*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[Marc Levin]

does anyone have a link to listen to yesterdays debate?I don't care if its video or just audio.

They often re-broadcast these things on MSNBC and the like - set it up on your Tivo/DVR. It was from the University of Texas in Austin.Was it connected to UNICEF somehow? I seem to recall it being something like "the UNICEF Texas Democratic primary debates."

 

[aardball44]

Obama takes heat for skipping annual black forum

By William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers

Tavis Smiley will be the moderator at PBS' forum on domestic issues. Here he addressed thousands of people during the State of the Black Union 2007 panelist discussion in Hampton, Virginia, in February 2007. (Heather S. Hughes/Newport News Daily Press/MCT) | View larger image

WASHINGTON — Presidential politics will take center stage in New Orleans on Saturday at the annual "State of the Black Union" symposium, where the hottest topic is likely to be which candidate is there and which one isn't.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will address a largely African-American crowd of thousands in New Orleans' Ernest M. Morial Convention Center — where thousands of the city's poorest residents sought shelter in squalid conditions after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Clinton's Democratic rival, is skipping the event. He'll focus instead on campaigning in Texas and Ohio in hopes of delivering a knockout blow to Clinton in those states' presidential primaries on March 4.

The Republican presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, also declined to attend the symposium, which television and radio talk show host Tavis Smiley organized and will host.

Obama's refusal to attend and Smiley's criticism of him for doing so have stirred debate within the African-American community and the blogosphere, taking both men to task.

"On one side, there are people who feel he (Obama) is about to make history and you (Smiley) are trying to mess it up," said Ronald Walters, an African-American political science professor at the University of Maryland. "Then there are others who feel that Obama needs to address issues important to African-Americans more than he has."

Clinton, meanwhile, is attending because she has to try to woo back African-American voters who've deserted her in droves, political analysts say. Within a year, African-American support has flipped from favoring her to backing Obama by as much as 80 percent to 90 percent in recent primaries.

Clinton could receive a cool reception from African-Americans, who think that her campaign — especially her husband, former President Bill Clinton — injected race into South Carolina's Democratic primary last month to try to marginalize Obama as "the black candidate."

"Her coming to the event, it's a bit of a risk. She could get a chilly reception," Walters said. "If it hadn't been for South Carolina, she could go into the forum expecting a good reception."

Minyon Moore, a Clinton campaign adviser, said the New York senator doesn't know what to expect on Saturday.

"After all that's been reported and said, what hasn't changed is the commitment of Hillary, and Bill, Clinton to civil rights and racial equality," Moore said. "If people are willing to listen to her, we'll win the day."

Saturday's events will deal largely with issues in Smiley's best-selling book, "The Covenant with Black America," which explores how the African-Americans should address key problems that affect them.

After Clinton readily accepted the invitation and Obama didn't, Smiley began to criticize Obama for not responding to his invitation, saying that some African-American leaders are concerned because Obama hasn't spoken enough about African-American issues on the campaign trail.

Obama brushed off Smiley's criticism last week during an appearance on the "Tom Joyner Morning Show" radio program, which has a largely African-American audience. He said he does address issues covered in Smiley's book.

"I'm going to have to call Tavis and straighten him out on this — I don't know why he (Smiley) hasn't called me directly," Obama told Joyner. "If the notion is that I should only be talking to black people, then I'm not going to win the presidency, because there are a whole lot of people out there who are white, Latino or Asian who've got a whole bunch (of issues) as well."

Obama's campaign offered Michelle Obama to speak on her husband's behalf in New Orleans, but Smiley declined the offer. Obama then sent a letter to Smiley officially turning down his invitation because he'll be campaigning in Texas and Ohio, where he still trails Clinton in opinion polls but is narrowing the gap.

Smiley called Obama's decision "a critical miscalculation and a missed opportunity."

"I think as close as this race is, the concerns of African-American people are important," Smiley said in an interview with McClatchy. "The Clinton campaign has made moves — the appointment of Maggie Williams as campaign manager — to aggressively go after the African-American vote."

The Smiley-Obama flap has fueled sometimes-heated debate within the African-American community. Smiley, speaking on the Joyner program, hinted that he's received death threats for his Obama comments, though he declined to elaborate.

"I've been getting barbecued a lot lately," Smiley told McClatchy. "But it's never been about me. It's only about me now because some people are trying to change the subject. It's about who's coming and who's not."

Many say Smiley is in an ego-driven snit over Obama's rejection. A headline on an article last week on The Root, an African-American-oriented Web site, blared "Who Died and Made Tavis King."

"Tavis and his guests have every right to criticize Obama if they have substantive disagreements with his policy, his approach to politics or his viability as a general candidate," wrote Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a Princeton University African-American studies associate professor. "They do not have a right to create a false, racial litmus test."

Others find fault with Obama.

"Obama's campaign is unraveling," a reader named Jean wrote in a response to a Smiley-Obama post on McClatchy's Election 2008 blog. "His followers act like a cult. Tavis is a very respected broadcaster and has a right to expect cordiality."

McClatchy Newspapers 2008 Source

Hillary has a minion working in her campaign who's actually named "Minyon"? Really?

 

[djcolts]

First Read (at MSNBC.com) has so many gems. This is quite something:

Obama outspent Hillary 5-1 on TV in WI

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:05 PM by Mark Murray

Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama, Ads

From NBC's Mark Murray

One of the keys to Obama's 17-point Wisconsin win? Per a University of Wisconsin Advertising Project study, he outspent Clinton nearly 5-to-1 on TV ads in the state. Overall, the four Dem and GOP candidates aired more than 8,000 spots in the state, spending a combined $2.1 million.

Of that amount, Obama spent more than $1.5 million; Clinton spent $300,000. That, folks, is quite a gap.

A few other findings, per a release:

-- "In what most political strategists consider a 'change' election, Clinton ads never mentioned the word 'change.' Obama ads mentioned change 1,824 times."

-- "Hillary Clinton never mentioned experience in her ads, either."

-- "Except for the BCRA disclaimer taking responsibility for her ad, Clinton did not speak in any of her ads -- all were by voiced over by a narrator. Meanwhile, virtually, all Obama ads featured the Illinois Senator speaking on his own behalf."

How does Mark Penn keep his job? I think all Obama supporters should be thankful that he's kept his job the whole campaign.

 

[Abraham]

First Read (at MSNBC.com) has so many gems. This is quite something:

Obama outspent Hillary 5-1 on TV in WI

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:05 PM by Mark Murray

Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama, Ads

From NBC's Mark Murray

One of the keys to Obama's 17-point Wisconsin win? Per a University of Wisconsin Advertising Project study, he outspent Clinton nearly 5-to-1 on TV ads in the state. Overall, the four Dem and GOP candidates aired more than 8,000 spots in the state, spending a combined $2.1 million.

Of that amount, Obama spent more than $1.5 million; Clinton spent $300,000. That, folks, is quite a gap.

A few other findings, per a release:

-- "In what most political strategists consider a 'change' election, Clinton ads never mentioned the word 'change.' Obama ads mentioned change 1,824 times."

-- "Hillary Clinton never mentioned experience in her ads, either."

-- "Except for the BCRA disclaimer taking responsibility for her ad, Clinton did not speak in any of her ads -- all were by voiced over by a narrator. Meanwhile, virtually, all Obama ads featured the Illinois Senator speaking on his own behalf."

How does Mark Penn keep his job? I think all Obama supporters should be thankful that he's kept his job the whole campaign.

How do you not try and humanize her by putting her in the ads?

 

[saintfool]

does anyone have a link to listen to yesterdays debate?I don't care if its video or just audio.

They often re-broadcast these things on MSNBC and the like - set it up on your Tivo/DVR. It was from the University of Texas in Austin.Was it connected to UNICEF somehow? I seem to recall it being something like "the UNICEF Texas Democratic primary debates."

i thought it was the spanish language network "univision" co-sponsoring it...

 

[Green and Gold]

First Read (at MSNBC.com) has so many gems. This is quite something:

Obama outspent Hillary 5-1 on TV in WI

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:05 PM by Mark Murray

Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama, Ads

From NBC's Mark Murray

One of the keys to Obama's 17-point Wisconsin win? Per a University of Wisconsin Advertising Project study, he outspent Clinton nearly 5-to-1 on TV ads in the state. Overall, the four Dem and GOP candidates aired more than 8,000 spots in the state, spending a combined $2.1 million.

Of that amount, Obama spent more than $1.5 million; Clinton spent $300,000. That, folks, is quite a gap.

A few other findings, per a release:

-- "In what most political strategists consider a 'change' election, Clinton ads never mentioned the word 'change.' Obama ads mentioned change 1,824 times."

-- "Hillary Clinton never mentioned experience in her ads, either."

-- "Except for the BCRA disclaimer taking responsibility for her ad, Clinton did not speak in any of her ads -- all were by voiced over by a narrator. Meanwhile, virtually, all Obama ads featured the Illinois Senator speaking on his own behalf."

How does Mark Penn keep his job? I think all Obama supporters should be thankful that he's kept his job the whole campaign.

How do you not try and humanize her by putting her in the ads?

They probably tried, but she couldn't pull off non-robot.

 

[bigbottom]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Hi Tim,is their an online resource providing this info?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know it. There are dozens of websites that comprise libertarian thought. I will look it up later, when I have some more time. But if you google "free market solutions to health care", something should turn up.

So let me get this straight - you would abolish Medicare and Medicaid, you would abolish Bush's prescription drug subsidy, and you believe the people who rely on those programs would be better off going a free market route?That is the implication of this statemet you made above:

if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world

Completely devoid of government involvement would also mean getting rid of the FDA (its drug testing and approval process), eliminating the licensing of physicians, abolishing the right of an injured person to bring a civil action based upon injuries or death caused by the negligence of the doctor or drug manufacturer, and patent protection for drugs and medical equipment.

 

[aardball44]

Just stated on CNN's post-debate coverage:1) Obama has pulled even in Texas and is 7 down in Ohio2) Superdelegates will "peel away from Hilary" (exact words) if she losesd EITHER state3) "her husband, Bill Clinton, has said she will withdraw if she does not take both states" (verbatim quote). I think I called all three of these.

I think it would be very cool of the Clintons (if they lose TX or OH), to concede and throw their efforts behind Obama.I think it would do much more for her future political aspirations and his legacy if they got on board with the public to make this election a mandate.

Complete agreement - especially if she gave up aspirations to the V.P. It's hard to imagine who Obama would choose as a V.P. that would be appropriate to his policies and would draw middle america support.

As a McCain fan, the guy I fear most is Jim Webb.

Military background; principled; has the gravitas to be POTUS should push come to shove; respected by Democrats of all stripes.Could help draw Independents who want a firm WoT presence at (or near) the helm.

 

[Sammy3469]

Anyone know whiy Obama's rallies in TX are called "Stand for Change Rallies" while when he goes to OH this weekend his rallies are named "Keeping America's Promise Rallies"? Sounds like he may be unvaailing a different stump speech.

 

[Clayton Gray]

First Read (at MSNBC.com) has so many gems. This is quite something:

Obama outspent Hillary 5-1 on TV in WI

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2008 1:05 PM by Mark Murray

Filed Under: 2008, Clinton, Obama, Ads

From NBC's Mark Murray

One of the keys to Obama's 17-point Wisconsin win? Per a University of Wisconsin Advertising Project study, he outspent Clinton nearly 5-to-1 on TV ads in the state. Overall, the four Dem and GOP candidates aired more than 8,000 spots in the state, spending a combined $2.1 million.

Of that amount, Obama spent more than $1.5 million; Clinton spent $300,000. That, folks, is quite a gap.

A few other findings, per a release:

-- "In what most political strategists consider a 'change' election, Clinton ads never mentioned the word 'change.' Obama ads mentioned change 1,824 times."

-- "Hillary Clinton never mentioned experience in her ads, either."

-- "Except for the BCRA disclaimer taking responsibility for her ad, Clinton did not speak in any of her ads -- all were by voiced over by a narrator. Meanwhile, virtually, all Obama ads featured the Illinois Senator speaking on his own behalf."

How does Mark Penn keep his job? I think all Obama supporters should be thankful that he's kept his job the whole campaign.

No idea.

 

[saintfool]

Anyone know whiy Obama's rallies in TX are called "Stand for Change Rallies" while when he goes to OH this weekend his rallies are named "Keeping America's Promise Rallies"? Sounds like he may be unvaailing a different stump speech.

i would be pretty amped to see him do this.

 

[Marc Levin]

does anyone have a link to listen to yesterdays debate?I don't care if its video or just audio.

They often re-broadcast these things on MSNBC and the like - set it up on your Tivo/DVR. It was from the University of Texas in Austin.Was it connected to UNICEF somehow? I seem to recall it being something like "the UNICEF Texas Democratic primary debates."

i thought it was the spanish language network "univision" co-sponsoring it...

GD it, I'm an idiot.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Sweetest shirts ever?



Sweetest shirts ever.

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/noname.html

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/instock.html

 

[Marc Levin]

Just stated on CNN's post-debate coverage:

1) Obama has pulled even in Texas and is 7 down in Ohio

2) Superdelegates will "peel away from Hilary" (exact words) if she losesd EITHER state

3) "her husband, Bill Clinton, has said she will withdraw if she does not take both states" (verbatim quote).



I think I called all three of these.

I think it would be very cool of the Clintons (if they lose TX or OH), to concede and throw their efforts behind Obama.I think it would do much more for her future political aspirations and his legacy if they got on board with the public to make this election a mandate.

Complete agreement - especially if she gave up aspirations to the V.P. It's hard to imagine who Obama would choose as a V.P. that would be appropriate to his policies and would draw middle america support.

As a McCain fan, the guy I fear most is Jim Webb.

Military background; principled; has the gravitas to be POTUS should push come to shove; respected by Democrats of all stripes.

Could help draw Independents who want a firm WoT presence at (or near) the helm.

And you gotta like a Democrat who will stand up to the President of the U.SA. even though that man commands his son. From Wiki:

On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, aides warned the President to be "extra sensitive about talking to Webb about his son, since Webb's son has had a recent brush with death in Iraq."[23] Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." Webb was so angered by the exchange that he was reportedly tempted to "slug" the president and later remarked, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."[24][25]

I think he'd be a GREAT running mate if the platform is getting out of Iraq:

Webb’s first legislative act was to introduce a bill expanding benefits for military families entitled the “Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act”. The act is set to replace the Montgomery G.I. Bill and “makes veterans benefits identical to those soldiers received following World War II.”[30] Democratic leaders in Congress “ have already signaled the bill will be a top priority in the new session.” Speaking about his bill, Webb said “With many of our military members serving two or three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is past time to enact a new veterans’ education program modeled on the World War II era G.I. bill. This is exactly what our legislation does.”[30]

On January 23, 2007, Webb delivered the Democratic response to the President's State of the Union address, focusing on the economy and Iraq.[31] Webb's speech drew very positive reviews, and was regarded as one of the stronger State of the Union responses in recent memory.[32] Webb, a decorated war veteran spoke of his family’s military past, his own passionate attachment to the military, and the way in which previous presidents had always attempted to ensure that all precautions had been taken when sending young Americans into harm's way.

On March 5, 2007, Webb introduced his second piece of legislation, S.759, which is intended to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the prior approval of Congress. In a statement on the floor of the Senate, Webb said: "The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor."[33]

And he carries a gun - so the NRA lobby can be held in check. I like him as an Obama running mate.

 

[Marc Levin]

Sweetest shirts ever?



Sweetest shirts ever.

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/noname.html

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/instock.html

The Cubs one is the best.

 

[Abraham]

LA and the Cubs are good looking.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

LA and the Cubs are good looking.

Especially the Dodger one...

 

[NCCommish]

Just stated on CNN's post-debate coverage:1) Obama has pulled even in Texas and is 7 down in Ohio2) Superdelegates will "peel away from Hilary" (exact words) if she losesd EITHER state3) "her husband, Bill Clinton, has said she will withdraw if she does not take both states" (verbatim quote). I think I called all three of these.

I think it would be very cool of the Clintons (if they lose TX or OH), to concede and throw their efforts behind Obama.I think it would do much more for her future political aspirations and his legacy if they got on board with the public to make this election a mandate.

Complete agreement - especially if she gave up aspirations to the V.P. It's hard to imagine who Obama would choose as a V.P. that would be appropriate to his policies and would draw middle america support.

As a McCain fan, the guy I fear most is Jim Webb.

Military background; principled; has the gravitas to be POTUS should push come to shove; respected by Democrats of all stripes.Could help draw Independents who want a firm WoT presence at (or near) the helm.

Not to mention GOPers in th middle. I just don't know if he'll give up his Senate seat. But I would love to see him as VP.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Sweetest shirts ever?



Sweetest shirts ever.

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/noname.html

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/instock.html

I am all over this one...too bad it doesn't come out 'til March 15th.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Just stated on CNN's post-debate coverage:

1) Obama has pulled even in Texas and is 7 down in Ohio

2) Superdelegates will "peel away from Hilary" (exact words) if she losesd EITHER state

3) "her husband, Bill Clinton, has said she will withdraw if she does not take both states" (verbatim quote).



I think I called all three of these.

I think it would be very cool of the Clintons (if they lose TX or OH), to concede and throw their efforts behind Obama.I think it would do much more for her future political aspirations and his legacy if they got on board with the public to make this election a mandate.

Complete agreement - especially if she gave up aspirations to the V.P. It's hard to imagine who Obama would choose as a V.P. that would be appropriate to his policies and would draw middle america support.

As a McCain fan, the guy I fear most is Jim Webb.

Military background; principled; has the gravitas to be POTUS should push come to shove; respected by Democrats of all stripes.

Could help draw Independents who want a firm WoT presence at (or near) the helm.

Not to mention GOPers in th middle. I just don't know if he'll give up his Senate seat. But I would love to see him as VP.

If Virginia's governor is a Dem, at least the party wouldn't lose that seat.

 

[flufhed]

Just stated on CNN's post-debate coverage:

1) Obama has pulled even in Texas and is 7 down in Ohio

2) Superdelegates will "peel away from Hilary" (exact words) if she losesd EITHER state

3) "her husband, Bill Clinton, has said she will withdraw if she does not take both states" (verbatim quote).



I think I called all three of these.

I think it would be very cool of the Clintons (if they lose TX or OH), to concede and throw their efforts behind Obama.I think it would do much more for her future political aspirations and his legacy if they got on board with the public to make this election a mandate.

Complete agreement - especially if she gave up aspirations to the V.P. It's hard to imagine who Obama would choose as a V.P. that would be appropriate to his policies and would draw middle america support.

As a McCain fan, the guy I fear most is Jim Webb.

Military background; principled; has the gravitas to be POTUS should push come to shove; respected by Democrats of all stripes.

Could help draw Independents who want a firm WoT presence at (or near) the helm.

And you gotta like a Democrat who will stand up to the President of the U.SA. even though that man commands his son. From Wiki:

On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, aides warned the President to be "extra sensitive about talking to Webb about his son, since Webb's son has had a recent brush with death in Iraq."[23] Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." Webb was so angered by the exchange that he was reportedly tempted to "slug" the president and later remarked, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."[24][25]

I think he'd be a GREAT running mate if the platform is getting out of Iraq:

Webb’s first legislative act was to introduce a bill expanding benefits for military families entitled the “Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act”. The act is set to replace the Montgomery G.I. Bill and “makes veterans benefits identical to those soldiers received following World War II.”[30] Democratic leaders in Congress “ have already signaled the bill will be a top priority in the new session.” Speaking about his bill, Webb said “With many of our military members serving two or three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is past time to enact a new veterans’ education program modeled on the World War II era G.I. bill. This is exactly what our legislation does.”[30]

On January 23, 2007, Webb delivered the Democratic response to the President's State of the Union address, focusing on the economy and Iraq.[31] Webb's speech drew very positive reviews, and was regarded as one of the stronger State of the Union responses in recent memory.[32] Webb, a decorated war veteran spoke of his family’s military past, his own passionate attachment to the military, and the way in which previous presidents had always attempted to ensure that all precautions had been taken when sending young Americans into harm's way.

On March 5, 2007, Webb introduced his second piece of legislation, S.759, which is intended to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the prior approval of Congress. In a statement on the floor of the Senate, Webb said: "The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor."[33]

And he carries a gun - so the NRA lobby can be held in check. I like him as an Obama running mate. Wouldn't want to weaken those efforts.

Wasn't he only very recently elected to the Senate? And wasn't that a huge coup to get him in office?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Anyone know whiy Obama's rallies in TX are called "Stand for Change Rallies" while when he goes to OH this weekend his rallies are named "Keeping America's Promise Rallies"? Sounds like he may be unveiling a different stump speech.

Overdue, in my opinion.

 

[whitem0nkey]

if you missed the debate here is a link to you tube, its cut into 10 vids.

Linky

 

[ericttspikes]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Hi Tim,is their an online resource providing this info?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know it. There are dozens of websites that comprise libertarian thought. I will look it up later, when I have some more time. But if you google "free market solutions to health care", something should turn up.

So let me get this straight - you would abolish Medicare and Medicaid, you would abolish Bush's prescription drug subsidy, and you believe the people who rely on those programs would be better off going a free market route?That is the implication of this statemet you made above:

if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world

Completely devoid of government involvement would also mean getting rid of the FDA (its drug testing and approval process), eliminating the licensing of physicians, abolishing the right of an injured person to bring a civil action based upon injuries or death caused by the negligence of the doctor or drug manufacturer, and patent protection for drugs and medical equipment.

The right has very successfully demonized the word "socialized". To be consistent, they should also have a problem with our socialized military, socialized police and socialized fire protection. There are many socialized services designed to keep Americans safe and protected. Why isn't national health a concern? Chronic disease kills more Americans than invading armies. Is this a poor vs. rich thing? If you're rich, great, buy the best healthcare money can buy. Is the argument that if you're poor you deserve what you get?I believe the poor and uninsured lead to higher rates for everyone else right now. The uninsured still receive services and the costs just get passed onto people paying premiums now.

I don't think it's terrible idea to get these people "affordable" health care that will hopefully allow them to focus on preventative health care instead of soaking us for catastrophic care costs. The several trillion thrown into Iraq could of even cured some diseases. Personally, I think using that money to cure cancer or insure every American would of saved more American lives than removing Saddam from power, yet many Republicans have no problem supporting that socialized effort.

 

[D_House]

Wasn't he only very recently elected to the Senate? And wasn't that a huge coup to get him in office?

it was a hotly contested race with incumbent George Allen. Lots of dirt being thrown. Webb was accused by some of being a pedophile for his written depictions of actual events while in Vietnam. And George Allen committed a well known gaffe when he called a Webb staffer "macaca".

 

[cosjobs]

Sweetest shirts ever?



Sweetest shirts ever.

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/noname.html

http://www.obamaofdreams.com/instock.html

Very nice. Wanted the Houston one, but the Baltimore looked so much cooler, I took it instead.

 

[Marc Levin]

Wasn't he only very recently elected to the Senate? And wasn't that a huge coup to get him in office?

Yes - he won by a very slim margin and his election swung the Senate to the Repubs.He is the Junior Senator from Virginia, but will be the Senior Senator in 2009.VA's governor (Kaine) is a Democrat.I don't think any of that has relevance to how attarctive a running mate he'd be for Obama. Being Obama's vice for 8 years is certainly his fastest track to the White House.

 

[cosjobs]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Hi Tim,is their an online resource providing this info?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know it. There are dozens of websites that comprise libertarian thought. I will look it up later, when I have some more time. But if you google "free market solutions to health care", something should turn up.

So let me get this straight - you would abolish Medicare and Medicaid, you would abolish Bush's prescription drug subsidy, and you believe the people who rely on those programs would be better off going a free market route?That is the implication of this statemet you made above:

if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world

Completely devoid of government involvement would also mean getting rid of the FDA (its drug testing and approval process), eliminating the licensing of physicians, abolishing the right of an injured person to bring a civil action based upon injuries or death caused by the negligence of the doctor or drug manufacturer, and patent protection for drugs and medical equipment.

The right has very successfully demonized the word "socialized". To be consistent, they should also have a problem with our socialized military, socialized police and socialized fire protection. There are many socialized services designed to keep Americans safe and protected. Why isn't national health a concern? Chronic disease kills more Americans than invading armies. Is this a poor vs. rich thing? If you're rich, great, buy the best healthcare money can buy. Is the argument that if you're poor you deserve what you get?I believe the poor and uninsured lead to higher rates for everyone else right now. The uninsured still receive services and the costs just get passed onto people paying premiums now.

I don't think it's terrible idea to get these people "affordable" health care that will hopefully allow them to focus on preventative health care instead of soaking us for catastrophic care costs. The several trillion thrown into Iraq could of even cured some diseases. Personally, I think using that money to cure cancer or insure every American would of saved more American lives than removing Saddam from power, yet many Republicans have no problem supporting that socialized effort.

outstanding post, eric

 

[bigbottom]

I believe that if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world.

Can you unpack this a bit?

If you want more information on this subject, I recommend reading The National Review, or Reason magazine, or Atlas Shrugged, or a dozen other conservative or libertarian sources that will argue why government should not be involved with health care.

Hi Tim,is their an online resource providing this info?

I'm sure there is, but I don't know it. There are dozens of websites that comprise libertarian thought. I will look it up later, when I have some more time. But if you google "free market solutions to health care", something should turn up.

So let me get this straight - you would abolish Medicare and Medicaid, you would abolish Bush's prescription drug subsidy, and you believe the people who rely on those programs would be better off going a free market route?That is the implication of this statemet you made above:

if healthcare for instance were completely devoid of government involvement it would be cheap, available to everyone, and the best in the world

Completely devoid of government involvement would also mean getting rid of the FDA (its drug testing and approval process), eliminating the licensing of physicians, abolishing the right of an injured person to bring a civil action based upon injuries or death caused by the negligence of the doctor or drug manufacturer, and patent protection for drugs and medical equipment.

The right has very successfully demonized the word "socialized". To be consistent, they should also have a problem with our socialized military, socialized police and socialized fire protection. There are many socialized services designed to keep Americans safe and protected. Why isn't national health a concern? Chronic disease kills more Americans than invading armies. Is this a poor vs. rich thing? If you're rich, great, buy the best healthcare money can buy. Is the argument that if you're poor you deserve what you get?I believe the poor and uninsured lead to higher rates for everyone else right now. The uninsured still receive services and the costs just get passed onto people paying premiums now.

I don't think it's terrible idea to get these people "affordable" health care that will hopefully allow them to focus on preventative health care instead of soaking us for catastrophic care costs. The several trillion thrown into Iraq could of even cured some diseases. Personally, I think using that money to cure cancer or insure every American would of saved more American lives than removing Saddam from power, yet many Republicans have no problem supporting that socialized effort.

 

[culdeus]

Not sure if it was posted, but a DPD officer died while in a motorcade for Clinton from Dallas to Fort Worth. He apparently lost control of his bike and hit a curb. Pronounced dead at the hospital.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

SuperDelegates flock to Obama

WASHINGTON - The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters — straight to Barack Obama.

In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.

 

[adonis]

Not sure if it was posted, but a DPD officer died while in a motorcade for Clinton from Dallas to Fort Worth. He apparently lost control of his bike and hit a curb. Pronounced dead at the hospital.

 

[timschochet]

Been gone for a while, and I don't want to hijack this thread talking about health care. So I'm starting a separate thread about it. If you want to read a detailed defense of free-market solutions to health care, please go there.

 

[skol asylum]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

You do realize that in the examples you gave about the failure of government that the Bush administration had tried to privatize their efforts as much as possible and its this privatization that has failed us and not allowing/requiring the government to do its own job competently.

 

[timschochet]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

You do realize that in the examples you gave about the failure of government that the Bush administration had tried to privatize their efforts as much as possible and its this privatization that has failed us and not allowing/requiring the government to do its own job competently.

It's a difference of philosophy between us, my friend. I believe the less government bureaucracy the better.

 

[Marc Levin]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

You do realize that in the examples you gave about the failure of government that the Bush administration had tried to privatize their efforts as much as possible and its this privatization that has failed us and not allowing/requiring the government to do its own job competently.

It's a difference of philosophy between us, my friend. I believe the less government bureaucracy the better.

I don't think you addressed his point.

 

[cosjobs]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

You do realize that in the examples you gave about the failure of government that the Bush administration had tried to privatize their efforts as much as possible and its this privatization that has failed us and not allowing/requiring the government to do its own job competently.

It's a difference of philosophy between us, my friend. I believe the less government bureaucracy the better.

I don't think you addressed his point.

Of course he didn't, because it makes him and his arguement look silly. Just throw up a straw man or answer a different question...

 

[timschochet]

Are you Obama supporters sure you want such a socialist agenda for this nation? You've witnessed over the last eight years how incompetent and corrupt the government can be. Remember Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war? Yet all of Obama's solutions are more big government, more bureacracies, more social programs. Also, this talk about how Obama will be a unifying force for good is just absurd. In response to his first decision regarding Iraq in which he pulls back forces, the Reublicans will stage a walk-out in Congress. If he actually meets with Achmadinejead, Americans like me will show up and picket; we will not allow this man to disgrace our nation in such a manner. Every attempt he makes to put through his big socialistic programs will be met with a further collapse of the stock market. Opposite of uniting, Obama will become one of the most controversial, polarizing Presidents we have seen since... well, the last one.

You do realize that in the examples you gave about the failure of government that the Bush administration had tried to privatize their efforts as much as possible and its this privatization that has failed us and not allowing/requiring the government to do its own job competently.

It's a difference of philosophy between us, my friend. I believe the less government bureaucracy the better.

I don't think you addressed his point.

I would have to do quite a bit of research to properly respond to his point. I don't think placing cronies at the head of government organizations is an attempt to privatize. I also suspect that Bush misapplied the whole idea of privatizing. And I'm betting that, as was the case both in Katrina and the veteran hospitals, many of the noted disasters in the Bush administration were the result of bureaucracy rather than privatization. But I don't have the time to study all of this to prove that it is so, so I left it as a difference of philosophy, which is all that my efforts would lead to in the long run, anyhow.

 

[Marc Levin]

Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war?

These are all instances where private companies were given the jobs that the government traditionally performs - that is the privatization he meant.A private company ran the vet hospital (as I recall) Walter Reed was failure of internal army bureaucracy, Blackwater is in Iraq, Sweet government contracts were handed out to companies aligned with the President's cronies who then profited rather than conmpleted the job.

Hate the gov't or not, I'd feel much more comfortable with gov't entities doing those jobs. Gov't employees and agencies are answerable to the President and to Congress. Private companies are primarily responsible to their shareholders.

That's a horrible way to deal with crisis. And that is exactly what Mr. Superunkn0wn was talking about.

 

[timschochet]

Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war?

These are all instances where private companies were given the jobs that the government traditionally performs - that is the privatization he meant.A private company ran the vet hospital (as I recall) Walter Reed was failure of internal army bureaucracy, Blackwater is in Iraq, Sweet government contracts were handed out to companies aligned with the President's cronies who then profited rather than conmpleted the job.

Hate the gov't or not, I'd feel much more comfortable with gov't entities doing those jobs. Gov't employees and agencies are answerable to the President and to Congress. Private companies are primarily responsible to their shareholders.

That's a horrible way to deal with crisis. And that is exactly what Mr. Superunkn0wn was talking about.

I have no disagreement with any of this, but it applies to what I was talking about when I referenced Bush's misapplication of privitization. I agree certain jobs must be one by the government and cannot be trusted to the private sector. But I probably have a smaller list of these than you do. The point I was originally trying to make was that Obama is going to enlarge the public sector by a significant amount, taking over aspects of our society that have traditionally belonged to the private sector. This defines him, for me at least, as a socialist, and this is what I am opposed to.

 

[Marc Levin]

Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war?

These are all instances where private companies were given the jobs that the government traditionally performs - that is the privatization he meant.A private company ran the vet hospital (as I recall) Walter Reed was failure of internal army bureaucracy, Blackwater is in Iraq, Sweet government contracts were handed out to companies aligned with the President's cronies who then profited rather than conmpleted the job.

Hate the gov't or not, I'd feel much more comfortable with gov't entities doing those jobs. Gov't employees and agencies are answerable to the President and to Congress. Private companies are primarily responsible to their shareholders.

That's a horrible way to deal with crisis. And that is exactly what Mr. Superunkn0wn was talking about.

I have no disagreement with any of this, but it applies to what I was talking about when I referenced Bush's misapplication of privitization. I agree certain jobs must be one by the government and cannot be trusted to the private sector. But I probably have a smaller list of these than you do. The point I was originally trying to make was that Obama is going to enlarge the public sector by a significant amount, taking over aspects of our society that have traditionally belonged to the private sector. This defines him, for me at least, as a socialist, and this is what I am opposed to.

So you acknowledge that Bush attempted privatization and that it was a miserable failure.

 

[timschochet]

Katrina? The veteran hospitals? The way we've run the Iraq war?

These are all instances where private companies were given the jobs that the government traditionally performs - that is the privatization he meant.A private company ran the vet hospital (as I recall) Walter Reed was failure of internal army bureaucracy, Blackwater is in Iraq, Sweet government contracts were handed out to companies aligned with the President's cronies who then profited rather than conmpleted the job.

Hate the gov't or not, I'd feel much more comfortable with gov't entities doing those jobs. Gov't employees and agencies are answerable to the President and to Congress. Private companies are primarily responsible to their shareholders.

That's a horrible way to deal with crisis. And that is exactly what Mr. Superunkn0wn was talking about.

I have no disagreement with any of this, but it applies to what I was talking about when I referenced Bush's misapplication of privitization. I agree certain jobs must be one by the government and cannot be trusted to the private sector. But I probably have a smaller list of these than you do. The point I was originally trying to make was that Obama is going to enlarge the public sector by a significant amount, taking over aspects of our society that have traditionally belonged to the private sector. This defines him, for me at least, as a socialist, and this is what I am opposed to.

So you acknowledge that Bush attempted privatization and that it was a miserable failure.

Yes. But then, almost everything Bush attempted has been a miserable failure. George Bush has been the worst President perhaps ever.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'd just like to make a quick comment. Anyone who thinks that the government has a monopoly on bureaucracy and inefficiency has obviously never worked for a large corporation.

 

[Marc Levin]

So you acknowledge that Bush attempted privatization and that it was a miserable failure.

Yes. But then, almost everything Bush attempted has been a miserable failure. George Bush has been the worst President perhaps ever.

Thank you - something with which I unequivocally agree.

 

[timschochet]

So you acknowledge that Bush attempted privatization and that it was a miserable failure.

Yes. But then, almost everything Bush attempted has been a miserable failure. George Bush has been the worst President perhaps ever.

Thank you - something with which I unequivocally agree.

Look, if Bush were running for a third term, I'd be wearing an Obama t-shirt right now. If any one of those other idiots had been the Republican nominee (Romney for instance) I'd be driving the Barack bandwagon.But John McCain is such the anti-Bush- a principled man of honor who really wants what's right for the country- that I'm proud to support him.

 

[Marc Levin]

But John McCain is such the anti-Bush- a principled man of honor who really wants what's right for the country- that I'm proud to support him.

I like McCain. If Obama were not riding such a high crest, and was fighting from behind, I would be praising the wonder of McCain. I agree with more of Obama's policies, however.Obama happens to strike me similarly as a principled man of honor who really wants what's right for the country. Just approaches it differently than your guy.

 

[bentley]

Holy Toledo, man. Just watched Obama's speech tonight on the local cable. I wanted to like him because he's a bright and energetic guy and seems like a good speaker and I'm tired of the mess in Washington, but I don't think I can afford to vote for the guy. Every one of his ideas sounded fantastically expensive. And apparently the wife and I are filthy rich and living off the backs of the poor and deserve to be punished since we finally cracked six figures this year.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Holy Toledo, man. Just watched Obama's speech tonight on the local cable. I wanted to like him because he's a bright and energetic guy and seems like a good speaker and I'm tired of the mess in Washington, but I don't think I can afford to vote for the guy. Every one of his ideas sounded fantastically expensive. And apparently the wife and I are filthy rich and living off the backs of the poor and deserve to be punished since we finally cracked six figures this year.

The 6 figures, in this day and age, has to go beyond a quarter million. Obama is smart enough to understand it cant be on those who may be middle class despite a "figure."

 

[timschochet]

Holy Toledo, man. Just watched Obama's speech tonight on the local cable. I wanted to like him because he's a bright and energetic guy and seems like a good speaker and I'm tired of the mess in Washington, but I don't think I can afford to vote for the guy. Every one of his ideas sounded fantastically expensive. And apparently the wife and I are filthy rich and living off the backs of the poor and deserve to be punished since we finally cracked six figures this year.

He is a radical leftist. What did you expect?

 

[bentley]

Holy Toledo, man. Just watched Obama's speech tonight on the local cable. I wanted to like him because he's a bright and energetic guy and seems like a good speaker and I'm tired of the mess in Washington, but I don't think I can afford to vote for the guy. Every one of his ideas sounded fantastically expensive. And apparently the wife and I are filthy rich and living off the backs of the poor and deserve to be punished since we finally cracked six figures this year.

The 6 figures, in this day and age, has to go beyond a quarter million. Obama is smart enough to understand it cant be on those who may be middle class despite a "figure."

He sure does throw around the number $75,000 a lot if that's the case.