Hillary's new health care plan isn't such a great thing, which should come as no shock, since she's slaking her unhuman thirst for money and power at the corporate teat of the Insurance and Health Care industry.

Obama?  He's giving magic medicine lollypops to every man woman and child.

I kid I kid ... about Obama's lollypops anyway.

I'm going to go back to Matt's concern, because it eats at me, too.  Back in 2000, I was working at a record store, and all the kids there were going on about how they supported Nader, and I was beside myself telling them, you know, for the love of god, don't F with the presidential election - screw around with your green parties at the local level, but this is too important - that sort of thing - I couldn't imagine then wasting my vote... but a lot has happened since then.

I'm tired of voting pragmatically.  I believe in Obama.  I believe Clinton is, based on her voting record, a Republican.  What has she done, ever, with her career that shows she's someone I can put my support behind?  Nothing.   There is no way I can do it again: go into the booth and hold my nose.  That's not what we should stand for with Democracy.  Those lousy Nader punks were right.  This is disgusting.  We need to vote for people we belive in, not who is corporately selected for us.  Obama's getting my vote if he's on the Dem ticket or not this November.   On one hand, I have to vote for what I believe, and, let's be pragmatic here, on the other hand, McCain isn't so bad.  He's not who I would vote for, but he's certainly the best the Republicans have to offer in a long time.  Like our gov here in California - I'd never vote for the guy, but I'll be ok with him (though keeping a watchfull eye and being harshly critical). 

This should be a lesson to the Democratic party - not in that the dems are crybabies that take their ball home if they can't play with it, but that it needs to re-evaluate what constitutes a Democrat?  Tax breaks for the rich?  Free reign for corporations?  NAFTA?  Punnishing the poor?  Misguided wars that hurt us, while avoiding the real issues in the world?  Is that what makes a Democrat?  That's not what I want to vote for.  That sounds to me like what the other guy is voting for!   But, based on the last few presidential elections, it's what the Democrats come up with Primary after Primary... And if that's what the Democrats have become, I want no more of it.   But that's where Obama plays an important role - he reminds us what a Democrat can be for one thing, but party politics aside, he's just the best candidate - left or right.  He's the guy I want to see running America.  He's the smartest guy in the room, (I know that's usually a disqualifier for office, but we need to learn our lesson on that one), he's good at working with people (despite him not uniting the Democratic ticket - though, I have to say, I personally know a lot of Hillary supporters who changed after finally listening to him or reading his books or reading his voting record.  I think people just stubbornly don't want to support him.  Till they have to see what he is, and then... ). 

So, Matt Reed... we'll see where the primary season leads... hopefully the Dems become Dems again... but if not.. maybe my fellow Dems can convince me that Hillary isn't a Republican... but I won't vote for her just because there's a "D" next to her name. 

I'm going to go back to Matt's concern, because it eats at me, too.  Back in 2000, I was working at a record store, and all the kids there were going on about how they supported Nader, and I was beside myself telling them, you know, for the love of god, don't F with the presidential election - screw around with your green parties at the local level, but this is too important - that sort of thing - I couldn't imagine then wasting my vote... but a lot has happened since then.

*************

SER: You know, as a Democrat, I was really annoyed by the reaction many Democrats had to Nader's candidacy and their rather inaccurate belief that he "cost" Gore the election. I thought it was like children with a huge sense of entitlement throwing a tantrum. And worse -- there was no real sense of trying to learn from the 2000 Nader campaign. Instead we got fear-mongering: "See all the evil Republicans will do if you don't stay on the plantation and vote for the lesser of two evils?"

Oddly enough, if McCain were to lose, I think Republicans would think long and hard about nominating someone they believed had strayed too far from the base.

****************

I believe Clinton is, based on her voting record, a Republican. 

*********************

SER: I think that's a bit extreme. She's certainly a very unpopular Republican in that case! She tilts right -- arguably more so than her husband -- on certain issues, but when it comes to her pet beliefs (health care for instance), she's pretty far to the left.

I don't think Clinton's voting record reflects any real political stance other than her desire to become president. You might get a better reflection of her views from his history prior to elected office.

She became senator in 2000 and shortly afterward, we got 9/11 and she went where the political winds had shifted. Should she have had the courage to stand up to Bush and his croneys? Sure, but I think that's more the issue with her than her being a closet Republican (I think Lieberman is, for example, basically a Rockefeller Republican who has no home in that party so is a Democrat).

Ultimately, though, I tend to think the Clintons are their own political party: Clintoncrats and that's where their allegiance truly lies.

Nader I don't think cost Gore the election - I do think it hurt Gore somewhat, though - as much as what happened with Florida did. And I still believe that Florida was fixed.

However, I do think that Nader is a narcissitic egomaniac, and he lost a LOT of respect from - and quite frankly the right to even call himself an environmentalist when he said Gore would be just as bad as Bush - when he ran. He's not so much a problem anymore as a nuisance, because I doubt anyone takes him seriously anymore.

Just curious: Is there anyone who supported Ron Paul, or know people who did, and can explain to me why? I never could figure that out, as in the interviews and debates I've seen, he came off like Ross Perot 2008...except with a better speaking voice and a lot less common sense.

Florida wasn't fixed, Florida was fucked.

Jason Czeskleba wrote: And in addition now she's handed McCain the "experience issue" on a silver platter for him to whomp her with if she gets the nomination.

I absolutely agree.  Hillary'd rather try to be President in 2012 than let Obama be President in 2008.

Jason, I hope you'll give your second thoughts about Senator Obama some third thoughts.

Senator Obama's "crazy pastor" is no crazier than any of the guys on the right who rant about the fact that 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina are God's punishment on America for being too liberal, too tolerant of gays, too pro-choice, or whatever.  The crazies on the right don't get marginalized.  To the contrary -- they are courted by politicians.

In any event, the jeremiad is a long-standing tradition in Christianity generally and in black churches in particular.  Did Reverend Wright use provocative language?  Of course he did.  The point of a jeremiad is to provoke.  The particular sermon in question was clearly intended to make the congregation recognize that in the eyes of the Middle East -- as in the eyes of black America -- mainstream America has done some damnable things.  This is not a point that should be particularly controversial.

As for disassociating himself from Pastor Wright: this is the man who brought Senator Obama to Christianity.  This is the community that welcomed him in when he was searching for an identity.  This is the church where he made his home.  It's not an easy thing to abandon, nor would I want a President who abandons his spiritual center and his community for political expediency.  It would have been easy for Senator Obama to recognize that some of Pastor Wright's more incendiary language could be used against him and to therefore sever ties with the man.  But I don't think it would have been right.

Which is not to say I don't expect the Republicans to make scurrilous attacks on Senator Obama based on his church.  But if you're trying to find a candidate who won't be the victim of scurrilous attacks from the right, you're going to be looking for a long time.

Yay, Jason F!

And Jason C - ok!  That's what I thought.  Now, here's the twist to that plan, and others - we currently have a system for poor people - Medicaid.   (which varies by state - here in California, it's called Medi-Cal)   So, I don't get Hillary's proposal - you have to get it, or ok, we'll give you some.  Well, we're already giving some! 

Speaking as a guy who works in HealthCare - the whole healthcare debacle is pretty damned complicated.  I will say this though, as much as I love the freedom of a capitalist economy, I can not, to the root and core of my being, believe that something as important as one's health and well-being should be left to the unchecked wilds of the free market.  I just can not wrap my mind around it.  The point of the free market is to make money, and introducing that to the practice of medicine obscures what the point of it should be.  I believe that in our free-market system, we should be free to work outside a government health system - we should be free to decide to go out on our own and make a buck, but I don't think the American citizen should have to deal with the free market while trying to maintain their health. 

I liken it to, say, firemen, policemen, things like that.   It's too important to leave to a money chasing free-for-all.  If you want to make a buck, go for it, but there should be a baseline system so the average citizen doesn't have to worry if they have enough money to get their pills, see their doctor, get their tests, etc...

But then, that's what makes me a Democrat!