Not soon, I think. The problem is that too many in the leadership forgot why they're Democrats in the first place - we favor the rights of people over the 'rights' of corporations, we believe that a society works best when more people can work hard and enjoy its benefits instead of most of the benefits flowing to a few, we don't think it's anybody else's business *what* kind of sex you have as long as there are no children involved, and so on. They remember it for a little bit, but the corporatists and consultocracy starts whining and since that's all they have to do during the day it drowns out the rest of us.
$550 is a steal. I'm aged 50, in good health with a wife who's also in good health. We pay $800 for a Humana HMO policy family coverage over and above the money that her employer pays.
Private health insurance, except for major medical coverage, is a giant rip-off in this country. There are those of us who buy health insurance as a way to prepay our annual checkups and medical procedures, but the real incentive is the deal we think we get on prescriptions. I'm convinced that if there were a nationwide buyer's cooperative that could play hardball with drug prices then there would be an exodus from Humana, AvMed, WellCare, United Health and the rest of the wallet rapists.
I'm going to come right out and say it - I want the health insurance companies out of business. All you're really doing is prepaying your own medical care anyway, and the insurance company takes its cut off the top for adding basically no value. If there was ever an industry with no reason to exist, this is it.
It isn't the fact that they're religious conservatives that brings on the mockery. It's the fact that they won't keep it to themselves and insist on foisting it on the rest of us "for our own good". Lots of us don't want our children's science education polluted with creationist nonsense because it confuses them with somewhat plausible-sounding BS. We're behind the eight ball economically because we've gone from a country that innovates and manufactures to one that just pushes money around (largely), and our one real way out of that hole is to bear down hard on science and math education and kick creationism to the curb as quickly as we can.
Since the taxpayers are funding the "recovery" plans, why not just cut out the bank middlemen (especially their CEO's who aren't nearly as smart as they think they are) and have the US government put money directly into circulation? Why not just beef up the SBA's budget and have businesses start getting loans through them?
My thought is that Biden could wait for her to give her attacks and talking points and then as the first part of a previous answer point out that what she said doesn't add up. Then he can give his own answer to the question. A few of these, and he can turn to her and say something on the order of:
"Governor, John McCain picked you with almost no notice and nowhere near enough time for any human being to fully prepare for one of these 'final exams from hell'. He sure didn't do right by you, and I'm wondering how you can continue to defend him."
It would be better for him to attack McCain and get her to slip up again and call it the Palin/McCain administration. The whole point of political debates isn't to "get your message out"; it's to make the other person commit a gaffe or two (or three).
Biden's best line of attack is to go after Bush and McCain and point out how much of an 11-th hour conversion his new positions are. Some good one-liners at McCain's expense would be really good; no references to her experience at all, except to say that judgment matters as much as experience does... maybe point out that some people go through decades in Washington without acquiring it.
If the moderator asks a question about her Alaska adventures, his response should be that there is a bipartisan legislative investigation that she promised to cooperate with and that he would rather wait until it's completed. He can add that since John McCain decided that she is capable of being President that he's sure she will do the responsible thing and tell her staff to honor the subpoenas (and honor hers). In other words, he doesn't have to hang her; he can give her the rope to hang herself with, and he can do it without seeming condescending or disrespectful.
It's because as a party we're too addicted to the "high road". There are too many prissy do-gooders here who won't get their hands dirty and actually destroy the public character of their opponents and treat them like enemies. If Mark Penn hadn't screwed up on how delegates are apportioned in the Dem primary, Hillary would be the nominee and the picture would be very different.
Too bad everyone's afraid to do the real game-changer - show footage of Palin's "might need war with Russia" moment, find and show some footage of her church being an "end times" loony bin, and try to connect the two of them. ("Subtext - Sarah Palin is a member of a church just waiting for Armageddon, and she is willing to go to war with Russia. Is she trying to kick-start the apocalypse so Jesus will return sooner? Is that who you want in the White House with an ailing old man?")
This is what I was afraid of way back in the primaries. The only thing I can think of is that Obama is trying to contrast his intangibles - "Not going to lose his head in a crisis; thinks before he acts; makes sure he's prepared" with McCain's ("Hothead; shoots from the hip; does things and worries about consequences later"). I hope it works. But...
Winning campaigns are the ones that drive the narrative in a positive way. Obama was fine up until the day after the convention, driving the "change" narrative. Then McCain made a visible change and scooped it up from him, and since there wasn't really anything else out there but "change" in peoples' minds they could look at the two candidates and think they both offered change.
"John McCain didn't do right by Sarah Palin. When you pick someone for a national campaign, you have to make sure they're ready for what they will face. By putting so little thought into his Vice Presidential pick, John McCain set Governor Palin up for failure."
Or words to that effect. Point out that it was his responsibility (his campaign's, but he's nominally in charge) to prep her and make sure she didn't get surprised by some really obvious and really predictable questions and look like an amateur. In other words, he let her down.
No, here's an even better idea. Play the part of the McCain/Palin commercial that slams the sex ed classes and then have the announcer go Scooby-Doo on it - "Huh? Here's what they're talking about" and follow with a short shot of kids being taught how to keep from getting hurt or molested. Then "So John McCain is against this? And he wants to run our country? Tell him 'Thanks, but no thanks' in November."
Mindlessly repeating? No. I thought this from the start. I was hoping that the GOP would implode from its own contradictions, but that hasn't happened yet. Intellectual candidates (see Adlai Stevenson) are a hard sell unless they can break down complicated topics in a way that lets voters put them together and feel smart in the process (see Bill Clinton). So far it's been an enforced purity party on the D side of the fence.