I am not familiar with her proposal. However, when I read “universal” I envision something along the lines of Medicare or Medicaid where there are cost controls and everyone is covered. It just seems to me that the cost to the insured should be income sensitive and itemized as a deduction on an employees paystub and W2 similar to the taxes. Non-income earners should qualify for the insurance at no charge. However, maybe her program is not as “socialized” as I thought. Anyway, its too early to call the Democratic race and even then I’m sure the Republicans are going to be strong opponents. After all, they will have the backing of the oil and insurance industries.

If Hillary wins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as the present polls seem to suggest, I suspect she is going to have the most regular delegates and the popular vote without Florida and Michigan being considered. After winning New York, California and a few other States, along with the above, it seems to me that the majority in the Democratic Party would have spoken. She would have captured virtually all of the large States, a few smaller ones, the majority of the regular delegates, and a majority of the popular vote.
On that basis, I think voters should put aside their personal perceptions of the character of the candidates which is based on media reports and vote based on the candidate’s philosophical view of the role of the Federal Government and their positions on the issues. To me, their political philosophy and positions are much more important than whether I am personally attracted to the individual. I would like to add, my perception of Hillary is quite different than my perception of her philandering husband.

I agree, and this blog has created a good discussion. I have to admit, I see the benefits of a long protracted campaign, because it gives the candidates a chance to have a slugfest. I am not basing my choice on character impressions. We had 8 years of the Clintons, and saw their lies, deceptions, and shananigans firsthand.

For those who missed it, Clinton was a huge supporter of NAFTA and ignored protests about losing jobs in the U.S. Hillary couldn’t sell her healthcare plan in 1991 and it isn’t going to fly now regardless of who is elected President.

I favor a universal healthcare as an expansion of Medicare to accept ALL ages, all conditions, and all regardless of ability to pay. I do not support criminalizing the poor for not joining her healthcare plan wherether it is subsidized or not. Are they going to go after the elderly poor, those in prision, etc., for not paying the dues for national healthcare?

If Hillary wins, then that is so much more ammunition for the Republicans. I am tired of both political parties being controlled by the fringe extremists. If voters loved the Clintons, then Al Gore would have been elected instead of George “trigger happy” W Bush and his quail shooting friend, Dick Cheney.

I want a change. If Hillary wins it is just more establishment corporate politics regardless of what she promisies. If McCain wins, we can guaranteee another 50 years in Iraq and more George W cronyism.

I had not really thought about it before, but now that you say it, I agree that a “long protracted campaign” is advantageous to the voters. I remember when I worked for the government that decisions were frequently put off for as long as possible. I observed that an advantage of this inaction seemed to be that the extra time allowed for a full evaluation of all of the ramifications of a decision. So for that reason, a longer campaign gives the voters a chance to fully evaluate their options and make a more informed decision.

As for NAFTA, I don’t know that much about it but it seems that the same voters who opposed it are the ones who want to build a fence ASAP and deport those over here seeking jobs and a better life for themselves and their families. Yet, one of the goals of NAFTA was to create jobs in Mexico. Why don’t we go after the businesses who illegally hire these people thus providing the incentive for them to cross the border illegally? Without the jobs available, they would not come here illegally. It is odd that those groups that oppose NAFTA, strongly oppose amnesty, and hire illegal immigrants are on the same side of the fence. As is said, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.”

I like the universal healthcare idea as is clear from my earlier posts. I hope if individuals are prosecuted for failure to pay the premiums that it is for falsification of tax returns, as I think the premium amounts will be income sensitive and correlate to the amount of income disclosed on individual tax returns.

I agree with your corporate establishment comment to some extent but think it presently applies more to the Republicans than the Demcrats. Right now, the Democratic campaign seems to be a populist movement. Maybe there should be signs posted at the border saying, “Welcome to the United States of America, a corporatocracy.”

After listening to Obama this evening, I’ve realized I don’t know who’s on what side of NAFTA. But, I heard him speak for what seemed like an eternity and didn’t see him look at notes - amazing! I have a feeling that Obama is going to win this thing. We will see.

First, I will not again vote for a candidate based on a single issue. I am supporting Barack Obama.
I would not vote against someone for supporting NAFTA CAFTA, because it is too late to go back and impose tariffs on trade with South and Central America.

Regarding NAFTA - 1. The notion that building Mexico’s economy would lead to a huge reduction in illegal immigration was a promise made by the globalists, including H W Bush and Bill Clinton, when they first jammmed NAFTA down the throats of legal U.S. citizens. We all know what a colossal failure that was to reduce the tide of illegals crossing the border. 2. I disagree that these Mexicans just want a chance to a better life. A large majority of illegals are here to make $$$ and send it back to Mexico, with no desire to become a legal citizen, and no desire to live here permanently. 3. Employers should be fined and punished for knowingly hiring illlegals. My fear is that innocent people will be prosecuted because thanks to civil rights organizations, it is impossible to determine the status of potential workers without the threat of a lawsuit by the illegal supporters.

While NAFTA CAFTA was said to be benign programs that would help U.S. businesses and at the same time help Mexico economically, NAFTA CAFTA have become siphons depleting U.S. jobs, hindering U.S. companies, and destroying the people it promised to help.

Regarding healthcare reforms, I do not see the federal government as an innovative leader in reform. Forcing people to join a healthcare program is not what we should be doing. The federal government is crying about paying Social Security benefits because of the projected costs. The Clinton form of national healthcare would be an enormous cost, and an ineffective method of trying to compensate for a free market place that charges whatever fees the market will bear.

If anyone thinks that the federal governemnt can manage healthcare look at the mess created in the Medicare and Medicare Rx programs. People aren’t going to be so gullible as to trust the federal government with national healthcare, when so far, the federal government has failed with attempts to provide Rx drugs at affordable costs to the elderly.

I wish things were different. I wish that we could trust the U.S. government to help citizens with the most basic needs: foods, shelter, and healthcare. Social reforms in the U.S. that are managed by the federal government have a long history of failure. Instead of paying huge profits to drug companies, the U.S. government should be demanding lower prices for Rx drugs paid for by the Medicare Rx program.

If Obama sweeps Texas, then I will be able to sleep better knowing that the Clintons will fade into the sunset. Poor Chelsea.... Poor Chelsea.

Well, it is obvious to me that you know more about NAFTA than I do. I would simply say that we really do not know what effect NAFTA has had on illegal immigration. We don’t know how many are coming across the border now and we don’t know how many would have come across without it in effect. We do know that some in Mexico and elsewhere have not come across due to the jobs that this agreement created in their native countries.

However, as for the foreign workers, many are doing jobs that Americans would be unwilling to do for the wages that allow these businesses to be competitive in the global market. Also, as I’ve traveled through Texas I have been very impressed with their work ethic. I have observed many workers who appear to be of Mexican descent working very hard doing very hard work. I believe we should allow these workers to come over here legally and work so we can allow these employers to offer competitively priced products. It’s not like there are American workers applying for these positions and are being turned away because the employers are not hiring. There aren’t enough legal Americans willing to do the work. Furthermore, we are not currently in an economy suffering from high unemployment.

As for universal healthcare and the Federal Government, I do not have the negative view of the Federal Government that you do. Due in large part to various State’s failures throughout our history to address issues important to minorities and the poor, the Federal Government has had to step in to address these issues. I believe that inadequate and overpriced healthcare is now one of those issues that the Federal Government should, can, and will step in to address after the next election, and it is long over due. I will agree that there have been problems but I am also hopeful that the new Sheriff in town will address these problems.

As for the Clintons’ character, I understand how you feel. In fact, I felt that way while former President Clinton was in office and never voted for him. Now, I realize that I was naive when I thought their behavior was so unacceptable and out of the ordinary. As you know from other threads here, I soon observed and learned that there are some individuals who lack virtue, integrity, or are otherwise dishonorable working throughout all branches of our government including those at the State and local levels. The Clintons just got a little more attention than the rest because there were people willing to report it. But, Obama is on a roll and we may soon put the Clintons and the Bushs behind us.

Should those Florida Democratic leaders who elected to violate party rules and move up the primary be held accountable for that decision when and if they come up for reelection? Just a thought.

"If voters loved the Clintons, then Al Gore would have been elected instead of George “trigger happy” W Bush and his quail shooting friend, Dick Cheney.”

Al Gore actually won more of the popular vote (more people voting) than Bush. It was the electoral vote (the electoral college based on state populations) plus the Supreme Court that put Bush in office. Wonder what would have happened in 2000 if all those votes that were taken away and destroyed had actually been counted?

Voice,
That is a very good point about the Al Gore thing. What a mess that was! Hindsight is 20/20 as is said, but had the election outcome been different we would possibly be living in a different world today. Would we still have invaded Iraq or just went directly after Osama? We will never know.

I do like Obama’s willingness to talk to our adversaries (at least we can let them know we’re serious that way) and the other fresh approaches he has proposed regarding foreign policy. I like his healthcare plan and his positions on the environment etc..,. I do hope he will bring in new people who can manage our government and economy so we see projected budget surpluses again. I know you are a Ron Paul supporter but at least it looks like we can get many of our troops out of harm’s way with Obama, and that would be a good thing.

There was one other comment I wanted to make regarding the Florida Democratic leaders arrogant decision to break party rules and move up the primary in order to give Florida voters a more prominent role in the candidate selection process. It appears that this decision possibly changed the outcome of the election by denying Hillary the momentum along with the delegates she would have otherwise had. Perhaps, they should be congratulated as they wanted voters in Florida to have a more prominent role in the selection process, and to that extent, they were successful.

wassup - can we look for a new thread after March 4th with the addition of Ralph Nader?

Thanks for starting this thread.

Been_There_Done_That - 24 February 2008 12:17 PM

wassup - can we look for a new thread after March 4th with the addition of Ralph Nader?

Thanks for starting this thread.

Been_There_Done_That,
You’re welcome. Thats a good idea but I’m not convinced that Hillary will be out of it by then. So, I’m not sure it could be narrowed down to the three candidates. The latest polls I’ve seen have her slightly ahead in Texas and ahead by more in Ohio. Also, I’ve spent some time in PA.. It’s a big State with alot of traditional blue collar Democrats, who are likely to back Clinton if she stays in it after March 4th. I know how you feel about her but I could go either way.
I have mixed feelings about Nader’s candidacy. I would like to see a multi-party system that offers viable candidates for the Presidency, or at least more than two choices for the office. On the other hand, his candidacy this time like in 2000 with Al Gore will draw more support from the Democratic candidate than the Republican and the reality is that his chances of winning are slim to none. So, we could conceivably end up with a President that is farther to the right than the one he draws support from. Any thoughts on that?

Now Hillary is doing the Clinton two-step. I watched CNN debate where she supported placing crimninal actions against anyone who didn’t buy her national healthcare - now she is denying it. That’s why I won’t vote for Clinton.

I am certain that Ralph Nader is more of a thorn to Hillary. If you are supporting Obama, there’s no chance that Nader would sway your vote. The establishment Dems are the ones who may go to the Nader side.

I wish I could be more positive, but Clinton will likely buy the nomination, one way or another, and we will as a nation elect John McCain. Big business and Stock Market investors aren’t supporting Clinton’s mortgage bailout, or her healthcare plans. So we shall see what happens after March 4th.

The best thing about all of this is that we have instant replay and YouTube, so Clinton can’t get away with the Clintonian two-step, as Big Bill did when running in the 90s.

I admit I’ve had a few extra days to watch the race since your last comment but it now looks to me like Hillary will be withdrawing pretty soon. The media has turned on her as have many of the super delegates. The polls show Obama leading by several points nationally.
On the other hand, it is in no way a given that Obama will beat McCain. I thought differently a few weeks ago but McCain reportedly is ahead of Obama in some of the polls. I’m not so sure Obama can beat him anymore. Although McCain supporters have not participated in this forum, they can be found elsewhere on this website and there are many others throughout the nation. He was not the first choice of most Republicans or conservatives, but they are rallying around him on issues such as lower taxes, continuation of the war, and terrorism. Add to that many Hispanics who will support him for his immigration stance and he is going to be tough to beat. Obama also has some “skeletons in the closet” that may get alot of attention real soon.
You know, even the Democrats who have been elected to the Presidency in recent history have advertised themselves as conservative Democrats so at the end of the day its going to be hard to convince a majority of Americans to vote for someone who is clearly liberal on most issues. But, we can always hope.

"On the other hand, his candidacy this time like in 2000 with Al Gore will draw more support from the Democratic candidate than the Republican and the reality is that his chances of winning are slim to none. So, we could conceivably end up with a President that is farther to the right than the one he draws support from. Any thoughts on that?”

Maybe Ross Perot or another right-wing candidate could be encouraged to run as an independent. He was the one who drew votes away from George H W Bush when he faced Bill Clinton in 1992. Then we would have four, with two independents drawing support away from the two mainstream party candidates. That would be very interesting, indeed.

Wonder if the Republican machine had a hand in Nader’s sudden decision to run again?