I think that some level of guaranteed health care, ideally paid for by private charity, is a mark of a good society.

I accept that there perhaps should be government subsidized care for people who are truly unable to pay for it themselves, but that funding and administering this care is least likely to be effective at the federal level and I don't think that I'd describe it as a "right."

The more that the government gets involved with health care, the more I think most of us who have had insurance through our employers can expect the quality of care and the choices available to us to diminish. I think the bureaucracy will increase and that even private employers will do what they can to shift the burden they've been assuming onto the taxpayers.

It's possible that a small segment of the population will benefit and it's likely that services will become more equal, primarily by making it worse for more people. But I think it's really unlikely that we'll experience better or less expensive health care overall.

So, I'm not at all a fan of most versions of government health care initiatives, especially at the federal level.

But, I can respect people who disagree, and I think the weird "the other political party is the enemy" rhetoric and personal attacks that creep into most discussions are really bizarre.

Well, I finally decided, as I walked into the polling place to go with the Uncommitted on the Democrat ballot. It feels like a non-vote, but it does the best job at saying "I am most likely going to vote for a Democrat but Hillary isn't my first choice"

ETA: Romney won in Michigan, along with Clinton .. still waiting to hear the percentage for "Uncommitted"

I wondered what you decided to do. I saw something today, and didn't it shake out that although she was the only name on the ballot, Hillary only got 45% of the vote and Uncommitted got 40%? I think those were the stats I saw. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri...ults/state/#MI

Apparently she got 55% (still not really a ringing endorsement).

Well, there was a big grass roots effort to get people to go for "uncommitted" due to the circumstances. I seriously considered not voting at all. But, my family was very into voting... my great-grandmother was a sufragette. I have a great aunt who was the president of the Michigan League of Women Voters, my grandma was once president of the Detroit League and my mom was the president of the Warren (MI) League when I was a kid. When my mom was in the hospital in 2006 and we didn't know whether she would make it, her biggest concern was getting her absentee ballot done and turned in. When I thought about not voting, I thought "My mother would roll over in her grave if I don't vote". Then I realized.. she doesn't have a grave, she was cremated and I still have my portion of her cremains in my house because it's been too cold to spread them where she wants them. So, I didn't think I could NOT vote while she's still in my house.

That's crazy, but it made me vote. It felt kind of Grey's Anatomy.

Bob Johnson apologizes to ObamaPosted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:18 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Tom Lea and Mark Murray
Four days after he made an unmistakable allusion to Obama's teenage drug use and even referred to him as Sidney Poitier, Clinton supporter Bob Johnson apologized to Obama for those remarks.

"I'm writing to apologize to you and your family personally for the un-called-for comments I made at a recent Clinton event," Johnson said in a statement. "In my zeal to support Senator Clinton, I made some very inappropriate remarks for which I am truly sorry. I hope that you will accept this apology. Good luck on the campaign trail."

On Sunday at a campaign event for Clinton in South Carolina


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...gory/1208.aspx

I'm glad. That needed to be done. I don't understand why the people associated with the Clinton campaign keep coming back to Obama's teenage drug use. Is that all they've got on him?

From CNN:

Electoral Seats

For the Reps:

Magic Number 1,191

Romney 42
Huckabee 21
McCain 19
Thompson 6
Paul 2
Giuliani 1
Hunter 1

For the Dems:

Magic Number 2,025

Clinton 190
Obama 103
Edwards 51
Kucinich 1
Biden 0
Dodd 0
Gravel 0
Richardson 0

Apparently yes. Or nor really but they're trying to play "nice." Or something.

Oh and for whoever was asking me about Obama's work with Republicans, there's a lovely article in a recent newsweek that talks about his tenure in Illinois

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755/output/print

a lot of this is the stuff I was thinking of but couldn't put words to at the time. YMM of course V

Thompson quits GOP race
 

Sorry, UGAAlum, your guy's calling it quits... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7203575.stm

^^^LOL. Aw, sorry, SEC. I didn't realize he was your guy, too.

Yep, and I'm sad and angry about it.

I think I'm voting Obama in the primary, and I'm going to wait and see who the Republicans put out there in the general.

I suffer from Bill Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and I wouldn't be able to take the possibility of seeing him in the news as frequently as he would be as the husband of the President. Seriously, I HATE that guy, primarily because he personifies all the baby boomer ethical hypocrisy and self-absorption that my generation will have to put up with until they all kick off.

It's a weird reason to choose a candidate, I know, but since there's no one I particularly want to vote for. . .

I don't think it's that different than my reasons for not voting for Hilary. Would I love to see the first female president? you bet Do I agree with her on a lot of issues? yes

My problem is this: Bush, Clinton, Bush... do we need a whole generation of people to never know any president other than a Bush or Clinton? It starts to look more like a monarchy or dynasty than a democracy. Also, the people who dislike Clinton really HATE her. I don't think it's useful to have a president who is the center of such polarization. Whether Democrat or Republican, I want to see a President who is respected, whether you agree with them on all issues or not. The people who really hate Hilary will criticize and bicker about everything she does, just because of who she is. I truly hope that the next President will be someone who can make us more purple and less Red vs. Blue.

Can I get an AMEN?? I'm one of the ones that HATES her, and I'm a tried and true Democrat (even though I lean toward fiscal conservatism). And if she's the Dem candidate in the general, I will simply vote against her, as long as it's McCain that's the other candidate. If it's anybody else, then I may just not vote in protest.

I'm surprised to hear you say you like her and most of her politics but won't vote for her because of her husband, the Bush Family, and polarization. Those are not exactly things she could control.

On a side note, the more I hear from/about Obama, the less I like him.

I'm not saying I won't vote for her in the Presidential election if she is the Democratic candidate, but not in the primary. My main beef with Obama is that he hasn't had any details about his plans. He has a lot of ideas, but no real plans for implementing them. I think that's part of his inexperience though. My preferred candidate is Edwards because I think he'd be less polarizing and more moderate than the others.

Well, depending on how you look at it, her long term philandering husband is something she could have controlled. . .

Would you have put up with Bill's crap? Bill's especially public cheating on you for years with multiple women?

She had the option (and good reason) to no longer being related to him.

I also think her own actions make her a polarizing figure, so the idea that it's not in her control is a little weird.

And if everything else were equally appealing about two candidates, wouldn't it be better to choose the one who broke out of the inner establishment echo chamber?

(Now, I don't know if things ARE really equal, but I think the avoidance of the kind of dynasty crap we're seeing is a valid point.)

Makes me wish I was in one of the states that actually gets attention. Those town hall meetings and such actually provide policy papers. I keep HEARING about them and how they've been talking policy (Clinton and Obama specifically, other candidates in general) but hell if the media will cover it.

I don't know...it's easy to stand on the sidelines and say "yes, she should have dumped his sorry ass." But unless it's your life and your family, it's kind of hard to judge.

I think that has very little to do with her ability to be a good president. In fact, I give her some credit for being able to endure that all that in the public eye and still hold her head up...whether you like her or not, that takes strength.

I have heard people express what UGA Alum has and I've heard the opposite.. that she is keeping her marriage covenant and working it out. Reality is, there are a lot of power couples who tolerate things in their marriage because there are still more advantages to remaining married for them. I won't tolerate a man who leaves the toilet seat up, but some women just deal with it :)

Or it takes an insane amount of strategery and planning because you know that you yourself have office-aspirations and aren't likable or politically-savvy (like your genius, philandering husband) enough to get elected on your own.

Again, it's hard to know what goes on behind closed doors but I don't think her first thought was "I plan to stick this out so that I, myself, can run for the presidency in 10 years."

I disagree that she's not likable or politically savvy...But hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. ;)

I would agree with you that it probably wasn't her first thought. Her first thought probably was along the lines of, "I'm going to castrate you, you lying sack of you-know-what." The staying with him for political gain was probably her second thought. ;) I jest of course...

But when you're faced with making a decision, you either consciously or subconsciously weigh the pros and cons, figure what the payoff is. Honestly, I can't see much payoff staying with a man who has serially cheated on me and embarrassed me to the nth degree. You're right, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors. I never have liked Hillary, so honestly, I skew my opinion of her motives unfavorably.

Or it takes a steely resolve to look after your own best longterm political interest as the expense of being authentic or holding resolved moral values . You say tomato and I say. . .

Wouldn't a resolved moral value be that marriage is "till death do we part?"

And you are entitled to your opinion...for me, her personal struggles just don't play much of a role in whether or not I think she is capable of being president. I like many of her ideas, and I like that she seems to discuss her plans for how she hopes to accomplish things (unlike Obama who, to me, sounds like a broken record that keeps repeating the words "change" and "hope").

Touche! ;)

How about the "forsaking all others part" for Bill?

If you think "till death do we part" means accepting repeated adultery, maybe, but I somehow doubt that someone as progressive as Hillary had trouble conceptually with divorce.

Most of her other positions seem pretty fluid.

ETA: I'm thinking more about this. Even the Catholic Church, which I tend to think of as being really resolved on the issue of marriage and divorce, wouldn't require you to remain with a spouse who repeatedly committed adultery. Now, they wouldn't let you remarry if you separated, but you don't just have to keep putting up with crap.

I can emphatically say that it won't be Huckabee. I'm not a fan, and I don't trust him.

I think my preference is for Romney, but I really do intend to vote in the Democratic primary for Obama to try to keep Hillary off the ticket in the general.

It would probably be better for the Republican candidate is that Hillary be the Democratic candidate, but I can live with the results of a Obama Vs. McCain or Romney election, whatever they may be, more easily.

The Catholic church also teaches a whole lot about forgiveness - maybe they view that as something important in their marriage. Lots of progressive women still believe marriage is a lifetime commitment, believe it or not. And who knows, maybe they had an open marriage agreement and we didn't know it?

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I just hate the idea of that everyone says she should have divorced him - especially when it comes from the "family values" republicans. Adultery is a very difficult situation in a marriage and I think it is hard to say how one would react without being in that situation.

I disagree that truly progressive women believe that women should stay with a repeatedly philandering spouse. Progressive women don't believe in allowing people to treat women like crap, IMO. Similarly, it's not a reflection of family values to stay with someone who repeatedly violates your marital fidelity. It's a mockery of marriage values, which may be why it bothers "family values" types more than more progressive types.

Certainly, forgiveness is going to be a component of any marriage, and you're right that we have no idea of what their understanding is.

But she isn't stuck with him in some kind of irrevocable way, which was the original point here, I think. Someone pointed out that much of what one poster objected to was beyond Hillary's control. Being married to Bill is not beyond her control.

Certainly, it's up to her, but I think it's fair, knowing what we do know about his serial adultery, to make judgments about her character one way or another about her willingness to stick with him.

He's either an assess or a liability. I don't think anyone thinks that he's incidental to her potential presidency.

After watching CNN tonight, I find myself liking Huckabee more than the rest of the Republicans.

Adultery is an acceptable reason for annulment in the Catholic Church.

I'm not going to judge Hillary for staying with Bill, she had her reasons and they work for her (and him(, she appears to be happy enough with him.

I'll judge her for other things, but not for that.

I feel free to evaluate politicians on any indication that seems to point to fundamental character. I really don't spend a lot of time trying to pass judgment on people really in my life, so I understand on that level what you guys are saying.

This is the most random highjack I have ever personally participated in, I think:

I thought that annulments were really just based on the circumstances at the time of the sacrament. Are you sure that something that happens after the sacrament can actually be grounds?

(If there was cheating even as they prepared to get married, then sure. But if the marriage was valid when it occurred, can it be annulled for something that happens later? )

Even if you can't get an annulment so you could remarry later, you still don't have to stay. I don't think any church or power that marries people in the US requires that you stick it out with someone who refuses to be faithful.

There are lots of things that can happen after marriage that allow for annulment in the Catholic church. Withholding sex, refusing to "be fruitful and multiply" (using birth control against your spouses wishes), adultery, abuse.. all kinds of things. I don't remember which grounds I used with my first marriage, but there was a whole list. Also, I don't know anybody who has applied for an annulment in the last two decades who didn't get it (personal, anecdotal, yes). Then again, we're in a pretty liberal Archdiocese.

I think the marriage can get annulled under the provision that the cheater was dishonest at the time of taking the vows. There are actually a few ways of dissolution as well I believe but it's been a while since I learned all that.

My choice not to evaluate/judge Hillary on that issue is a personal and professional one. She's the expert on herself and on what suits her relationship wise.

Back to the original topic -- I am so frustrated that everyone is dropping out BEFORE the super tues!! :eek: Wasn't the whole point of states moving up their primary dates to Feb, so more states could have more imput in the process!?! :confused:

I feel like all the candidates just gave up before the contest ever started. I was excited to vote in the primaries, but not now. I am beginning to believe everything is so rigged.

1. The push started to soon.

2. The fact of money.

Some were not worth a darn.

Some still are not.

Must love TV and the internet!:eek:

Both of you, in your own way, are correct.
As posted above somewhere, the best way of doing this would be rotating 5 Super Tuesdays separated by two weeks or so.

But that is just too simple and too political to ever happen.

I'm still heartbroken about Fred, and as if to taunt me, I got a package from Friends of Fred today. What am I going to do now with a big sort of painted looking image poster with Thompson 2008 and, no joke, a rhinestone pin that spells out Thompson 2008? If he were still in the race, both would amuse and delight me to no end, but as it is, just kind of reminds me of what won't happen.

It also reminded me of the incredible expense that you've got even when you drop out because you've had to plan and pre-order everything. I suppose maybe that's encouraging people to drop out sooner rather than later. You can't even just maintain your spending, you kind of have to accelerated it for something like Super Tuesday.

Maybe all the drop-outs looked at the cost of ads in all the markets for Super Tuesday and just buckled.

CBS Radio just reported that Mitt has a media buy for this up coming week in the 7 figures.