Wow, that was a really horrible film, a really big disconnected mess of scenes that wasn't a "path" at all. It was also chock full of bad actors and copy that was no unnaturally delivered that I think it'd be hard to mistake the film for anything but a fictional drama.
Besides, tomorrow the show is competing with football, and everytime Americans have a choice between sports and politics, sports wins.
I wrote this on a Kos diary, but seeing how this comment thread is turning into another "OMG Mark Warner's Yearly Kos Party was just too cool for people like us", I'm repeating it here [and for the record, I went ... and had a good time]:
On Warner's bash on Friday night: I'm from Virginia and Mark Warner did amazing stuff for the state during his tenure. A couple of folks have basically written stuff along the lines of "Warner is trying to buy off the netroots with an expensive event". I say good for him. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, and it's a POSITIVE thing that a strong presidential contender who's got a good record wants to court us --- that's a GOOD thing --- that means us (netroots) have REAL influence. And besides, for all the folks that went there and wrote critical diaries, here's my question: If you had such a problem with the event, why did you stay and eat/drink?
"Why not contract with the insurance companies by competitive bid to do the processing of the additional claims"
I agree -- your idea would mean that folks displaced by national health care would still have jobs -- but my point is that if you tell folks that their whole sector (in this case health insurnace) is going to be eradicated by legislation, giving them hope for a future will be imperetive for them to feel OK supporting national health care.
"That's why pushing on health care, crushing the insurance companies in the process, is the right strategy" (from diary above)
From my recollection, this strategy is what (among other things) crushed the Clinton's 1993 effort to provide health care to all Americans. There were thousands (if not more) folks who worked in insurance (some Dems, some Republicans, many who probably weren't all that political in any one direction) who basically got the message that "when we have national health care, you'll not only be out of a job, but also out of a career, because there won't be private health insurnace in the US anymore under this plan --- and we're not saying much more than that". While these folks were a minority of Americans, they said back to the Clinton's quite publically "like hell you're going to take away my livelihood -- I'm going to fight like hell to keep my job!" And fight they did, with all their might, and in the end, their side won that particular political battle (and they kept their jobs in insurance).
My point, and how this relates back to the political battles of this decade, is that whenever legislation is going to leave a defined group of individuals without jobs and/or entire careers (health care legislation, cuts in farm subsidies, smoking prevention programs, etc. etc.) there needs to a mechanism in place to ensure those folks being "displaced by legislation" (for lack of a better term at the moment) aren't left out in the cold.