I'm for John Edwards all the way.There's nothing that any of the others could say or do to change my mind.I think running for a major seat as president should only be ran by men,so needless to say Clinton doesn't have my vote.Now if it was Mr.Clinton then he would have my vote,but we know that he can't run again.Sorry Clinton's,but I have to vote for Edwards,He's my kind of President.Good Luck John Edwaeds.Hold your head high,your just as good if not better than the rest.
Campaign 2008: Interactive Primary Map
-
Posted By: angelswings @ 01/15/2008 4:23:55 PM
-
Posted By: Mwalimu @ 01/12/2008 1:57:01 AM
I'm curious. When did we start associating blue for Democrats and red for Republicans. When I was growing up back in the 50's, red stood for Communist like Red China. If you supported Civil Rights or Fair Housing, conservatives called you a "pinko." We associated blue with some sort of goody two shoes law, like closing liquor departments in grocery stores on Sunday. Or shutting down movies houses and ice cream parlors. In oder party maps in the text books I can remember, we shaded states that the Republicans took with blue and we shaded states that the Democrats won with red. Now everything is the reverse. My first question is why? And secondly, why am I the only person to pose this question. Why every one but everyone bought into the same cliche?
-
Posted By: maris01 @ 01/10/2008 5:25:04 PM
When your have Universal Health Care basically what happens is that your income will slightly increase, because your employer no longer has to pay for part of your insurance coverage while the taxes will increase to cover any medical expenses incurred by the public. Usually, cost is negotiated between the government, pharmacies, and health care institutions. So, basically, everything flattens out, and cost/insurance is no longer a doctor/patient concern and the doctor can now focus on delivering the necessary care (what this means is open to a lot of speculation, so we will have to be very proactive about staying on top of the matter). There are clearly pros and cons to this, but given the situation of Social Security, perhaps, it may provide a cushion for the elderly, the disabled, and impoverished children. HC, like education, in my opinion, should be a human right like education, food, and shelter. I struggle to understand how we can spend $600 Billion dollars on a meaningless war and another billions of dollars (more than any other country combined) on defense and aid to "other" poor countries. This is shameful on our part to permit such vast poverty to exist in our country, the supposed superpower.
Obama's program will only cover children and Clintons's program will cover everyone, which personally I think the latter is better, because the aforementioned will still occur, and that means adults will have less money now to pay for their own medical care and they may get charged more to cover any expenses that the government doesn't pay to cover children's care (the bill gets passed on) - it's almost like you're penalizing someone who is childless too. So in my opinion, you either do it all together or forget about it, but like I mentioned earlier, we may not have an option to forget about it. Good luck everyone.-
Posted By: wakeupnow @ 01/11/2008 10:11:12 PM
Universal Health Care (UHC) IS NOT a human rights issue.
It is not guaranteed by the Constitution!
The cost does not flatten out. There are 45 million in this country without insurance. Who do you think
will pick up the cost for their coverage? The government will, meaning higher taxes for all to pay for those that can???t afford it.
I have lived in a country where UHC exist, and there were benefits with selecting the doctor you want
and with minimal cost for office visits. You paid 30% of the cost of drugs, which was fine if your drug
wasn't expensive. But there were more problems then benefits. First, taxes were extremely high to cover the cost. Second, you had to wait to see a doctor, I assume there were not enough doctors who wanted to be government employees. Third, the government determined what care they would pay for. If you needed addition coverage or experimental surgery you paid for it yourself. There was a waiting list for surgeries, so you generally sat around in pain waiting for your turn. Forget about a transplant, you were more likely to die before receiving one.
If you like the government determining what healthcare you receive, then this plan is for you!
The main problem with UHC is the cost. Go to http://gao.gov and read David Walkers article about the
federal government's current deficit. David Walkers was elected by President Clinton to lead the GAO. He mentions that this country is not $9 trillion in the red as the politicians tell us, but $53 TRILLION. The politicians are hiding the true deficit of this country. Every American owes the government $175,000
and every household owes an additional $450,000 to cover the deficit. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) should know. They are the he investigative arm of Congress and track the cost of government spending. Mr. Walkers is touring the country with town hall meetings to get people to wake up! If costs are not cut and/or taxes increased the government will have to cut benefits and programs drastically or default on its bonds. By 2040 all the taxes the government receives will be allocated
to Medicare, Social Security, and other benefits the government has promised. With no money left to
run the government! Unless spending is cut now, there won???t be any government benefits.
This brings me to the cost. We can't afford the current benefits this government supplies. How in the world can we afford UHC?
We need to wake up and tell the politicians to cut spending not increase it!!! -
Posted By: wakeupnow @ 01/11/2008 10:10:12 PM
Universal Health Care (UHC) IS NOT a human rights issue.
It is not guaranteed by the Constitution!
The cost does not flatten out. There are 45 million in this country without insurance. Who do you think
will pick up the cost for their coverage? The government will, meaning higher taxes for all to pay for those that can???t afford it.
I have lived in a country where UHC exist, and there were benefits with selecting the doctor you want
and with minimal cost for office visits. You paid 30% of the cost of drugs, which was fine if your drug
wasn't expensive. But there were more problems then benefits. First, taxes were extremely high to cover the cost. Second, you had to wait to see a doctor, I assume there were not enough doctors who wanted to be government employees. Third, the government determined what care they would pay for. If you needed addition coverage or experimental surgery you paid for it yourself. There was a waiting list for surgeries, so you generally sat around in pain waiting for your turn. Forget about a transplant, you were more likely to die before receiving one.
If you like the government determining what healthcare you receive, then this plan is for you!
The main problem with UHC is the cost. Go to http://gao.gov and read David Walkers article about the
federal government's current deficit. David Walkers was elected by President Clinton to lead the GAO. He mentions that this country is not $9 trillion in the red as the politicians tell us, but $53 TRILLION. The politicians are hiding the true deficit of this country. Every American owes the government $175,000
and every household owes an additional $450,000 to cover the deficit. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) should know. They are the he investigative arm of Congress and track the cost of government spending. Mr. Walkers is touring the country with town hall meetings to get people to wake up! If costs are not cut and/or taxes increased the government will have to cut benefits and programs drastically or default on its bonds. By 2040 all the taxes the government receives will be allocated
to Medicare, Social Security, and other benefits the government has promised. With no money left to
run the government! Unless spending is cut now, there won???t be any government benefits.
This brings me to the cost. We can't afford the current benefits this government supplies. How in the world can we afford UHC?
We need to wake up and tell the politicians to cut spending not increase it!!! -
Posted By: altoid77 @ 01/11/2008 11:18:42 AM
Obama's program does not "only cover children." The program requires all children to be provided with healthcare while lowering health care costs so that ALL can afford health care. People don't have health care because they can't afford it, not because they think they're better off with out it. Clinton wants to penalize those who can't get health care -- even if it's because they can't afford it -- which puts an even bigger crunch on struggling families. Obama covered this in the New Hampshire debates.
-
-
Posted By: altoid77 @ 01/11/2008 11:28:07 AM
I love how Hillary likes to imply that Obama is less qualified to run than she is because he's younger. The only reason she's positioned to run for President is because of Bill Clinton's presidency. Barack Obama is currently 46 years old. Guess how old Bill Clinton was when he was inaugurated into the Presidency??? ...yep, 46. I bet she didn't think Bill was too young and inexperienced!!!
-
Posted By: wingedvisitor @ 01/10/2008 11:51:33 PM
I hope Hillary wins. Not because she's a woman, but because I think she can earn the respect of the rest of the world and she has follow-through. Plus, instead of blindly giving answers that everyone wants to here, she isn't afraid to say that she needs more information.
-
Posted By: altoid77 @ 01/11/2008 11:25:14 AM
Of all the candidates, I think Hillary Clinton comes off as the MOST pandering. She's too slick -- and as for the rest of the world, people from all over the world are already in love with Obama, and Clinton's got a derisive, arrogant streak that will not go over well in diplomatic affairs.
-
Posted By: altoid77 @ 01/11/2008 11:26:24 AM
of all the *Democratic candidates
-
-
-
Posted By: gratefull @ 01/10/2008 8:09:34 PM
Comment: It really intriges me to see and hear just how much our nation is divided....Some support the war on Iraq for the sake of our freedom...some find the war a waste of time and money....My concern is that we have gotten so far of the beacon path that we have forgotten with our nation was founded on...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.....We have become a people demanding change in our government...yet the change we re
-
Posted By: gratefull @ 01/10/2008 8:03:57 PM
Comment: It really intrigues me to see just how much we are divided a a country....some want the troops home...others say its about our freedom as Americans...In this upcoming election do we really know what we want when we speak of change....What candidate can actually take a busted financial deficit and turn it around without digging deeper into the taxpayers pockets after all the only money the government has itmome
-
Posted By: maris01 @ 01/10/2008 5:03:44 PM
Interestingly enough, I just discovered today on the Washington Post that Mr Obama is the only candidate to use a teleprompter, whcih explans why it always looks like he is speaking off the cuff. Sorry..I just wonder how the media forgot to mention this when thy spoke of all the other candidates having speches.
-
Posted By: citizen123 @ 01/10/2008 1:50:32 PM
I do not choose my candidate for President based on "emotion"; I choose my candidate based on Facts and the issues.
Voting by "emotion" is like driving while blind
-
Posted By: Dana1965 @ 01/09/2008 10:53:56 AM
Being a woman, I can't believe I am about to say this....but....as Tom Hanks said it in A League of Their Own, "There is no crying in Baseball, There is no crying in Baseball"! Well...Hillary, There is no CRYING IN POLITICS! Buck up Honey, if you are crying about losing a popularity contest, what are you going to do when you find out that Iran doesn't like you because you are a woman? Believe me, I fully support Women in Politics, but this position is verbal and physical attack constantly and there is no room for tears.
-
Posted By: womynaloud @ 01/09/2008 3:17:46 PM
not only are tears allowed in politics, it can be kind of refreshing to see a candidate show emotion. i'm tired of all of them talking in soundbites and only saying what they think you want to hear. it's not like she was broke down sobbing, for goodness sake. i think it would be terribly refreshing to see all of them showing some real emotions instead of staged, scripted b.s.
-
-
Posted By: infantry13 @ 01/09/2008 1:48:51 PM
I only agree with going against big buisnessand lobbyist's! We should outlaw lobbyists. Most that are runing for president are complete sell outs. The american people deserve more. I am an army infantry combat veteran. I served my time in Iraq, and most of my fellow soldiers agree with the message from Ron Paul! Do our country a favor for once Vote Ron Paul!
-
Posted By: carmen.deturk@hotmail.com @ 01/09/2008 1:17:05 PM
I agree with all of you below. And I want to add this... what about Hillary care? What kind of silliness is this idea that we can have a government managed universal health care system when we are blundering our current government managed social security. I want less government not more involvement. Speaking of government involvement. What about this national id card. Sounds good on the surface but it's not. This id has the capability to track you 24/7... that means any one in power can see where you are.. This is absolutely frightening. I want my rights protected not eroded like they are continuing to do. What about Homeland Security Act - my brother had a run in with a cop for taking pictures of a public building... the cop threatened him with Homeland Security Act and that he would be placed on an enemy combatant list for refusing to give him his camera. WTF!!! Do you all realize that as an enemy combatant you have NO RIGHTS, NO ATTORNEY. And this is a splendid example of the abuse of this laws supposed intentions. Aside from the fact that the law was pushed into action under the pretense of Weapons of Mass Destruction. And lastly, this is not published much at all but many people are calling this one Thought Law. Senate #1959, see link. http://www.bloggernews.net/112102. WAKE UP United States.. LET'S ACT.. Tell people, talk to your congressmen. Move Move Move.
-
Posted By: carmen.deturk@hotmail.com @ 01/09/2008 1:07:03 PM
I agree with everything you all have written. And I want to know how in the world Hillary thinks we're going to have this wonderful government managed socialized healthcare when we can't even manage social security. Further, how about the national id. Sounds good on the surface but does everyone realize that id will have tracking capabilities. The police, the government, anyone in power will have the ability to track you 24/7. No thanks. I'm not a criminal by any stretch but let me say our government is continually eroding our freedoms and we're too dumb to realize it.
-
Posted By: carmen.deturk@hotmail.com @ 01/09/2008 1:05:43 PM
I agree with everything you all have written. And I want to know how in the world Hillary thinks we're going to have this wonderful government managed socialized healthcare when we can't even manage social security. Further, how about the national id. Sounds good on the surface but does everyone realize that id will have tracking capabilities. The police, the government, anyone in power will have the ability to track you 24/7. No thanks. I'm not a criminal by any stretch but let me say our government is continually eroding our freedoms and we're too dumb to realize it.
-
Posted By: altoid77 @ 01/09/2008 11:25:00 AM
I don't trust Hillary as far as I can throw her. She's no Bill. She picked up the theme of change just in the last couple of months when realizing that's the rallying point her opponents were using to success. Change? Bush Clinton Bush Clinton? You've GOT to be kidding me. Barack doesn't lack experience, ability to act or a weakness to handle himself. He can hit the ground running on day one with more potential for unifying the United States and turn the tide of foreign hatred of the United States. Barack Obama is sincere, charismatic, articulate, and ready to serve as our next president with tenacity and compassion that Hillary only wishes she has. I don't believe that Hillary wants to listen to the people -- I think she trots out what people want to hear and strategizes what will best get her into the White House -- where she will obstinately do whatever the hell she wants. She may be smarter than Bush and their aims may be different, but an arrogant power-hungry president is still an arrogant, power-hungry president, irregardless of the wrapper.
-
Posted By: sam6966 @ 01/09/2008 9:19:48 AM
It's time to elect a president that can listen to advisors and yet change course when those advisors prove to be wrong. We have had enough of the stubborn, inflexible, and heavy handedness of the Bush administration. The political blunders of this president will haunt us for decades. Let???s find a candidate that is reasonable, non-vindictive and more loyal to this country than the cronies at their side. Hillary is NOT Bill, she has contempt running through her veins for anyone who opposes her. Let???s find a candidate who can bridge the gap of partisanship and global diplomacy, please! Sam6966
-
Posted By: sam6966 @ 01/09/2008 9:16:56 AM
It's time to elect a president that can listen to advisors and yet change course when those advisors prove to be wrong. We have had enough of the stubborn, inflexible, and heavy handedness of the Bush administration. The political blunders of this president will haunt us for decades. Let???s find a candidate that is reasonable, non-vindictive and more loyal to this country than the cronies at their side. Hillary is NOT Bill, she has contempt running through her veins for anyone who opposes her. Let???s find a candidate who can bridge the gap of partisanship and global diplomacy, please! Sam6966
-
Posted By: euclid400 @ 01/09/2008 7:03:05 AM
It's nice to see the bigots come out and vote. First of all Obama was not "raised as a Muslim for many years": http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/. Secondly, his not wearing of a pin equates to little more than a Seinfeld episode. Third, JFK was elected because of his charisma. After all that, my vote still goes to Ron Paul.
-
Posted By: saor41574 @ 01/08/2008 11:12:57 PM
My question to the American People, besides the inexperience, why would we want someone for President that refuses to say the Pledge of Alligance, wear an American Flag Pin, if he can't do that, how can we trust that he will not destroy this country. He was raised as a Muslim overseas for many years, what kind of deals with the devil will he make if he is given the power as president. Our lives are too valuable, our future is too valuable and our childrens future is too valuable to take a chance on Obama. Stand up and vote, stand up and say we do not trust you with our country. make sure you get out and vote in the primaries. Don't gamble.
-
Posted By: jayfromillinois @ 01/08/2008 12:43:41 PM
when you pick a canidate its one thing to pick a cool candidate its another to make sure we are protedted from day one. do you want to have your president reading up on how to handle himself as president while we are still at war .while our children are being killed in iraq, while our parents and younger fmaily members go without healthcare vote hillary in now ! If barack is as committed as he says he will learn and be ready to lead in the future. Our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, family, and friends need your help now we cant risk our future on the inexperience of barack obama
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss