Neither of their plans will ever become law in the form they are being proposed. I only care about the broadest expression of presidential candidates policies and in that context they are absolutely equal. If you are suggesting that Obama wants people to not be covered, well, that's absurd. Beyond that, obsessing over these details is silly because they will never happen. Congress will make the law and what ever they come up with (probably far less progressive than what either of the candidates are proposing,) if it's better than what we have now, they'll sign it. But which person will be in a better position to push congress for more? Which person can bring the scrutiny of the American people to bear on the issue better? And the answer to that is fairly subjective and so my vote for Obama continues to be an act I am not ashamed of.
If a Major blog endorses a candidate now it becomes a minor blog - the "Edwards blog" or the "Hilary Blog" or whatever. Too much time remains to counter the endorsement value and too much time OUT of the debate for blogs that depend on us coming to them to debate.
Much closer to the primaries, I suspect all the major blogs and bloggers will make endorsements in a last minute effort to influence the outcome.
Another interesting moment came up when Matthews asked Senator Edwards about using embryos for research purposes. Specifically, Mathews asked if Edwards would have any problem with using donated sperm and eggs to create embryos solely for the purpose of research? Edwards responded, "I might."
So he says he might have a problem with deliberately creating embryos for research (i.e destruction).
Of course this goes to the whole "when does life begin" debate, which this answer of Edwards carefully sidesteps, perhaps not unwisely.
As pointed out above, this is the way to go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Po
This passed the state assembly and senate in 2006 and was vetoed by Arnold, it has passed the State senate again in 2007. Short of a constitutional amendment, this gets as close to one person one vote as we could hope (and by using the national vote total (even if differers from the state total) it keeps smaller states in play.)
The Boxer criticism against the Republican Initiative is valid, our Congressional districts are gerrymandered and fixed, so apportion votes based on CDs will not give independents a greater voice (nor will repub in dem district nor dems in repub districts have a greater voice.) Thus, no increase in presidential attention. If the republican plan apportioned the electoral votes based on the popular vote in the whole state, that might make each vote count more (and garner more campaigning in the state)....but clearly the republicans don't really want that either, since the toning down of the central republican values of hate and bigotry will likely lose them their core wing-nut votes in other states..
This initiative is on the June ballot, the one we are likely to see the lowest turnout for for...which tends to favor republican proposals. Any independents who support it because they think it will make their voice be heard is a fool.
Also, if this proposal is meant to apply to the 2008 election, no one couldn't see it as a ploy to simply steal the presidency from the Democrats.
The myth of Regan (the Regan Democrats) being a cross over figure, being plain spoken (even when he was lying,) etc., is stronger than the truth of him or his presidency.
Obama is running for president of the US, not president of the Progressive activist bloggers. If he can cast him self as the Democratic version of Regan, he's won the general already. Don't know about the Primary though.
while advocating NOT using force against a potential threat. She would totally tank - she'd won't gain the anti-war vote no matter what she does and she would be painted in the middle as weak on the use of force - not good. Her only out would have been to declare she had been lied to back when we would have believed her. Now, she has to stick to her guns cause all she's got on Iraq is that she's somehow consistent.
I was surprised and somewhat angered by the notion that the DSCC thinks it's job is to protect incumbents from primary challenges (al la Mary Landrieu.) The DSCC should support the democratic candidate 100% but shouldn't get involved in the primary. Otherwise they are imposing their will on the Democrats of that state.
Between 60 minutes, Grease (you're the one that we want) and Extreme House makeover, Bush didn't stand a chance. But now Fox can pull some tasty soundbites for their "news" shows to show the "base" that Bush took some "tough" questions from the Liberal media.