Southwest doesn't charge fees for the first two checked bags, never mind carry ons. They campaign on the fact (and it's won me over more than once).
I may be in the minority, but I wish the airlines would just raise ticket prices enough to cover meals and baggage handling. It's worth $50 to me not to be hit up for $25 at the airport and another $10 on the plane.
We've got health insurance reform, which may pay for itself if the numbers hold up, but what about health CARE reform? When do we try to reign in the ever-growing costs of providing health-care due to high pharma costs, medical equipment with thousands of patents (meaning gouging on prices), and the whole nasty concept of for-profit health care?
Until we address these items, insurance companies will continue have to raise rates in order to pay for the actual health care services they cover.
I assume you're talking about Bill, and I'd beg to differ.
Politics isn't just about getting elected. It's about enacting law once you are elected.
I'm happy to argue that, while he was not elected president when he ran in 1980, Edward Kennedy has been a far more successful politician than pretty much anyone in Congress or the Senate. Take a look at the legislation he's authored, promoted, and influenced, and it certainly dwarfs Clinton's achievements as President.
If you're old enough to remember, former Speaker Tip O'Neill was about as great a politician as they come--perhaps even better than Kennedy.
LBJ was a far better politician than Mr. Clinton as well, as he sponsored and passed the Great Society bills, whereas Clinton pushed what? Americorps? Ok. NAFTA? Great. DOMA?
What is all this experience she has? She won an open Senatorial seat abandoned by the Democratic fixture that was Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 2000. She was reelected in 2006 along with virtually every Democratic incumbant in the country. Those are the only two elections for public office that she herself was the subject for. Yeah, her husband went through a bunch of his own elections, but Bill had a way of making his elections through all the slop--her career was not what was at stake.
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in '96 and was reelected in 2002. In 2000 he ran for Congress and lost. In 2004 he was elected to take the Senatorial seat abandoned by Republican Peter Fitzgerald. That's four elections for public office, three of which he won.
I don't really see an experience advantage on either side. If people really want experience first, they should vote/have voted for Biden or Dodd.
I don't have numbers for it, but I wonder how many people abandon the candidate they liked earlier in the race because all the polling shows that that candidate doesn't have a prayer. Why waste a vote on Kucinich or Dodd when everyone knows they don't have a chances? Thus you get to January, and you've got the 1-3 "viable" candidates, and folks make up their minds.
And then, people like voting for the winner, which means having enough info to know who's going to win. Where does that info come from? Major polls reported on by the media.
What I'm saying is that a bunch of folks may decide to vote for Hillary in January largely because she's led the polls the entire way. This will only be countered by something BIG showing that she's less than viable, like the media turning against her. I wouldn't hold my breath.
I am really an Edwards fan, but I have no idea how he can catch Clinton at this point. Too many people think he's a hedge-fund backed, all-talk guy with expensive haircuts to recognize that Hillary is a hedge-fund backed, all-talk woman with expensive haircuts.