Hey all just saw this on Edwards' site thought it might be a good thing to post here. I am also going to put out a bit of a debate wrap up. I read through the transcript and it did not seem like anything too new was mentioned. Edwards really did not get to talk about education so I will highlight it.
Here is Edwards' plan with new additions. The additions are the first ones listed:
Reform Our Schools, Starting in the Early Grades: Children do not drop out overnight; they start dropping out years earlier as they fall behind in their classes and disengage from school. Edwards supports strong early childhood education programs to help more students start school ready to learn. He will recruit more excellent teachers where they are needed most and, because of the strong connection between poor literacy skills and dropping out, increase funding for the Striving Readers program to help students struggling to read and write in grades four and up. And he believes that our education system should help children develop the skills they need for the future in math and science, creativity and critical thinking.
Create Second Chance Schools and Other Paths to Graduation: Surveys find that dropouts almost universally express regret over leaving school; as adults, 81 percent say that graduating from high school is important to success in life. Because one size does not fit all children, Edwards believes we must create multiple pathways to high school graduation. He will create "second chance" schools to help former dropouts return to school and earn their diploma with flexible class times and locations and connections to youth development services. He will also support alternatives for students at risk of dropping out, such as smaller schools and classes, academically rigorous alternative schools, flexible and accelerated schedules, academic and other support services, and engaging coursework connected to real life experiences. New York City has achieved successes with its transfer schools and young adult borough centers. Edwards also supports proven programs like Job Corps and YouthBuild USA. [Civic Enterprises, 2006; NYC Department of Education, 2006]
Balance Accountability Systems to Reward Progress in Graduation: Test scores alone cannot measure a school. In fact, an overemphasis on test scores can unintentionally create incentives to push out low-scoring students. Edwards believes that No Child Left Behind should be fixed to reward higher graduation rates, including the enrollment of former dropouts, as well as higher test scores.
Today's proposals build on the rest of Edwards' agenda to strengthen schools and make college affordable:
Invest in Teachers: Studies bear out what parents already know: nothing is more important to children's success than their teachers. Our country needs to invest more in recruiting, training and paying teachers like the professionals they are. Edwards will attract good teachers in rural, urban and other schools where we need them most with college scholarships and higher pay. Because the hardest time in a teacher's career is the first couple of years, he will pair new teachers with successful veteran "master teachers."
Expand Access to Early Childhood Education: High-quality education for young children can have a large impact on their later success in school and in life. Young people who are enrolled in preschool programs are more likely to graduate from high school, own homes, and earn more as adults. With its Smart Start program, North Carolina has been a national leader in early education. As president, Edwards will expand Head Start and other programs that offer access to early childhood education. [High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2005]
Expand College Opportunity: College graduates can expect to earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than high school graduates, and their children are almost twice as likely to attend college. An estimated 200,000 college-qualified graduates fail to go to college each year. As president, Edwards will pass a College for Everyone program - based on the successful model he helped start in North Carolina - to pay one year of public-college tuition, fees and books for more than 2 million students. In return, students will be required to work part-time, take a college-prep curriculum in high school, and stay out of trouble. Edwards will also simplify the student aid application and help every Title I high school hire an additional counselor. [College Summit, 2007; Dynarski
Yet another detailed well rounded plan from Edwards.
He is indeed proving more and more than he has put a HELL of lot of thought into how to fix the country and is attacking the problem like a CITIZEN NOT A POLITICIAN would.
Find the problems, break the down, create solutions and implement them.
Such an uncommon thing these days.
DEBATE WRAP UP:
First off the talk clock from Dodd's website:
Obama: 13.10 minutes
Hillary: 11.50 minutes
Edwards 8.28
The rest less. For once the host only took up 6 Minutes. Good job on that George S.
This is from the transcript: Reading through the script this line stood out to me from Dodd:
DODD: Well, I'll tell you one issue that I wish I had done more on, recently. And, I think, maybe one of the worst votes cast in the Congress, maybe in the last 20 years, was last fall, on the Military Commissions Act, in which we allowed the abandonment of habeas corpus, returning to torture, and abandoning the Geneva Convention.
I thought about filibustering that bill, and I didn't do it. I regret that deeply. I can't think of a worse vote we cast, to walk away from the Constitution of the United States.
It's good he admits it but once again the Netroots gets to say WE TOLD YOU SO!!!
Anyway, most of the questions were the routine questions except the prayer one which to me was quite ridiculous to ask but I will sum up Edwards' responses.
This was an interesting exchange re: Pakistan:
STEPHANOPOULOS: So Senator Obama rules out using them against Al Qaida. You rule out using them against Iran. What's the principal difference there?
CLINTON: Well, George, you've got to put it into context. I was asked specifically about what was, very clearly, an effort by the Bush-Cheney administration to drum up support for military action against Iran.
CLINTON: Combine that with their continuing effort to try to get what are called bunker-buster bombs, nuclear bombs that could penetrate into the earth to go after deeply buried nuclear sites.
And I thought it was very important. This was not a hypothetical, this was a brushback against this administration which has been reckless and provocative -- to America's damage, in my opinion.
So I think there's a big difference, and I think it's a difference that really goes to the heart of whether we should be using hypotheticals. I mean, one thing that I agree with is we shouldn't use hypotheticals. You know, words do matter.
And this campaign, just like every other things that happens in the United States, is looked at and followed with very great interest. And, you know, Pakistan is on a knife's edge. It is easily, unfortunately, a target for the jihadists. And, therefore, you've got to be very careful about what it is you say with respect to Pakistan.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you accept that distinction?
OBAMA: There was no difference. It is not hypothetical that Al Qaida has established base camps in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That was acknowledged in the national intelligence estimates. And every foreign policy understands that.
No military expert would advise that we use nuclear weapons to deal with them, but we do have to deal with that problem.
And so, this is part of what I think Americans get frustrated about in politics, where we have gamesmanship and we manufacture issues and controversies instead of talking about the serious problem that we have, a problem that this administration has made worse and that our invasion of Iraq has made worse, but a problem that the next president is going to have to deal with. And the American people deserve to hear what we're going to do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Edwards, is there a difference or not?
EDWARDS: How about a little hope and optimism? Where did it go? You know, I listened to this debate, and this is what I hear.
EDWARDS: First of all, I think we have a clear path for America and for our friends on Iran, which Senator Clinton just spoke about. And that path is to work with our friends in Europe to put up a choice between carrots and sticks on the table for the Iranian people. Because there is a division between the Iranian people and their radical leader, Ahmadinejad. There's no question about that. We can take advantage of that. We should take advantage of that, drive a wedge between the two.
In the case of Pakistan, the truth of the matter is: Musharraf is not a wonderful leader, but he provides some stability in Pakistan. And there is a great risk, if he's overthrown, about a radical government taking over.
They have a nuclear weapon. They're in constant tension with India, which also has a nuclear weapon, over Kashmir. I mean, it's a dangerous, volatile situation.
But the last thing I want to say about this is it's not shocking that -- first of all, I think Senator Obama is entitled to express his view. And it's not shocking that people who have been in Washington a long time criticize him when he comes along and expresses his view.
EDWARDS: I think his view adds something to this debate, and I think he ought to be able to express it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But is he right or wrong?
EDWARDS: On which issue?
STEPHANOPOULOS: The one I just asked, was there a difference between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on this issue.
EDWARDS: I personally think, and I would as president, not talk about hypotheticals in nuclear weapons. I think that's not a healthy thing to do. I think what it does for the president of the United States is it effectively limits your options. And I do not want to limit my options, and I don't want to talk about hypothetical use of nuclear weapons.
I would add to that that I think what the president of the United States should actually do, beyond stopping bunker-buster nuclear weapons, which this administration's moving forward with, is what America should do and what I would do as president, is to actually lead an international effort over time to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet. That's the way to make the planet more secure.
Another good exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But when you say that, are you saying that Senator Clinton is part of the failed politics of Washington, or not?
OBAMA: What I'm suggesting is that we're going to need somebody who can break out of the political patterns that we've been in over the last 20 years. And part of that is the notion that half the country's on one side; the other half's on the other.
OBAMA: You maybe have a few people in Iowa or a few people in Ohio and Florida who we're all battling over, and afterwards, we can't govern.
And what I'm interested in is not only winning the election, but also providing relief to people who don't have health care, making sure that we're tackling climate change in a serious way. And I think that's going to require building a new majority, getting new people involved in the process, and I wouldn't be running if I didn't believe that I was the person best equipped to do that.
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is yes?
OBAMA: The answer is: I would not be running if I did not believe that I was the best person to do this.
EDWARDS: Well, let me just say -- I have a slightly different view. Here's what I believe. I think we were out of power in the Congress for 13 years. In November of 2006, the Democrats took over the Congress again. I think there was a reason for that. Because the Democrats in November of 2006 stood for change.
America wants change in the most serious way. And if we become the party of status quo in 2008, that's a loser.
EDWARDS: If we...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that is the fundamental question, though.
EDWARDS: ... maintain -- but let me finish. If we maintain the momentum of change, yes, we will win again in 2008. I think that's the question. And the real question for Democratic caucus-goers and voters across this country is, "Who's most likely to bring about change?"
Here's what I believe: I don't believe you can change this country without taking on very entrenched interests in Washington, including lobbyists, that stand between us and the change America needs. And I don't believe you can do it by sitting at a table, negotiating with them and trying to bring them together.
These people will never give away their power voluntarily. We have to take their power away from them. This is what I've been doing my whole life, and that is why I believe I am the candidate who can bring change to this country
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you're seeing that Senator Clinton is not?
EDWARDS: Listen, Senator Clinton, both as first lady and as a United States senator, has done a terrific job. She's been in Washington a long time. I've asked -- Senator, I have never taken money from Washington lobbyists.Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I've said: Why don't we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we're the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?
And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist...
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about this point, though, that Senator Edwards raises? He says the fact that you're taking money from lobbyists symbolizes that you're part of the status quo, part of the failed politics of Washington.
CLINTON: Well, George, I believe we have to change Washington. I've stood up against the special interests, I've taken them on. I took them on, on health care. I took them on and voted against a lot of their special interest legislation, like class action reform, which is just really another way of lining the pockets of big business.
CLINTON: I've taken them on on so many different fronts.
But there is this artificial distinction that people are trying to make. Don't take money from lobbyists, but take money from the people who employ and hire lobbyists and give them their marching orders. Those are the people that are really going to be pushing back.
I think we can do a much better job if we say we have got to move toward public financing, get the money out of American politics, because it's the people who employ the lobbyists who are behind all the money in American politics.
(APPLAUSE)
I think what we need to do is go after a better agenda of reform.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Back to you, Senator. She says the distinction is artificial.
EDWARDS: The distinction is not artificial. But first of all, Senator Clinton did a terrific job in the 1990s trying to do something about health care in this country. She deserves credit for that.
But here's what I believe: The reason we don't have universal health care in America today is because of the insurance industry, the drug companies and their lobbyists.
EDWARDS: It's that simple.
(APPLAUSE)
And, George, we need -- and there's a fundamental question here: Whether you believe, whether voters believe the way we're going to have universal health care is to deal with those people, to make a deal with them. I don't. I don't think it'll work.
I don't think we should be taking their money. I think we ought to make it absolutely clear that we're not going to take money from insurance company lobbyists or drug company lobbyists, these big corporate lobbies, that actually killed -- killed -- the health care effort that was done in the 1990s.
I bolded this last part not out of favoritism but because here is Edwards flat out speaking the truth. Kucinich has been saying this for years and no one listens, Edwards however can get this truth out there without being discounted.
The rest of the debate was pretty standard. I think we got the closest thing to an apology we will ever get out of Hillary on the AUMF:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Edwards?
EDWARDS: Wasn't the question whether there's ever been anything that we didn't say?
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what I'm asking you, the question -- right.
EDWARDS: That's what I thought it was.
I think, in my case, that would be true about my vote on the war in Iraq.
EDWARDS: I was wrong to vote for this war. But, beyond that, I had huge internal conflict at the time about giving George Bush this authority.
And I did talk about -- as all these other candidates have just said, I did talk about the things that persuaded me to cast the vote. But what I didn't express was the huge conflict I had, because I did not trust George Bush.
It turns out I was right not to have trusted him, and I cast the wrong vote. But that's the one time, and probably the single biggest time that I can think of.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I, too, regret giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused. It was a very difficult decision, and I tried to weigh it as carefully as possible, talking to a lot of different people and being assured, both publicly and privately, by President Bush and the people close to him that they would use the authority to go in and get inspectors and try to find out if there were weapons of mass destruction and pursue diplomacy.
So, you know, looking back on it, I wouldn't have voted that way again, certainly, because obviously President Bush had no intention of doing what he said he was going to do. And obviously for me that is a great regret.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But did you tell the whole truth when discussing it?
CLINTON: Well, as I saw it, yes, you know, similar to John. You know, when the president of the United States says, as he said publicly, and then as people around him said privately over and over again, "We're going to use this authority to get inspectors back in, "We're going to go to the United Nations," you know, at some point, you do have to make that evaluation. And I thought that, based on what he had said and what we were talking about at the time in the Congress, that that would be an appropriate approach.
I will close with Edwards response as to the "decisive moment" to run for Pres.
EDWARDS: When I was a young boy, I came downstairs one morning. It was still dark outside. My father, who worked in mills all his life, was sitting at the kitchen table. The television was on. He was watching public television. And he'd never been able to go to college. And he was trying to learn from public television so he could get a better job in the mill.
And I worked in the mill, myself, part-time, when I was younger. And I made the decision then, whatever I did with my life -- didn't know that I'd be running for president -- but whatever I did with my life, those are the people that I would fight for, as long as I was breathing (ph).
AND HE HAS BEEN!!!
Sorry long diary but I hate pulling stuff out of context in debates.
Have a good weekend!!
__________________________
