Let’s start with the “why,” and then we’ll tackle the “why not.” Why Khazei? First, the issues. On health care, he struck what we think is the correct balance between the urgent need to reform our health care system and the imperative to protect women’s access to abortion services. Khazei said that he would reluctantly vote for the House bill (including Stupitts) on final passage, but then work hard to remove or alter the funding restrictions later. We think that is preferable to a vote against a bill containing Stupitts, either in the House or on final passage. This is health care reform’s only chance, since Democrats are likely to lose seats in 2010 and we barely have the votes to pass it now. It simply cannot be allowed to die, unless the bill is so defective (e.g., entirely lacking a public option) that it will predictably not accomplish any of what it’s supposed to do. The restrictions on abortion funding, while odious, do not in our view put the bill in that category — particularly for women in Massachusetts, who are less likely to feel the effect of such restrictions than women in some other states. A health care bill with a public option, an end to preexisting condition limitations, and subsidies for low-income people to buy health insurance is (to coin a phrase) too big to fail, so we think Khazei got that one right.
On Afghanistan, we think Khazei deserves a lot of credit for being the only candidate to talk about it from day one of his campaign, and also for being the only one to have put forth thoughtful
