I am tired of the fighting.  Senators of both parties used to eat/drink/talk together.  Now they hate each other.  We barely  pass anything because nobody crosses over to compromise anymore (except us).  I don't want to compromise on our values at all.  I just want someone who can show the other side why our ideas are the best.  Why NCSB sucks.  Why we need to exit Iraq now., etc.  Who can say it better?  I think Obama would do well at this.  Most Republicans are tired of this too.  Most of them have had it with Bush and the current GOP.   Most of them are like those old John Danforth type GOPs -- who all retired after the Gingrich revolution.

I don't want GOP-lite and I don't think that is what he is.  He has ALWAYS been against the war.  He never took the huge salary he could have earned after his law degree from Harvard.  He went right into community service.  

Hillary is a DLC Dem who is and has always been against the grass roots.  She is that old style -- spend all your money on big media buys --type politician.  Kerry all over again -- but worse.  Because I actually believed Kerry -- I think he was boring but mostly honest.  She is a weather-vane to public opinion.  I really don't get the appeal to anyone except those that feel they have waited long enough for a woman.  For me, the bad weighs more than the good.  I would really have a hard time voting for her in Nov -- but I will if I have to.

1. I hear what you are saying about Hillary, but Obama puts his finger to the wind plenty -- all politicians do. To be honest, I don't really know why this gets such a bad rap everyplace. I mean, in a Democracy, reflecting what you believe to be the will of the people -- even if you do so for a selfish reason -- is not necessarily a bad thing.

2.  You are kidding yourself if you think most Republicans want to see cooperation. I'm sure you've been paying attention to what has been going on in the Senate.  For the average Republican, bipartisanship means doing it their way. I'll believe you if GOP voters throw their obstructionist Senators out and give the Democrats a 60-vote majority.

3. Just for the record, one reason why it seems like there is more partisanship today is because the parties are more divided along ideological lines, with liberals gravitating toward Democrats and conservatives toward republicans. This realignment began in 1960 or so. Then, there were very conservative Democrats and liberal republicans, like Javitz and Wieker. There were plenty of disagreements, but they didn;t always break down along party lines.

4. I don't know much about Obama's biography, but I did read recently that he has a net worth somewhere north of $1 million. I don't know where he made his money, but it wasn't community service.

5. I appreciate your willingness to vote for Clinton should she be the nominee. The most essential thing is to defeat the Republicans in November.

Mitt and Ann Romney $202 million
John and Elizabeth Edwards $54.7 million
Rudy Giuliani $52.2 million
John and Cindy McCain $40.4 million
Hillary and Bill Clinton $34.9 million
Fred Thompson $8.1 million
Barack and Michelle Obama $1.3 million

But more to the point, neither the Clinton's nor any other candidate is pushing the hagiography of selfless community servant who has never done anything for himself, even though he could have.

The same with McCain's fortune -- source?

Dreams From My Father is, by literary standards, a superb book.  The guy is extraordinary.  He wrote a book that deserves to be read.  He has been rewarded with a lot of sales.  I gave the book to my mom as a gift.

Peace  

It looks like Obama is winning almost all Edwards supporters in the netroots.  In comparison to this poll, last week it was Edwards 42%, Obama 41%, and Clinton 9%.  So...from last week to today, Clinton picked up 2 percentage points from Edwards supporters, but Obama picked up 34 percentage points (!!).  Amazing.  And we appear to be seeing the same trend here on RK.

Given all the pro-Obama/Anti-Hillary rhetoric in the Internets over the last 10 days, perhaps it's a valid question to ask why ALL of Edwards' vote didn't go to Obama.

I'll say this: Obama sees that when he and Hillary get into the muck, he is teflon coated (no wonder he loves Ronald Reagan!). He was trying to goad her, or perhaps trying to goad Bill or both of them, with a few jabs in his Denver speech today.

Any kind of critical discussion of Obama's record or his campaign is quite difficult in the current atmosphere.  

I suspect it is driving Bill and Hillary nuts.

And before anyone yells at me, I'll vote for the winner in November. I'm just not happy with the choices now.

We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates... My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.

Also, check this out:

Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

  1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
  2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
  3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
  4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
  5. Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
  6. Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
  7. Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
  8. Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

No, the only issue is that Obama OFFERS coverage at affordable prices, but he doesn't MANDATE coverage for all Americans.  In other words, Obama has a different approach than Hillary Clinton to achieve the same objective - providing every single American with access to quality health care that can't be denied or taken away.  Sounds pretty "universal" to me! :)

Obama contends, however, that his plan will make health insurance so attractive and affordable, most people will participate. I have no idea if this is the case or not.

Surgery could be necessary.

The idea that the 45 million uninsured do not WANT it is absurd.  Maybe a few hundred thousand who are absolutely incapable of rational thought don't want to pay....but most people do not feel this way, I'm sure.

How many people without insurance do you know who don't want to carry it because they're healthy?  It's absurd.  I'd be willing to wager that 95% of healthy people will want affordable insurance.

So far as I can tell at this point no one in Congress, regardless of party, has the political or even moral "courage" to even whisper responsible financial policy - i.e., raise taxes enough to actually pay for what they are promising - and I haven't seen anything of substance yet from any Pres. candidate addressing how any campaign promises will be funded.

I could be wrong about neither candidate having any "how I will pay for my promises" information in their Health Care "plans". Maybe I've missed something in their "plans". Note that I put "plans" in quotes for the obvious reason that a plan with no financial section is not a plan. In other words, they are all saying "Trust me on this. I'll start developing an actual plan sometime after I'm sworn in".

If I had submitted even a rough draft project plan to my Admiral that was missing the financial section he would have thrown me out of his office and told my supervisor to give me an "Unsatisfactory" performance rating. I think this might be a good concept to apply to the candidates: Give us a real draft plan or we rate your performance "Unsatisfactory". At least Edwards was honest enough and had the courage to say more than once that higher taxes would be necessary to pay for implementaion of his plan. Maybe that's one reason so few people voted for Edwards - they all expect something for nothing.

Sorry for the excessively lengthy comments. I get very pashionate and feel compelled to say these things when politicians ignore their fiscal responsibilities and promise more than they can deliver.

Your responses will be greatly appreciated.

                       T.C.

Obama does support universal health care.  He just doesn't support forcing people to buy coverage, at least not at this point.  He wants to cover the people who want it and need it.  I assume that once we accomplish that, he'll get to the currently healthy people who are not willing to pay for it.

This poll just adds to the confusion.  I have heard news reports that 40 percent of Edwards' supporters say that Clinton was their second choice with only 25 percent saying the same about Obama.  I suppose we will know soon enough when a round of polling comes out.

Oh well.  I think he was in it to win it, not play politics.  He had a prime opportunity to play politics (king maker) yet he chose not to.  I think that says something about his character.

Can someone fill me in?

There are many more people out there who this is just a popularity contest for.  Not everyone actually thinks about the issues or what the candidates stand for.

My first litmus test - follow the money.  Second, I look at issues and equally character.  That is why I am attracted to both Edwards and Obama.  That sounded gay ;-)

People who read RK/DK or really any of the blogs aren't yet your mainstream voters.  They are people who really believed we saw Hillary's soft side when she teared up in NH.  They are the ones who remember with fondness the days of Bill Clinton.  They are the folks who haven't been watching the underhanded tactics or they are the ones who think all politics is dirty, so they are nonplussed by such behavior in their own favorites.

Hillary should rate one positive story don't ya think? If this is a community blog...

If you write a good diary, with images, spell check, back up with facts and something worthy of publication - and still don't get featured maybe you have a legitimate complaint.  

Just kiddin'. ;-P

Obama Obama Obama !!!

I wish my friend -- I am with Obama , the next POTUS !!! :-)