presidential candidates

These two presidential candidates from different parties are compared frequently: both are against needless wars in Iran and Iraq and refuse to fund them, both voted against the PATRIOT Act and continue to oppose it, both are unusual “underdog” candidates with large followings, and both claim they will bring a revolution to America’s government by returning to the values of the Constitution. But Ron Paul is far from “the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich” and not everyone realizes this. In fact, the differences are so huge that it is a wonder they are compared at all.

So, the big presidential campaign news this week is that John Edwards used his role at in several non-profit anti-poverty agencies to further his political career. Somebody stop the presses, because this is news…Well not exactly.

Cross posted at The Progressive Pulse
If you want to know what kind of president Hillary Clinton would be, than look no further than her healthcare policy. If and when she releases one, that is.

Paul Krugman mentioned in a column last week that he wants to hear health care specifics from Mrs. Clinton since she has received significant contributions from the insurance industry. As usual, Krugman has it exactly right. The healthcare policy gauntlet has already been thrown down, first by John Edwards and now by Barack Obama. Hillary has been notably silent other than to vaguely pledge that she supports universal health coverage. Sorry, but this type of cautious front-running reminds me of Al Gore in 2000, and we all know what happened after that. Progressive voters should insist on seeing policy specifics, because that may tell us much about whether Hillary is owned by the special interest groups which are supporting her candidacy.

Boldly taking on one of the most important issues of our time,

AP — Washington — Tue Mar 6, 6:31 PM ET
Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton called Tuesday for the majority of voters — women — to help her break the nation's highest glass ceiling by electing her the first female president.

And that's right in line with what kos wrote in the Washington Post ten months ago:

I've been reading *Crashing the Gate*, and it really drives home the point that because of divisiveness over every splinter group's special interests, the Democratic Party hasn't accomplished a whole lot since the 70s, the Republican right has torn down much of what we did accomplish, and we have the worst president ever. They give an example of one good progressive Democrat who was defeated because he happened to be anti-abortion, while his far right Republican opponent was pro-choice. If NARAL had put its special interest aside to get this seat, they would have been in no danger of an anti-abortion vote, but the party would have been stronger for it.

That's the trouble we're in because of our narrow special interests, and we only have to look to the Republicans to see how we should be shelving those interests and focusing on gaining effective political power. Power first; special interests will have something done about their specific issues later.