MyDD :: A request for Obama and HRC supporters

A request for Obama and HRC supporters

by adamterando, Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 11:48:24 PM EST

I am a John Edwards supporter. I've listened to all the candidates speak and have listened to multiple speeches by HRC and Obama. Obama supporters in particular (probably since there are more of them) have asked me to check out his policy positions and read his speeches on his website to find out where he stands on issues. I have done all that in the spirit of learning and so I can come to a reasonable judgement on who to support. So now I have a request for all HRC and Obama supporters. I would like you to give John Edwards a chance and to do it by listening to an interview he just did.

Click here to listen to John Edwards on WBUR's On Point. The interview lasts about 50 minutes and it's very good. I'd like to hear people's opinion on it and if they learned anything new by listening to it. I do feel that many Obama and HRC supporters formed opinions of Edwards in 2004 (as did I) and have never really given him another look since then. So, in the spirit of elevating discourse and getting to know all the Democrats (because one of our candidates is going to lose so many of us will have to support someone else anyway) I'd ask that you give this a listen.

Poll

Votes: 40
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 97 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (3.00 / 1)

People decide on a candidate for various reasons. Some choose the person based on the message that the candidate delivers during the campaign. Others focus more on the experiences (not just legislative) of a candidate over his/her lifetime. Personally, I prefer the later. I think the choices that people make over time are a better reflection of who they are and what issues are important to them and give a better prediction of what they will like in the future. I think all 3 candidates have fairly similar positions on major issues. I would be happy with any of them, although Edwards' campaign is a little too populist for my taste. But the major reason he is not my #1 choice is that his messages (however nice) are simply not reflected in his life experiences. What has he done for poverty prior to running for the Senate? He is calling for everyone to make personal sacrifices while he bought a $6 million house in NC. There are just too many inconsistencies.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:10:16 AM EST

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (3.00 / 2)

Your last statement is asinine and counterproductive.

Apparently you think Herbert Hoover was correct and that government plays no role in working to create a better life for all people and that it is strictly the purview of private charity. That only people that sell all their possesions and take a vow of poverty can care about poverty. I guess FDR was just a big hypocrite.

It is not inconsistent to want to give people the same opportunity that you had that you know our current society does not allow them to have.

So what amount of sacrifice would qualify him to care about poverty? What he should live in a shack and give away 6 million? Or should he give away 48 million? Or perhaps he realizes that even though he is very wealthy, his individual wealth isn't even a drop in the bucket when it comes to solving problems like poverty and universal health care. That's the whole point of government. Instead of one person being able to give up a few million dollars that will not help many people, he would be in charge of a budget of 2 trillion dollars that can help millions or billions of people. Do you understand that point?

You might also say that he is sacrificing considering that he could be making millions of dollars right now as the most successful trial attorney in the South but instead he's running for president.

I also assume that since all the other candidates are wealthy to a degree, that you will be harping on their houses' worth in Chicago, New York, or DC.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:20:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (3.00 / 0)

I have trouble believing that you would call the poster's comment "asinine." It seemed you were inviting comments and were reaching out to supporters from other candidates.

Edwards is not a well-known lifelong activist like, say, Ralph Nader is for almost all his life. And, even Nader is now seen by many as a hypocrit because he is no longer a true tireless activist, instead he disappears, then shows up every four years to make his stand.

Just in 2004 Edwards did not run as a populist, that was not his theme. You have to remember that many people hold a cynical view of politicians, typically for good reason. They believe politicians will tell you anything you want to hear. So, if one of them has a very recent epiphany of sorts, there is additional scrutiny because it is not at all unlikely for a politician to engage in a makeover because it helps him with a certain constituency.

Edwards has to build a reputation for true populism over time to be truly accepted, for many it seems like he jumped on it for political reasons. Since the epiphany was recent (at least in terms of making it an overriding political issue) he has to accept particularly close scrutiny. So, when he goes after Walmart his campaign staff can't be seen actually shopping at Walmart for campaign-related items. Perhaps unfairly, but if you are a populist you are pretty much instantly believable if you wear $5 shirts, $50 suits, drive an energy efficient Volvo and live in relatively modest accomodations. Otherwise it will just take time of consistent populism advocacy (sort of like the way Carter has worked tirelessly for "Habitat for humanity") for it to be fully accepted. In fact, win or lose, I hope Edwards stays in this for good. He gives me (and I guess others) the idea that after the election he will just "go his merry way" rather than to continue publically fighting for the cause. I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that even if Edwards were to lose the election he will be a vocal advocate and will work hard and tirelessly to advance those issues.

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Did you listen to the interview?

I invited comments after people listened to the interview. Since philgoblue wrote his comment only 30 minutes after I posted this diary I have to question whether he actually listened to the interview. That's the whole point and I think he proved my suspicions. That people are supporting one of the big two and want other people to look at their positions and read their speeches but they won't actually take the time to do the same for Edwards. Instead they rely on gut impressions they formed two years ago and no amount of factual information is going to get in the way of that.

Also, the populist message isn't really new. Remember that the two americas speech started in 2003/2004. I didn't buy it then because he didn't have the policies to back it up. Now he does, which shows he's matured and can back up his sincerity in fighting for this cause.

Also, Edwards has said that he plans to stay in public service for the rest of his life. He's not going to drift away.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:05:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Well, you did not "buy it" then. Why is it hard for you to believe that some people aren't buying it now?

And, the "asinine" comment was in relation to Phillyguy's last sentence:

"He is calling for everyone to make personal sacrifices while he bought a $6 million house in NC."

To some that is a valid issue. I would not call it "asinine." After all, many here are purists on other things, why is it hard to believe that some on the extreme left are looking at the personality involved (and their own behavior,) not just the message itself?

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:17:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah al gore should STFU (none / 0)

because his energy bills in a month are more than average americans in a year.

who is he to tell us about saving energy

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (3.00 / 0)

I think it's an excuse for people and it justifies their support for another candidate even though John Edwards has superior stances and plans on issues from a hard-core progressive perspective.

No it is not a valid issue because it is an amorphous standard that provides no basis for determining when someone has sacrificed enough to be able to care about poverty. It still comes down to that if you can't be rich if you want to do something about poverty, then every Democratic president we've had and every Democrat running now is not allowed to say or do anything about poverty. They're all rich.

So really, all it says is that the commenter him/herself doesn't want to do anything about poverty because by their standard nothing can or should be done since everyone running is rich and therefore has not made enough sacrifices.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

That is your opinion. Not everybody shares your opinion on that. I am personally fine with how anyone wants to spend money they have amassed, but I certainly can understand those who believe otherwise when it comes to those who take up certain issues.

I say "yeah, right" and bring out the hypocrit label whenever I hear the right-wing argue that those of them who advance causes should not be held to that standard (i.e. on drugs - where in the world is idiot Limbaugh who vilified drug users "better" than those he went after because his drug of choice is Oxycontin and not pot, cocaine, etc.?)

The "common man" (which is basically the core constituency for Democrats) does not begrudge their representatives some of the nice fruits of their labor. But when someone picks up a cause it automatically becomes "Practice what you preach" with many. If you are going to go after lyrics in music, don't go to an Eminem concert because the invitation came from a big-money donor. If your issue is pollution, try not to be a big polluter yourself. If your issue is poverty, don't build the biggest house in town, if your issue is.

The Catholic church is very wealthy. The pope could live in a palace, a building befitting his stature in the church. Instead, the pope is housed in sparsely accomodations. Why? Because he is "pure"? No, the church rightly understands that the problem with palace housing for the pope would be two-fold:

1. Catholics listen to the "message," the pleas for help, the please to combat poverty, but don't believe it is real, because the messenger goes back to his palace after the speech.

2. If you live in luxury you remove some of the "connection" you have with the common man.

Let's be clear: I personally don't have a problem with Edwards building a huge house with servants, gardeners, etc. That would not effect my vote at all. I just find it interesting that you can't believe that for some it does make a difference, perhaps even a big one.

I guess every person has a different opinion on things. Heck, I have been married for 16 years and have two daughters, I KNOW that to be true. :-)

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

The Catholic church is very wealthy. The pope could live in a palace, a building befitting his stature in the church. Instead, the pope is housed in sparsely accomodations.

Strange tack for you to take in your argument, George. The pope actually lives in a palace.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

You know what I was getting at, clark. The pope lives in the Vatican, obviously. But his quarters are sparse and without frills. The message is linked to the messenger to an extent.

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:02:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

No, he lives in a palace. His quarters are certainly not "no frills".

The Clintons own two separate houses worth much more than the Edwards' home. Bill has earned tens of millions in speaking fees alone. Should they sell their possessions and give them to charity because Hillary is running for president?

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

What the heck? Did you read my posts? I PERSONALLY have no problem with however Edwards wants to spend his money. But don't be surprised if a certain section of the Democratic votership does not look at it that way. It may not be as bad as someone who crusades against gambling taking his money to Vegas and blowing it all on the lucky 7, but to some, making populism and "poverty" your overriding themes, they believe some modesty would fit the theme a bit better. Who can blame them? They have their opinions, and that is that. Can't argue with personal opinion, really.

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so no president can (none / 0)

advocate to help the poor because all presidental nominees are rich is the logical extension.

And al gore in a 10,000 sq. foot house can't advocate for energy conservation

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so no president can (none / 0)

As I said, that is just the way some view it. Call it class envy, or whatever. It is an element the candidates have to be aware of. It is part of the package. The other way around: If a candidate had modest means and lived in a 2200 sq. ft. home, he would convey middle class. Then he talks about populism, most can connect, they know where he is coming from. The richer the person in front of you talking about poverty, the less he connects. That does not mean it is right, just that voters feel disconnected because all of them are rich beyond their comprehension. In this instance, populism is just a much harder sale. IMHO if I were Edwards I would have probably waited until after the election to build that home to give his "message" the least distracted audience it could possibly get.

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:31:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Isn't possible Philgoblue or someone else may have listened to the interview live yesterday? After all, it was on the Net.

I didn't get to hear the interview but want to listen to it sometime soon. I heard parts of the Brian Lehrer show and Edwards was definitely on his game.

by benny06 on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards had a life changing event (none / 0)

the death of his 16 year old son in a car wreck.

yes, before that he was strictly in private practice and not political. However, going after corporations and health insurance companies for wronging individuals is not exactly working as an investment banker on wall street.... Buy the way Nader endorsed Edwards in 1998, as Edwards has never taken corporate PAC money

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I generally agree with you but (3.00 / 1)

asking people to listen and calling the asinine is not a good strategy.

I do support JRE. I could vote for Obama or HRC, if they were the nominee. But then I would support any of the Democratic candidates over any of the GOP ones. I will not vote for a 3rd party candidate- unless it is Al Gore and I don't see that happening. He will either run as a D or not at all.

As to JRE being a Johnny come lately on issues of poverty or populism, I would have to point out that most of his career was spent using his talents as a lawyer helping ordinary people. He was only paid for his efforts, if he was successful. He got cases based upon his reputation. So he is not, in my opinion, a Johnny come lately.

As for buying an expensive house, not everyone could or should take a vow of poverty. It is not a requirement for being an advocate for the people. It is, in my opinion, a typical right wing complaint- calling a Democrat an elitist merely because they have $$$. A politican with money isn't necessarily evil or an elitist. It is their stances on the issues and how they vote. Some may have an issue with JRE's votes or stances on the issues. I don't agree with all of them myself. I do think he is genuine, however.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

by molly bloom on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:27:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I generally agree with you but (none / 0)

I was very polite in the actual diary. The commenter made a statement that has been a right-wing frame for decades now and it is one of the very very few reasons that people give for not supporting Edwards that drives me into a rage. I do not apologize for making that comment. How can it not anger you when people say that because you have money, you can't want other people to have what you have?

I didn't call the commenter asinine, just his comment. It is one of the tried and true right-wing smears and it's logic is so ridiculous on its face that it deserves to be ridiculed (although I am not ridiculing the person by any means).

I will not back down on this point, just as I don't expect Obama supporters to back down if someone claims that he can't be trusted because he attended Islamic schools or that Hillary can't be trusted because they had people sleep over in the Lincoln bedroom.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know but (none / 0)

Its how the comment will be perceived. I realize its not what you intended. I tend to piss people off myself by being blunt. Its a trait I like in Howard Dean.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

by molly bloom on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

speaking of right wing frames (3.00 / 1)

Barack did not attend an Islamic school. He attended a public school in a Muslim-majority country (Indonesia).

From cnn.com

Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. .....

"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."

by JoeCoaster on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: speaking of right wing frames (none / 0)

That was my point.

by adamterando on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:15:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Asinine"? (none / 0)

Adamterando, are you sure you're not working for one of Edwards' opponents? Calling voters "asinine" is not going to win them over to Edwards' side, even if were true.

When you ask the commenter, "Do you understand that point?" it also seems terribly condescending.

Please keep advocating this way for John Edwards. It's the most effective way you personally can assure that he doesn't win votes, and that helps my preferred candidates.

by francislholland on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:20:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Asinine"? (3.00 / 0)

francis, you're one to talk.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Did you listen to the interview?

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

why listen (3.00 / 2)

when you can preform opinions and not change them.

Edwards' one house is less expensive than the Clinton's two housed in DC and NY.

bill has taken in 40 million in speaking fees. I can safely say the next democratic nominee will be a millionaire.

the logical extension of the Edwards is rich meme is if you want to do anything for the poor or working class you must be poor or working class yourself. Edwards started with little, first to go to college etc... and did not inherit weatlh.

Edwards also started "college for everyone" in NC and funded 100 college scholarships last year

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:00:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Perhaps you might also note that he has sacrificed things in his life. His son was killed for instance and that helped him decide to go into public service, where he plans to remain for the rest of his life.

His universal health care plan will raise taxes on people like himself. That is also sacrifice. He's been working with UNITE to organize hotel workers around the country instead of continuing to make money as a lawyer. This argument just dumbfounds me and is one of the few things people say that make me infuriated. Do you honestly think that only poor people can care about poor people? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:24:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

No I don't think you have to be poor to help others, but I do think it's important to look at the work they have done and the commitments they have made over a lifetime. And it's just a poor judgment on Edwards' part to purchase the most expensive house in the county while he is running a populist campaign. He could've taken a leadership position on this and bought a energy efficient house and hybrid car, but he didn't. The most important thing for me in candidate in genuineness. I can over look a few votes I don't agree with as long as I like the overall message and a commitment to that cause is reflected in his/her work.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:34:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Edwards did buy a hybrid and his house is indeed energy efficient.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:37:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Yes, I don't think you're being genuine here. I don't think you've actually looked at him as a candidate. Because if you did, you'd probably know (given all the press about the house) that his house is energy efficient and he does drive a hybrid.

Please, just actually look at what he has done instead of writing him off. Have you gone to his website yet? Please go there and read what he has done and what he is doing.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:42:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

See my comment about Radiohead below. (none / 0)

The first rule of politics is to not waste your time with people who have decided on a candidate. There are many people out there who have not decided on a candidate that will make your time more effective.

A better approach when dealing with those who have selected an interest in another candidate would be "consider Edwards WHEN AND IF your candidate drops out of the race".

by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See my comment about Radiohead below. (none / 0)

I'm not. I'm knocking down false arguments because there are plenty of people who read these diaries but don't comment (witness the number of votes in the poll versus number of different commenters).

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

I suppose only the poor can support poor folks and only the poor can run for President. Did Obama give back his money from writing the book?

Bottom line. In America, it's okay to work and it's okay to earn money. And if you work hard, as John Edwards did, you can build a nice home for your family.

Arguing that his home somehow makes his message invalid, in the same comment where you express concern about his "populism," betrays an upper middle class fear of change. So he should be poor, and argue for the poor, but you won't support even if he is poor and arguing for the poor, because "populism" is dangerous. Working folks and unions are fine with John Edwards and his home. So am I.

by littafi on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:24:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

I would be delighted if Edwards became president but he is not my first choice. I agree with many of his policy positions.

I have no problem with his vote on the war or his apology. I happen to think that the 3 major candidates would govern in a fairly similar fashion given democratic control of the house and senate. It even sounds like they would focus on many of the same issues.

Having lost the last two presidential elections through selecting candidates that allowed themselves to be bullied, this is a significant point for me. On this criteria HRC is by far the strongest candidate. I'm afraid I don't see Edwards as a brutal candidate and his response to the bloggers fiasco rather confirmed my fears.

Similarly, I struggle with the idea that we can win many republican votes, or put the south in play. I'm looking for a high turnout candidate and again HRC is the outstanding figure here, with Obama a clear 2nd. Edwards simply doesn't have the star power to bring new voters to the polls (evidence - look at his name recognition and current national poll numbers)

To my mind Edwards is a low turnout, try to win independents and persuade a few moderate conservatives to switch, candidate. This might well work but I'm not confident. Historically the right has been far better at turning out its vote.

So basically, happy with him as President, less sure about him as a candidate or his strategy for winning the White House or even the primaries.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:45:11 AM EST

there's a dramatic difference (3.00 / 2)

between Edwards and Hillary on healthcare - although Hillary's details haven't emerged,, the difference between someone saying they will roll back taxes on the wealthy to pay for Universal healtch care from the start of their term is vastly different than a policy of by the end of the second term without finding ways to pay for it.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (none / 0)

IMHO Edwards made a huge mistake with his health care proposal. I would like to see someone poll just that, but I honestly can't imagine it went over well. Why? Because there are some themes in the proposal that won't fly.

Just one item that stands out:

Edwards' plan makes buying health insurance mandatory (sort of like car insurance.) That is bitter medicine for many who are barely making it in life now. I am not talking about the poor and destitute, who would surely continue to receive free health care, since they don't earn above a certain "poverty" level. But what about the vast middle class? Many choose to not buy health insurance at all, instead opt for a "pay as you go" approach. They "pay" as they "go" to get their mammograms, flu shots, checkups. Many of them make, say, $35,000 for a family of four, and they buy insurance for their kids but not for themselves, opting instead to use that money for their kid's college fund or simply for healthy food. With the cost of housing, transportation and food going up dramatically, some simply can't afford to buy health insurance for themselves, even if they (on paper) make "too much" money to receive Medicaid.

Forcing them to suddenly pay, say, $180 for 2 adults (in their late 30s) per month of health insurance means that you take $2,160 per year out of that family's budget that they had planned for other purposes. We are talking families that struggle to get by as it is, even though they are not in the "poverty" zone. Now, you may say to them: "Just scale down other expenses. Your kids don't need to go to softball twice a week. Why does your wife get her nails done every two weeks?" That is because even though the middle class has gotten squeezed beyond the reasonable, many are trying to still maintain a life that, to them, appears non-spartanian, many want to still indulge in a few inexpensive "niceties" that give them the resemblance of a middle-class life. Forcing them to "pay up" when right now they don't have to may be the "ugly truth" of a truly universal health care system, but that stark realization sure does not win votes from those whose already light pockets are going to be effected the most.

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:52:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we all pay for health insurance (3.00 / 1)

you obviously never heard of the Hippocratic Oath. Everyone gets healthcare it's just whether or not taxpayers get stuck with the bill at county hospitals, and healthy young people pray they don't get sick because they choose to go without insurance.

Insurance by definition is a pooling of risk, the larger the pool the less risk to any one individual all things being equal.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:09:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we all pay for health insurance (none / 0)

"Everyone gets health care it's just whether or not taxpayers get stuck with the bill at county hospitals" Not completely true. That only applies to emergency situations. I agree with George that many, especially the young and healthy, would rather take a risk than paying an expensive premium. Many of my friends only have a catastrophic insurance instead of a health maintenance policy. It makes an economic sense for them to opt-out, although that would probably lead to a higher premium for everyone else. The bottom line is that we live in a individualist society. I can't imagine people like being told what to do, and that includes health insurance.

by PhillyGuy on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:48:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

so you should say (3.00 / 1)

you are against universal health care - which is fine.

Because according to your logic people will choose to go without.

What about Walmart that encourages their employees to get medicaid at taxpayer expense? Why shouldn't employers provide health care?

My suspicions are that reforming the health care system would allow funding 20 year olds for free.

the Edwards plan allows choice for those who can get cheaper insurance from the private sector.

Why should we have social security ?? Your argument against universal health care is also the right wing argument against social security... let young people invest their money on their own and get a better return.

think of health care as social security - it is not what is the best for you and any given moment but how do we all look out for each other.

When your uninsured mythical 20 year old get's in a car crash s/he will need medical attention. It's just nuts to assume a young person won't need healthcare.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:22:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

do you share the same (3.00 / 1)

individualistic society for Social Security?

If so than I can better understand your thinking on healthcare.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:23:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (3.00 / 1)

Um..georgep please listen to the interview. Can you please do that?

Many of them make, say, $35,000 for a family of four

A family of 4 making $35,000 a year is not in the middle class. And if you actually listened to the interview you would realize that that very same family would pay nothing for health care because they would be copmletely subsidized.

The subsidies go on a sliding scale up to 80-100k. The less you make, the more you are subsidized until all health care is covered. I was skeptical when I read the first 3 pages of his health care plan until I realized this and I also realized that he had an approach to get to single-payer insurance. That's what differentiates this plan for a car insurance plan. And you spreading ignorance on the subject is not helping one bit. I might as well say Hillary's health care plan won't work because people don't like plans that call for killing puppies.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:10:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (none / 0)

You know, you are asking us to listen and watch 50 minutes worth of your chosen candidate's video, but you appear very combative and argumentative. How does that help the "cause"? Why do you even write that you get "angry" and that you are "enraged"? Are we all supposed to just agree with you? Everybody has a different opinion. You yourself said that you "didn't buy" him in 2004. Why the attitude when somebody doesn't "buy him" today? His message is totally different from 2004 anyways. And, yes, I followed candidate's messages very closely in 2004, pulled the trigger for Kerry in 2004 because I simply did not buy Edwards then.

As for the health care debate:

http://toaaw.typepad.com/toaaw/2007/02/e dwards_health_.html

Points out problems with the approach, especially when it comes to the currently uninsured who don't fall into the "poverty" pool.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-d emoro/edwards-on-healthcare-h_b_40711.ht ml

Here the writer points out where the plan fails and needs reworking.

As it pertains to my point that the currently uninsured would be actually worse off than they are now, consider this quote:

"And, like the varied proposals by his political counterparts, the Edwards plan fails to crack down on insurance company premiums that from 2000 to 2005 rose by 73%.

Without controls on the ever-climbing premiums, the mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance which Edwards joins Schwarzenegger and Romney in demanding, looks like little more than criminalizing the uninsured and guaranteeing that many will end up with unaffordable, substandard plans.

Consider what more and more residents of Massachusetts and California are discovering about their much touted "universal" plans forcing everyone to buy insurance.

With no controls on premium costs, even many middle-income families will be squeezed into cut-rate, bare bones plans with deductibles of up to $10,000 per family, meaning many will end up paying most for most of their medical expenses out of their pocket on top of their premiums - or simply just forgo using their plans entirely."

Basically, agree with the plan or disagree with it, that mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance will cost Edwards votes from those who are currently squeezed the most.

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (none / 0)

If people don't like the rising insurance company premiums, then they join the public plan. If private insurance premiums keep rising at the rate they do now, then they'll quick find themselves out of customers, since everyone will have signed onto the public plan. That's how the Edwards controls premiums.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (3.00 / 0)

Compare that to Hillary's plan, which is "I'd like to be able to offer UHC by the end of my 2nd term."

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (none / 0)

We have not seen either Clinton's or Obama's plan as of yet. Maybe it can't be done without costing middle class voters some money, but that will cost some of the votes of those directly affected.

by georgep on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (none / 0)

At toaww, the writer apparently didn't even read the plan even if she claims she did. Otherwise she wouldn't have wrote this,

"The reality is, if small businesses that currently cannot afford to subsidize employee's health care, are required to then do so, it will force them to increase their prices to consumers to compensate for the higher costs. "

But they don't have to subsidize health care unless I guess you count 6% of the payroll as subsidizing. If that's the case then how is that any different then how you would pay for single payer? You'd have to have a payroll tax to pay for that too unless you're going to up income taxes 10%.

I've already discredited the huffingtonpost critique too because that was an extremely disingenuous post that didn't even mention that Edwards had a public insurance option in his plan. So, once again, have you even read the plan? Can you take 30 minutes out of your blogging time to research it?

It's nice you pick out 2 obscure examples to try to discredit the plan without actually reading it, but I think I'll go with my own instincts here since I've actually read it, and Paul Krugman's instincts since I trust him over people that have other agendas.

by adamterando on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's a dramatic difference (none / 0)

Also, many many times I've been asked by other supporters to research their candidate, read or watch their speeches and look into their interviews and I've done it because I want to know about them and it's a pretty serious deal to support someone for president of the united states. Are you saying that we should just pick someone on gut instincts and soundbites instead of what they actually say and stand for?

Also, how much time have you spent commenting on this post? I'd bet it's at least 50 minutes. Maybe you could use that time to listen to the interview.

I'm not worried about my combative tone. I'm not trying to convince people that are obviously set one way or another. I'm pointing out flaws in arguments for those that are reading this and aren't commenting.

by adamterando on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:27:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree that HRC is a high turnout candidate. (3.00 / 1)

But more of the wrong people would be turning out.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree that HRC is a high turnout candidate. (none / 0)

Maybe, may be not. But frankly that's a petty response if someone is bothering to listen to a 50min interview.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:48:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree that HRC is a high turnout candidate. (none / 0)

Its a fair one though and I am an Obama supporter saying that. HRC is a person most either love or hate... Very Passionately, just like Bush. Obama and Edwards just don't elicit that response. Even within the party, she gets that response... Whereas most Edwards supports don't HATE Obama (even though some of the ones on here seem to go out of their way to prove me wrong on this statement), they just don't get his appeal. Most Obama supporters don't HATE Edwards, they just have a lot of reservations on him and his sudden change of heart on certain issues... plus both groups just simply like their guy better.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:02:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree that HRC is a high turnout candidate. (none / 0)

The maths are simple. The right are maxed out. The people who don't vote would vote left if they could be persuaded to do so. Clinton and Obama can bring new voters to the polls, Edwards can't. The right turn out anyway. They even turned out for their side in 2006, it just happened that independents went democrat big time.

For HRC to win she has to bring several million new voters to the polls. Edwards can win on a low turnout, she can't.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2004 (none / 0)

had Bush to turn out the evangelicals that may stay home in 08 , and had Bush to turn out the far left too.

With record turnout in 04 it didn't work so well with Kerry.

Even with high turnout Hillary still will really incite the hard right who otherwise wouldn't bother to vote for Giuliani or McCain
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po litics/2003272973_jerry24.html

Hillary Clinton could outdraw the devil, Falwell says
By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Clinton -- not even a run by the devil himself.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2004 (none / 0)

Frankly Kerry and Edwards have far more in common than Kerry and HRC. If you want to take your chance on low turnout elections then fair enough but in the long run the left are far better off getting everyone to vote than hoping that independents will break their way.

If it is going to be a low turnout election then don't pick HRC. But she wins a high turnout election.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2004 (none / 0)

One thing is for sure, IMO: The 2008 election will be a very high turnout election. Interest and actual excitement has never been greater, polls show that many people are already engaged, much more so than before the 2004 and 2000 elections almost 2 yrs. out. IMO turnout will be historically high.

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:24:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2004 (none / 0)

Citing Falwell? Why not look into Pat Robertson's crystal ball while you are at it.

Geez, a bit over the top, no?

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:26:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

as long as Obama (none / 0)

comes through with a serious universal health care plan by the end of his first term I'll gladly support him.

We can quibble on the details but I think it's clear thatboth Edwards and obama were/are more bold out of the senate than in it

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: as long as Obama (none / 0)

I'd agree with that, but Edwards was a 1 termer and Obama has only served 2 years... to make a big impact, you need to be in your second term usually or at the end of the first.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:08:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just meant (none / 0)

as a solid presidential proposal. that covers everyone and is feasible...not necessarily get it done as a senator!

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Please listen to the interview if you have time. He addresses the "brutal candidate" issue. It's somewhere in the middle of the interview.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

I am listening to the interview while trying to reseal my shower. He comes across quite well. Though after about 20 mins the sound seems to break up.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

He talks about it but he had the chance to show that he is a brutal candidate and he didn't take it.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

You mean with the bloggers?

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Yes.

I'm not saying it changed my mind but he responded to the right's framing of the issue. I was underwhelmed.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

The question becomes... WHO does HRC become a strong turnout candidate for... US... or the GOP who hate her as much as they did Bill or we hate Bush.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

We have greater potential than the right for bringing new voters to the polls. Bizarrely, it was Dick Morris who explained this. Clinton/Obama is practically impossible to beat for turnout reasons. That's the ticket I want. HRC brings single women. Obama brings young voters.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:22:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When's Dick Morris' movie (none / 0)

to swiftboat coming out?

before or after the primary?

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007012100 01

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When's Dick Morris' movie (none / 0)

The thing about movies, they often backfire. How did the right-wing "truth about 9/11" disaster of a movie work out for the GOP? An obvious hackjob could well have the opposite effect than the one desired. And, what station would carry it? Or is it "direct to DVD" so people can peddle it on blogs?

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

wow, I totally disagree with you on turnout (none / 0)

My own brother, who never votes Republican, swears he will write in a candidate if HRC is our nominee. I know other Democrats who feel the same way. My brother would vote for absolutely any Democrat left standing against HRC--can't stand her.

I see HRC as having all of her husband's liabilities (would unite the Republican base like no one else) but not his strongest assets (communication skills, being a southern governor).

The Democratic activist base would be incredibly demoralized if she were the nominee.

I think Edwards, Obama and Richardson would all do better in a general election than HRC. I would give Edwards the edge because he connects so well with people in the smaller cities, towns and rural areas. These are areas that shifted heavily toward the GOP in the 1990s but are starting to swing back a bit.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:02:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wow, I totally disagree with you on turnout (none / 0)

That seems like an unrealistic post.

If you study poll after poll you get a different picture:

Democrats (registered or likely voters) as a whole like HRC the most of the 3 candidates, she has the highest "favorables."

No candidate has as high negatives amongst Democrats as John Edwards. In fact, HRC has the lowest "would definitely not vote for" tally of all 3 candidates in every poll where that question was asked, despite having an almost 100% name ID.

I have to assume that your personal poll is flawed and would require a much higher sample to be considered near accurate. I don't trust all polls, but in the aggregate the evidence is overwhelming.

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:35:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I like Edwards (none / 0)

But the fact that he has "changed" since 2002, and 2004, and 2007, kind of makes me nervous.

Obama's consistency on the war is what sold me.

Thanks for the link. I'll try and listen to it tonight. cheers!

peace,
jw

by faithfull on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 08:34:11 AM EST

Re: I like Edwards (3.00 / 1)

Thank you.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:12:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Listened to all 50 mins. Haven't really changed my opinion. Edwards is a great guy and I would be delighted if he became president. Still prefer HRC as the democratic candidate for reasons given above.

Must say that some of Edwards' supporters on here don't help his cause. There are plenty of good reasons to support Edwards and plenty of perfectly reasonable reasons why you might prefer another candidate.

by kundalini on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:17:34 AM EST

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Thank you for listening. I appreciate your comments.

And once again I think there are perfectly good reasons for not liking a candidate. But basing it on how much money you have is not one of them.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:44:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

To me he has so far shown he won't take a swifty attack lying down like Kerry did. Frankly, I am not sure what Edwards has done to show he can handle it any better than Obama... but if you can show me something I'd appreciate it. HRC I think WILL respond best to attacks of any of the big 3, but I can see her going overboard too. Either way, your comment at least gives a rational, non offensive answer for why you support Edwards over Obama or HRC and for that I thank you. Wish we could see more.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

media double standard for black people (none / 0)

could crush Obama. They are building him up now but would just as happily take him down once the right-wing hate machine gets into full gear.

Expect articles about what a bad example it would set to have an admitted cocaine user in the White House, and how the presidency is a high-pressure job that could cause a relapse into addiction, etc.

Of course, the same media won't cover W's drug use--IOKIYAR.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

And, of all the spouses, I like Elizabeth Edwards the most. I know, random point, but it was Mrs. Edwards that made me take a second look at John Edwards.

If Obama weren't in it, I'd be an Edwards supporter.

by rikyrah on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:46:55 AM EST

What? You don't like Bill Clinton? :) (none / 0)

Actually I like Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Michelle Obama.

I see Elizabeth and Michelle both going into politics.

by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Yeah that is one thing I don't know too much about... Michelle Obama... I know the general history but haven't seen her speak too much or anything. Personally I'd like to see a first lady with the on camera poise of a Laura Bush (yes its a compliment and I hate to give it but on Camera, she comes off very well... its the stories off camera that makes me think she is as bad as W.) and the work ethic and quest for Change that HRC had during the 90's. Elizabeth Edwards would definately fill this capacity and I am hoping Michelle Obama will too, but I don't know enough to make that call.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

I have nothing against Michelle Obama. I admire and respect Michelle Obama. I think she's a down-to-earth ' Sista' who is the best and brightest that the community has to offer. I think she balances Barack Obama in the same way that Elizabeth Edwards balances John Edwards. I think the campaign should use her more with Black audiences, and that she could 'close the deal' for Obama with Black audiences.

There's just something about Elizabeth Edwards that I've liked from the beginning, even when I didn't like John Edwards in 2004.

by rikyrah on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 12:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Still Looking (none / 0)

I will listen but I was thoroughly unimpressed with the guy as a VP candidate, especially his weak performance against Dick Cheney in the VP debate. He clearly has the killer instinct in the court room but I haven't seen it in the political arena.

I am also biased against Senators/former Senators as Presidential candidates because only 3 sitting Senators have ever been elected President. I'd really like a progressive Gov with a record of accomplishment but the only one running is Richardson and he doesn't inspire me.

Obama gets my attention everytime he smacks down the Repubs but I continue to be concerned about his lack of experience.

by John Mills on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:13:55 AM EST

Re: Still Looking (none / 0)

Thank you. I hope you listen. I too was disappointed with many aspects of the '04 campaign and was not an Edwards supporter in '04. But I've followed him closely since then and that's why I support him. I did not make this decision lightly and I've considered supporting many candidates (I was for Clark for a while, then for Obama), but after looking at Edwards again and really looking at him, I believe that he deserves my support.

by adamterando on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I really like Radiohead but am willing to listen (none / 0)

to Wilco when Radiohead is out of reach.

by Yoshimi on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 10:27:37 AM EST

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

I have always liked Edwards a lot, and his support for poverty-related issues. However, I like the fact that Obama has a certain star quality and is attracting attention from many different circles. It is not just that I want to go with a winner, although I do, I also think a black man as president would be the bomb!

by aiko on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:48:28 PM EST

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Thanks for the link; but if your goal is to have people actually listen to it, you need to back off a bit and not be so combative. I don't believe you can pound people into supporting Edwards. I support Obama but I don't beat on those who support someone else. And for those who express concern about Obama's experience
I would point out that in the Presidential primary of 1860, one of the candidates had almost no experience having served only one two year term in Congress. He had also lost twice for the U.S. Senate. He won the primary and also the Presidency. By all accounts, he did quite a good job. Our 16th President, Abe Lincoln.

by pservelle on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:48:54 PM EST

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Lincoln was an awful president. He should have cut the South the hell off. Perhaps if a more sensible person had been president, we wouldn't have had all the problems we have.
The South is, always has been, and always will be the most backward part of the country. We should have let them go.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 02:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

The quaint notion that Lincoln could have let the South go its merry way without consequences is simply wrong.

The Civil War came about because the slaveholders want to force slavery into all of the Western territories the Republicna party was sworn to preven that from happening. If Lincoln hadn't strangled the incipient slave empire in its crib the Free states could have easily found themselves dominated by the slave states whihc could have extend from the Gulf to the Candian Rockies.

Bessides, if the South had been allowed to suceed your Candiate Edwards would now be runnig for Presidnet of hte Confederate States of America.

by Sam I Am on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 04:48:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Losing Edwards would have been worth losing the South.

I disagree with you, yet. Fine then.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 03:38:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

Wow.... You may be the first person outside of a hate monger neo nazi or KKK member (and no I am not saying you are.. far from it) who I have ever heard or seen write LIncoln was a bad President... I am in shock right now.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 06:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (none / 0)

"Lincoln was an awful president. He should have cut the South the hell off. Perhaps if a more sensible person had been president, we wouldn't have had all the problems we have.
The South is, always has been, and always will be the most backward part of the country. We should have let them go."

Was this snark? If not:

Wow. And here I thought you were one of the more reasonable Edwards supporters on this site. Shows what I know.

/ If you were being a sly snark master, disregard the above. :-)

by georgep on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 04:19:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A request for Obama and HRC supporters (3.00 / 2)

It's not my intent here to insult anyone but the fact is that, despite polling well in Iowa, John Edwards, however genuine and well intentioned, would be hard pressed to even just win back his North Carolina Senate seat much less win all across the Nation.

And despite the huge political machinery behind the Hillary Clinton campaign and her name-recogition advantages, the questions of both her authenticity and her missing that southern charm and charisma of her famous husband will continue to follow her (along with unease at prospect of some past or present Clinton-family scandal or "bimbo allegations" of one type of another erupting to a gleeful U.S. Media just in time to blow the whole General Election out of the water).

Now, I know that some people are still unconvinced of Obama's progressive credentials. They hear words about "getting along" and they think "aha - DLC ... DLC .. he means capitulation". But I think those people are simply misreading him and are seriously underestimating just who Obama is.

Obama has worked right out in the projects and in the streets of South Chicago with his Church-based community outreach. He knows all about the plight of the poor, the working class, and those people left out with no hope and no opportunity. He's seen it and he knows that government is a tool to give people hope in life.
His preacher, Jeremiah Wright, is an unabashed Martin-Luther-King influenced raging Liberal, like right out of the 1960s, who hates this War and who hates the Bush administration. Obama has bonded closely with him and understands the anger.
Obama has also studied Constitutional Law as a lawyer and this is important in dealing with all the executive actions and the Bush-Cheney gutting of the implementation of our American Government right now. That experience will be a compass to guide him.
Obama has studied FDR and writes about him in his own book. He is well aware of FDR's Economic Bill Of Rights and Four Freedoms which were never, ever fulfilled in this Country (after his death). Our Country became essentially a "National Security State" or "Warfare State" under Truman & Eisenhower and never again realized the vision that FDR had for our people and for our own standard of living.
So I think some people are misreading Obama.

He is really a Liberal in "Moderate" clothing and not the other way around.

He instinctively understands the real problems of this Country - even if he does not have the answers for it.

Obama is not himself a policy wonk. He is incapable of reading off 9-point plans and talking about the details of Medicare-Part-D and all that 11-step proposal minutia.

But everyone, listen to this... this is also his invisible political strength.

For years, we have had all sorts of well-studied policy-wonkish candidates trying to run at the head of the national ticket and it didn't work well - those people just get inevitably picked apart, often make poor candidates, and in any case have been unable to change the underlying root political dynamics in the Country (including Bill Clinton himself).

Remember Ronald Reagan?
He sure as hell was not a policy wonk either and, unfortunately, he led an extreme right-wing political realignment in this Nation during the 1980s.

Recall back during the 1970s, everyone hated War and rejected Militarism, everyone smoked pot and thought that was okay, everyone was pro-environment, and casual sex and sexual freedom was so well accepted that if anyone that tried to shove religion down their throats they would be instantly thought of as wacko. The word "liberal" was instinctively understood as a "good" word! It was a different Country then in many respects.

Now, Reagan was no genius. He was just the grandfatherly, comfortable public face behind "the reactionary conservative movement" that shifted the whole Country so much so that (the liberal) Micheal J. Fox became famous just by playing a Nixon-loving Republican on TV, while "Rambo" made even the disgraceful Vietnam War "cool" again, and everyone overlooked Reagan's unlawful and possibly treasoneous Iran-Contra scandal and the Marines dying in Beruit (a far worse event then anything that happened under Jimmy Carter), and the bloody, illegal Central American War - as religous wackos began to get their own TV shows. Michael Douglas starred in a movie ("Wall Street") where the message was "greed is good". The 1980s became the decade of "greed is good" and conservative dominance. What a profound shift from the post-Woodstock/post-Watergate/post-Vietn am years!!

Well, what we need today is a Democratic version of "Ronald Reagan".

The Front man behind a progressive political realignment that will shift the Country back to the place where it once was in the 1970s.

There are plenty of people in the Democratic establishment that Barack Obama can tap into help him craft detailed policy proposals when the time comes. So don't worry about that.

Instead, think big.

Political realignments, to succeed, are about such vagaries as hopes and themes and comforting, unifying, appealing ... dare I say simplistic rephrasing of the many problems.

So, if Obama wants to talk about "a new kind of politics" then let him.
Let him grab the Independents with this.

If we can get Obama up to the General Election, he will absolutely win the Presidency in a landslide (the first time for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination).

The right-wing can't touch this guy.
Fox News c