Until we talk about a big reform that actually adjusts the power of the private companies I believe that BO has a better plan because he doesn't have an unfunded, regressive, mandate fee as high as 10% for middle class families who live pay check to pay but aren't poor enough for the subsidies (btw, the BO and HRC subsidy plans are indistinguishable if you  read them side by side.)

We know mandates don't work, look at MA.  Nearly half of the uninsured are still uninsured, and the system is out of money.  Many of the newly insured were simply put on existing federal programs, regardless of mandates.  Some people can't afford the least costly insurance so they pay the fee without getting insurance.  

Look at CA; the mandate plan only got 1 out of 11 votes in the committee, but big insurance companies were in favor of that mandate plan.  Why was that?  For that matter, why did the insurance companies favor the SCHIP expansion that Bush vetoed?  I'm in favor of that expansion, but at least my eyes are open: I know that the legislation is setup to provide income to private companies at the same time it helps kids.

Car insurance mandates don't work either.  The level of uninsured drivers is as high as 20% for states with mandated car insurance.

Listen to HRC carefully: she hedges by saying mandates are a "goal."  She has talked about them as a strategic starting point, so they can easily be tossed aside when it becomes politically expedient.  

People who can afford health insurance don't need a mandate "gun to the head" to make them buy it.  Most people who can afford health care have good jobs, so they get the insurance as a benefit.  People who can afford insurance but don't get it from their jobs already have a gun to the head.  If they have money and they have a health care emergency, they will spend a ton of money, or they'll go bankrupt.  The problem is not that we need a mandate "gun to the head," the problem is that costs are too high.  Costs must be dealt with before implementing a regressive mandate penalty.

Our health care system is way too expensive, and mandates will make this worse.  Our health care costs are paid by two sources: 1) the government and 2) the private sector.  The level of our government spending alone (excluding the part paid by the private sector) is not much less than the level of total health care spending in some developed countries.  Our problem is the entrenched insurance companies who live off the government money.  Our problem is that politicians invent programs like mandates that sound good to the public at the same time they greatly increase income to the insurance companies.

Gore and Edwards are being neutral, no matter how much either camp tries to drag them in, but I always think the rumors from the Obama camp are significant.

And frankly, since that poll was taken between Mar 24-27, I bet the number of HRC supporters who want him on the ticket with her has declined.  I think many of them would put him on for unity in the party, but I don't think many of them "want" him to be the VP.

This is where I am. I, too, was on record as wanting them to become as one.

In fact, I actively DO NOT want Obama to be the VP now. I don't hate him or anything, but I don't think he is electable because of Wright, and I don't want HRC to have "God Damn America" hanging around her neck.

He's still trying to find a way to get the Dems, methinks.

At that point he would be able to go Sibelius or similar or, if poor support for Obama among (older) women is not quite the concern in August that it is now, and I think it's a real problem for him, he could go with the usual white male selection.  

Obama supporters have been pushing for a Gore endorsement - to no avail.

My POV is that I don't want Gore to endorse a candidate(both are (very) weak on Climate Change) - but rather that I'd love to see either or both candidates endorse Gore.  Real action on Climate Change might mean something to me.

The disgusting tactics used by the Obama campaign against Hillary, while calling HER the candidate who will do and say anything to win, not to mention saying that he will get her supporters, but not vice versa, have revealed to me a side of Obama that I DESPISE.

My tonic to Clinton hatred, instead of disengaging, is to search for and read McCain and GOP posts. ThinkProgress has stayed out of the primary battle more or less, and focus on GOP and national issues.

Anyway, I'm still voting for Clinton now if it comes down to that.

As an Obama supporter, but one who really enjoys this blog more than others, I did change (or thought I had changed" my approach after hearing some thoughtful comments here.  For example, I now am consistently supportive of both Clinton and Obama staying in the race until they decide it makes sense to drop out.  It now drives me nuts to hear otherwise.

That's why I was surprised when a prior post of mine was taken down since perhaps it was thought of as pro-Obama.  I'm hopeful that it was instead just taken down since it wasn't on point (even though I thought it was on point since the talk was about whether or not to count FL and MI, and I thought a recent poll in PA might impact the discussion).  I didn't save what I had posted, but it was something like this:

So come on now, Hillary fans, you all go to DailyKos, read until you're overflowing with rage, and then go vent at TaylorMarsh about how Obama is a loser. And Obama fans, go scan the TaylorMarsh comments until you can't stand it any more, then unload on DailyKos about the Clintons' lack of integrity.

I never particularly liked Randi Rhodes, mainly because she is so in love with the sound of her own voice, talking over people and - I believe - being deliberately obtuse about the valid and credible points others attempt to offer.

I can't listen to AAR any more, since they have decided their only job is to elect Obama president and to hate on Hillary.

Funny, they used to know they were there to represent the liberal point of view, and they used to save their vitriol for the Republicans.

5 new slums for Rezko
10 new no-bid hospital contracts
250,000 new donations
and a partridge in a money tree!

"You'll have to ask Al about that one."  Talk about speaking truth to power and exposing an entire movement's <s>hypocrisy</s> situational ethics in one short sentence.  

But yes.  Tcom bill was Gore's baby, as was much of NAFTA, but no matter.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

He doesn't think, though, that Obama can win the presidency because he is "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. ... I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

The idea that blacks forced out of their homeland, Africa, is consistent with the Gospel.

--every theological statement must be consistent with, and perpetuate, the goals of liberation. This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage--social, political, economic and religious. This liberation involves empowerment and seeks the right of self-definition, self-affirmation and self-determination.

So there was this Black theology symposium a few days ago, and they reported on it of course at FNC.  Of course they, Greta, and the field reporter, were trying to figure out if the folks at this symposium had been in any way conflicted about Wright's sermons.

I didn't see much of that.  One guy said that if Wright's sermons were seen as shocking by the rest of U.S. then that meant that they were not getting their message out into the mainstream as well as they should.

Really, with the exception of Obama's condemnation of the statements (which was for political purposes) the underlying gist is that those who felt insulted or offended by Wright's statements are wrong to feel that way.  And that Wright was right to say what he said.