This voter hassaid over and over that he will vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination. As a Clinton supporter will you vote for Obama if he gets the nod?

I and my family memebers have been accused of some pretty shitty things by Clinton supporters.

I will vote for him. I want him to include a mandate in his health care plan (but maybe the Senate will force that issue), and he better have some damn good advisors and the Senate better not act like nincompoops, but I will vote for him.

Everyday McCain looks like he will make sense to no one but NeoCons and Oil tycoons.

Thank you. The good news is it looks like which ever candidate wins the Democratic nomination, we will probably have a president who believes in healthcare for everybody not just the lucky. I do not think McCain stands a chance.

LaurieAnnM:

I don't appreciate your smear on Hillary...shades of the sick puppies in the republican aisle like Ken Starr who dogged her and Bill for years. Your smear turns my stomach.

On that note. Nice chatting with you.

Goodbye.

What I would like to know (from anyone who cares to answer) is, why is it a ``smear` when I cite some real information from a real court case opening in California--and I specifically said that I did not have an opinion on its veracity--willing to suspend judgment until I saw more proof. But Clinton supporters come on here and spew personal opinions that Michelle Obama is ``arrogant`` and Barack is ``cold and aloof`` and that`s okay? A bit worse than a double standard--its total hypocrisy.

mercadia:

Woofer, this is what bother me:

Obama advocates for transparency in the health care system, which will apparently lower costs enough for people to buy health care. Clinton also advocates for the *same* thing. They *both* want increased regulation and transparency (both in health care and the economy). They *both* want that, not just Obama.

And maybe I'm oversimplifying, BUT

Obama does not require a mandate, which means that the people who do not buy health care but still require medical treatment will push those costs back up (which we, in turn, will end up paying for). And we're not talking about low income people who just can't afford it, we're talking about "free-riders:" Americans who *can* buy insurance, but *don't,* because they want to spend the money on Ipods and other things. Then they go to the hospital for emergency procedures or basic check-ups and we end up paying for it, through tax dollars or higher premiums. According to Obama's people, his plan estimates about 2 million "free-riders," will still remain even after he lowers prices. Those "free-riders" will continue to keep prices higher than they need to be. Of course, no one can certain--that is just their estimate. Obama suggested that the end to this problem could be allow parents to insure their kids until age 25, as long at the parents want to insure their spoiled, irresponsible kid for that long,

A mandate will lower costs further. Mandates require everyone to participate (which will definitely eradicate "free-riders") and will make insurance even easier for lower income people to afford. In turn, requiring lower income people to buy health care further lowers the prices further, which will make it even easier for them to afford.

Under both plans, if lower income people cannot afford health insurance, the government will offer a subsidy or tax credit to help them. We will pay for the subsidy's through our tax dollars.

However, Obama's subsidy will end up having to be larger, due to the fact that health care will remain more expensive than it has to be. Under this plan, we will pay more through taxes and through higher premiums. Under Clinton's plan, the subsidy will be lower because health care will be cheaper. So, we'll save money through less taxes and lower premiums.

Clinton's plan makes more sense to me (what am I missing here?) It seems like it will make insurance easier for lower-income people to buy and with a smaller subsidy. Not requiring a mandate seems like it's hindering the system and that the money save on premiums, which will be less, by be counteracted by an increase in tax dollars, which will be more. Even if he makes up for the subsidies by reducing spending somewhere else, why is it necessary to keep premiums higher than they need to be and governmental spending larger than it needs to be?

Which are we talking about, Mercadia--health care or sub-prime mortgage problem? I think Obama`s sub-prime answer is better and I have to say that I think Hillary is right about mandates (although I think Obama has raised a valid point about enforcement problems) and I think he is right to focus on containing costs.

In Canada, they kick around various private-public care plans. Right now, it is illegal for doctors and hospitals to bill privately there. The reason given is that they do not wish to foster a two-tiered system where the wealthy get the best care and the poor get stuck with the government system. However, it has been noted that there are many wealthy Canadians who come here or go to places like Thailand (which, I`m told has a very good and inexpensive health care system) to get needed procedures done that they might have to wait some time for in Canada.

One thing is clear, there will be many stakeholders in any healthcare system that is ultimately put together and it is important to consult all of them and then try to get a consensus on the best plan. It is a bad idea to get too married to one`s own ideas---it is important to remain fluid and conciliatory--I think this is one trait of good leadership in which Obama exels.

What would you think about reposting your excellent Top Post on some of the other political Frays, as I suggested above?

Interesting that a Pritzker would be advising him -- is he really that much of an In-group playuh in Chicago wealthy circles? (I'm assuming she is one of THE Pritzkers?) If so, how does he dare present himself as an outsider? It amazes me, the free ride BO is getting from the media and apparently, from far too many ill-informed hysterical Dem. "voters," who are all caught up in the (supposed) "Magic" of his "campaign." His supporters have drunk the Koolaid and it worries me. Among the media people, only Dan Rather and David Brooks have consistently shown the level-headed clear thinking and objective analysis that all of them should be bringing to discussion of this race.

Thanks again for your fine, FINE Top Post.

Record? What record? He has no record, Woofer. He was only IN the U.S. Senate for one year before he became an Absentee Senator & Full-time Candidate, spending all his time running for the Presidency.

I can not support an inexperienced candidate who wraps himself in the gauzy dreaminess of such unrealistic phrases as "the Audacity of Hope." Also, his constant references to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his constant borrowing of Dr. King's phrases strike me as hollow & intellectually dishonest. Barack Obama has not lived the typical African-American life experience -- as has been pointed out time after time after time on these Frays -- and didn't even live in America for much of his youth. When they did return to USA, he lived in DreamyLand, Isolated Hawaii and attended the prestigious, elitist, exclusive Punahou School. What did HE ever have to "overcome?" -- as in "We Shall Overcome?"

Btw, I have read exchanges of yours with other posters & I see what you do to them by about the third exchange. So, no personal offense, but I'm not going to reply to you again, ok?

As for Michelle Obama, that is how she is widely perceived. Every adjective or phrase I used about her, has been used by some in the media and MANY in the Blogosphere. Not that she is, or should be, the issue, but her VERY CLEAR ARROGANCE and sense of entitlement turn me off. Also, they do not reflect well on her possible 'performance' as the country's First Lady.

Again, please don't reply to me again, Woofer, because there is nothing to be gained for either of us by continuing to try to talk to each other. My mind is firmly made up, in favor of Senator Clinton and I will remain loyal to her candidacy until the Dem. Convention here in Denver, in August.

HE HAS NO RECORD (and btw, I have researched his record in his terms in the Illinois State Senate; there is nothing outstanding; he was a run of the mill, average politician there, as far as I can see. And I do not buy his explanations, either, for all those "present" votes.) Those who support him are doing so on the basis of his gauzy Dreamyland Rhetoric and empty golden promises, and that's not what I'll base my vote on. Like Demcon above, I want a practiced, hardened, solid, realistic, experienced PRACTICAL candidate -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Lunesta:

Record? What record? He has no record, Woofer. He was only IN the U.S. Senate for one year before he became an Absentee Senator & Full-time Candidate, spending all his time running for the Presidency.

I can not support an inexperienced candidate who wraps himself in the gauzy dreaminess of such unrealistic phrases as "the Audacity of Hope." Also, his constant references to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his constant borrowing of Dr. King's phrases strike me as hollow & intellectually dishonest. Barack Obama has not lived the typical African-American life experience -- as has been pointed out time after time after time on these Frays -- and didn't even live in America for much of his youth. When they did return to USA, he lived in DreamyLand, Isolated Hawaii and attended the prestigious, elitist, exclusive Punahou School. What did HE ever have to "overcome?" -- as in "We Shall Overcome?"

Btw, I have read exchanges of yours with other posters & I see what you do to them by about the third exchange. So, no personal offense, but I'm not going to reply to you again, ok?

As for Michelle Obama, that is how she is widely perceived. Every adjective or phrase I used about her, has been used by some in the media and MANY in the Blogosphere. Not that she is, or should be, the issue, but her VERY CLEAR ARROGANCE and sense of entitlement turn me off. Also, they do not reflect well on her possible 'performance' as the country's First Lady.

Again, please don't reply to me again, Woofer, because there is nothing to be gained for either of us by continuing to try to talk to each other. My mind is firmly made up, in favor of Senator Clinton and I will remain loyal to her candidacy until the Dem. Convention here in Denver, in August.

HE HAS NO RECORD (and btw, I have researched his record in his terms in the Illinois State Senate; there is nothing outstanding; he was a run of the mill, average politician there, as far as I can see. And I do not buy his explanations, either, for all those "present" votes.) Those who support him are doing so on the basis of his gauzy Dreamyland Rhetoric and empty golden promises, and that's not what I'll base my vote on. Like Demcon above, I want a practiced, hardened, solid, realistic, experienced PRACTICAL candidate -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He has a record--over 800 pieces of legislation vs. 20 for Hillary. Don't you ever read anything other than Hillary propaganda pieces? Read Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd from the NYT today and then get back to me..whoops, I forgot, you can't handle debate...Can I ask you a question--why are you here? Luckily, I didn't take your command to not respond to you too seriously--this is still a free country---the neocons don't own it yet.

She is a lost cause woofer. She said the same to me. She attacked my family when I tried to explain to her how and why different Democrats feel. Then when I happened to cross her path on a different thread she accused me of stalking her and told me not to reply to her. She even insulted my recently deceased sister in law. I told her thats not a good way to win over voters.

In a thread over on fraywatch, I have a post there I was checking on, she was talking to another female Clinton supporter about how HC was being cheated out of the presidency.

As if she had some God given right to be coronated or something.

Yeah, Hillary and her supporters are the sorest of losers. I cannot understand what the attraction is to Billary. She is a lousy politician--she ran practically unopposed in her NY Senatorial campaign. Now she can't handle the competition. I read a piece that questions why she won't reveal her tax returns under the title, "What are the Clintons Hiding?"

If you want to read a great piece on Obama from today's New Yorker check out

<link>

Woofer:

800 pieces of legislation in the state senate or the U.S. Senate? It seems virtually impossible to author or co-author that many bills in the U.S. Senate.

There is one bill in the U.S. Senate with his name on it. His "record" was the subject of a news segment on NBC-TV News (poss. ABC, sorry if so) last night as part of a series they are doing on the candidates' records. In trying to describe his 'record,' they had to search & stretch long & hard & leaned heavily on his work in the Illinois State Senate. Btw, Mercadia, I looked up his "record" in Springfield -- it's not very impressive, mostly standard run of the mill (leaning a bit more Left than others) Democratic stuff. Nothing harmful, nothing outstanding, either. And an awful lot of "Present" votes -- the Republicans are going to have a FIELD DAY with his "record."

He is a mediocrity with a Golden Orator's Voice, spouting the words of others, still denying even his own very obvious plagiarism (of his friend Deval Patrick of Mass.) -- yet trying to tell that truth around HERE (It reads like St. ObamaLand over here most days) simply gets one clobbered. Good luck trying to "reason" with Woofer. I've watched her in action -- no thanks! She keeps trying to bait me, but she is very easy to ignore, imho.

(Btw, I'm glad you are still here & I hope you saw my post to you yesterday, asking you NOT to leave. The only replies so far are by knee-jerk Obama-nauts, and so, I do hope you will follow my MBTU back to that thread.) Thanks & please, STICK AROUND.

I wouldn't go as far as your choice of "vacuous," but certainly, vague and not offering us -- STILL -- any grabbable specifics. I like your post & I'm responding to you because I AM the kind of Dem. voter & Hillary supporter you refer to who is leaning to a possible vote for McCain out of respect for his record, service and integrity. I hear quite a FEW Democrats I know, actually, saying they are considering for him, should the Dems. actually nominate Senator O'Dreamy. I'm also considering abstaining or writing in Hillary Clinton's name in November, should the Dems. make that bad mistake of BO leading our ticket.

Nothing Obama can do for me, at this point, after watching his horrendously nasty and obviously well-organized "supporters" (aka, Obama-"thugs") will cause me -- a lifelong DEM. voter & volunteer -- to vote for him as head of the ticket -- NOTHING. And NO ONE that he pulls out of his cultish, Dreamy-headed hat will convince me otherwise -- not even John Edwards. Thanks for a great post, very reasonable, realistic and well-thought-out.

Lunesta:

There is one bill in the U.S. Senate with his name on it. His "record" was the subject of a news segment on NBC-TV News (poss. ABC, sorry if so) last night as part of a series they are doing on the candidates' records. In trying to describe his 'record,' they had to search & stretch long & hard & leaned heavily on his work in the Illinois State Senate. Btw, Mercadia, I looked up his "record" in Springfield -- it's not very impressive, mostly standard run of the mill (leaning a bit more Left than others) Democratic stuff. Nothing harmful, nothing outstanding, either. And an awful lot of "Present" votes -- the Republicans are going to have a FIELD DAY with his "record."

He is a mediocrity with a Golden Orator's Voice, spouting the words of others, still denying even his own very obvious plagiarism (of his friend Deval Patrick of Mass.) -- yet trying to tell that truth around HERE (It reads like St. ObamaLand over here most days) simply gets one clobbered. Good luck trying to "reason" with Woofer. I've watched her in action -- no thanks! She keeps trying to bait me, but she is very easy to ignore, imho.

(Btw, I'm glad you are still here & I hope you saw my post to you yesterday, asking you NOT to leave. The only replies so far are by knee-jerk Obama-nauts, and so, I do hope you will follow my MBTU back to that thread.) Thanks & please, STICK AROUND.

Here is a link to the Daily Kos--(liberal blog). It is an exhaustive examination of both Clinton's and Obama's records. In the words of the writer--he was "blown away" by the quality and quantity of Obama's work. Here is the

<link>