and give him a chance to win me over - after all

Thank You!

This is the kind of thing that (to me) brings discussions to a grinding halt.

Rather than discuss what Geoff was saying about two parties nominating mavericks and the underlying reformation of both parties and what that means for politics etc etc ...

let's just attack him for being an editor. Or having a past. Or how about who the hell are his friends?

C'mon people -- grow up!!! Aren't we adults?

Can't we have nuanced discussions about politics, race, gender, status quo and possibility?

What I liked about Obama's "race speech" was not so much that he was eloquent, but that he was talking about it at a far deeper level than platitude or sound-byte.

I think that some people, if they choose, can have discussions on these boards in the same vein.

So, kick it up a notch and how about if we challenge ourselves to let go of cheap shots, tit-for-tats and harumphing into our resentments.

Holding on to resentments is like drinking poison and expecting the other guy to die.

Smart, eh?

But it's starting to make me sad.

I used to wonder how on earth our country got into this mess, but I'm beginning to realize that a lot of people take a great deal more joy in ripping each others guts out, and claiming to be justified in doing so, than they ever seem to get any joy out of actually fixing things.

Thanks for just being another sane person, artandsoul.

I loved the speech and as an Obama supporter I'm grateful for her support. But I have to say that I've been astonished by the attitude of a small but vocal group of Clinton supporters. I'm a middle aged woman, a life-long feminist, I've worked in the corporate world - as in the financial district of Manhattan and as a geologist (where I was one of two women in a field camp with 48 men). But I have never, never, never in my lifetime received the level of abuse thrown at me by WOMEN because I supported Obama rather than Clinton. As Madelline Albright said (rough quote) there is a special place in hell for women who hurt other women. I've been mystified. But the speech today went a long way toward bridging that gap. It was the first time in a long while since I've really heard Hillary Clinton talk about women's issues and she sounded good. But it's not about Hillary anymore. It really never was. It's about our children, our country, ourselves. It's about health care and civil rights and civil liberties and bringing the troops back from Iraq. It about avoiding yet another war on another front - with Iran. It's about education. Either you get that, or you don't. It's just not that complicated. Listen to what your candidate said. Stop looking back and start looking at what really matters.

Good post ,Mariah. I do disagree with you on who started what. The Obama supporters were nasty too.

But that is enough of that. I will not support Obama because I do not think he is the man for the job. It will take a very strong person. One who is capable of handling the Congress and try to clean up some of the mess Bush is leaving.

I was not thrilled with any of the candidates this year. They all owe their souls to the Company store,including Obama. He came out of the Cook County machine,the most corrupt machine in the US and that is saying a lot.

Obama's choice of backers and friends do not give me confidence in him.

Should Obama pick Hillary for VP

Consider this:

1. The overall democratic voter turnout was the largest in history (over 36 million).

2. These voters were almost evenly divided between the two candidates

3. The roughly 18 million that voted for Obama probably would vote for Obama in the general, not vote for McCain (or stay home), no matter who Obama picks for VP.

4. As to the 18 million that voted for Clinton, they are more likely to vote for Obama in the general election if he picks her (not all of them will vote for him, even if he picks her, but they are more likely to do so, compared to if he were to pick someone else).

Therefore, for Obama to get the highest percentage of voters in the general election, of those that voted in the primaries, he almost has to pick Clinton.

Given the historically record numbers of voters who have come out in the primaries, it is likely that most Democratic voters in the general election will have to come from the same set.

There are those who say that he doesn't have to pick Clinton to get the same effect. They argue that he could pick a Clinton supporter, or perhaps another prominent Democratic female politician. That is absurd. Would that argument have worked in reverse. If Clinton had won, would Obama supporters have felt satisfied if Clinton had picked another black politician, instead of Obama. Would Charlie Rangel or Harold Ford mollified these voters? People cannot be substituted like that. The emotional connection to supporters would be absent. Charlie Rangel, Harold Ford or some other substitute would not have the experience of the last several months on the campaign trail to dominate the Republican opposition.

Can you imagine a VP debate with Clinton and whoever the Republicans put up? After the 22 debates she has had over the last several months, she'll destroy that person. She is on her game. She is tenacious, and she finished the Democratic with astounding fervor.

Some have argued that by picking her, it would create a three-headed monster with two of the heads being named Clinton. I say bring it on. Let's see how the Republicans like that.

Now that I could live withs9999 :o) Landslide?

Allowing people to opt out of health care if they "can't afford" it is NOT going to achieve Universal Healthcare. What, so if they don't have health insurance the hospitals won't treat them. Who the hell are you and Obama kidding. That policy makes him either a liar or stupid.

Allowing people to opt out of health care if they "can't afford" it

My understanding is opting out for lack of money isn't an option. The costs are determined by income and those below a certain income will have no costs at all.

However someone may choose to not buy any at all - for whatever reason. He does not mandate it, as Hillary does. The stated belief is that if affordable coverage is offered - most will take it.

I suspect he fully intends for it to be made mandatory - after the election.

Hillary's 'mandate' had the Repubs all happy...

dreams of TV ads with a working mom staring in horror at her pay stub and finding her wages were being garnished and hungry, sickly but adorable looking children mewling and playing with ratty toys in the background.

Obama's initial plan lets him sidestep that debating point and run happy ads as working mom smiles in relief at the pediatrician (who gives the child a new toy).

Once the actual legislation reaches Congress, let them add the mandate and hammer out the manner of payment. Most likely it will be Hillary's bill.

Good tactic...smart tactic. What's not to like?

My family gets health insurance..really good insurance with medical, dental, and optical, perscriptions, and any necessary medical devices covered...FREE through my husbands employer..

It seems a little wierd and uneccessary for me to have to PAY for it through some mandate.

But you'll probably say that as a benefit it has a cash value and that My husband would thrn get that money back since the company wouldn't have to pay for it..

But my husband makes decent wages, we're unlikely to qualify for the "subsidy" or whatever they're calling it.

And the idea that the company he works for will suddenly give him a raise to compensate for the lost benefit is not particularly true. They pay it now, but if some other sysytem were to come along, they'd just stop, better profits for them, yet another bill for me, and no raise to pay for it.

Not everyone's situation is the same. This is a COMPLEX issue and just chanting the word UNIVERSAL is not enough to make it a good thing.

The more "enthusiastic" Obama supporters do not seem to want to admit that fact, however. Thanks for the uprate on my post quoting Susan B. Anthony, also.

I told you I wouldn't reply to you again but if you persist in this ridiculous, petty, junior high school girl behavior, I will correct you. Get off my back & get away from me and my posts. And speaking of "taking responsibility," when are you ever going to tell your new BOTF "buddies" just how many phony Fray-nicks you currently have? We count 17 or 18.

"Thank you."

SN (L)

p.s. Again, speaking of 'taking responsibility," why don't YOU practice what you preach, for a change? To wit, lay off Laurie Ann and all the crappy assumptions about her (energy-wasting) lifestyle and about her liquid consumption. You are dead effing wrong and you have been Reported for Abuse. hint: more than one person on the Frays speaks a little Mandarin Chinese, ok? Your abusiveness, always BAD, is getting out of control. Just another hint.

ROFL. Taking on a faux Chinese nick does not make you a speaker of the language.

It was obvious who Mei Mei was when, months and months ago, her only purpose on the fray was to give your horrible P-fray posts thumbs up. When only your own sockpuppets are saying good things about the shit you try to write. Well. EL oh EL.

Looking up "her" MBTU list, it was obvious "she" wrote in YOUR ....er...oily style. Who do you think alerted everyone to your Lunesta nick, Tempo? And all your other nicks, too. It was me. I knew you were SpeakerNancy all along. Long before anyone else realized. Sorry, but 90-weight oil has a distinctive O'Dor, Diane.

Maybe you should change shampoos.

I missed the part where Obama said Hillary was unqualified to be CIC but that he and McCain were. I missed that. Hillary supporters that are not supporting Obama can go vote for McCain, we don't need them.