Clinton Takes Ohio, Texas; McCain Seals The Deal 898
You can read it pretty much anywhere, but Clinton took Ohio and Texas meaning that the democratic primaries are far from over. Unlike the Dems, McCain has locked his nomination for the Republicans by breaking the 1,191 delegates necessary. So there it is. Talk amongst yourselves.
Ron Pual (Score:-1, Interesting)
Nash Equilibrium (Score:4, Interesting)
It never ceases to amuse me how McCain supporters will paint Clinton & Obama as hardcore Democrats and call McCain a moderate conservative while Clinton & Obama supporters paint McCain as a hardcore Republican and argue their candidate being a moderate liberal. Because they know the moderate will garner the most votes. I guess one thing they're split on should be the war though if McCain's smart, he'll promise to remain strong in our fight yet distance himself from Bush's attitude towards it (somehow).
I keep hearing people telling me that I shouldn't worry, that everyone's fed up with the war and it's time for a change--there's no way the Democrats could lose this one! Unfortunately, it's shaping up to be all too much like the last election which left me pretty dissappointed, especially in retrospect. Well, at least Clinton & Obama aren't as stoic, wealthy and lifeless as Kerry was. One thing's for sure, I would gladly welcome McCain over Bush as president any day even if people call him a maverick senator.
Re:Damn (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a registered Democrat, though I do vote for their candidates more often than not. The inconsistencies of the state party mechanisms, plus the proportional voting, does seem highly illogical. In the general, it's winner-take-all, and there's no superdelegates (unless you count the Supreme Court - 2000 election says hi). I hope the party recognizes this flaw in the system, which only stands to keep them stigmatized as the party of political procedure and not of coherent action.
That all said, if John McCain makes it through to Election Day without a single health scare, I would be very surprised. He's 72, and has a relatively poor health history. I certainly wouldn't wish ill health on him, but I do think there's a strong likelihood of at least one incident on the road.
Re:Damn (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for Clinton (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes I really hate being a Democrat. Sitting back and watching party leaders who seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again can make you want to weep.
Re:Nash Equilibrium (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with your assessment that the Democrats will have a real challenge, regardless of the candidate they choose. McCain does not really suffer from the huge impopularity of president Bush as much as the other republican candidates (bar Ron Paul) would have. He's got some character, everyone from left to right has to respect a guy who survived five years of torture. And the republicans can start organizing while the Democrats are in disarray. I'm really rooting for Obama but it looks like there will be no Democratic candidate until the convention.
Ask and ye shall receive (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't vote (actually, I anti-vote, writing my own name in where possible). Voting is an act that provides the PTB a simple request from the voter: "Lead me as you think I should be led." I don't need a leader. My life is in my hands, as are the lives of my family. Instead of spending out of control, we save. Instead of relying on insurance for regular medical visits, we pay cash on the barrel and pay a low insurance premium just for emergencies. We eat healthy, exercise, and try to stay in shape so as not to need expensive medical visits and medication that many of our friends take (and want discounts for). Rather than being angered by people that are different from ourselves, we travel the world every year and meet those that the PTB say are our enemies. Most of the time they are people not so different from ourselves.
The country demands a leader, and they'll get one. Individuals, even the most pious and charitable, generally look out for themselves first. A leader is no different. A leader generally doesn't listen to those that he/she leads. A leader may only have said position for a few years, but will always be thinking about what they will do after their leadership position is over. In some situations, the most egomaniacal leaders may be thinking about how history will support their positions and actions.
The surprise to me is that we United States citizens believe we need a leader, at least in government. The Constitution doesn't give the President power to lead, only to execute the laws which we wanted put in place; equitable laws that infringe on everyone equally, rather than giving preferential treatment to the few at the cost of the many (or vice versa). The President is not the Commander-in-Chief until Congress actively declares war. We declared war in WW2, but since then, we have not had a legal CiC. The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States. The President isn't supposed to take positions on what he or she will support or wants to do, because the President merely reviews signed bills and their Constitutionality, and only then making the decision to support future execution of said bills into law if the bills mass Constitutional muster. Most don't.
It is sad when people demand a leader, but are too fearful of being leaders themselves. This is why I am disgusted -- not with politics -- but with you voters who have your head so far up your rears that you think your leader can lead me. I'll be forced to follow.
In the end, does it reallyl make a difference? (Score:2, Interesting)
If the Fascists wins, it will mean higher taxes on individuals, more unregulated business monopolies and more of a Big Brother state.
The candidates can say all they want to get elected, but as history has shown, words are cheap.
When I see the candidates, all I can think of is the line from 'Armegeddon' where Bruce Willis' character sees who NASA wants to send up and he comments:
In my case, all I can think is:
This is the best we can do? I mean, we're the United States of America. You're telling me that of all the people in the country eligible to run for President, these shills are the best we can do? That's what you're telling me?
Looking Forward.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is about time Obama had to face some of the issues instead of a free media pass. What is all this change he keeps carping on? All talk and no substance. His campaign is staffed by some seriously questionable folks as well. So remember.. Pennsylvania on April 22'nd folks.
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Damn (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, I wish they would just go the way of the Whigs (and take the Republicans with them while they're at it). This country desperately needs a REAL party for liberals, libertarians, and progressives. And God knows neither the undisciplined, spineless Democrat party nor the bible-thumping, war-mongering Republican party are truly serving the people.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just have to wonder if Limbaugh's advice is counterproductive.
From what I've seen in this election cycle, more than any other is that people are basically led around by the talking heads on TV. The will vote for whoever is getting the most press. With the Republican nomination cynched by McCain, the only thing that will be in the news will be Obama/Clinton. Come November, people will be saying, "McCain? Who is that?"
It isn't a matter of the media reporting badly about McCain. It is a matter of them simply overtly shutting him out of the news coverage altogether, like they did with Paul, Kucinich and later Huckabee. The talking-head, 24-hour news cycle is an extremely powerful tool that amounts to free political adds for whoever the network controllers consider a "front-runner", whether that be Giovanni or Thompson. Having Obama/Clinton being the "news of the day" for the next few months will not help McCain.
Dems love to hurt themselves (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Democrats (Score:3, Interesting)
And living in the Cleveland area, there were there usual problems with white suburbs like mine being easy to vote at, and black urban areas like East Cleveland being very difficult to vote at.
Not by delegate count (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama's campaign ran hard and organized even in the states where he was way ahead. The result was blowout victories, which makes a difference in the primaries, because the apportionment of delegates depends on the margin of victory. Clinton scored one blowout yesterday and was blown out in another state, so the net effect is probably about 1 net delegate for Clinton. In the bigger states, Clinton scored two narrow victories, and in Texas, the combined primary-caucus may end up giving Obama a net win in delegates.
Clinton's campaign has tried to change the rules during the contest more than once, which is really lame. There's talk that the Clinton campaign will now sue over the nature of the Texas caucus-primary, but they had the same access to the rules as the Obama campaign did. They just seem not to have planned as well.
Obama appears to be more of a party-builder, like Howard Dean and his "50 State Strategy." While moron pundits like Paul Begala derided paying party workers to "pick their noses" in places like Montana and Mississippi, Dean set up the structure not only for the Democrats' retaking both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, but also for extending their majorities and making gains in the state legislatures nationwide. Obama seems to have embraced that strategy, and it would make a difference in places like Texas, where Rick Noriega could have a chance of unseating Senator Cornyn if the presidential candidate doesn't ignore the state, and at the very least the Democrats could force the Republicans to spend money to defend what previously would have been considered a very safe seat. Clinton's campaign, as recently as last week, when it thought she might lose in Texas, was saying that "Texas does not figure into the electoral calculus of a Democratic (Presidential) candidate." That is a ridiculously narrow view, and since so many of Hillary's advisors and consultants also worked for Bill, I wonder if the Clintons' philosophy is responsible for the fact that Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, but then the Democrats almost immediately lost control of both houses of Congress, setting the stage for the Bush presidency, when White House power was basically unchecked by a Congress all too willing to let Bush and Cheney do whatever they wanted. Including taking a surplus and making it into record deficits. Oh, and a multi-trillion dollar war that destabilized the region and created more terrorists by making bin Laden and his ilk look really smart as the US government acted just as al Qaeda and others said it would.
Here's the thing: I'm pushing 40, and Bill Clinton was far and away the best president of
Re:If I were a democratic strategist... (Score:4, Interesting)
Economies at the national level are always cyclical. This is true everywhere, not just of the United States.
It is ignorant to believe you can avoid all recessions. Economics simply do not work that way.
With the Bush stimulas package on the way, the economy should rebound nicely just like it did 6 years ago with the Bush tax cuts.
Re:crank crank crank (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:4, Interesting)
We are still awaiting the returns on the caucus, but that only accounts for a mere 1/3rd of the delegates awarded to each candidate, and the early returns indicate that whatever meager advantage that Obama may have in caucus votes will be all but swallowed up by Hillary's more impressive win in the primary election. Really we're talking about hundreds of extra Obama caucus votes vs. Hillary's hundreds of thousands of extra primary votes.
Now for some light editorializing: The reason we're still waiting on caucus results in many counties is because Texas had roughly double the expected turnout. The antiquated system we have in place requires that everyone in a precinct vote in the primary election before the caucus can be held. And the inability of many precincts to deal with the added influx of voters made it so that, in many cases, caucus voting could not start until 11 pm that evening.
Obama will likely fare slightly better in the caucus in Texas, only because the core of the Democrat party--the baby boomers who constitute the majority of Hillary supporters--had families to get back to and jobs they had to get up for the next morning. Hillary supporters simply didn't have the ability to "two-step" all the way into the early morning hours, while it apparently is far easier for the young, first time voters who make up Obama's base to spend literally six hours of their time at their local middle school or fire station.
If you think it's silly to have both a primary election followed by a caucus that runs into the late hours, then you've just joined the ranks of many Texans who think it's ridiculous as well. Not only is it hard for people to get a handle on the vote once / vote again thing, but it does tend to disenfranchise hard-working Democrats who can't be out all night caucusing. A 19 year-old UT student and Obama supporter who would just be out all night anyway? Welcome to the party. A 46 year-old mother of two and Hillary supporter who has to prepare for a shift working at the hospital? Congratulations, you effectively have no say in the caucus. So that's why there is a slight disconnect between the primary and caucus results.
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Interesting)
First, as the parent post noted, it's free press coverage for Obama and Clinton.
Next, both campaigns will be organizing and helping build a stronger party infrastructure in the remaining states. That can only help Obam... er... the Democratic nominee in November.
Also, either Clinton can keep attacking Obama like she has been (she even went so far as to say she and McCain were ready to be president, but Obama wasn't) or she can stop and "campaign" against him in a less-nasty way. Since "hope" is a big Obama campaign theme, it seems appropriate to see the glass as half full and notice the good things that can come from either one. The benefits of the second scenario are obvious - the two can play up some small differences, but also point out that the differences between them are much smaller than the differences between them and McCain, who basically appears to be running for 4 more years of the George W. Bush administration. Under the first scenario, Obama gets his response teams and processes warmed up for when the Republicans crank up the "great wurlitzer" (AKA the "noise machine") and start attacking "Barack Hussein Osama... er... Obama" and trying to associate him with Farrakhan and telling us he is a Muslim and studied in a Madrassah and is going to be a "Manchurian Candidate" kind of plant for terrorists or boogeymen or whatever. Remember how Bill Clinton was being painted as a plant of the Soviet Communists in the 1992 campaign? Yeah. Multiply that by a jillion (they've got FOX News now to do free Republican campaign commercials 24-7) and you've got an idea of how SCARY they're going to try to make Obama in the Fall.
Re:Texas is hardly a win (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:weird election (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
A ton of republicans crossed over last night and voted for clinton on Rush Limbaugh's suggestion. They are all crowing about it on the Laura Ingram show this morning. And none of them will vote for clinton in the real election.
It's a very cynical and effective move. It drains both campaigns of cash- keeps both candidates hammering at each other- and may even force a brokered convention (which I view as a good thing).
I agree that working families have to go home- but i also say a lot of republicans didn't stick around for the democratic caucus and it is my opinion that the caucus's are closer to what the popular vote would be without Rush's brilliant, if twisted idea. Voting insincerely undercuts the entire process. In this case, many votes for Clinton were really votes against her and for McCain.
Re:If I were a democratic strategist... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah? Well the church my precinct's caucus was held in was packed to the freaking gills -- standing room only, they had to open up an annex which they also completely filled -- and it took over an hour after the sign-in began for everyone to sign the books for Obama. If you were Clinton supporter, you were done in about two minutes because there simply weren't many people in line in front of you.
And despite your stereotype, these were by and large middle aged working-class adults with families. Many of them had brought their families with them so that they could caucus -- some even had infants in papooses strapped to their chests. You can say whatever crud you want about baby-boomers with families; the ones who cared, the ones who were passionate about their candidate, they made it to the caucus.
Since irrational Obama supporters apparently run the internets, I fully expect this post to be modded "Troll" or something, because it doesn't contain the requisite amount of Obama bias and instead offers a firsthand account of what went down in Texas last night, and posits a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes. How scandalous. Do your candidate of choice proud, and suppress any relatively objective post you see.
Of course, objectively made-up stereotypes. And here's a reasonable theory for the disparity between primary and caucus votes:
Texas has an open primary. With the Republican nomination essentially decided, there was no point for a Republican to vote in their party's primary, meaning they were free to vote in the Democratic primary. A strategic vote for the candidate most likely to lose the general election is a way to strengthen their own candidate. However it wasn't worth going to the trouble to caucus just for the sake of a strategic vote. This is the supposed advantage of the caucus -- that it attracts only those who are truly passionate about their candidates. Nobody's going to crowd into a packed church and stand for hours as the heat rises from all the bodies just to cast a "strategic" vote. But as they finish up their shopping at Randals? Sure, why not sabotage the other party.
Fraud - AGAIN! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.click2houston.com/news/15492166/detail.html [click2houston.com]
Seems that someone "helped" seniors register to vote, and then filed absentee ballots in their names.
Thing is, every election, every vote, every ballot that happens in the US seems to be tainted by fraud of some sort. Identity theft, ballot stuffing, turning away voters, rigged machines, middle-of-the-night changes to the law, you name it--it's all going on, and seems to be going on all the time. The worst part is that it hardly ever raises an eyebrow from the voting public or the media. In this example, there is solid evidence of election fraud, and it's getting a few column-inches on a local website. Why isn't this on the front page of the Houston Chronicle?
Don't you people even CARE about the failure of your democracy anymore?
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who showed up for the Clinton caucus were mostly old enough that they probably didn't have young children at home. The Obama supporters had a lot of people who were the right age to have kids at home (including myself.)
If the problem is that the Clinton supporters all had families to take care of, it's funny that the Obama supporters did too -- and yet they made it out anyways. I saw _zero_ children in the Clinton camp, but perhaps 15 in the Obama camp.
To be fair, I live in Travis county, which is traditionally an island of blue in a state of red, and Travis county voted for Obama vs Clinton by a large margin. But if I recall correctly, the number of delegates per area is based on the voter turnout in the last election -- and the urban areas (and Travis especially) voted in very large numbers, so they'll get more delegates. And the urban areas are generally supporting Obama.
Ultimately, it looks like even if Clinton wins the popular vote in Texas (well, not if -- she has), it appears that she will not get more delegates. Which is pretty weird if you ask me, but it's the way it is. So, both Clinton and Obama will declare victory in Texas ...
Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm very much against not voting for someone due to a single issue, but with McCain I am going to ignore my advice. If nothing else, there is a big reason why you shouldn't vote for him. McCain is adamently opposed to Net Neutrality. His reasoning?
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Network_neutrality [wikipedia.org]"
I'm sorry, but I refuse to support someone who is so engrained in thinking about big buisness that they would risk the freedom of the Internet over profits. I'm all for getting the government out of our daily lives, but this is one area where the government needs to step in and slap the telcoms in the face. Hard.
Yes, I understand that they are a buisness. Yes, I understand that it is their goal to make money...and I'm all for that. That is, after all, democracy in action.
Attempting to control the internet in the hopes of increasing profit, however, is inexcusable. The internet wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't open the way that it is, and it will crumble even further into a pile of corporate bullshit moreso than it already has if Net Neutrality is not maintained.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:5, Interesting)
She goes into a series of primaries with agreeing to certain terms (like Florida and Michigan not counting for instance) and then when it seems like she might not get her way she starts making noises about changing those terms. She enters a primary in Texas fully aware of how the primary works in Texas (and any protests otherwise she might make border on being insulting in my opinion) and then again you start to hear rumblings from her campaign about the possibility of filing suit to have this changed because it does not favor her. She goes into debates talking about being "co-President" and trying to leverage her husbands coat tails (which I do not fault her for doing mind you) but then denies any real involvment when failures or negatives from his administration are brought up. I see this and think "You were either the co-President or you weren't so what's it gonna be?"
This is the kind of behavior that makes me just cringe at the thought of her being President of the United States.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
We are young, employed, new parents, and my wife goes to school. We had a sick child at home (stuffy nose, nothing major... thanx for your concern). We would not have been able to attend had it not been for my mother-in-law being in town to watch her.
Many people there had their kids with them. Someone brought up a motion that those with kids should be allowed to go first. It was denied.
There were not enough sheets for everyone to fill out their votes on. (ballots, if you will, but this is not a private vote. Everyone filled out the same sheets, 12 per page).
There was a lot of screeching from the two sides (Clinton and Obama) claiming the other may have an advantage. "There are too many Obama supporters running this. We need a Clinton supporter to observe..." and so on.
I kept thinking to myself. "These people can not run a local, one party caucus in a small town. What makes them think they can run the country?"
Besides, I'm sorry if you disapprove us having children, jobs, and going to school to better ourselves. We bust our asses to make ends meet and make sure we have a table, are able to put food on it and have a roof to cover it all. It was a pain in the ass for us to be there so late and disarray of the whole thing made it worse. So don't give me, the OP, or anyone else any shit if they had more important things to do than to vote in the primary. Not all of us can simply tell our mom we are going to vote and close the door to the basement. Some of us have obligations that take precedence over politics.
Bull (Score:3, Interesting)
"Elsewhere in the world, people walk for a day and stand in line for hours just to have a chance to vote. We're just spoiled. No one ever said change was easy" she replied.
Our ethnically and age diverse precinct (559) went 19-2 for Obama and the other precinct meeting in our library (620) went 25-7 Obama. The judge who was supposed to officiate the caucus is still MIA.
Off to work for a fortune 500....
Re:Expected it (Score:3, Interesting)
Third time, not second. Note that Bill Clinton, the governor of a minor State, had no real qualifications for the Presidency either.
Note also that Bill and Hillary ran in 1992 on the grounds that he wasn't a Washington insider. That was considered a good thing. Now, Hillary is running on the grounds that's she's been a Washington insider for years. That's considered a good thing.
Which is, of course, typical for politicians.
Note, finally, that there isn't any real measure of "qualification" for the Presidency that puts either Obama or Hillary at the top of the list. Luckily for all concerned, noone gives a rat's ass about "qualifications" for the Presidency....
Freudian slip? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:-1, Interesting)
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:4, Interesting)
She wants to garnish my wages if I can't afford medical insurance, eh? She wants to fight the war (any war) in XXXX (wherever) because she has vested interested in defense spending? She wants me to feel comforted in her experience by the fact that she's been cherry picked by her husband to be in positions of power for a shorter period of time that Obama has been doing public service-oriented work?
I'm sorry, her story just does not check out. I want nothing to do with her platform or her reforms. Her rhetoric reeks of a lack of substance and a motive for her own personal advancement.
Check the exit polls. The more educated, the more likely the vote was for Obama. This statement is not elitist and does not assume a college degree could trump reality or a good common sense, but the averages should speak for themselves. With a college education one ought to be able to seek truth more effectively. I've researched my candidates come to my own conclusions, and I wish everyone could do that, but that's just not realistic for 300 million people to do. So we rely on the media and the game and hope it all works out in the end.
If politics were about qualifications, I'd suspect we'd have heard more about Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich and a few others. I personally would prefer their going to the Whitehouse based off of solid records, good experience, and most important character trait a politician could have: they can't be bought. Obama has yet to be seen, though his discipline with his investments give me a good feeling. Hillary has been bought before, I'm sure it can and will happen again (keywords: walmart board labor union).
Re:No, it NEEDED to be asked (Score:3, Interesting)
Ron Paul knew about it for many years, and did absolutely nothing to stop it.
You could hardly call that "guilt by association."
Re:Ask and ye shall receive (Score:3, Interesting)
You lack imagination.
In fact, I've personally spoken with many hundreds of people over the past 5 years or so, and heard of some real doozies,
Hundreds ? Do you work in the insurance industry by any chance ?
I've made preparations that will cover me if those same problems should happen to me.
A simple question: How would you (yes, you) prepare for anything that happens to you before you're, say, 10 years old ? (Sorry, "Try to be lucky." isn't an answer, and "Hope that your parents do that for you." isn't anything that you can influence.)
No, I don't always believe that bad things come of bad decisions, but they do come from bad planning.
Which is basically the same. "Bad things only happen to bad/stupid/careless people." and "If something bad happens to you, then you must have done something bad."
If you earn $250k per year, and a car accident could ruin your future, PLAN FOR IT. Buy insurance.
What if you're "uninsurable" ?
Why should you FORCE people to get auto insurance?
Because, well, you're responsible for your own fuckups. If you break peoples stuff or damage their health, then you're responsible to compensate them for it. It's pretty much impossible to insure yourself against everything that any person may do to you by stupidity, negligence or malice. What if it's not an automobile accident, but your redneck next-door neighbor who manages to put a bullet in your spine while he was just cleaning guns ?
Instead, give others the chance to protect themselves against the possibility of an uninsured motorist.
The premiums for this type of insurance would pretty much skyrocket if liability insurance was optional. And people would probably care a lot less about damaging other peoples property and health if they'd get away without having to pay for it.
In every case where people say "I never saw it coming,"
Can you see bad genes coming ? Childhood diseases ?
Disability? Get good disability insurance
And here's the problem: In your libertarian dreamland, people like me don't exist. I'm one of these uninsurable anomalies, because every time I put three certain words in the "pre-existing conditions" field, the insurance agent looks at me as if I've just placed a live tarantula on the desk. Can you explain to me how I should have prepared for a disease that probably developed before I was one year old ? How I should prepare for disability now ? And, sorry, "buy a gun and put a bullet in your head when things get too bad" isn't really my idea of preparation. Neither is "Try to be lucky, it worked for me.", even though that's what I'm basically doint right now, due to lack of alternatives.
(one friend of mine bought a $10k a year policy that would pay $1.5 million. When he went blind 6 years later, he thanked me for the idea)
Hum. These things are about $150 a month where I live, provided that you're actually accepted (being young, healthy and male helps a lot here). $10k a year is ripoff. Unless your friend had some pre-existing conditions.
Illness? High deductible medical emergency insurance, with your regular visits paid at the cash-on-the-barrel discount rate (as much as 80% off with minimal negotiations).
Can't get any health insurance, at least not from any for-profit company. See above why.
So, what am I to do ? Get out of your nice dream and don't bother you anymore ?
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not that far-fetched. Certainly some of her support came from Republicans. Rush Limbaugh is Hillary Clinton's most visible campaign supporter at the moment. He thinks Republicans will get blasted if they try to hit Obama, so they'll let Hillary fight it out with him instead. Though really, they'd deserve a blasting if they pulled another Swift Boat maneuver.
"RUSH: No, the strategy is... Yes. The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party. Look, there's a reason for this. Our side isn't going to do this. Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. That's good. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words. It's about winning, folks!" Rush Limbaugh's theory. [rushlimbaugh.com]
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Democrats were told to vote for Mitt Romney to drag out the Republican race and hurt the Republican party. Democrats who voted for McCain, like me, did so because we genuinely thought he was the Republican who would make the best president (of those running -- I kinda like Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe).
Now, I had been on the fence about whether to vote for McCain in the Republican primary or Miller (if he looked viable) or Obama in the Democratic primary. But then there really wasn't a Democratic primary in Michigan, so that was easy.
What's wrong with the two parties getting to choose their candidates without interference from outsiders?
It's not fair to independents. It's also not fair to people trying to knock out lunatics like George W. Bush, Rudy Guliani or Hillary Clinton (I don't mind her but I realize many do) at every possible stage. I'll be voting Democratic in November, but this year was the second time I've voted for McCain in for president. In 2000, I might even have voted for him in the general election.
Re:Texas voter here: This is simply untrue. (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, Clinton is just as bad as most of the Republicans regarding Iraq; therefore, I have to get down with Obama. He seems to be our best choice for withdrawing from Iraq and rebuilding our friendships with countries around the world.
Re:why is texas a win for her? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that I think Obama is some magical guy, I just think he's the only candidate who might not be a complete schmuck. The others have all sewn up that they're for corporate welfare (which I view as far more harmful than social welfare) and bigger government.