The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[LuvDuke]

You never know, it might. As of right now, I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton. If someone could find a way to justify her actions in this race, then I may reconsider that decision. I know I'm not alone in feeling that way, either...and I'm about as hard-core a Democrat as I think you'll find.

As for defending your choice...yes, that is what I'm asking. This is a tough race, and Hillary is asking us to support having the SD's overturn the popular vote, delegate count, and number of states won and give her the nomination in spite of all those things. If nobody on her side has justification for that, then it seems to me that the only conclusion to be drawn is that she's doing it out of sheer ego...she "deserves" the nomination, by "right", so it doesn't matter that we peons didn't vote for her.

There are times when it's best to avoid a fight (debate, in this case), and times when it is best to stand up for yourself and your beliefs. IMHO, this is one of the times when people need to stand up for their candidates. The nomination (and the white house) aren't going to be given to anyone.

I'll take one for the team. If need be, I'll sew your nostrils shut. To sit this one out because one candidate is not playing nice is insanity.

 

[eclectics]

So, we're going to have a liberal thread where we can't talk about the liberal candidates for president?

Fine by me, I guess...but I'll start looking for this thread on page 6 or 7 instead of 1 or 2.

This is the most hotly contested nomination process, with the most passion for the candidates, in my lifetime. I can't understand the urge to not want to talk about it, but if that's the way everyone wants it, then I'll abide by that, as much as I can.

I personally don't mind the debate. It's when it turns to insults (which seems to happen all too frequently) and drawing lines in the sand that you loose me. And I don't mean "you" as in you personally. I understand the passion, but it just seems that every time one or the other hiccups, the opposition swoops down and we have three pages of namecalling. Save it for McCain. He's the one who really deserves it.

 

[wvrevy]

I'll take one for the team. If need be, I'll sew your nostrils shut. To sit this one out because one candidate is not playing nice is insanity.

I've already addressed this elsewhere, but if you really wanna know my reasoning, ask me on the Obama thread.

I personally don't mind the debate. It's when it turns to insults (which seems to happen all too frequently) and drawing lines in the sand that you loose me. And I don't mean "you" as in you personally. I understand the passion, but it just seems that every time one or the other hiccups, the opposition swoops down and we have three pages of namecalling. Save it for McCain. He's the one who really deserves it.

Thanks for that, as some on the other side of the aisle seem to think that by questioning their positions I am somehow insulting them...and a couple of the Hillary supporters seem to agree with that assessment (none that have posted about this subject today, btw...they know who they are ).

I don't like the name-calling stuff either, to be honest. I have significant concerns about some things, and I'd love to be able to discuss those concerns with people that think differently. Unfortunately, it appears that people don't want to discuss any concerns, on either side, so I'll agree to sit back on this thread and make fun of the occasional McCain foible. But like I said...if Hillary somehow ends up with the nomination, there are going to be an awful lot of people like me that are going to take a while to get onboard...and given that she can't do it until at August, that doesn't leave a lot of time for that to happen.

And if I'm not on board, as liberal and as loyal a Democrat as I am...well, you can draw your own conclusions about that and her chances in the general election. It takes money and activists to win an election...and so far, she has less of each, and those people are the most likely to be angered about how this has gone down.

Just something to think about.

 

[eclectics]

And if I'm not on board, as liberal and as loyal a Democrat as I am...well, you can draw your own conclusions about that and her chances in the general election. It takes money and activists to win an election...and so far, she has less of each, and those people are the most likely to be angered about how this has gone down.

Just something to think about.

It's a long way to Tipperary...... A lot can, and will, happen before November.

 

[Soubrette]

If anyone is interested in reading a super-smart article about the race politics of the current campaigns, I just found this from The Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/younge

"Obama, Ferraro, Wright: 'Postracial' Meets Racism"
by Gary Younge

"The way we see things is affected by what we know and what we believe," wrote John Berger in Ways of Seeing. "The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled."

When former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro sees Barack Obama--a black man, raised by a single mother, whose middle name is Hussein and whose surname rhymes with Osama--she sees privilege.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said. "And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." "

 

[crazyforgoofy]

So, we're going to have a liberal thread where we can't talk about the liberal candidates for president?

Fine by me, I guess...but I'll start looking for this thread on page 6 or 7 instead of 1 or 2.

This is the most hotly contested nomination process, with the most passion for the candidates, in my lifetime. I can't understand the urge to not want to talk about it, but if that's the way everyone wants it, then I'll abide by that, as much as I can.

Many of us, me included, are pretty 'exercised' by this race. You know whose side I'm on! But, your idea of talk is someone else's attack or put down. I just hate to see the rifts get too big ON THIS THREAD. We're gonna have to pull together before too long. There has to be a meeting place left standing.

So what're we gonna talk about? Ok, I'll start. John McCain graduated high school in 1954!!?? He has a new online ad talking about the teacher who inspired him. The poor old guy is bound to be long dead and gone so nobody can question him to find out if Johnny McC was a good or bad boy.

Wow, that guy (McCain) will be SEVENTY-TWO in August before the election.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Or we could giggle and flirt and talk about our Disney vacations like they do on the 'con' thread. Maybe one of us could accuse someone of stalking.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

If anyone is interested in reading a super-smart article about the race politics of the current campaigns, I just found this from The Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/younge

Cristin, My husband gets the weekly version of The Nation (that radical liberal old Marine ) I'm going hunting to see if the article is in hard copy too.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

That does it! I am sick to DEATH of all the Dopey bashing going on around here. Why is it that just because he doesn't say much and he's the only one of the seven drawfs that doesn't have a beard, that his name is now synonomus with "stupid"? Huh? I had really hoped this kind of stereotyping wouldn't occur in a race for President in this day and age, but I guess I was just expecting too much from my fellow Americans!

Sorry, I'm having a very weird day today...

I understand your pain. Do you know how I feel when someone calls someone else

 

[crcormier]

Go Democrats!

Sorry, thought I'd just boost both sides.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Go Democrats!

Sorry, thought I'd just boost both sides.

Thanks, pal. I was sure I was talking to myself here.

 

[crcormier]

Thanks, pal. I was sure I was talking to myself here.

Did you say something?

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Did you say something?

knock knock anybody home? Hellloooooo!

 

[eclectics]

Or we could giggle and flirt and talk about our Disney vacations like they do on the 'con' thread. Maybe one of us could accuse someone of stalking.

You forgot the best 'junior high school joke photo' contest they have going on.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

You forgot the best 'junior high school joke photo' contest they have going on.

Darn, I missed that one. Well, if one doesn't have a candidate that excites one, one must get one's thrills where one can.

 

[eclectics]

Darn, I missed that one. Well, if one doesn't have a candidate that excites one, one must get one's thrills where one can.

Oh, it's worth a gander. They have one of Bill and Chelsea with some sexual inuendo and then there's one of Hillary picking her nose. At least they're expanding their repertoire from the usual Kennedy and Pelosi ones.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Oh, it's worth a gander. They have one of Bill and Chelsea with some sexual inuendo and then there's one of Hillary picking her nose. At least they're expanding their repertoire from the usual Kennedy and Pelosi ones.

Thanks but no thanks. I have a 9 year old, I've seen enough childish nonsense for one day.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/01/elizabeth-edwards-returns_n_94540.html

Days ago, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former nominee contender John Edwards, took aim at GOP nominee John McCain's health care plan, pointing out that, under the plan, insurance companies "wouldn't have to cover preexisting conditions like melanoma and breast cancer." That meant that she and McCain shared two common traits: both have been diagnosed with cancer, and "Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy."

Afterwards, McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin characterized Edwards' remarks as "disappointing" and scolded her for not fully grasping the Senator's plan. Via ThinkProgress:

Holtz-Eakin said McCain's policy would harness "the power of competition to produce greater coverage for Americans." Because McCain's plan would lower the cost of healthcare through competition, Holtz-Eakin said, it would reduce costs for consumers with or without preexisting conditions.

Naturally, you'd think that those powerful markets would have nigh been harnessed, seeing as how cancer isn't exactly a new affliction. Well, Elizabeth Edwards wasn't having any of it, and hit back hard in a guest post at ThinkProgress' Wonk Room:

I freely admit that I am confused about the role of overnight funding in repurchase markets in the collapse of Bear Stearns. What I am not confused about is John McCain's health care proposal. Apparently Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy advisor to McCain, thinks I do "not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator's proposal." The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator's proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are left outside the clinic doors.

But Edwards didn't leave the matter settled with a clever riposte, either, posing four substantive questions that she didn't think McCain would have the capacity to answer. The fourth was a coup de grace:

Isn't the type of competition you are talking about really a rush to the bottom? As long as you allow insurers to underwrite and deny access, you encourage insurers to offer plans that may be cheap, but that get that way by avoiding people with cancer or other high-cost diseases or by limiting benefits and treatments, particularly if the treatment is expensive or might be needed for a long time. We all live in the real world; those of us lucky enough to have health insurance have seen how insurers cut coverage and up co-pays or deny particular treatments. The insurance company makes money when it doesn't have to pay for our health care. (I suspect that if they could, they would write obstetrical-only policies for nuns.) Doesn't your plan really encourage insurers plans to compete to avoid people with cancer or other high-cost diseases? Don't you think that the kind of competition that starts with a decent level of required coverage, that doesn't exclude the care we actually need, would be better?

 

[eclectics]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/01/elizabeth-edwards-returns_n_94540.html

Days ago, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former nominee contender John Edwards, took aim at GOP nominee John McCain's health care plan, pointing out that, under the plan, insurance companies "wouldn't have to cover preexisting conditions like melanoma and breast cancer." That meant that she and McCain shared two common traits: both have been diagnosed with cancer, and "Neither one of us would be covered by his health policy."

Afterwards, McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin characterized Edwards' remarks as "disappointing" and scolded her for not fully grasping the Senator's plan. Via ThinkProgress:

Holtz-Eakin said McCain's policy would harness "the power of competition to produce greater coverage for Americans." Because McCain's plan would lower the cost of healthcare through competition, Holtz-Eakin said, it would reduce costs for consumers with or without preexisting conditions.

Naturally, you'd think that those powerful markets would have nigh been harnessed, seeing as how cancer isn't exactly a new affliction. Well, Elizabeth Edwards wasn't having any of it, and hit back hard in a guest post at ThinkProgress' Wonk Room:

I freely admit that I am confused about the role of overnight funding in repurchase markets in the collapse of Bear Stearns. What I am not confused about is John McCain's health care proposal. Apparently Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy advisor to McCain, thinks I do "not understand the comprehensive nature of the senator's proposal." The problem, Douglas, is that, despite fuzzy language and feel-good lines in the Senator's proposal, I do understand exactly how devastating it will be to people who have the health conditions with which the Senator and I are confronted (melanoma for him, breast cancer for me) but do not have the financial resources we have. In very unconfusing language: they are left outside the clinic doors.

But Edwards didn't leave the matter settled with a clever riposte, either, posing four substantive questions that she didn't think McCain would have the capacity to answer. The fourth was a coup de grace:

Isn't the type of competition you are talking about really a rush to the bottom? As long as you allow insurers to underwrite and deny access, you encourage insurers to offer plans that may be cheap, but that get that way by avoiding people with cancer or other high-cost diseases or by limiting benefits and treatments, particularly if the treatment is expensive or might be needed for a long time. We all live in the real world; those of us lucky enough to have health insurance have seen how insurers cut coverage and up co-pays or deny particular treatments. The insurance company makes money when it doesn't have to pay for our health care. (I suspect that if they could, they would write obstetrical-only policies for nuns.) Doesn't your plan really encourage insurers plans to compete to avoid people with cancer or other high-cost diseases? Don't you think that the kind of competition that starts with a decent level of required coverage, that doesn't exclude the care we actually need, would be better?

More "power of competition" nonsense. Yeah, that's worked out so well with the Airlines, Banks, and Cable Providers, just to name a few. They all keep merging and buying each other up and driving the cost of their goods and services up for all of us. But the Health Care industry is immune to this? Hah. They are buying each other up just as fast as everybody else. Pretty soon there will be THE Airline, THE Bank, and THE Insurance Co. So much for "competition".....

 

[Soubrette]

Cristin, My husband gets the weekly version of The Nation (that radical liberal old Marine ) I'm going hunting to see if the article is in hard copy too.

It should come out in the April 7th edition.