Elitism and the Democratic Nomination

[RobMoney$]

I got to thinking about the relationship between the perception of snobbery or elitism on the part of the democratic nominee and their prospects for success in the general election.

1952 - Adlai Stevenson vs Eisenhower - Adlai was well-known for being an elitist snob, often putting down people deemed less intelligent or undesirable among the american people. He lost.

1956 - Adlai Steven vs Eisenhower - Adlai loses again.

1960 - John Kennedy vs Richard Nixon - Kennedy wasn't a snob. In fact, he was rather populist. He was known for not wearing a hat in an age when wearing a formal hat with a suit was a common practice among men. So his appearance was always more casual and friendly. He was down to earth and a regular joe. In fact, wearing a hat dropped out of style as people copied him. Kennedy won the election.

1964 - Lyndon Johnson vs Barry Goldwater - LBJ was no elitist snob. He was an ornery cowboy looking to mix it up. He won this election.

1968 - Hubert Humphrey + George McGovern vs Nixon - McGovern was not a serious candidate. I'm really not sure how Humphrey was perceived. On the one hand, I've read that he was called "the happy warrior" for being upbeat and positive. On the other hand, he has the typical liberal elitist snob background of dreaming of becoming a college professor before getting into politics at an early age, then returning to teach in a college setting later in life. But, he lost of course.
RFK would have moped the floor with Nixon.

1972 - George McGovern vs Richard Nixon - I know McGovern was considered an elitist snob. Yet another college professor type. He lost.

1976 - Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford - Carter wasn't the college professor elitist snob type at all. He was more of a working man, humanized by his peanut farm. He ran a very populist campaign. He beat Ford of course.

1980 - Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan - Carter crushed by a populist Reagan.

1984 - Walter Mondale vs Ronald Reagan - Mondale was a typical elitist snob. Very wooden too. Landslide loss.

1988 - Michael Dukakis vs GHWBush - Dukakis was yet another elitist snob, this one from the northeast. He lost.

1992 - Bill Clinton vs GHWBush - Bill Clinton was anything but an elitist snob. He was a fatty. Loved to scarf down food at McDonald's or order pizzas. Chased big women. Clinton was no snob, he was a pig. He won.

1996 - Bill Clinton vs Bob Dole - The pig wins again.

2000 - Al Gore vs GWBush - Gore is yet another elitist snob. He lost.

2004 - John Kerry vs GWBush - Kerry is yet another elitist snob. And he lost too.

And that brings us to 2008. Obama is more of the same. Yet another elitist snob.
He trashes rural-class people for clinging to guns or religion. Furthermore he doesn't understand why that caused a stir.
He's definitely an elitist snob.

[afronaut]

I don't really see Hillary being any less elitist or snobbish than Obama though. She tries to seem down to earth, but it's never very convincing. Going by purely image wise, Obama seems naturally more down to earth than Hillary. The whole image of being an entitled elitist seemed to be something Hillary would have to overcome more than Obama would. So yeah, that whole guns and religion comment was kind of a stupid move for Obama. Hillary still has yet to overcome her image of entitlement though.

I do generally agree with you about the whole snob thing. The 2000 election showed that America is full of dipshits who vote for the person who they'd most like to kick back and have a beer with. The 2004 election showed that America is just full of dipshits.

I don't really see why so many perceive a "college professor" thing as being bad. God forbid someone be educated, eh? Like the second you become knowledgeable and know what you're talking about, you're not one of the "people" any more.

[saz]

yeah hillary clinton isn't an elitist either. she's only a millionaire who voted for the iraq war, and was on the board of directors of walmart (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1) for six years, and raised no objections about walmart's fight against unionization. she's such an ardent supporter of the working-class. a real populist hero.

oh and nevermind that a lot of rural pennsylvanians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uO_KITFHmY&feature=user) clearly understood what obama was saying.

the truth is that the democratic party really became elitist under bill clinton, when clinton embraced republican economic policy, cut welfare, and cozied up to corporate america. the democratic party, just like the republican party, is now a party of wall street and big business, who cater to their lobbyists. both obama and hillary voted to expand nafta to peru (http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1204-20.htm), while they pay lip service to democratic supporters on the campaign trail about reforming nafta.

[RobMoney$]

It's a fact that the mainstream media and Academics simply cannot understand how it is that their candidate doesn't win.

Back in the '80's, a writer for the NY Times became famous for saying:
"I don't understand how Reagan won. I don't know anybody who voted for him."

Maybe Obama will change the pattern, but he looks like the candidate the media and the academy love, and end up losing the general election because they don't connect with the "common" man.

Obama's remarks about small towns basically state how he is an "elitist". We all wish we could have gone to Harvard, but Obama lets us known he did, and people who didn't are not in the same class as him.

[JohnnyChavello]

Lifelong democrat my ass. Rob, you're a fucking troll and everyone here should know that by now.

George W. Bush - born on third base, thought he hit a triple. Grew up in a monied, aristocratic family in the northeast - the prototypical fortunate son. Attended "elite" Andover prep school, Yale, and Harvard. Daddy got his pussy ass a gig with the Texas Air National Guard, later in Alabama, so he wouldn't have to fight in Vietnam. Spent the rest of his life running businesses into the ground until he was elected to the Presidency by five members of the US Supreme Court.

Elitism as a tag for Democrats is something conservatives and trolls like you use to characterize democrats in order to mask the aristocratic, power-entrenching, capital accumulating, anti-democratic agenda of the old, white men who have controlled the country from its inception. Trying to portray an African-American candidate, raised by a single mother, who chose to forego financially lucrative associate positions with the top law firms in the country, in order to work as a community activist in the south side of Chicago (a place your punk ass wouldn't dare to step foot in) is so fucking ridiculous and dishonest it should shock the conscience of any self respecting individual. As we've all seen over the course of this campaign, however, Rob doesn't have any self respect and is comfortable acting as a propagandist and mouthpiece for every single shit for brains talking point that the RNC has to offer.

[DroppinScience]

Probably the stupidest analysis of elections of the last 50+ years I've ever seen.

[yeahwho]

It is laughable at best that Obama from a broken home on his own doing work his way through the rubble rose above circumstances and actually was accepted at Harvard law school where he became the editor of the prestigious Harvard Law review. Now he's running for President of the USA!

Intelligent and hard working I'll go for with Obama. The remarks about elitism pointed his direction are mean spirited and unpatriotic, I'm working class, he's my candidate.

[QueenAdrock]

I read something that sums up the whole "elitist" bullshit pretty nicely:

Most comical in all this has been watching senators Clinton and McCain trying to keep straight faces as they call Obama out of touch and elitist. Can anyone hear the pot calling the kettle black? The Royal Crown-drinking Hillary has never known a day of want in her life. She’s lived in an executive mansion cocoon of power for most of her adult life and has no idea what it’s like to live paycheck to paycheck. And while John McCain has done well at creating the appearance that he’s just an average guy, other than his time in the Hanoi Hilton, he too has never had to worry about where his next meal would come from. With his father an admiral and he married to super-wealthy second wife Cindy, McCain is really reaching to call Obama an elitist.

Unlike the other two candidates, Obama really does have a set of life experiences that enable him to relate to the kinds of challenges facing most Americans. Bi-racial and raised in a third-world country by his white, single mother who once needed food stamps, Barack has spent his adult life on the Southside of Chicago where before he ran for elective office, he worked as a community organizer for some inner city black churches, when he could have cashed in on his law degree. Nothing was ever handed to Obama, and he certainly wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Rather than being out of touch with people, Obama has connected with voters like no other politician in a long time. He has succeeded to date, not because he’s a snobby, effete intellectual who only knows his Ivory Tower, but because he has correctly understood the desire of voters for change. Change in the policies that have brought this country to its knees, and change in how our politics is conducted. The reason he is breaking records for small-donor fundraising and causing great numbers of new voters to register as Democrats is because his message of change and hope gives voters reason, once again, to be optimistic about the future.

Barack Obama may be an exceptional individual, but he is no elitist. Attacking him as one is not only untrue; it’s bad policy for Clinton and McCain. What may have worked for Republicans in the past against the likes of Gore and Kerry (who at least by their backgrounds gave ammunition to the “elitist” claims) won’t be successful against Obama. Unlike Gore and Kerry, Obama has shown by the way he’s run his campaign that he can effectively respond when attacked.

Simply by his will and intelligence, Obama created quite an extraordinary life for himself and in so doing, has given this country an extraordinary opportunity. Whether we take advantage of that opportunity will be determined on Election Day in November when voters will decide if they’re more interested in patriotic lapel pins and phony “elitism” charges, or in ending this needless Iraq war, dealing with the impending recession, and saving the Constitution.

[saz]

Obama's remarks about small towns basically state how he is an "elitist". We all wish we could have gone to Harvard, but Obama lets us known he did, and people who didn't are not in the same class as him.

obama's remarks about small towns do not basically state how he is an elitist.

obama's point was that average americans are bitter and angry, and they have every reason to be after seven years of bush, and seeing more and more jobs being outsourced to other countries. in that clip i've shared from real time with bill maher, jeremy scahill meets with many rural, blue collar pennsylvanians, including bikers and gun owners, and they understood what obama's point was.

if obama's comments were really that "elitist", than hillary's lead in pennsylvania should have sky rocketed, but it didn't. she went from having a 25 point margin, to winning pennsylvania with just over a 9 point margin.

[afronaut]

Yeah, a Hillary supporter complaining about elitism is pretty absurd.

[RobMoney$]

Lifelong democrat my ass. Rob, you're a fucking troll and everyone here should know that by now.

George W. Bush - born on third base, thought he hit a triple. Grew up in a monied, aristocratic family in the northeast - the prototypical fortunate son. Attended "elite" Andover prep school, Yale, and Harvard. Daddy got his pussy ass a gig with the Texas Air National Guard, later in Alabama, so he wouldn't have to fight in Vietnam. Spent the rest of his life running businesses into the ground until he was elected to the Presidency by five members of the US Supreme Court.

Elitism as a tag for Democrats is something conservatives and trolls like you use to characterize democrats in order to mask the aristocratic, power-entrenching, capital accumulating, anti-democratic agenda of the old, white men who have controlled the country from its inception. Trying to portray an African-American candidate, raised by a single mother, who chose to forego financially lucrative associate positions with the top law firms in the country, in order to work as a community activist in the south side of Chicago (a place your punk ass wouldn't dare to step foot in) is so fucking ridiculous and dishonest it should shock the conscience of any self respecting individual. As we've all seen over the course of this campaign, however, Rob doesn't have any self respect and is comfortable acting as a propagandist and mouthpiece for every single shit for brains talking point that the RNC has to offer.

You're an idiot for trying to paint GWB as elite in anything.
You fail to see the difference between "elitist" and "elite".
It's not one's background that makes someone an elitist snob, it's their outlook on life.
It's about looking down on the common person as backward.
The Bush family doesn't do that, and the Clintons don't either.



I can't wait to see all the outrage from the Obama fans on here when he loses.
Honestly, I can't fucking wait.

[RobMoney$]

if obama's comments were really that "elitist", than hillary's lead in pennsylvania should have sky rocketed, but it didn't. she went from having a 25 point margin, to winning pennsylvania with just over a 9 point margin.


The basis for you're argument is a pre-election poll that said Hillary was leading by 25%?

Fool.

[DroppinScience]

I can't wait to see all the outrage from the Obama fans on here when he loses.
Honestly, I can't fucking wait.

When he loses what, exactly? I know you're not referring to the Democratic nomination because it's a near impossibility for Hillary to win unless she wins 100% of the votes for these remaining states (which won't happen). I know you're not referring to the general election either because there's about as much enthusiasm towards McCain as there is towards a seniors' association bridge game.

And you looking forward to a McCain victory over Obama doesn't speak well towards your "lifelong Democrat" street cred.

[RobMoney$]

When he loses what, exactly? I know you're not referring to the Democratic nomination because it's a near impossibility for Hillary to win unless she wins 100% of the votes for these remaining states (which won't happen). I know you're not referring to the general election either because there's about as much enthusiasm towards McCain as there is towards a seniors' association bridge game.


I know you're in the "I don't understand how Reagan won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." camp.

They should probably just end the election now and just hand it to Obama. 25yo. and you've got all the answers, that must feel really great.

[DroppinScience]

I know you're in the "I don't understand how Reagan won. I don't know anybody who voted for him." camp.

They should probably just end the election now and just hand it to Obama. 25yo. and you've got all the answers, that must feel really great.

Uhhh... I was two years old when Reagan was re-elected, and it's hardly a surprise he won in the manner that he did during the '80s. I'm against everything Reagan and neo-conservatism stands for, but I fully acknowledge that he was an FDR-like figure that swept into power on great charisma and promises of better things to come (only in this case, Reagan dismantled much of FDR's reforms). So your analogy is pure shit.

I don't know why you even bother to the extent that you do. I'm not so much troubled by your views of loving Clinton (and McCain too) and not liking Obama as I am by the fact that you try to prove how much more superior you are to us unwashed masses, yet you come off as a pure dumbass. It's pretty embarrassing.

[afronaut]

You're an idiot for trying to paint GWB as elite in anything.
You fail to see the difference between "elitist" and "elite".
It's not one's background that makes someone an elitist snob, it's their outlook on life.
It's about looking down on the common person as backward.
The Bush family doesn't do that
Well with this logic, I'm all fucking for elitist snobs, 100 percent. If Bush is an example of what it means to not be elitist, then hell fucking yeah.

and the Clintons don't either.
Riiiiggghht.


Now, what I'm about to say does not reflect the same attitude and logic I use when I support Obama, I think Obama is a positive example for the common man of someone who struggled and succeeded, as opposed to someone who was born into success; I think Obama is a good representative for both the common man and the "elite" "educated" Americans; I think Obama is looking out for the common man, and I think he will do a good job supporting and representing the common man in Washington. But I'm going to be perfectly blunt here: fuck the "common man." The "common man" voted in Bush two times. The "common man" voted to ban gay marriage in my state by a huge percent. The "common man" is still worried about Obama being a Muslim. The "common man" can suck my asshole. I'm only 21 and the "common man" has already left me jaded as shit.

Theres a reason the academics can't understand how people like Reagan and Bush get elected: because they're fucking educated. Because they're not fucking stupid. Because they know how shit works, they know what they're talking about, they are professionals and experts in their fields. Theres a reason why our presidents get us in so much shit: they're the choice of the idiots. Maybe we should only let people with masters and doctorates vote. Yeah, thats elitist as fuck, I know. But I wouldn't mind experimenting and seeing how that turns out for at least one election year.

[RobMoney$]

Uhhh... I was two years old when Reagan was re-elected, and it's hardly a surprise he won in the manner that he did during the '80s. I'm against everything Reagan and neo-conservatism stands for, but I fully acknowledge that he was an FDR-like figure that swept into power on great charisma and promises of better things to come (only in this case, Reagan dismantled much of FDR's reforms). So your analogy is pure shit.

I don't know why you even bother to the extent that you do. I'm not so much troubled by your views of loving Clinton (and McCain too) and not liking Obama as I am by the fact that you try to prove how much more superior you are to us unwashed masses, yet you come off as a pure dumbass. It's pretty embarrassing.


You're the snob.
You're the one who'll be left wondering "How did Obama lose, everyone I know voted for him" because everyone you know is not a "commoner". You're the academic, a snob, an elitist, but you're too stupid to realize it yet. Your above statement just proved it.

[afronaut]

You're the snob.
You're the one who'll be left wondering "How did Obama lose, everyone I know voted for him" because everyone you know is not a "commoner". You're the academic, a snob, an elitist, but you're too stupid to realize it yet. Your above statement just proved it.
Are you implying that being academic is a negative thing? Fuck you, if that is what you're implying. Fuck you and everyone who puts down a good education. I'm all for everyone, commoners included, having access to a good, quality, education that will not cost them an arm and a leg. I think the regular Joe should have access to a good education, and have the same chance at academics as anyone else. I think thats a very important thing for America, and I am saddened by how many regular people cannot afford a good education (hell, me included.) But to those people who put down the people who are smart enough to succeed academically, you deserve your go nowhere blue collar shitkicking job. Fuck the anti intellectual crowd.

[yeahwho]

Someone has an erectionism for Obama. LOL.

The entitlement program down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is coming to an end.

So hold on to your wiener because Hillary will be no winner.

HA hA HA ha LOL!

[kaiser soze]

All politics are about the elite.....as bush said "The Haves and Have mores."

[RobMoney$]

Are you implying that being academic is a negative thing? Fuck you, if that is what you're implying. Fuck you and everyone who puts down a good education. I'm all for everyone, commoners included, having access to a good, quality, education that will not cost them an arm and a leg. I think the regular Joe should have access to a good education, and have the same chance at academics as anyone else. I think thats a very important thing for America, and I am saddened by how many regular people cannot afford a good education (hell, me included.) But to those people who put down the people who are smart enough to succeed academically, you deserve your go nowhere blue collar shitkicking job. Fuck the anti intellectual crowd.


I'm not anti-academic,
I'm anti people who feel the need to tell me they're academic and how that somehow makes their opinion more important or better than mine.
I'm anti people who are barely voting age trying to tell me how they have all the answers.
I'm anti people who were in the 4th grade when I was in College (that's right, I too went to college, I just don't need to advertise it).

[RobMoney$]

Probably the stupidest analysis of elections of the last 50+ years I've ever seen.

It's comments like this that just reek of elitism.
Sorry my comments didn't meet your fucking standards.

DOOSH.

[yeahwho]

It's comments like this that just reek of elitism.
Sorry my comments didn't meet your fucking standards.

DOOSH.

Your standards are much higher than ours, we aren't smart enough to figure out how great Hillary is, you've hit our dumb spot.

[JohnnyChavello]

We find ourselves, then, met with the same difference that eternally exists between the fool and the man of sense. The latter is constantly catching himself within an inch of being a fool; hence he makes an effort to escape from the imminent folly, and in that effort lies his intelligence. The fool, on the other hand, does not suspect himself; he thinks himself the most prudent of men, hence the enviable tranquility with which the fool settles down, instals himself in his own folly. Like those insects which it is impossible to extract from the orifice they inhabit, there is no way of dislodging the fool from his folly, to take him away for a while from his blind state and to force him to contrast his dull vision with other keen forms of sight. The fool is a fool for life; he is devoid of pores. This is why Anatole France said that the fool is much worse than the knave, for the knave does take a rest sometimes, the fool never.

Jose Ortega y Gasset, from "The Revolt of the Masses"

[Bob]

We find ourselves, then, met with the same difference that eternally exists between the fool and the man of sense. The latter is constantly catching himself within an inch of being a fool; hence he makes an effort to escape from the imminent folly, and in that effort lies his intelligence. The fool, on the other hand, does not suspect himself; he thinks himself the most prudent of men, hence the enviable tranquility with which the fool settles down, instals himself in his own folly. Like those insects which it is impossible to extract from the orifice they inhabit, there is no way of dislodging the fool from his folly, to take him away for a while from his blind state and to force him to contrast his dull vision with other keen forms of sight. The fool is a fool for life; he is devoid of pores. This is why Anatole France said that the fool is much worse than the knave, for the knave does take a rest sometimes, the fool never.

Jose Ortega y Gasset, from "The Revolt of the Masses"

huh? talk english-like, y'all

[QueenAdrock]

You're the academic... but you're too stupid to realize it yet.

Yeah, Brett! You academic. (n)

Who's advertising their education here? Are you just assuming they are because they talk all intelligent-like? I don't hear anyone bragging about their schools and such.


I'm anti people who feel the need to tell me they're academic and how that somehow makes their opinion more important or better than mine.

I'm anti people who were in the 4th grade when I was in College (that's right, I too went to college, I just don't need to advertise it).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're implying that your opinion may be more important or better than people who are much younger than yourself from that last comment.

[Medellia]

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, totally a man of the people.

I'm sure I've mentioned this here before somewhere, but my grandfather was VP and chief engineer of an engineering/construction firm back when Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Since most of the work they did was on the highways (my grandfather was one of the designers of the state's highway system), they had tons of meetings with each other. My grandfather couldn't stand him. To be fair, my grandfather is kind of an asshole, so I'm sure the feeling was mutual.

Lifelong democrat my ass.
Oh he could be. My grandfather was a Democrat, but couldn't stand Clinton or his politics. At the time everyone in the south was a Democrat. Maybe everyone in his family is a Democrat, and that's just how things are done.

Or he could just be a Reagan Dem.

[Bob]

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, totally a man of the people.

I'm sure I've mentioned this here before somewhere, but my grandfather was VP and chief engineer of an engineering/construction firm back when Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Since most of the work they did was on the highways (my grandfather was one of the designers of the state's highway system), they had tons of meetings with each other. My grandfather couldn't stand him. To be fair, my grandfather is kind of an asshole, so I'm sure the feeling was mutual.


Oh he could be. My grandfather was a Democrat, but couldn't stand Clinton or his politics. At the time everyone in the south was a Democrat. Maybe everyone in his family is a Democrat, and that's just how things are done.

Or he could just be a Reagan Dem.

you know back in the civil war days, the democrats were the conservatives, maybe some people just haven't caught up yet

[Medellia]

you know back in the civil war days, the democrats were the conservatives, maybe some people just haven't caught up yet

Heh, that's true enough in the south, but I dunno if it's like that above the Mason-Dixon line. Though if Rob's got some southern ancestors, that might explain things.

[RobMoney$]

Now I'm not a Democrat because I don't support Obama?

My Grandfater wasn't some Chief Engineer or a VP of anything, he was a blue-collar laborer who worked two jobs his whole lfe until the day he died. He'd get up at dawn and go to his first job which was for a company who built trains, then he'd come home for dinner for about an hour and then go to his second job working for the city at the local Recreation Center where he helped organize athletic leagues and events for the local kids. He had 5 boys and 2 girls and a wife and still found time for everyone else's kids in the neighborhood. He worked himself to death at the ripe old age of 57 years old.
I was born and raised by a hard working, blue-collar, LIFELONG Democratic family. The entire city is primarily comprised of people just like me and Clinton ran away with Philadelphia. It's the main reason she won the state.

Is that enough to qualify me as a Democrat?

[RobMoney$]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're implying that your opinion may be more important or better than people who are much younger than yourself from that last comment.

Yes, it's more improtant because I'm the one who's old enough to remember the Clinton years and how great the country was then.

[RobMoney$]

WHAT'S HE RUNNING FROM? (http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/04/15/Democrats/)

Obama says no debates with Clinton between now and Indiana



WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday brushed aside a challenge from Hillary Rodham Clinton to debate before the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
On Saturday, Clinton said she wants Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.
"I'm not ducking. We've had 21" debates, Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."
"For two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure we're talking to as many voters on the ground, taking questions from voters," he said. "We're not going to have debates between now and Indiana."
The more open style of debating where each side presents an argument gets its name from the famed debates that took place during the 1858 U.S. Senate race in Illinois between Republican Abraham Lincoln and Democrat Stephen Douglas.
Trailing in delegates and the popular vote, Clinton has been stepping up the pressure on Obama for more debates in advance of primaries on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina.
Obama was planning to return to his home in Chicago on Sunday and had no public events scheduled. Clinton was spending the day campaigning in North Carolina.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said superdelegates should make known their choices on the Democratic nominee for president by the end of June. Ultimately, he said he believes their decisions will be based on who is more electable, rather than necessarily who has the most pledged delegates, because that is what party rules stipulate.
"This is essentially pretty close to a tie here," Dean said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"What's going to happen in the last nine primaries is there's going to be some feeling at some point that one of these candidates is more likely to win than the other and that person will get the nomination. I can't tell you who that is, I have no idea who that is, but that's what's going to happen," Dean said.
Dean also said he expected the party to heal from the bitter primary race if superdelegates make their decisions in June and that he believes Michigan and Florida delegates will be "seated in some way."
"If you go into the convention divided, it's pretty likely you'll come out of the convention divided," he said.

[saz]

The basis for you're argument is a pre-election poll that said Hillary was leading by 25%?

Fool.

you mean "your" argument.

no, the point i was making was that hillary had a massive lead in pennsylvania. however, her lead gradually got smaller and smaller, to such an extent that her double-digit lead shrank to a single-digit lead; and if so many found obama's comments offensive, then hillary's lead and margin of victory would have been much larger.

[QueenAdrock]

Yes, it's more improtant because I'm the one who's old enough to remember the Clinton years and how great the country was then.

Please. We were 10-18 during the Clinton years, which is old enough to have a conscious memory of what's going on. Plus, from 14-18, I was heavily interested in the political process, much more so than a lot of 18+ people out there who don't even pay attention to politics. Only half the country votes, so I would say my informed opinion at that time (regardless of age) was more relevant than people who just vote based on "Who they'd like to have a beer with." I do definitely remember how great the country was under Clinton, I was a staunch supporter of him. But even if I didn't remember, my academic side gives me the intelligence needed to read books about it and learn about history that way. Either way, I'm also intelligent enough to realize there's a difference between Bill and Hillary and there's a different political climate now, just like the differences between Bush Jr. and Sr.

So, age doesn't mean shit. Intelligent, well-informed opinions based on news reports, books, learning about the issues and thinking them through, do. Gimme a break.

[QueenAdrock]

WHAT'S HE RUNNING FROM? (http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/04/15/Democrats/)

"I'm not ducking. We've had 21" debates, Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

Number 22 is REALLY going to make a difference? She's getting desperate because she's behind and wants something, anything, to catch up. Obama's sitting pretty and doesn't need to worry himself with such things, he's got more important things to do.

[JohnnyChavello]

I was born and raised by a hard working, blue-collar, LIFELONG Democratic family.

Is that enough to qualify me as a Democrat?

I would have thought that what "qualifies" someone as belonging to any particular political group is a shared belief in a core set of principles, and not the fact that your grandfather worked on the turd farm until he was 112 years old.

You seem to be exhibiting what Marx would call "false consciousness."

[Burnout18]

I just dont see hillary winning the general election.

Sorry RobMoney, I just can't see it.

[Dorothy Wood]

yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding how you don't realize that putting down the elite and claiming your blue collar heritage to be above all...is, in itself, elitist.

also, the good 'ol boy, common man bullshit is that, bullshit. It's completely calculated and nurtured. GW moved to Texas in his 30's, he didn't grow up on a ranch. People rarely develop accents at that age. he's a rich motherfucker who wants to play cowboy. dumb as dirt and kept that way, easily manipulated to become the screen for all kinds of shady business run by the creeps who plotted the whole thing from day one. elitists! rich white men who think they're better than everyone!

in fact, in an election, there are so many people working tirelessly to fix the game, that nothing is real! it's a game of numbers and how to poke and prod the crowd onto one side or the other. sound bites bring down candidates. one misstep and people change their minds. fucking ridiculous.

There's a reason why intelligent people should be in charge of things. Intelligent people react in a measured way and want to choose the most appropriate option. They don't react in a knee jerk fashion, like, "omg, obama sounds like osama, I don't like that! freedom!"


Being dumb is easy. but where has that gotten us? in a shit storm of trouble.

[afronaut]

Yes, it's more improtant because I'm the one who's old enough to remember the Clinton years and how great the country was then.
So thats it, you're clutching for the past. You think if the president has the last name of Clinton once again, we'll return to the days of wine and roses.

And thats the problem with you "mature" "experienced" older voters who act superior to us youngins: all you do is clutch for the past. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have a perspective on the past and know your roots; but hoping for times long gone is something entirely different.

Luckily for us, we're the future, not you.

And how do Obama and Clinton differ in such a huge way that makes you think Obama is scum and Clinton is a godsend? They aren't terribly different, you know. I think I've asked you this before, but I can't recall if you've answered.

PS. We all remember at least parts of the Clinton years, and we're all well aware of how much better it was then. We just don't equate good times to a last name.

[RobMoney$]

Obama's sitting pretty and doesn't need to worry himself with such things, he's got more important things to do.


There we have it, the pride before the fall.

For the record, there have only been 4 debates with only Obama & Clinton.

[RobMoney$]

you mean "your" argument.

no, the point i was making was that hillary had a massive lead in pennsylvania. however, her lead gradually got smaller and smaller, to such an extent that her double-digit lead shrank to a single-digit lead; and if so many found obama's comments offensive, then hillary's lead and margin of victory would have been much larger.


Again, a pre-election poll told you she was ahead by double digits.
Just goes to prove that pre-election polls are pointless and are rarely accurate.

[RobMoney$]

This message is hidden because JohnnyChavello is on your ignore list (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/profile.php?do=editlist).

Sorry Johnny, I've got zero time for you if you're going to disparage me or my family.
Good Day to you, Sir.

[afronaut]

Again, a pre-election poll told you she was ahead by double digits.
Just goes to prove that pre-election polls are pointless and are rarely accurate.
Pre-election polls also showed that number to diminish in the weeks leading up to the actual primary. By all knowledge we have, it did. The way you're talking about Pennsylvanians and the "common man," Hillary should have won with double digits

If the blue collar man was so pissed off and offended, it should have been a landslide.

[RobMoney$]

yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding how you don't realize that putting down the elite and claiming your blue collar heritage to be above all...is, in itself, elitist.

also, the good 'ol boy, common man bullshit is that, bullshit. It's completely calculated and nurtured. GW moved to Texas in his 30's, he didn't grow up on a ranch. People rarely develop accents at that age. he's a rich motherfucker who wants to play cowboy. dumb as dirt and kept that way, easily manipulated to become the screen for all kinds of shady business run by the creeps who plotted the whole thing from day one. elitists! rich white men who think they're better than everyone!

in fact, in an election, there are so many people working tirelessly to fix the game, that nothing is real! it's a game of numbers and how to poke and prod the crowd onto one side or the other. sound bites bring down candidates. one misstep and people change their minds. fucking ridiculous.

There's a reason why intelligent people should be in charge of things. Intelligent people react in a measured way and want to choose the most appropriate option. They don't react in a knee jerk fashion, like, "omg, obama sounds like osama, I don't like that! freedom!"


Being dumb is easy. but where has that gotten us? in a shit storm of trouble.


I think you're misunderstanding my position here.
The point I'm trying to make is the fact that there are a ton of American voters who are by and large, idiots.
They will base who they're voting for on issues such as thinking Obama is muslim because of his name, or Rev. Wright, or other such issues.

I may not believe that these character issues are important when it comes to deciding who can be a good president, but they are important to the "idiot" sector of voters, so that makes them important.
Look no further than your current president if you think the idiots don't factor into an election.

[RobMoney$]

Pre-election polls also showed that number to diminish in the weeks leading up to the actual primary. By all knowledge we have, it did. The way you're talking about Pennsylvanians and the "common man," Hillary should have won with double digits

If the blue collar man was so pissed off and offended, it should have been a landslide.

Consider the fact that Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and she still managed to win by 10%.

[afronaut]

Consider the fact that Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and she still managed to win by 10%.
I'm unimpressed. Obama still has plenty money to spare, while Hillary is in the red, and still behind Obama.

and anyway, why do you pick and choose what you respond to. I asked you a question here.
And how do Obama and Clinton differ in such a huge way that makes you think Obama is scum and Clinton is a godsend? They aren't terribly different, you know. I think I've asked you this before, but I can't recall if you've answered.
I don't get this intense hostility from both sides. The people who buy into this ridiculous fight fail to see the big picture: you're damaging your own party. The uglier this fight gets, the easier a ride McCain will have in the actual election.

[QueenAdrock]

There we have it, the pride before the fall.

For the record, there have only been 4 debates with only Obama & Clinton.

No, it's more of the idea that the person who is behind wants debates to catch up. He doesn't have to catch up to anything, so why should he say yes? It reminds me of when I'm playing Goldeneye and I'm ahead by 1 kill, there's 30 seconds left, yeah, I'm going to hide out in the corner and wait for it to be over rather than risk the chance of running out and getting that extra kill in. It doesn't benefit me to go out there, because if I get shot, we're tied. But if I get the extra kill in, then I'm back to where I started: still winning. Yeah, I know, stupid analogy, but it's still the same mentality. Debates, this late in the game, are used as ways to make yourself look better/attack your opponent, on a national stage. It gets more press recognition than regular stump speeches, so the person who is behind will want to use debates as a way to catch up, whereas the person who's already ahead won't want to bother. It's logic, on his part.

But either way, after 21 debates between all the candidates and 4 of them exclusively just her and Obama, I think the public has seen enough to know who they're going to vote for. You ask "What's he running from?" and I ask "Why does she want it?"

[DroppinScience]

I think you're misunderstanding my position here.
The point I'm trying to make is the fact that there are a ton of American voters who are by and large, idiots.
They will base who they're voting for on issues such as thinking Obama is muslim because of his name, or Rev. Wright, or other such issues.


May as well include yourself as part of the coveted "idiot voters" bloc.

[yeahwho]

But either way, after 21 debates between all the candidates and 4 of them exclusively just her and Obama, I think the public has seen enough to know who they're going to vote for. You ask "What's he running from?" and I ask "Why does she want it?"

Rob, name one presidential primary in the History of the United States with more debates. If your going to throw the word elitism around with the democratic nomination be sure to say something about Hillary Clinton being the former First Lady, on Planet Earth (you really should visit sometime) the elitist of the elite have power, in order to wield this power the elite must use the laws of the land, according to Earth, the USA is the most powerful country.

This could explain the disparity of of hard cold cash made between Obama & Clinton, $109 Million vs. $3.5 Million the past 6 years.

To further irritate myself and all of my co-workers, who all wield wrenches and are union employees, Hillary voted along with everyone else for one of the most costly, deadly ignorant wars ever proposed here in the USA. Mainly because she wanted to be President. She went with the status quo for a calculated political move.

I'm not an elitist, Obama is hardly an elitist compared to Hillary.

You cannot have it both ways. This is why Hillary will lose, she's full of shit.

[yeahwho]

Shrillary, ha ha ha

[funk63]

No, it's more of the idea that the person who is behind wants debates to catch up. He doesn't have to catch up to anything, so why should he say yes? It reminds me of when I'm playing Goldeneye and I'm ahead by 1 kill, there's 30 seconds left, yeah, I'm going to hide out in the corner and wait for it to be over rather than risk the chance of running out and getting that extra kill in. It doesn't benefit me to go out there, because if I get shot, we're tied. But if I get the extra kill in, then I'm back to where I started: still winning. Yeah, I know, stupid analogy, but it's still the same mentality.


i actually thought that was a really good analogy.

[Medellia]

Now I'm not a Democrat because I don't support Obama?
I never said anything of the sort and you know that. However, your irrational hatred of Obama to the point where you seem like you'd rather see McCain win is suspect.
My Grandfater wasn't some Chief Engineer or a VP of anything, he was a blue-collar laborer who worked two jobs his whole lfe until the day he died. He'd get up at dawn and go to his first job which was for a company who built trains, then he'd come home for dinner for about an hour and then go to his second job working for the city at the local Recreation Center where he helped organize athletic leagues and events for the local kids. He had 5 boys and 2 girls and a wife and still found time for everyone else's kids in the neighborhood. He worked himself to death at the ripe old age of 57 years old.
I was born and raised by a hard working, blue-collar, LIFELONG Democratic family. The entire city is primarily comprised of people just like me and Clinton ran away with Philadelphia. It's the main reason she won the state.
Way to miss the point. That was simply a mildly amusing anecdote that I felt was appropriate in a thread like this. And if you'd actually read what I had said, you would have seen that I said my grandfather was/is an asshole.

Is that enough to qualify me as a Democrat?
Yeah, because a political party is something you have to qualify for. That's so stupid. But to quote Johnny:

I would have thought that what "qualifies" someone as belonging to any particular political group is a shared belief in a core set of principles, and not the fact that your grandfather worked on the turd farm until he was 112 years old.
You sure haven't shown that you share the same principles as the rest of us. Now, because you're so predictable, I'm going to just say right now that it doesn't mean we have to agree on everything, or even support the same people. But we have similar enough beliefs, and it seems like you don't.

Oh, and way to ignore my comment on your boy Bill being a Rhodes Scholar.

[The Notorious LOL]

Yes, it's more improtant because I'm the one who's old enough to remember the Clinton years and how great the country was then.

You're old enough to remember the Carter years and how shitty the country was then, too.

[Documad]

So isn't this on the cover of Newsweek now? Rob isn't alone on this. A certain segment of Democrats are jumping on this stuff as a reason to vote against Obama.

I'm not talking about Rob when I say what I'm going to say next. I personally prefer Clinton even though I have serious doubts as to whether she's electable given that most Americans think she's dishonest. The incident where she lied about having been under gun fire should have ended her campaign for good. But I have no doubt that Rob and I have legitimate reasons to prefer Clinton over Obama.

What I fear, and what I've feared for a long time, is this thing that's happening now. We get a candidate who was selected by the newer younger more idealistic democrats, and whenever that happens, we have a difficult time in the general election. Obama has always reminded me of Dukakis and I'm starting to get terrified that I've been right all along. I was hoping that I was wrong because I suck at guessing what the american people are going to do. This year, we have another simmering issue that I worry about and that we will never be able to poll. There are democrats who will not vote for a black man for president. They won't admit it, but they will jump on any cover story possible. The media gave them this elitist thing and Clinton is stoking up the foreign policy side fears. McCain will stoke up the religious issue and the patriotism issue. A bunch of democrats are going to vote for McCain and give one of those reasons but some of those votes are really being lost because of racism. Again, I'm not talking about Rob (or me). I will be supporting Obama in the general election if he's the candidate, but it's going to be difficult to work on his behalf if people don't like him for reasons of image/color rather than for reasons of substance. And the thing is that he sort of deserves to be judged for image (but not race) because he has come so far so fast with so little substance and so much image.

[Documad]

You're old enough to remember the Carter years and how shitty the country was then, too.
Obama is more like Carter than Clinton is.

[RobMoney$]

I'm unimpressed. Obama still has plenty money to spare, while Hillary is in the red, and still behind Obama.

She recieved a huge bump the day following the PA primary where she practically had to beg for her supporters to send contributions because she needed money.
I would be terribly dissappointed if she quit at this point and if I could, I'd tell Bill the following:
Don't you dare let her quit!
You have to admire her resolve against the odds she's up against.


And how do Obama and Clinton differ in such a huge way that makes you think Obama is scum and Clinton is a godsend? They aren't terribly different, you know. I think I've asked you this before, but I can't recall if you've answered.

I don't get this intense hostility from both sides. The people who buy into this ridiculous fight fail to see the big picture: you're damaging your own party. The uglier this fight gets, the easier a ride McCain will have in the actual election.

I have answered this question before. I told you I don't want to be stuck with the Presidential equivelent of Acid-Washed Jeans or Vanilla Coke, remember?
Maybe you missed it.

I'll hit the ball back into your court,
How are Clinton & Obama soo alike exactly? Because I believe there are quite a bit of differences.

[DroppinScience]

What I fear, and what I've feared for a long time, is this thing that's happening now. We get a candidate who was selected by the newer younger more idealistic democrats, and whenever that happens, we have a difficult time in the general election.

Those damn kids! :p

But seriously, I'm assuming you're referring to candidates like McGovern? I get where you're coming from, and I know McGovern gets historically disparaged for losing in a landslide election, but I'd seriously prefer a McGovern (i.e. someone who was truly anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-feminism, pro-good things, etc.) over a fake anti-war candidate like John Kerry or a Hillary Clinton (well, I don't think Kerry was chosen by younger, idealists but more pragmatic Dems). Even if they do lose the general election, at least it was a candidate that represents the right values. It's just a hope (maybe too big of a hope) that America would catch up to actually embracing those values.

If Obama couldn't win the general election, I have serious doubts that Clinton would fare a lot better.

[RobMoney$]

No, it's more of the idea that the person who is behind wants debates to catch up. He doesn't have to catch up to anything, so why should he say yes? It reminds me of when I'm playing Goldeneye and I'm ahead by 1 kill, there's 30 seconds left, yeah, I'm going to hide out in the corner and wait for it to be over rather than risk the chance of running out and getting that extra kill in. It doesn't benefit me to go out there, because if I get shot, we're tied. But if I get the extra kill in, then I'm back to where I started: still winning. Yeah, I know, stupid analogy, but it's still the same mentality. Debates, this late in the game, are used as ways to make yourself look better/attack your opponent, on a national stage. It gets more press recognition than regular stump speeches, so the person who is behind will want to use debates as a way to catch up, whereas the person who's already ahead won't want to bother. It's logic, on his part.

But either way, after 21 debates between all the candidates and 4 of them exclusively just her and Obama, I think the public has seen enough to know who they're going to vote for. You ask "What's he running from?" and I ask "Why does she want it?"


Well of course she wants to debate because she's trying to catch up. DUH! Because she knows she destroyed him in the last debate and would like to do it again. And he risks looking like he's being evasive by declining the invitation. It's called politics. Hell, even elections for class president in HS are being conducted the same way.

It's also in the best intrest of the voter for them to debate. Maybe the folks in NC and Indy didn't pay attention to the PA debate. Now that those folks are being inundated with Obama commercials and phone calls (and I know they are because I was two weeks ago in PA) they'd be more interested in what the two had to say than they were two weeks ago.

He cried about the moderators of the last debate asking unimportant questions. Well she just gave him an opportunity to fix what he cried was wrong with the Pa. debate and now he balks.
BRAVO!

It's like having a two point lead in Basketball and dribbling the ball to wind down the clock and your going to complain about Clinton trying to make an effort to steal the ball back so she can get a chance to take a shot to win?

[afronaut]

She recieved a huge bump the day following the PA primary where she practically had to beg for her supporters to send contributions because she needed money.
I would be terribly dissappointed if she quit at this point and if I could, I'd tell Bill the following:
Don't you dare let her quit!
You have to admire her resolve against the odds she's up against.
Now, I never said I didn't admire her. I do. However, I despise the ugliness, from her side of the things, but also the ugliness from Obama supporters as well.



I have answered this question before. I told you I don't want to be stuck with the Presidential equivelent of Acid-Washed Jeans or Vanilla Coke, remember?
Maybe you missed it.
I probably missed it, my bad. I get what you're saying, and I could see how some people would be scared that he's just a fad. Personally though, I just don't see it that way.

I'll hit the ball back into your court,
How are Clinton & Obama soo alike exactly? Because I believe there are quite a bit of differences.
Hillary:
The American Health Choices Plan gives Americans the choice to preserve their existing coverage, while offering new choices to those with insurance, to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance, and the tens of millions more at risk of losing coverage.


* The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.

* A Guarantee of Quality Coverage: The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

Americans who are satisfied with the coverage they have today can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.


* Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs.

* Strengthening Security: The plan ensures that job loss or family illnesses will never lead to a loss of coverage or exorbitant costs.

* End to Unfair Health Insurance Discrimination: By creating a level-playing field of insurance rules across states and markets, the plan ensures that no American is denied coverage, refused renewal, unfairly priced out of the market, or forced to pay excessive insurance company premiums.

Relying on consumers or the government alone to fix the system has unintended consequences, like scaled-back coverage or limited choices. This plan ensures that all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings.


* Insurance and Drug Companies: insurance companies will end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions or expectations of illness and ensure high value for every premium dollar; while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

* Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible.

* Providers: will work collaboratively with patients and businesses to deliver high-quality, affordable care.

* Employers: will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage: small businesses will receive a tax credit to continue or begin to offer coverage.

* Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

Senator Clinton’s plan will:


* Provide Tax Relief to Ensure Affordability: Working families will receive a refundable tax credit to help them afford high-quality health coverage.

* Limit Premium Payments to a Percentage of Income: The refundable tax credit will be designed to prevent premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income, while maintaining consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans.

* Create a New Small Business Tax Credit: To make it easier-not harder-for small businesses to create new jobs with health coverage, a new health care tax credit for small businesses will provide an incentive for job-based coverage.

* Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.

* Launch a Retiree Health Legacy Initiative: A new tax credit for qualifying private and public retiree health plans will offset a significant portion of catastrophic expenditures, so long as savings are dedicated to workers and competitiveness.



* Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.

* A Net Tax Cut for American Taxpayers: The plan offers tens of millions of Americans a new tax credit to make premiums affordable-which more than offsets the increased revenues from the Plan’s provisions to limit the employer tax exclusion for health care and discontinue portions of the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Thus, the plan provides a net tax cut for American taxpayers.

* Making the Employer Tax Exclusion for Health Care Fairer: The plan protects the current exclusion from taxes of employer-provided health premiums, but limits the exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000.



Obama
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

* 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.
* National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
* Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
* Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
* Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
* Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.

Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System

* Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
* Helping Patients:
1. Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
2. Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
3. Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
* Ensuring Providers Deliver Quality Care:
1. Promote patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable medical errors and support hospital and physician practice improvement to prevent future occurrences.
2. Align incentives for excellence. Both public and private insurers tend to pay providers based on the volume of services provided, rather than the quality or effectiveness of care. Providers who see patients enrolled in the new public plan, the National Health Insurance Exchange, Medicare and FEHBP will be rewarded for achieving performance thresholds on outcome measures.
3. Comparative effectiveness research. Obama will establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness, so that Americans and their doctors will have the accurate and objective information they need to make the best decisions for their health and well-being.
4. Tackle disparities in health care. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs, and diversification of the health workforce.
5. Insurance reform. Obama will strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
* Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients' privacy is protected.
* Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets: The insurance business today is dominated by a small group of large companies that has been gobbling up their rivals. There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market. These changes were supposed to make the industry more efficient, but instead premiums have skyrocketed by over 87 percent.
1. Barack Obama will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases. His plan will force insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care instead of keeping exorbitant amounts for profits and administration. His new National Health Exchange will help increase competition by insurers.
2. Lower prescription drug costs. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans more than double the price. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S. Obama will also repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, which could result in savings as high as $30 billion. Finally, Obama will work to increase the use of generic drugs in Medicare, Medicaid, and FEHBP and prohibit big name drug companies from keeping generics out of markets.

Fight for New Initiatives

* Advance the Biomedical Research Field: As a result of biomedical research the prevention, early detection and treatment of diseases such as cancer and heart disease is better today than any other time in history. Barack Obama has consistently supported funding for the national institutes of health and the national science foundation. Obama strongly supports investments in biomedical research, as well as medical education and training in health-related fields, because it provides the foundation for new therapies and diagnostics. Obama has been a champion of research in cancer, mental health, health disparities, global health, women and children's health, and veterans' health. As president, Obama will strengthen funding for biomedical research, and better improve the efficiency of that research by improving coordination both within government and across government/private/non-profit partnerships. An Obama administration will ensure that we translate scientific progress into improved approaches to disease prevention, early detection and therapy that is available for all Americans.
* Fight AIDS Worldwide. There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and recently joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle.
* Support Americans with Disabilities: As a former civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. Obama is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation.

Barack Obama is also committed to ensuring that disabled Americans receive Medicaid and Medicare benefits in a low-cost, effective and timely manner. Recognizing that many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicare, Obama worked with Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the department of health and human services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.
* Improve Mental Health Care. Mental illness affects approximately one in five American families. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that untreated mental illnesses cost the U.S. more than $100 billion per year. As president, Obama will support mental health parity so that coverage for serious mental illnesses are provided on the same terms and conditions as other illnesses and diseases.
* Protect Our Children from Lead Poisoning. More than 430,000 American children have dangerously high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause irreversible brain damage, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and, at very high levels, seizures, coma and death. As president, Obama will protect children from lead poisoning by requiring that child care facilities be lead-safe within five years.
* Reduce Risks of Mercury Pollution. More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood, and approximately 630,000 newborns are born at risk every year. Barack Obama has a plan to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn would reduce the amount of mercury in fish.
* Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.


Iraq

Hillary
Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

* Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
* Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
* Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.

As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.

Obama
Judgment You Can Trust

As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative

Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
Barack Obama's Record

* Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences." In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations.
* Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.


Ok I'm already getting tired of copying and pasting.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I'm not saying there aren't differences with them. But I think generally, anyone who leans in the direction of the Dem's stance on things isn't going to object too terribly to either of their plans. It's not like a Republican plan vs a Democratic plan. We're talking about Democratic plans vs Democratic plans.

I'll say it again, I don't get why this whole primary business is being fought like a general election.

[RobMoney$]

May as well include yourself as part of the coveted "idiot voters" bloc.


I'd rather laugh with the "idiots" than cry with the "elitists"

ELITIST!

[QueenAdrock]

Honestly, I don't think it matters who the Democrats put up. Either will win against McCain. If you look at 2006, the people voted the Democrats into the House and Senate because of the war. They're sick of it, plain and simple. If you have two people who are against the war and pro-bringing troops back, they're going to win against someone who is spouting the same Bush rhetoric. The people are fucking sick and tired of Bush. They don't want someone like him in office again, and McCain has let the public know that he wants the troops kept there almost indefinitely, and is willing to go into Iran. That's not going to play well.

Also, historically, it has shown if the economy is in the shitter, whatever party is in power at the time will be voted out of office.

There's a lot more at play here than just "We've never had a black/woman president before, so it's not gonna happen!" People need to look at what the public is shifting towards - which is the Democratic side. Republicans come along, fuck up everything, they put Democrats in power. Democrats raise taxes, make things better, people are happy with the way things are but mad about how much they're paying, put Republicans in power. It's a cycle. And in the historical cycle, all signs point to a Democratic takeover this fall.

[RobMoney$]

Rob, name one presidential primary in the History of the United States with more debates. If your going to throw the word elitism around with the democratic nomination be sure to say something about Hillary Clinton being the former First Lady, on Planet Earth (you really should visit sometime) the elitist of the elite have power, in order to wield this power the elite must use the laws of the land, according to Earth, the USA is the most powerful country.

This could explain the disparity of of hard cold cash made between Obama & Clinton, $109 Million vs. $3.5 Million the past 6 years.

Having a spouse who's a former President of the United States of America will probably put you in a higher tax bracket than you'd be if you were just a lowly Senator from Illinois.
What exactly is the differences in income supposed to prove? Are you trying to imply that the Clintons are elitists?
Bill Clinton was affectionately refered to as the first Black President for crying out loud. He's anything but elitist.

To further irritate myself and all of my co-workers, who all wield wrenches and are union employees, Hillary voted along with everyone else for one of the most costly, deadly ignorant wars ever proposed here in the USA. Mainly because she wanted to be President. She went with the status quo for a calculated political move.

I'm not an elitist, Obama is hardly an elitist compared to Hillary.

You cannot have it both ways. This is why Hillary will lose, she's full of shit.

To be fair, the entire country, including Hillary and the rest of the Senate, were lied to about WMD's in Iraq at that point in time. You can't blame anyone for making a decision based on misinformation.
I more concerned with the fact that now that we all know the facts of the war in Iraq, her plan would be to begin withdrawling troops ASAP.

[afronaut]

I'd rather laugh with the "idiots" than cry with the "elitists"

ELITIST!
Well you know what they say, ignorance is bliss. ;)

[RobMoney$]

You're old enough to remember the Carter years and how shitty the country was then, too.


To tell you the truth, I remember the day Regan was inaugurated.
Fucking Iran released our hostages that day.
I think I was in 4th or 5th grade and remember being completely impressed by that.

[RobMoney$]

So isn't this on the cover of Newsweek now? Rob isn't alone on this. A certain segment of Democrats are jumping on this stuff as a reason to vote against Obama.

I'm not talking about Rob when I say what I'm going to say next. I personally prefer Clinton even though I have serious doubts as to whether she's electable given that most Americans think she's dishonest. The incident where she lied about having been under gun fire should have ended her campaign for good. But I have no doubt that Rob and I have legitimate reasons to prefer Clinton over Obama.

What I fear, and what I've feared for a long time, is this thing that's happening now. We get a candidate who was selected by the newer younger more idealistic democrats, and whenever that happens, we have a difficult time in the general election. Obama has always reminded me of Dukakis and I'm starting to get terrified that I've been right all along. I was hoping that I was wrong because I suck at guessing what the american people are going to do. This year, we have another simmering issue that I worry about and that we will never be able to poll. There are democrats who will not vote for a black man for president. They won't admit it, but they will jump on any cover story possible. The media gave them this elitist thing and Clinton is stoking up the foreign policy side fears. McCain will stoke up the religious issue and the patriotism issue. A bunch of democrats are going to vote for McCain and give one of those reasons but some of those votes are really being lost because of racism. Again, I'm not talking about Rob (or me). I will be supporting Obama in the general election if he's the candidate, but it's going to be difficult to work on his behalf if people don't like him for reasons of image/color rather than for reasons of substance. And the thing is that he sort of deserves to be judged for image (but not race) because he has come so far so fast with so little substance and so much image.


I'm certainly glad to hear your support for Hillary. (y)

[RobMoney$]

Honestly, I don't think it matters who the Democrats put up. Either will win against McCain. If you look at 2006, the people voted the Democrats into the House and Senate because of the war. They're sick of it, plain and simple. If you have two people who are against the war and pro-bringing troops back, they're going to win against someone who is spouting the same Bush rhetoric. The people are fucking sick and tired of Bush. They don't want someone like him in office again, and McCain has let the public know that he wants the troops kept there almost indefinitely, and is willing to go into Iran. That's not going to play well.

Also, historically, it has shown if the economy is in the shitter, whatever party is in power at the time will be voted out of office.

There's a lot more at play here than just "We've never had a black/woman president before, so it's not gonna happen!" People need to look at what the public is shifting towards - which is the Democratic side. Republicans come along, fuck up everything, they put Democrats in power. Democrats raise taxes, make things better, people are happy with the way things are but mad about how much they're paying, put Republicans in power. It's a cycle. And in the historical cycle, all signs point to a Democratic takeover this fall.


This is exactly why I don't buy into the "they're tearing the party apart" line of thinking at all.
Good post. (y)

[yeahwho]

Having a spouse who's a former President of the United States of America will probably put you in a higher tax bracket than you'd be if you were just a lowly Senator from Illinois.
What exactly is the differences in income supposed to prove? Are you trying to imply that the Clintons are elitists?
Bill Clinton was affectionately refered to as the first Black President for crying out loud. He's anything but elitist.

I just had an epiphany, Hillary's supporters do not give a shit about the truth. If the truth was on fire in your living room you would let it burn down your house.

You are pathetically disillusioned, and I'm convinced you rarely visit earth.



To be fair, the entire country, including Hillary and the rest of the Senate, were lied to about WMD's in Iraq at that point in time. You can't blame anyone for making a decision based on misinformation.
I more concerned with the fact that now that we all know the facts of the war in Iraq, her plan would be to begin withdrawling troops ASAP.

So in your wisdom you'll stick with someone who created the first disaster to fix the current disaster, a sort of reward system you give to our servants and keepers of freedom, liberty and justice.

Status Quo Rob, he's all about keeping the Status Quo.

[QueenAdrock]

It's like having a two point lead in Basketball and dribbling the ball to wind down the clock and your going to complain about Clinton trying to make an effort to steal the ball back so she can get a chance to take a shot to win?

No, I don't complain about her trying to make an effort to "steal the ball back," you were complaining because he was dribbling. I couldn't care less if she tries, I'm just saying that it's stupid to think he's going to agree to go through with it. I was explaining why he was dribbling because you seem to be outraged that he won't debate; so if you do understand the logic behind his not wanting to debate, why the anger towards him? If you were in his shoes, would you debate? It's smart politics to just say no. He's not running from her because he's scared, he's declining because it won't benefit him. There's a big difference.

And as for her "destroying" him in the last debates - the moderators tried to crush his character with stupid shit and they barely even debated the issues. It wasn't Clinton having all the right answers and Obama having all the wrong ones, it was ABC trying to get better ratings and making a mockery of the political process.

[RobMoney$]

e·lite
1.(often used with a plural verb. the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2.([I]used with a plural verb. persons of the highest class: [I]Only the elite were there.
3.a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.
4.a type, approximately 10-point in printing-type size, widely used in typewriters and having 12 characters to the inch. Compare
5.representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.




e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.[/LIST][/LIST]


I hope this helps you decipher the difference between elite and elitism.

Let's face it, anyone who's ever run for the office of President, in reality is probably more elite than anyone who posts here. They've achieved more in their lives and have done more to help people than any of us ever will.

[yeahwho]

Crying over loyal supporters that won't budge, like me. The only thing I'm convinced of is how truly ridiculous the geriatric presidential supporters and female presidential supporters labeling has become.

Hey I get it, Obama is black.

[Documad]

Those damn kids! :p

But seriously, I'm assuming you're referring to candidates like McGovern? I get where you're coming from, and I know McGovern gets historically disparaged for losing in a landslide election, but I'd seriously prefer a McGovern (i.e. someone who was truly anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-feminism, pro-good things, etc.) over a fake anti-war candidate like John Kerry or a Hillary Clinton (well, I don't think Kerry was chosen by younger, idealists but more pragmatic Dems). Even if they do lose the general election, at least it was a candidate that represents the right values. It's just a hope (maybe too big of a hope) that America would catch up to actually embracing those values.

If Obama couldn't win the general election, I have serious doubts that Clinton would fare a lot better.
I'd like a democrat who can win. McCain was the best candidate the republicans had and I was really hoping they wouldn't nominate him. Both Obama and Clinton have serious flaws but I'd back either one of them. I want a democrat in the white house for four years. It's all I care about.

My gut told me that despite her negatives, Clinton had the better chance this year, and I happen to like her better. I tend to like the devil I know to the one I don't know at all. I was hoping that Obama would bring some good surprises but so far they've all been bad ones.

As for the McGovern comparisons, etc., I don't think Obama is substantively different from Clinton in any way that matters.

Rob, I prefer Clinton, but now that she can't pull ahead in state delegates, I think she needs to step aside. I think that pulling together ASAP is the best way to defeat McCain. And we have to hope that he really screws up in the coming months.

[yeahwho]

Each day that is as bruising and punishing as today defines both candidates, Hillary is coming off badly for not sticking up for Obama in a dignified and gracious way. John McCain is largely being ignored at the democrats own peril. documad is correct in her view, Hillary is officially hitting scavenger style politics.

I'm disappointed in her inability to defend Obama. Worse yet will be her hypocritical stance once she pretends to support him.

I also would happily vote for RobMoney$ before I voted for McCain.

[RobMoney$]

Rob, I prefer Clinton, but now that she can't pull ahead in state delegates, I think she needs to step aside. I think that pulling together ASAP is the best way to defeat McCain. And we have to hope that he really screws up in the coming months.


May 20th will be the final Primary. Hopefully things will be a little more clear by then, but I doubt it. With around 295 unpledged supers still out there, she's far from done.
If I were Clinton and everything were still as close as it is right now come May 20, there's no way I'd come this far and drop out for some "greater good".
Call it selfish, but I call it determined and that's the kind of person I'd want for the most important job on the face of the earth.

[afronaut]

Theres a difference between being determined and being ugly and vindictive.

There is a civil way to go about this, and there is no excuse for the ugly way people are acting.

Please come up with an excuse for dragging the possible democratic nominee through the mud, I would love to see someone try to make an excuse. McCain's job is being done for him. What I see here is Hillary acting in a way to benefit herself, not America.

[saz]

Republicans come along, fuck up everything, they put Democrats in power. Democrats raise taxes, make things better, people are happy with the way things are but mad about how much they're paying, put Republicans in power. It's a cycle. And in the historical cycle, all signs point to a Democratic takeover this fall.

not really. hubert humphrey almost beat richard nixon, and his loss was due to the third party candidacy of george wallace, the vietnam war, and publically supporting the war despite being against it (lbj threatened to destroy his chance of being nominated if he went public with his opposition). jimmy carter lost to reagan because of a weak economy, an energy crisis, and reagan seized upon these by promising a return to national greatness after vietnam. and of course gore had the election stolen from him.

but i agree with you about this year. this is the democrat's year, no doubt about it. and if they somehow screw this up, they might as well fold.

[Documad]

If we couldn't make the american voters see the truth in 2004, I don't have a ton of hope for 2008, I really don't. It's going to come down to whether McCain does something really really dumb -- like calling his wife a cunt again in front of reporters.

Or perhaps, for once in our history, young americans will actually get off their asses and do something for progressive issues instead of whining and not voting. The active young adults tend to be the most conservative ones. Whether it was my older siblings' generation, mine, or the current one, we always hear about this promise of young progressive people getting more active but there is never anything to show for it in the general election. I mean, the first year 18 year olds could vote, and they gave us Richard Nixon's second term. :rolleyes: That's why I don't really believe that Obama is going to get them to the polls in states that are necessary.

[QueenAdrock]

If we couldn't make the american voters see the truth in 2004, I don't have a ton of hope for 2008, I really don't.

They saw the truth in 2006, our last election. Democrats took the House and Senate. They're sick of Republican politics and the war, which has been shown. It was harder to let them see the truth in 2004 when Karl Rove was still at play and Kerry was running against a wartime incumbent president. Different situation today, so there's no reason to feel defeat this early on!

[Documad]

QA: Do you think that the younger or more liberal voters who were energized in 2006 will have lost any of that energy in the last two years? I worry that the failure of the Congress to change anything in the last two years will cause them to lose faith. I wonder if everyone understands how much power the president holds? But the failure of Congress to do the one thing they CAN do (cut off the funds for the war) had to disillusion some good people.

[Documad]

By the way, I don't mean to criticize the current crop of young americans. My generation used their first presidential election to re-elect Reagan with 49 out of 50 states. :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

I don't think they've lost energy. Obama has the youth vote, he's rejuvenated a lot of the disenfranchised and pissed-off voters. The youth vote has come out and voted in droves for Obama, three times the normal 18-24 vote has come out for these primaries than the last election. The failure of Congress to make sweeping changes may highlight the need for a Democratic president. It's hard to make any progress on the wars when it's a Republican president fighting a Democratic Congress; if all is on one side, there would be an easier time to get things passed.

I mean, I'm usually negative towards a lot of things, but I do honestly think that it will be a Democrat this year, and people will come out and vote (including, and especially, the youth vote).

[afronaut]

They saw the truth in 2006, our last election. Democrats took the House and Senate. They're sick of Republican politics and the war, which has been shown. It was harder to let them see the truth in 2004 when Karl Rove was still at play and Kerry was running against a wartime incumbent president. Different situation today, so there's no reason to feel defeat this early on!
Hopefully, the youth aren't smart enough to see how the Dems have wasted their opportunity to actually do anything. All they do is make stupid little insignificant gestures that the president can easily veto. When the Dems won in 2006, it should have been a time of moving and shaking. Neither moving or shaking happened.

Lewis Black said it best: the Republican party is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party is a party of no ideas. There should be no chance in hell that the Dems won't annihilate the Republicans in the election; and yet, somehow, things aren't looking so certain. You can say something like Honestly, I don't think it matters who the Democrats put up. Either will win against McCain. , and all the reasons you give for this makes sense. You can say that they haven't lost any energy, but you can't rely on the youth vote alone. You gotta wake up from your Democratic fairyland eventually and realize that the Dems are fucking up, and they're fucking up royally. They've fucked up in congress, they're fucking up what should be a complete and total landslide in the general election. The Republicans may be evil, backwards, lying, greedy bastards, but nobody can fuck up like the Democrats. It's for this reason that I will never be able to call myself a part of the Democratic party. Loyal Democrats, young and old alike, need to stand the fuck up and demand their party make some fucking changes and fucking do something for fucking once instead of saying a bunch of fucking stuff that sounds real fucking nice but not actually fucking doing anything. Fuck. But how can y'all do that when you split in half and engage in a fucking holy war over two possible Democratic candidates that differ very little? Man. I'm not even a Democrat and I'm pissed off. As it currently stands, the only reason to support a stumbling party like the Democrats is because the Republicans seems hell bent on destroying the world.

I swear to god, if the Dems give this election to McCain, there should be riots.

[Documad]

I also saw the enthusiasm at my caucuses. But it doesn't take much to get a record turnout at a caucus. Such a tiny percentage of americans go to them in the first place. The question is whether you're going to get record numbers of new voters out to vote in the general election, whether the machinery can handle it, and whether the people are going to actually vote for Obama. When we had record numbers of new voters show up for a governor's race, we elected a former pro wrestler as governor, and I think the democrat came in third. :p

We're lucky no wrestlers are running for president in 2008.

[saz]

(y)

Hopefully, the youth aren't smart enough to see how the Dems have wasted their opportunity to actually do anything. All they do is make stupid little insignificant gestures that the president can easily veto. When the Dems won in 2006, it should have been a time of moving and shaking. Neither moving or shaking happened.

Lewis Black said it best: the Republican party is a party of bad ideas, and the Democratic party is a party of no ideas. There should be no chance in hell that the Dems won't annihilate the Republicans in the election; and yet, somehow, things aren't looking so certain. You can say something like , and all the reasons you give for this makes sense. You can say that they haven't lost any energy, but you can't rely on the youth vote alone. You gotta wake up from your Democratic fairyland eventually and realize that the Dems are fucking up, and they're fucking up royally. They've fucked up in congress, they're fucking up what should be a complete and total landslide in the general election. The Republicans may be evil, backwards, lying, greedy bastards, but nobody can fuck up like the Democrats. It's for this reason that I will never be able to call myself a part of the Democratic party. Loyal Democrats, young and old alike, need to stand the fuck up and demand their party make some fucking changes and fucking do something for fucking once instead of saying a bunch of fucking stuff that sounds real fucking nice but not actually fucking doing anything. Fuck. But how can y'all do that when you split in half and engage in a fucking holy war over two possible Democratic candidates that differ very little? Man. I'm not even a Democrat and I'm pissed off. As it currently stands, the only reason to support a stumbling party like the Democrats is because the Republicans seems hell bent on destroying the world.

I swear to god, if the Dems give this election to McCain, there should be riots.

if the dems lose the election this year, they should fold and be replaced by the green party, who don't put impeachment "off the table" and include universal healthcare in their platform, because they have something most dems lack: balls.