Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama Will Break Your Heart. (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  how about this article for one... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, Quicklund, emmabrody, seattlegonz

    Nuclear Leaks

    I think Obama likes to portray himself differently then Clinton, and it does work, but I really think there's no there there...he's just good at making you think there is.

    I'm still, STILL freakin' undecided.  I read DHinMI's piece and was swayed toward Obama, then I read that article and was swayed away.  I definitely prefer Clinton's health care plan, but like the movement Obama has engendered.

    Being undecided bites.

    •  health care (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andy30tx, Quicklund, costello7, Blogvirgin

      A presidential candidate's "health care plan" isn't law... it's posturing.  The law, such as it is, would be written by Congress, not the president.  If SENATOR Clinton is so concerned about mandates, she can work to get that language into the bill that goes to PRESIDENT Obama.  After all, she's an experienced senator, she can do that, right?  And would Obama veto universal health care over mandates?  I doubt it.

      Reminder for both sides - Our last eloquent, inexperienced 46 year old candidate? Bill Clinton. Think about that.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  perhaps (0+ / 0-)

        But PRESIDENT Obama won't even be pushing his party to pass a law for a health care policy plan that would lead to single payer.  He'll take his already more centrist policy plan (compared to Clinton's) and move it even more to the right under the guise of bipartisanship and "bringing everyone to the table" and what we'll end up with is something closer to what republicans and insurance companies would be happy with, not something that progressives want.  SENATOR Clinton could try to push for a more progressive platform, but I'm guessing PRESIDENT Obama's support for it would be...eh, not so much.

        •  Mandates vs. no mandates isn't centrist v liberal (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, costello7

          It's an honest disagreement of the effectiveness of mandates and the use of mandating still-expensive health insurance.

          The true Ben Franklin quote from Poor Richard's Almanack is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

          by Andy30tx on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is the #1 domentic issue (0+ / 0-)

          Any President will push it, except they will be in comeptition from Congresscritters to push it.  As for Sen Obama's views I don't think yo have really researched them.  I am no expert but even I have heard of his past approval for single-payer systems.  If you really are interested in a fair comparison do some research is my advice.

          [A blind egg gathers no grok.]

          by Quicklund on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:30:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary doesn't HAVE a health care plan (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andy30tx, costello7, Blogvirgin

      At least, not one for universal insurance.

      You know why?  She has no plan for enforcement.  She says that it's something that Congress will figure out.  Well guess what?  Congress is not going to pass mandated health insurance with stiff penalties like wage garnishment, automatic enrollment, and/or punitive fines.  Congress is also not going to fund a massive new entitlement, a la MassHealth.

      You can't debate how much her plan is going to cost, whether it will be effective, whether it is something that will pass, whether it is something you like or dislike, until you know what options you have under her non-existent plan.  

    •  Fact Check on New York Times Leaks Story (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blogvirgin
      •  Thanks for the fact check (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        miriam, Cream City

        Which proves the point of the NYT article.

        Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

        Think about it...the nuclear regulatory commission (NRC), the federal regulators whom OPPOSED his bill to begin with, are the ones he entrusted to

        promulgate regulations...requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances.

        I think that's why the NYT said he removed language that mandated prompt reporting, because HE DID.  You want to argue nuance, fine argue nuance, but I'd be doubtful that the NRC, which opposed his bill to start, would put any meaningful regulations into place, never mind actually enforcing them.

    •  He already diffused this (0+ / 0-)

      with his fact-check, and polifact has reiterated that he doesn't get bundled money like Hillary, he didn't get bundled money from that company; he gets money from individuals, and if they happen to be employees and executives of certain companies, he can't always know and can't always do anything about it.  To suggest it influences his policy is alarmist.

    •  I'm a Hillary supporter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, bankbane, Lying eyes

      It is a remarkable thing, the young people's enthusiasm for Obama and the rock star type image. But, the truth is, federal beauracracies are designed to change slowly, local government is designed to change quickly, and for good reason.

      Obama will not succeed in bringing the country together and changing Washington. He's been in the Senate for 2 years and he hasn't brought about any change there. He was against the war but he's voted for every war funding bill and he wasn't able to  bring the Senate to gether to override Bush's vetoes of the war funding with timetables for withdrawal.

      It's a mirage the idea that we are going to join together and unify behind Barack. I feel that Democrats are more powerfully divided about this choice than we've been about any other. I know I, as a woman, have been anguished by Obama's sexist rhetoric...especially since  it goes unchallenged and unrecognized by the media and by young women and men. We are a lost nation if sexism continues without notice.

      •  Hillary supporter, aside from the negatives (0+ / 0-)

        you directed toward Senator Obama, and your perception of what he hasn't done, your comment indicates that you support Sen. Clinton solely because she is a woman.  Other than Sen. Clinton's vote to give President Bush the right to go to war in Iraq, what legislation has she passed in her brief Senate term that convinces you that she is the person to lead this country?

        We can change the world. Let's start with America. Obama for America '08

        by Blogvirgin on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:11:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not because she's a woman (0+ / 0-)

          I don't support Hillary because she's a woman, but I do reject sexism and am loathe to support a candidate who treats women dismissively and with derision.

          Clinton has sponsored and passed legislation to get health care for veterans, and SCHIP, to mention two.

          Hillary has been working to help the poor and disenfranchised since forever...look at her record. You'll be amazed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site