Gosh Joe Kennedy is young. And really good. Think people will rally?

[nolabear]

It’s easy to become over optimistic at any hope. I like his style, though mybage shows in how young he looks. I really think he could do well if backed well. Will African Americans and women and Latinos and other immigrants back him?

[dawg day]

1. He looks so like Bobby--

His grandfather. 50 years gone this year.

[nolabear]

3. Stunning isnt it?

That was one of the worst times of my life and I was just a kid.

[marybourg]

9. I think he looks like Ted.

And JFK.

[DFW]

29. He looks very much like his dad, except for the red hair

His dad was my classmate for a while in D.C., although I was more friendly with his younger brother (Bobby, Jr.). But exchange the red hair for dirty blond, and you have almost exactly what I remember as Joe II. But, again, that was a scary 55 years ago. Nothing makes you feel old like hearing that the son of a former classmate is being discussed as presidential material!

[Honeycombe8]

71. I love his wavy red hair. His Irish ancestry really shows. nt

[RKP5637]

39. It was really really refreshing!!! He's great!!! n/t

[EricMaundry]

2. Great speech

Well staged. Formidable presentation.

[Sophia4]

4. He did a great job, but I don't know where he stands on a lot of issues.

If his stances are strong enough and appeal to voters enough, he could be hte candidate in 2020 in my opinion.

Good speech -- but not very specific. Still, a great way to begin a relationship with Americans across the country.

What a charming guy. Seems strong but also very, very kind and thoughtful.

I really can't say enough good about him.

Seems to have courage too.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. There it is.

If you dont know where he stands maybe his website would help. Or you could contact him.

[Sophia4]

54. I will. I think it will become clear over time.

My big issue is single payer health insurance. We benefited from it when we lived in Europe, and I think it would really help us here.

I note that Warren Buffet and Amazon and others are instituting their own employee insurance plans. That is an answer, but it leaves out a lot of people who really need health insurance and does not help people too sick to work.

We need single payer insurance.

[Eliot Rosewater]

57. Uh huh. What if he isnt in favor of it now, says we have to get total control of the government

which we do, and there is no point in working on it now until we have that?

Hell, what if he says he doesnt think we can do it all, does he still get your vote if he is your congressperson?

[Sophia4]

60. I don't know. Single payer is a really big issue for me.

It is one way we can get our economy back on the right track. We are way overspending on health insurance.

I'm also interested in programs that help people buy their own homes. In Los Angeles that is a big problem, and it is really tough for retired people who don't own their homes.

I'm also interested in education and making it free or more affordable to obtain either vocational training or a college education.

And I'm interested in a lot of other programs like raising the minimum wage. California is pretty good when it comes to justice in terms of race, sexual preference, and fair when it comes to women's issues. But those issues are important in the rest of the country.

I think we Democrats have lost our focus on economic issues. When I was growing up in the post-FDR period, economic issues were really the reason Democrats won campaigns. Democrats did not focus on the justice issues having to do with equality. I agree with the focus on equality, but (and I'm a woman), we need to focus now more on economics than we do because the majority of Americans share an interest in economic security and at this stage we should focus on shared interests because in so doing we will forward the interests of minorities. We have to be able to do both things -- focus on justice and equality issues while improving the economy.

I think that Obama did a pretty good job balancing those things but because of trade, many Americans think the economy worsened for them personally. They forget that while their really good job may have been moved overseas, and they are earning less, they can buy a lot with what they earn because the imported products are so cheap. It's a trade-off. Democrats have not pointed to the advantages of trade. And Democrats have not pointed out that if people don't buy the imported products, but buy American, jobs will return.

Anyway, I ramble. But I will be interested in looking at Joe Kennedy's website and finding out where he stands on the issues.

[Eliot Rosewater]

61. So no, you will NOT commit to vote Democratic Party no matter what, got it.

[Sophia4]

66. I vote Democratic. I am a life-long Democrat.

I live in a Democratic district in California. Of course I will vote Democratic.

I just want the best Democratic Party and message possible.

I personally know the Democrats who represent me, and they know me. I've been an active member of the Democratic Party for so many years.

I remember campaigning for McGovern and even earlier. I was raised to be a Democrat. My parents were FDR Democrats through and through.

My Democratic pedigree is pretty unassailable.

[Eliot Rosewater]

68. That is not what you said, I asked if he was your congressperson and so on, read it again please.

The question is, if your representative, a democrat, is AGAINST single payer, do you still vote for him or her?

This is in nov and they are the candidate, there is a dem and a repub.

This was my question that you answered not in the affirmative the first time.

[Sophia4]

83. I voted for my congressman but I don't think he was for single payer.

He was very strongly in favor of CHIP, however.

I don't just vote Democratic. I work to elect Democrats. I don't apply a litmus test, but I want a candidate who is strong on environmental and health issues and can explain why he/she is. I also want a candidate who is strong on economic issues and can explain them.

My representative was Xavier Becerra. I think the world of him. Now my representative is Jimmy Gomez. And he is a great guy. I also know Jimmy Gomez's wife. She used to attend meetings at our Democratic Club.

So that is it.

Ask Xavier Becerra to help listen to voters. He is an excellent listener. He knows how to do it. I will never forget the first time I saw him explaining Social Security to a town hall meeting in our local high school. It was utterly patient and inspired. He is a great politician. We need more like him. I think he should be a senator in California if not the governor. He is now Secretary of State. What a patient, kind, good listener.

[mountain grammy]

84. What is your problem?

Your way or the highway? Not enough to always vote Democratic but must take some kind of loyalty oath and give up our own beliefs? Not a good way to expand the base.

[ehrnst]

75. Unless they disagree with Bernie on how to get to Universal Health Care.

Then you won't.

Got it.

[Demsrule86]

96. Sen. Sanders has never share with us how to actually get universal health...medicare for all will

fail as certainly as Hillarycare failed. What we need is to begin incrementally...with a pubic option.

[ehrnst]

99. DOUBLEPLUS THOUGHTCRIME!!

[Hortensis]

137. Lol. Agree.

Done chuckling at what seems to me gross hypocrisy of those many who spent 2017 calling for repeal and replace of the ACA, badmouthing it, even using right wing lies about it in tandem with their concurrent attempts to destroy and "replace" the ACA. I'm offended every time I hear this referred to as "purity."

The phrase "thought crimes" brought that to mind. A first principle for voters should borrow from those who also hold the lives of others in their hands and actually worry about that: First do no harm.

[Honeycombe8]

72. We'll find out his stands on things. Safe to assume he adheres to the Kennedy views. nt

[ehrnst]

74. So you won't vote for any Democrat that will vote for any universal health care

that isn't proposed by Bernie Sanders?

Or are you saying that Joe Kennedy won't honor the Democratic platform statement supporting Universal Health Care?

Ted Kennedy's great nephew?

Ted Kennedy who is up there with HRC in effectively getting actual affordable health care into existence?

Really?

[Demsrule86]

97. We have always known that people who support Sanders want him to run again even though he can't win

in my opinion...hope he doesn't do it.

[Demsrule86]

95. Well one thing is for sure, you will never get it from the pugs.

If Joe is the nominee..doesn't matter what 'issues' he is most passionate about, vote for him as if your life depended on it because it does. I am picking someone who can win...most Democrats care about the same issues I do...so I need a person who is tough enough to win. I was impressed last night so I am thinking this may be the guy...young and fresh...Trump will seem like the crypt keeper next to him.

[sheshe2]

112. You, Sophia say:

I think we Democrats have lost our focus on economic issues. When I was growing up in the post-FDR period, economic issues were really the reason Democrats won campaigns. Democrats did not focus on the justice issues having to do with equality. I agree with the focus on equality, but (and I'm a woman), we need to focus now more on economics than we do because the majority of Americans share an interest in economic security and at this stage we should focus on shared interests because in so doing we will forward the interests of minorities. We have to be able to do both things -- focus on justice and equality issues while improving the economy.

Please explain how we Democrats lost focus on economic issues. You do remember that Obama took office in a Great Recession brought on by greedy GOP and two wars paid for by a credit card? He kept us from sliding into a Great Depression.

The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-economic-record-an-assessment
snip/
It was another fairly strong report: a hundred and fifty-six thousand jobs were created in December, the unemployment rate was 4.7 per cent, and average hourly wages were almost three per cent higher than they had been a year earlier. As the President’s supporters were quick to point out, this was the seventy-fifth consecutive month of job growth, which is a record for the modern era. Since early 2010, 15.8 million jobs have been created.
snip/
But Presidents aren’t mere bystanders. The policies they carry out, in conjunction with Congress, matter a great deal. In times of acute danger, Presidents can give the economy a much-needed boost. Or they can prolong the agony. In the longer term, policies such as new spending programs, changes to the tax laws, and reforms of the regulatory code can have a major effect. Anybody who doubts this needs to read up on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt or of Ronald Reagan.

You Sophia say:

I think that Obama did a pretty good job balancing those things but because of trade, many Americans think the economy worsened for them personally. They forget that while their really good job may have been moved overseas, and they are earning less, they can buy a lot with what they earn because the imported products are so cheap. It's a trade-off. Democrats have not pointed to the advantages of trade. And Democrats have not pointed out that if people don't buy the imported products, but buy American, jobs will return.

A pretty good job? I would say he did a fine job coming into office during a near Great Depression with the Republican traitors that met the night of his Inauguration saying the would do all that they could to make him a one term President. They swore they would do anything to see him fail. Did you forget this part of history?





Once again from the New Yorker.

But Presidents aren’t mere bystanders. The policies they carry out, in conjunction with Congress, matter a great deal. In times of acute danger, Presidents can give the economy a much-needed boost.

Or they can prolong the agony. In the longer term, policies such as new spending programs, changes to the tax laws, and reforms of the regulatory code can have a major effect. Anybody who doubts this needs to read up on the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt or of Ronald Reagan.

Obama’s policies helped lift the economy out of a frightening slump and set it on a path to steady, if unspectacular, growth. In fact, I’d call this his biggest achievement. The scale of the financial panic of 2008 and the extent of the job losses that occurred in the first months of 2009 should never be forgotten. By “a number of macroeconomic measures—including household wealth, employment and trade flows—the first year of the Great Recession in the United States saw declines that were as large or larger than at the outset of the Great Depression in 1929-30,” Jason Furman, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, recounted in an exit memo that he posted online this week.

...............................

No matter how hard we wish for things it will not ever happen over night. It also takes a hell of a lot of hard work to achieve our goals and having the obstructionist GOP vowing your demise on day one will not help us to get there quickly.

I will also say no to your stated priorities, economic justice goes hand and hand with social justice. One without the other means nothing because there will be no social justice if we only focus on economic justice. I want both and I refuse a half loaf when I can have a full one.

[mcar]

114. All one needs do is read the Democratic Party platform

but I guess doing that hurts the narrative.

[sheshe2]

115. True dat, mcar.

Read the Democratic Party Platform and research where we were in 2008. Me, I don't need to read that part, I lived it and knew where we were and all the work it took Obama from pulling us back from the brink. I remember when McCain and Obama suspended their campaigns to rush back to Washington, it was that dire. I also remember them sitting around the table talking...McCain had that startled dear caught in the lights look, while Obama acted Presidential. He won the election that night.

Don't know how anyone could forget those dark days and where America was headed.

[Sophia4]

122. It doesn't make any difference what is in the platform.

Voters look at the record and make their decisions based on that.

[mcar]

123. It doesn't?

Hmm. I seem to recall lots of fighting about it when it was being drafted. Now it doesn't matter?

[Sophia4]

124. It matters to activists in the Party, but not to ordinary voters who don't read it

before they vote.

I'm talking about the way the Democratic Party presents itself to voters who watch TV and get their information from what they see on TV. I'm talking about those who did not vote in 2016 and those who were Independents or even Democrats in swing states who voted for Trump. What was our short message to them? How are we selling ourselves to them? What issues are we associated with in their minds?

[Sophia4]

121. I agree with you.

Especially here:

"economic justice goes hand and hand with social justice.

"

We need to be the party of inclusion. We pretty much are. But we don't sell ourselves as being the party of inclusion well enough.

I'm a woman, and as for race, I am white but my family is mixed. So racial equality issues are important to me but I believe that elections are mostly won on economic issues.

The fact is that a lot of homes were foreclosed during the Obama era even though the recession was the result of Bush era economic policies.

Since Obama was saddled with the task of carrying out the agreements Bush had made, the economic repercussions of the provisions agreed to in order to bail out the banks were made on Obama's watch. Shouldn't have happened but it did. And therefore a lot of people rather than blame the Republican policies blame Obama. And we need to address that problem, especially now that this Republican tax bill has set the country up for yet again serious economic problems -- along with continuing climate change crises.

We need to stand up for all working people (of all races, genders and gender preferences as well as ages) including many who would never have had union representation like office workers. That's what I mean by focusing on economic issues.

Obama and Clinton are viewed as being for trade agreements that are unpopular. Trump is making a worse mess of our trade policy than his predecessors, but Americans don't understand trade. So that is something that Democrats need to deal with on the economic side also. And even though I did some research and work on trade issues, I don't begin to have the expertise required to even really have much of an opinion on trade issues. But that is one of the things Americans who voted for Trump are angry about. And I am talking about independents who could vote for Democratic candidates.

As I said in a post above, single payer is a big issue for me. I think we could have better healthcare for more people and for less money if we took the profits and shareholder payouts out of the equation.

[GulfCoast66]

117. So you want to return to the time democrats focused more on economic issues?

Than on Justice issues? I hear this a lot from my fellow white folks.

Have you ever considered that these ‘justice’ issues are really economic issues for people who look different from you?

I am comfortable in large part because for 300 years my family benefited from the economic oppression of people of color.

Just read the constitution and the whole 3/5 bullshit. Labor theft was the basis of our nations foundation(I use the terminology but do not assume I am a socialist).

To a person of color there is absolutely no difference between justice issues and economic issues. And there should not be to any member of the Democratic Party.

And if I as white guy have got some wrong I hope my fellow democrats will let me know.

[Sophia4]

120. Trump won on racism and on economic issues.

People of color are not the majority in the country. I am white, but my family is mixed. No one's interests are furthered, no one's needs are met, no one's cause is addressed if we don't win elections.

And there are so many economic issues to be addressed, which as you point out are just another version of the justice issues.

I'm a woman, so justice issues affect me too.

Thus, we Democrats have to address both the justice and the economic issues -- both, if we want to do what is right AND win elections. We have to address both justice an economic issues and as you point out "there is absolutely no difference between justice issues and economic issues." Democrats need to address both.

We need to show that people of all races, genders and gender preferences benefit when economic issues are properly addressed.

[XRubicon]

110. Single payer health care huh? How do you feel about maintaining democracy?

I know it's a tough choice and you may have to not vote for anyone because they didn't promise your health care but please do try to look at all the issues facing us now. Thanks.

[sheshe2]

113. +1000

Thanks, XRubicon.

[Sophia4]

128. Let's put it this way. If the choice is between someone who supports

for-profit insurance companies and someone who supports single payer, I will choose single payer.

[XRubicon]

129. and democracy?

Where in your priorities does that fall in line?

I would think, and I am just spit balling here - that without democracy you would not need worry too much about health care.

[ehrnst]

56. He's def got the Likeability and trust thing going on

In Texas, Kennedy toured hurricane-ravaged Houston alongside Texas Reps. Beto O’Rourke and Gene Green before heading to Austin to deliver the keynote speech to a packed room of 350 Texas Democrats at the annual Johnson-Jordan dinner.

Interest in Kennedy ran so high that organizers had to drag in an extra table to accommodate everyone — and the congressman delivered, with a speech touching on the legacy of Lyndon Baines Johnson and how the modern Democratic Party was born in Texas, said Crystal Kay Perkins, executive director for the Texas Democratic Party.

Perkins said that in her entire tenure with the party, she had never before seen a room of partisans stop everything and give their full attention to their speaker.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/joe-kennedy-state-of-union-376816

[Eliot Rosewater]

65. Yeah, sure does. My first reaction to him is NOT what about him can I find I dont like.

But that is me.

[ehrnst]

80. I think he needs more of a resume of legislative success

and some battle scars.

Hopefully not scars from fighting self-described "progressives" but scars like Hillary got in the Senate, showing how effective she was at working with people.

Of course that made her suspect amongst those who considered yelling at colleagues, and calling them "corrupt" when they didn't agree with them was evidence of "ethics."

Joe Kennedy might see some resistance from the same crowd.

[Demsrule86]

98. The same was said about Obama...we can't wait. We need to win...if he can do it...having followed

for a while...he is up to the job.

[brer cat]

118. People are certainly liking what he says.

He can generate a lot of excitement, which we need for this years' elections. I hope he will hit the campaign trail on behalf of our good Democratic candidates.

[Demsrule86]

106. Let me also say, we need to run on the ACA...that is understood and liked by people. It can't

be demonized. After we win, then we begin with a public option.

[TomSlick]

5. What a speech.

THAT'S what a Democrat sounds like!

As to his youth, see: 1 Timothy 4:12

[Staph]

10. For those without handy access to a Bible (or who can be bothered to look it up!) ;-)

"Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young; but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, and in purity." NIV Bible

Nice choice of verse, TomSlick!

[TomSlick]

11. The upside of growing up in Sunday School.

Some verse of scripture will almost always come to mind for any situation.

[Staph]

12. I can never pull an appropriate scripture when needed.

But all those years of Sunday School have proved useful. On a tour of the National Cathedral years ago, I filled in the Bible stories of the stained glass windows that the tour guide did not know/could not remember.

[Retrograde]

133. "Jesus wept" covers a lot of what the GOP does these days

[Wounded Bear]

13. Shouldn't he reference 2 Timothies?

[TomSlick]

15. Nope.

Unlike the Orange Abomination, I've actually read the book.

[bathroommonkey76]

6. He just launched his 2020 campaign tonight.

[Wounded Bear]

14. I actually hope not...

I'd like to see him get a little more seasoning. He has a bright future, I'm willing to be patient.

[Demsrule86]

23. Why? Give the GOP more time to demonize him. No, he is old enough...time to pass the mantle on to

the next generation.

[Honeycombe8]

73. He is a little young. 4 yrs younger than JFK & Bobby when they ran.

But these are not normal times, and there are no other stars on the horizon. I guess we'll see.

I wonder if he's tough enough. The bots and conservatives are out in full force attacking him and the Kennedys, trying to stop this.

[Demsrule86]

100. He will do...tire of old folks running.

[Tatiana]

7. Loved his play on "tear down this wall."

He got in there and fought for working class voters (as Nicole Wallace stated).

The staging was right, and more than anything, after the last year, his idealism is something that has been sorely missed in American politics.

[procon]

8. He's 37 now, but he does have a boyish face. nt

[radius777]

16. Yeah, he has the 'it factor', evokes RFK, idealistic,

the gravitas of being a Kennedy, charismatic/smart, bilingual, young, cool.. everything JFK, Bill and Barack had... he's even younger than they were, but who knows.

[Demsrule86]

24. He reminds me of Obama.

[Honeycombe8]

76. I agree. He's a little green, still. But he has "it." Is 2020 too soon? Is he tough enough? nt

[no_hypocrisy]

17. He's a couple of years younger than Donnie Jr. and Ivanka, who have

aspirations (illusions) of running for President. They wouldn't stand a chance against Joe the Third.

[oberliner]

18. The Democratic Party would be nowhere without African-American women

One would think we could nominate someone who is not a white male - especially now.

[Demsrule86]

19. I find your remarks somewhat troubling...maybe we should just select the best candidate who can win.

My son is a white male and so is my husband...they are great guys.

[oberliner]

42. I understand and respect where you are coming from

However, I think that since the base of the party and most consistent voting bloc is African-American women then it is worth making a concerted effort to support a strong candidate who is from that community.

[Demsrule86]

50. And I respect where you are coming from. I do see you were right about the Franken debacle.

I was angry...but certainly not enough to want Sen. Gillibrand gone...I think some here are absolutely missing the point of elections...to win and then govern.

[Kingofalldems]

40. Not really a good try there.

[oberliner]

43. I recognize that many folks don't agree with me on this

And I have definitely given it a lot of thought and taken those criticisms to heart.

However, I still feel strongly that we ought to reflect the base of the party and do everything possible to find a great candidate who is an African-American woman. I am confident that this can happen.

[GulfCoast66]

116. I think we should win

If an African American female wins our primary great. And of course we are both referring to Harris as there really is no other option.

I know the Democratic Party Moto of voting for love in the primary and winning in the general. I would support Harris to the hilt. But a Kennedy is more electable. I know it sucks to think this way, but lots of things suck right now.

[Honeycombe8]

77. I don't think we should choose someone based on race or gender.

That's discriminatory. If we have two equal candidates, then favoring one over the other may make sense. But we have to go with the best candidate. It may or may not be the Kennedy.

[NCDem777]

20. That depends

Will he be pro-universal healthcare? Will he be pro-getting us out of idiotic foreign conflicts that use resources that could be better used here?

Dem voters aren't GOP voters that can be wooed by racist bullshit. When we elect Democrats, we actually want them to do Democratic shit. Not be nicer versions of Republicans.

Starting useless wars while not being racist towards Arabs is still starting useless wars.
Letting health insurance companies screw consumers but not calling sick people moochers and other shit I've seen hurled at the disabled by the alt-right is still letting health insurance companies screw consumers.

[Demsrule86]

22. He has a "D" next to his name, should he win a primary, he will be supported.

[NCDem777]

26. By most Dems sure

But there are independents to worry about. And the anti-war movement will only support an anti-war candidate. Many will vote Third Party before they vote for a warhawk. Just enough to tip the scales.

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. I can't fathom why ANYONE would vote third party after the

destruction that this pResidency* and republican controlled Congress has caused, so far.

[NCDem777]

37. Why risk it?

We need universal healthcare and anti-war as part of our platform. We tried to avoid the hard left to peel off the "reasonable" Republicans. We tried moderate approaches on interventionism, healthcare, college costs, etc. because we were askeered that we'd scare people off.

Turns out reasonable Republicans don't exist. Why try to appeal to people who don't exist?

A Democrat who runs as a Republican always loses to the Republican.

[tonyt53]

59. I see - another damned litmus test for a candidate. The you disparage moderates.

Without moderates, the Democratic Party will NEVER win a national election. The Democratic Party that I have belonged to since I turned 18 many years ago, 1971 to be exact, has always been a very large tent. I know many pro-life Democrats that would never vote for a Republican. Moderate Democrats want universal healthcare, BUT they want to know how it will be paid for before backing a candidate that supports that.

[Sophia4]

126. FYI, having lived in Europe for years, I will tell you that their single payer

insurance is cheaper than ours. (I've posted that so many times I don't want to do it again, so please check Google and Wikipedia.)

And they pay for it the same way we do. Those who can afford to pay, pay. Only there, it's cheaper so for less money, those who can afford to pay, pay not only for their own insurance but for those of their less affluent brothers and sisters, fellow countrymen and women.

And the money comes right out of their paychecks, just like Social Security and Medicare payments do.

And we should do the same. There are lots of advantages to consolidating medical groups under non-profits and providing better coordinated healthcare. A lot of the money we spend on healthcare goes to cover the administrative costs of our health insurance companies to say nothing of their profits. We don't need those companies. We need well organized, good, effective healthcare.

[tonyt53]

130. But you fail to tell how it would be paid for in the US. Easy to say what you did.

But accomplishing it with our governmental process is another issue. An issue that is a lot larger than going around telling people you think they should have a single payer system.

I have been a trustee for two separate self-funded healthcare plans for building trades unions here in the US since the late 80's. I know a little bit more than the average bear when it comes to such a plan as you described, and I bet a lot more than you do too. Somebody HAS to be paid to handle the administration of the plans. Those administration costs run about 18%-20% of the plan overall costs yearly. We, as trustees, aren't capable of administering the plans operations and functions, so we pay third-party administrator company to handle that. Yeah, i know a little bit about good "organized" effective healthcare.

[Sophia4]

134. It would be handled the same way Medicare is handled.

I used to buy the healthcare from for-profit for a small non-profit. The current administration of healthcare plans by employers and even the Obamacare administrative costs are far too high. Yes. Administration will always be a cost among others in healthcare. But we spend far too much for the administrative costs of our healthcare. And we miss so many efficient ways to organize healthcare because we have so many competing for-profits handling most of it.

So, yes, there will always be administrative costs, and the administrators will need to be paid, but we can do even that aspect of healthcare more efficiently and more effectively in terms of costs. Every European country manages this better than we do.

We could consolidate a lot of equipment. We could make better uses of nurses and their skills.

And most important, we need nationwide programs of health education far beyond what we have. Those also will help save money. And we need to be able to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies about the costs of medications.

Medicare-for-all or single payer does not mean that you only have one health insurance provider. (I'm with Kaiser in Southern California, a private company.) It means that some money comes out of everyone's pocket who can afford to have some taken out and that is where the money comes from to pay for the health insurance. There are a number of different ways to organize the health insurance companies in Europe. Some are organized by the government. Some are more like our nonprofits. A lot of people think single payer means government healthcare. It means that the money to pay for the healthcare is taken out of the paycheck just as your company took it (or was given it) from the paychecks of those in the union and then, depending on the country, used to pay for non-profit or a large government-run health insurance company. In Austria, for example, I think we were insured by my husband's union. In the UK, I think the government insures everyone pretty much. It also means that insurance companies don't have shareholders who earn money from investments in insurance companies -- in other people's illnesses and bad luck.

So your union insurance program would not necessarily have to change much. But everyone would pay into one program or another or into a government program.

Single payer doesn't work like people in the US think it works.

[tonyt53]

135. Ah, you really do not have any idea about how it would be implemented.

I attend at least three trustee educational seminars each year. There would most certainly be major changes to plans such as those that I serve as a trustee. Also, Medicare is serving a portion of the citizens of the US. To increase the capacity of the administration to serve such an increase, would require thousands more employees. It is easy to say "cover everyone", but once again, not so easy here in the US. Also, moderate Democrats, which make up most of the reliably Democratic Party voting bloc, want to know the funding mechanism first. No promises without a solution.

[Sophia4]

136. We have thousands upon thousands managing our current healthcare system.

And the companies are profit-making and don't work together well.

Single payer will be more efficient and cost us a lot less than what we have.

Also single payer puts the doctors in charge of the patient's healthcare. Insurance companies don't fight so much with doctors and refuse to pay for healthcare patients need.

I've explained that I relied on single payer in four countries, and in each one I loved it. I had some difficult problems but I did not have to pay high co-pays (just small ones) and always received the healthcare I needed. So did my husband and my children.

Our healthcare is far too expensive. We have a relatively short life expectancy. Outcomes are not good under our current system. Single payer, in my opinion, would be much better in many respects. We would have more reliable statistics when it comes to healthcare. Drug and alcohol addiction are treated in the European systems I was in far more efficiently than they are here -- and for less money.

I'm judging something that I know firsthand. Most Americans jump to conclusions based on the propaganda the for-profit American healthcare companies promulgate. We can do better. And even homeless people and the poor will receive good healthcare if we go to single payer. That's the way it works.

Of course, now, our very high healthcare costs are somewhat reduced because so many Americans wait too long to go to a doctor or don't go at all.

My brother-in-law died recently of cancer. He had not visited a doctor in 30 years, drank too much and was basically not getting any healthcare. He could not afford it. That should never, ever happen. If we had known he had no healthcare, we would have tried to do something about it, but he lived on the East Coast and we are on the West Coast. No one should go without healthcare for 30 years, but that is the American system.

If you belong to the union or work for an employer who cares about employees, you are lucky and you get good insurance. But if you don't, now that Obamacare no longer requires people to buy into, we are back to square one at which many, many Americans will not be able to afford healthcare and won't get it.

Single payer would help us. And it would cost us less than what we now have. It is shameful that shareholders make money from the misfortune, illness and misery of the people insured by our for profit health insurance companies. I certainly hope that none of them claim to be Christian.

[shanny]

85. Amen.

[Honeycombe8]

90. What I hear when I hear things like this...

is the flip side of the hard right's argument. They will say "Why run someone who's moderate? They're DINOs and do not represent most Republicans. A DINO can't win against a Democrat, anyway."

A Democrat is better than any Republican. And yes, there are areas in the country where a progressive cannot win. The choice is either a moderate blue dog Democrat or a Republican. That's it. A progressive doesn't have a fighting chance there. There are other areas where anyone with a "D" by the name cannot win. So in those areas, the only hope is an independent who will caucus with the Democrats.

That's the reality in winning and getting a Democratic advantage in Congress and to winning the Presidency.

The Democratic Party has a platform. That is the official position of the Party. I don't know if universal healthcare is in it, but I'm pretty sure there is not an anti-war position. Because of course if we are attacked, we must protect ourselves and our allies. Just like we did in WWII. Obama was not anti-war, BTW. Few people are. Although most people are anti-unnecessary wars, fair to say.

Not all Democrats hold the same views on the different issues. No one candidate will match YOUR and MY views exactly. But overall, the Dem Party's views match our views more than the Republican Party, or we'd be Republicans.

That's the reality. You can sit in your bedroom and admire losing candidates all you want, but that's not MY goal. Whichever Democrat can win (barring being generally unfit for office), that's who I support. I look for characteristics of the person, more than particular stands on issues. Because I know generally their stands will comport with the Dem Party Platform.

[NCDem777]

91. While that reality may be true in districts Presidency is a different matter

a moderate Blue Dog Dem can never win the Presidency. Not against this GOP at any rate.

Being less of a racist asshole won't turn out the votes.

[Honeycombe8]

93. Before Trump, the extreme left or right could not win the Presidency.

Most people do not identify with the extremes of either party. Most people want compromise. Most people are moderates.

If you run an extreme left or right candidate....hard for him/her to win. But with Trump, we see that is possible. Or do we? How much did Russian interference have to do with it, esp coupled with Clinton's own issues?

I'm sure each party will put up their strongest candidates to run for the primary. It is unlikely a progressive will win that (if you look at past Presidential primaries).

[Demsrule86]

105. You are kidding yourself...the country is center left at best.

[leftstreet]

92. +1

Nicely stated

[Demsrule86]

104. Oh please stop...I am telling you Sen. Sander will not win a primary.

[Demsrule86]

108. We won't get universal healthcare without a super majority...we can get a public option...

And that is the truth.

[Honeycombe8]

78. Some will. They have a different purpose. As Sarandon said.

Her purpose was to create chaos and maybe a revolution will result. She said that in a video statement.

[shanny]

86. a highly influential voice, to be sure

[SammyWinstonJack]

88. That's not helpful. I don't believe in burn it all down to fix it.

[Demsrule86]

51. He is the sort of candidate who will be very attractive to independents...like Pres. Obama. And

being a liberal perhaps can heal the rifts.

[NCDem777]

53. But he is against universal healthcare

Being against legalized pot is one thing. But this is a HUGE liability. He needs to change his position.

[ehrnst]

67. What makes you think he opposes the Democratic Platform on this?

Last edited Wed Jan 31, 2018, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

His website indicates that he is very supportive of Universal health care:

https://kennedy.house.gov/on-the-issues/health-care

Do you have some information that contradicts this?

Please share.

[Demsrule86]

102. No he is not...Sanders and Conyers give too few details...he is concerned with the how and why.

As he should be. We only have on shot at getting this right.

"Kennedy said he agrees with the fundamental concept of single-payer, though details of the Coyners bill give him pause. “I think they are 100 percent right on the value that they are trying to enshrine in the federal law, that health care is a right in this country, not a privilege to be enjoyed by few,” Kennedy said. “There are some details, however, in that Conyers bill that I do have some struggles with, and [I’m] trying to work through a bit. If we can get there, then great, but regardless, healthcare is critically important to me, and I believe fundamentally in that principle, and we’ll keep pushing forward.”

According to Kennedy, Conyers’ bill presents risks for federal funding for women’s reproductive health procedures, including abortion. “We have something in Washington called the Hyde Amendment,” Kennedy said. “If Hyde stays in place, this bill potentially limits an ability for a woman to get constitutionally protected reproductive care. That’s a problem for me.”

I absolutely agree with Kennedy.

[mcar]

62. After the 2016 election, anyone who would even consider a 3rd Party vote

in 2020 is not liberal, not progressive and not entirely sane, IMO.

[sheshe2]

89. Please tell me you are not labeling him a war hawk.

NCDem777
26. By most Dems sure

But there are independents to worry about. And the anti-war movement will only support an anti-war candidate. Many will vote Third Party before they vote for a warhawk. Just enough to tip the scales.

If the "many" as you say independents will vote third party in a huff because they were not able to fulfill all their dreams then they were never a Democrat or even Democratically leaning. So instead of the Dem...they will walk away and allow tRump to start a nuclear war because principles are far more important than a sure annihilation of a good portion of the world. Purists will not win here...they will cause us all to lose by walking away from the voting booth.

Just to be clear here, I do not know of a single Democrat that is pro war. If you know them, please provide a list.

[rollin74]

63. not by me. I won't be voting for a prohibitionist. Hopefully he doesn't run for president

[ehrnst]

64. What Democrat isn't for Universal Health Care- esp a Kennedy?

It's in the party platform.

What makes you think he will oppose Democrats on this?

[Demsrule86]

21. I like him a great deal. I think many will back him because he radiate sincerity and decency...much

like Obama. Let's not kid ourselves though... if we want a liberal president and I do , than give him/her a liberal congress.

[demmiblue]

25. High praise from Biden:

Link to tweet

[Moostache]

82. Biden - Kennedy 2020?

I LOVE JK3, his floor speeches in the House are magnificent and should be required viewing for Democrats everywhere, but he came across as a little unseasoned and slightly (VERY slightly) unsure at the start of the response. I believe he got much better as the response rolled on and he is going to be a fabulous force in Democratic Party politics for the foreseeable future - whether as a VP or Presidential candidate (or both in due course?) or as a Senator in Massachusetts.

I would really be fired up by a Biden-Kennedy ticket with Joe possibly stepping aside to enjoy a longer retirement after one term instead of seeking two...either way, I am really hoping for a Biden run in 2020 and think Kennedy could make a very interesting running mate if not a ticket headliner in 2020...

[Vinca]

27. He's got that "it" factor that I haven't seen since the 2004 Obama speech.

I didn't watch anything last night, but I caught a clip of his speech this morning and for a second I saw Bobby. I got a lump in my throat.

[LisaL]

30. Sure does.

[Pachamama]

35. My just turned 18 year old daughter got all smiles when she saw him....

She said she wants him as her next President....

Came out of her mouth and she said he was channeling Bobby Kennedy....

(She is taking AP US History and wrote a paper on RFK)....

[NCTraveler]

28. All depends on how he moves forward...

Along with how others move forward.

Lots of solid names on our side seem to be positioning themselves well.

[DFW]

31. One thing came to mind

And I have not seen the speech. We don't get American TV here, and it was in the middle of the night my time anyway.

But imagine the pair: Joe Kennedy as president of the USA and Justin Trudeau as PM of Canada. How's that for presenting a new youthful optimistic front to the world for North America? Maybe Macron in France could hold a candle image-wise, but not the rest of the EU (although give me Merkel any day over some of the idiots opposing her).

*PS--on edit--would Conan O'Brien have a field day with that or what? I would consider getting a satellite dish for that alone!

[Pachamama]

33. +1000

That's a beautiful image...

[CTyankee]

138. We've got some talented women in the House and Senate. We need a woman in the WH.

It's way overdue.

[DFW]

139. What we NEED in the White House is the best Democrat we can come up with

What gender that person is makes no difference to me.

[CTyankee]

141. Don't you find it a bit strange that a woman hasn't been deemed "best Democrat" with the exception

of HRC?

[DFW]

142. If one looks at who has actually mounted a serious try for the nomination, then no, I don't.

It took a hell of a long time before the idea even gained national acceptance to the point where a qualified woman even made the attempt to get the nomination. I can't think of any who seriously tried for it before Hillary. If you don't try for it, you don't get it. Hillary was the first. Hillary got it on her second try, and all by herself made the whole process suddenly gender-irrelevant, an unbelievable accomplishment in itself. Pat Schroeder never made a serious try, and wouldn't have gotten the nomination if she had, and the Republicans have never even allowed a woman to be seriously considered for the nomination ever (putting up Michelle Bachmann is NOT being serious, it's cynical comic relief).

It takes one huge leap and a lot of guts to stand up and say, "I think I am the best person to lead our party to the presidency, and I intend to try to capture our party's nomination." As far as I can tell, Hillary is the first woman to actually stand up and declare that, which is why she was the first to actually accomplish it. Now, because of her, it is a cinch she won't be the last, but it doesn't hand the nomination to women for their gender alone. It only means they need to be considered equally as seriously as any man, which is where we should have been long ago. But at least now, a person's gender is gaining the irrelevancy it deserves. We have to start somewhere, and it is a corner the Democrats have now turned. Give the Republicans a century or two, and they might find a competent female deserving of the nomination, too. Considering to whom they gave the nomination in 2016, it doesn't appear they are in any hurry.

[CTyankee]

143. I'm wondering if it will be a woman who graduated from one of the 5 isister schools...

HRC was a Wellesley grad. My daughter is a Mt. Holyoke grad and that school turned her from a very shy but highly academic young woman to one with confidence in her ability to compete in a "man's" world.

Off course, the republicans had Sarah Palin...

[greymattermom]

32. We rallied for Jon Ossoff in Georgia 6

who is young, not as attractive, but also very well spoken. Bring on a whole new generation to choose from. I'm Donald Trump's age, and I sure don't want to start a new job at my age.

[tavernier]

36. Could be a doppelgnger to Sam Heughan

the star of the huge hit series Outlander on Starz. He sure draws in millions of ladies with his Celtic looks and charm, and going by presidential election history, looks do count!!

(I would post a pic of Sam for comparison but my phone won’t allow it)

[FakeNoose]

44. Sam Heughan - yes I can see the resemblance

[alarimer]

38. Too young, in my opinion.

Too green politically. Too much opposed to legalized pot. Too opposed to Medicare for all (although he might favor some other form of universal health care, I don't know, but our system as it is now is a failure).

Too dynastic as well. There have to be other names in politics besides Kennedy, Obama or Clinton.

[Demtexan]

41. In three years he will be 40.

Good age for a president.

[tritsofme]

45. He needs to refresh his reefer madness attitude on marijuana before I would ever consider voting

for him. It’s 2018 not 1985, such outdated ideas have no place at the top of our party.

[leftstreet]

49. He's STILL against marijuana legalization?

I'd heard that in the past but assumed he'd outgrown it

[rollin74]

58. me too. I will NOT ever vote for him until he changes his tune on wanting to criminalize cannabis

users and patients

my state and other legal states will not turn back the clock and return to prohibition for Kennedy, Sessions or anyone else in DC
The will of the voters needs to be respected

[GulfCoast66]

119. So you would vote against him if running in the general

Against a republican?

[rollin74]

131. I wont vote for a republican nor will I vote for Kennedy

as long as he maintains his pro drug war stance

Why would I vote for someone who considers me a criminal even though my state (Nevada) has voted to legalize? Not a chance I will do that

Kennedy is a bigger drug warrior than even my gop governor and US Senator

[GulfCoast66]

132. So let me get this straight...

He somehow wins our nomination. And not with my support BTW.

But he wins it anyway and 2020 is him vs Trump. You sit that out? You can’t be serious.

[Demsrule86]

109. You think electing a Republican will help the cause?

[tritsofme]

111. I don't think a candidate with such retrograde positions on marijujana is at all viable

in a 2020 Democratic nomination contest. Of course I would pull his lever in a general, but unless there is some major "evolution" he should shelve whatever higher ambitions he has.

[onecent]

48. I hope so. He is just like his father.....Just hope the secret service stays on top of him.

[NewJeffCT]

55. I liked the text of his speech - but

I was not that impressed with his delivery. Was it decent - yes, but hardly Obama at the 2004 DNC or similar.

That said, I am not that impressed with his voting record - I looked up his voting record and it's disappointingly moderate. In ranking of the most liberal to most conservative members of the Democratic caucus, he was closer to the "most conservative" side, which is doubly disappointing since he is in a safe Democratic district.

Kennedy is at 316 overall in the House, so there are about 120 members that are more liberal than he is. Since there are only 194 or 195 Democrats, he's pointing towards the more conservative side:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/house/ideology

[bettyellen]

81. Same. I didnt see the it factor others did. I see that in Kamala, she is formidable.

But I guess it’s a personal thing. I don’t think the Kennedy money thing helps these days.

[Honeycombe8]

69. He's 37. I'm watching his speech on Youtube right now.

I couldn't watch last night...I had company.

I'm just a few minutes in to the speech, never having seen or heard him before. And I'm sold. He has "it." That undefinable something that makes a person stand out.

He is young, and green. Rough around the edges. But he's got two years to get experienced, if he runs.

I'm over 60. It's maybe time for the newer generation to take the wheel, IMO. A fresh perspective, fresh methods, a different way of looking at things, maybe new concerns. Doesn't mean older isn't great, too.

(A side comment: He has great hair. I can tell he tries to tame it, but it's wavy and red...the Irish ancestry really shows. I wish I had hair like that.)

[Dem_4_Life]

70. He is stunning and such a breath of fresh air.

My best friend who is a latino woman who is NOT politically motivated at all absolutely LOVED him and she was messaging me last night during his speech. He made her cry and she loved how beautifully he spoke Spanish.

[underthematrix]

79. I'm definitely on the JPK train

He believes in the RULE OF LAW which is the foundation of our Republic

[Blue_Tires]

87. Well I see TYT, New Republic, Slate and the Justice Dems have been working overtime

to smear Kennedy when he was first announced to give the rebuttal, so clearly his potential scares the ever-living shit out of those people...

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

94. Yep.

They were on it Fast and Furiously.

[samnsara]

101. i like him a lot..let him bake a little longer to get done.

[AlexSFCA]

103. he needs to be tested in swing states

I was really hoping for a woman but it’s a luxury now

[DeminPennswoods]

107. Jason Johnson was pretty dismissive on Wallace's

show today. He went off on the lip balm thing. Wallace made a counterpoint on how the speech was effective, but Johnson didn't seem to understand that Wallace came at the speech from a Republican communicator perspective. She was saying this message is one that will resonate with a winning majority of American voters. When your opposition tells us what our side is doing effectively, we should listen and learn.

[Sophia4]

125. I have to add that I was impressed when he spoke Spanish.

I am not a native speaker, but I hear a lot of it and understand it, and I thought he spoke it well for a non-native speaker. That's important.

[honest.abe]

127. Yes, I think so.

I like him. He's a bit like candidate Obama. Inspiring, honest, smart, young.. but maybe too young.. some may think he is not ready for the big one. We will see how this plays out. We desperately need to win the WH back. If this guy can do it then he's our man.

[BlueDog22]

140. Yes

I think he will follow in the footsteps of John, Ted and Bobby Kennedy. He will be a statesman.