I'll lead in by saying that I am unabashedly for Dennis Kucinich's national single payer, not-for-profit health care plan. It is not the only reason I support Mr. Kucinich, but it is definitely one reason.

But to read that Clinton, Edwards and Obama's plans, mandating health insurance, "propose Nixon-like reforms"? Well, let me go further:

IN 1971, President Nixon sought to forestall single-payer national health insurance by proposing an alternative. He wanted to combine a mandate, which would require that employers cover their workers, with a Medicaid-like program for poor families, which all Americans would be able to join by paying sliding-scale premiums based on their income. (Available here)

So, now that we have had Rep. Kucinich bring the resolution about impeachment to the house floor (thank you for believing in the Constitution, the rule of Law, and your own principles, Rep. Kucinich), caused a bit of a spectacle about it, generated a bunch of furious web activity and representative contacting about it, and now that it is in the Judiciary commitee, where it has a hope, albeit slim, of getting looked at... What do people want to have happen? Do you support it, do you not care either way? And why?

Apparently, Representative Dennis Kucinich will be submitting a privileged resolution (which forces it to be considered on the house floor, but I'm not certain if it requires a vote) calling for the Impeachment of the Vice President. I am not sure if there are any changes to the resolution that he has out there now before he does this, but a link to read the text of it is this:
http://kucinich.house.gov/...

Personally, I think this is clear-cut, otherwise I wouldn't be taking the time to write this, but obviously, I urge you to read the resolution and seriously consider whether you feel that the Vice President did cover up intelligence to drive the country to the Iraq Invasion, and if the rest of the points in the articles are true.

The Primary, or Caucus. In my mind, the general purpose of these things are so that the electorate can determine who the party's candidate will be in the upcoming election. So, one would imagine that this is where the pulse of the overall people in the party is taken by the party itself so that it can rally support behind the proper candidate.

Is this really the case though?

With big media hammering numbers and polls into the minds of the general populace every day and the electorate not having the time and / or inclination to do their own research into the various candidates, is this really taking an accurate pulse of the electorate? Or is it more along the lines of taking the pulse of who, and how well, the media (or someone else) has chosen a candidate for the party?