLC. If Fifth Congressional voters are smart - and I suspect they are, as evident by the excitement generated by Eldridge's grassroots campaign - they'll vote for for the best choice, Jamie Eldridge.

Live Blogging the MA-05 Health Care Forum!

I've driven long and far, through empty fields that reminded me of non-coastal California, and arrived in Ryan-Time - which is to say 10 minutes late. It's a good thing Ryan-Time just happens to be quicker than politician-time, because I actually made it before they started the forum.

It's packed. Literallly, well over a hundred people on a Saturday morning far, far away from the well-populated areas of the fifth. It was tough to find, but a beatiful location - with free wifi to boot.

Pictures will follow the event, I forgot to bring my cord.

(Charley and Lynne are here too).

Delores Mitchell is moderating the debate. I don't know much about her, other than she does something with health care. I was too busy typing all the above to miss her resume. But, I did dig up this - behold, the power of google. Time to pay more attention. Questions are about to start.

Q1: We know many of the uninsured are actually working, which didn't get much play, has become one of the most important issues. It's effecting the middle class. With that in mind, if elected, which strat do you suggest to secure all Americans have health insurance?

Donoghue: enormous problem. Pres candidates not in agreement. How do we deal with it? Have to change how we think of health care in this country. Need reform, of course. Health care is a right. Must recognize where we are today, people have struggled. Clintons tried to approach reforms earlier, ranks have only grown and costs have skyrocketed. We've all seen it. 44 million uninsurned (that seems low to me).

Let's start first with the children. Universal healthcare "access" as quickly as possible. Supporting S-Chip program, including every child in this country. "Look at other individuals" - providing preventative health care instead of sickness. 75% of costs swallowed up on heart, diabetes and obesity.

Stopping there. Lots of good points, but "recognizing what we're paying now" isn't going to help us pay in the future. Ran out of time without saying much.

Finegold: Health care crisis. Recognized Jamie and himself for voting for health care as constitutional right. Health markets: gov't programs in competition with private (gaurantees programs, offers choice, can opt-in to medicare model... sounds a lot like Germany.. which sounds GOOD). Real comp will drive down cost.

(Kudos for some real ideas)

Personal story about his wife: good care on his wife, his grandfather died and didn't get good care. "everyone" should have access, no matter income, where your from, etc. Voting to make this a constitutional right shows his committment.

Tsongas: Her family has benefited from great coverage. Family/businesses have lost control. Supports accessible/affordable/etc. choice in plans, etc.

Talked about Truman's first introduced national health care... but she doesn't support a public system. Weird.

Talked about Massachusetts - shared responsibility on govt, employers and employees... but they employers pay $250 a year... not really all that shared to me.

Not perfect, but good start.

Supports John Edwards plan for health care plan. Seems kind of like the Massachusetts plan, but I'll look into it more later.

Time for change in tone in gov't.

Eldrige: Only solution to gauranteing health care is universal health care, single-payer system. Expanding medicare to all americans. "It's a moral outrage... that there are 46 million without health care" and another 50 underinsurned. Burden on businesses, America has high mortality rates. National health care system gaining momentum. It's not unrealistic, just look at FDR's social security.

Nat'l Dems aren't standing up for the people, we need health care. Attacked Niki Tsongas for seeing market place for expanding health care... won't work, only universal will. (The crowd had a big applause).

Good answer, he was certainly fiesty... I kind of like Finegold's plan based on his quicky answer better, but both were good.

Miceli: private companies have most experience, blah, blah, blah. Really looking forward to this guy for the rest of the day... Needs a public/private partnership.

Q2: Identify 3 biggest problems with health care system.

Miceli:

1. Portability: people should be able to keep same coverage when they change jobs, etc.

2. Businesses should be able to buy into GIC-like pools, take advantage of mass-purchase of health insurance. Somewhat available in mass, not available nationally. Single-payer option should be looked into. I guess he's more open than I thought =p

He only gave 2 that I noticed.

Eldridge: if you want portability, you want single-payer.

People without coverage filing bankruptcy (personal experience with city residents).

Cost problem - new mass law doesn't do enough to reduce costs. 15% of GDP provides for health care worse than others.

Profits have *no place* in health care. (Huge applause). ATtacked Tsongas again for being concerned about private health care profits - and for her connection to falon. Health care could use what are profits to shifting it toward better coverage, new treatments, etc.

Tsongas: Clearly we have a problemf or 47 mil uninsured.

Cost of care/insurance too big, increasing too fast. Won't be able to address problem until we bring everyone into the system to provide preventive care, wellness programs, etc. Impliment system now, not tomorrow. Attacked Eldrdige for time-table of Conyers plan, which eldridge supports (would take 15 years, she says). If cost of care comes down, so will insurance. (I'm very speculative about that.)

Last one is nursing shortage.

Finegold: Uninsured is biggest problem. We're one of the richest countries in the world, that's not acceptable.

Cost of perscription drugs too high, esp with fixed income seniors. Drug companies spending too much advertising - purple pill, anyone? - we're only one of 2 countries that allows ads. For every 1 dollar spent advertising, $2 in sales. He'd rather cost in R&D.

Preventive care, not emergency room care. (fairly good applause).

Donoghue: Preventative care, everyone needs coverage ASAP (no timetable). We have great health care in this country, just not universal access. If single-payer plan came up for vote, she'd vote for it, but in the meantime, wants to work other areas (getting more employers to cover, etc.)

People gaming system to make money is problem. Canadian drugs, etc. Non-profits earning profits - using those profits to insure the uninsured.

Some MA-05 Differences

On yesterday's episode of LeftAhead, the round e-table discussed a lot of things - but chief among them was the MA-05 race. As I said late last night, Lynne has some key insights. I suggest listening into the show to get a full sense of the race we've seen so far, but I thought I'd tackle a few quick ones right here.

Despite what a lot of people have said (including me), there are key policy differences. The race really does extend beyond picking between like minds. For example, Lynne talked about universal health care - not all of the candidates agree there. Niki Tsongas, for example, used to serve on the board of Fallon Healthcare - is she the kind of candidate that's going to support a true universal system? One that considers health a public (not private) good?

Another candidate, Jamie Eldridge, has really fashioned himself as the "progressive" candidate - something he's lived up to in a lot of ways, especially in terms of supporting the Governor's call to cut unfair corporate tax loopholes and campaign finance reform. However, he's also fundraising on a very high scale (among the highest in the race so far, but not on Tsongas's level) - and surely not all of that money is coming from small donations and regular folks.

Then there are other kinds of differences too - for example, differences in how much information candidates are putting out there. Touching on this subject, Lynne ranks the candidate websites. There are differences in political experience, as well as differences in private-world experience.

People also have to take Meehan's seniority - and power - into consideration. Meehan was one of the most powerful and effective congressmen out there, able to champion issues like campaign finance even when Republicans were in power. Constituents of his may decide they want someone who can rise in power just as quick as he did and be a leader. Even if Meehan's credibility faltered a bit when he hoarded all his money during last election, he was certainly right on most of the positions and solidly liberal (if not progressive). Not all the often-liberal congressmen in Massachusetts have been able to enjoy that kind of success in terms of leadership in the House. It was a point Mike made well yesterday on LeftAhead that certainly rings true. However, what isn't clear is who could best fill those shoes.

So, there's a lot to chew on - and not a lot of time to do it. Furthermore, with so many people in the race, 25% of the vote could win it. People may have to pick the lesser of two evils, instead of the candidate they really want, to avoid seeing someone they really don't want elected. Voting strategically may become paramount in this race. In the meantime, the Lowell Sun interviewed the candidates and Dick Howe is posting videos of all the candidates at their first forum.