[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Tucker Carlson: Fox News & neo-cons are LYING about Trump and they’re keeping us in endless wars.

Tariff Windfall Drives Surprise $27 Billion US Budget Surplus In June

Tucker Carlson Reveals Who He Thinks Funded Jeffrey Epstein's Crimes

Russia's Dark Future

A Missile Shield for America - A Trillion Dollar Fantasy?

Kentucky School Board Chairman Resigns After Calling for People to ‘Shoot Republicans’

These Are 2025's 'Most Livable' Cities

Nicotine and Fish

Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

This Can Create Endless Green Energy WITHOUT Electricity

Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It

Pam Bondi Ordered Prosecution of Dr. Kirk Moore After Refusing to Dismiss Case

California woman bombarded with Amazon packages for over a year

CVS ordered to pay $949 MILLION in Medicaid fraud case.

Starmer has signed up to the UNs agreement to raise taxes in the UK

Magic mushrooms may hold the secret to longevity: Psilocybin extends lifespan by 57% in groundbreaking study

Cops favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used

Leftist Anti ICE Extremist OPENS FIRE On Cops, $50,000 REWARD For Shooter

With great power comes no accountability.

Auto loan debt hits $1.63T. 20% of buyers now pay $1,000+ monthly. Texas delinquency hits 7.92%.

Quotable Quotes from the Chosenites

Tokara Islands NOW crashing into the Ocean ! Mysterious Swarm continues with OVER 1700 Quakes !

Why Austria Is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration

Rep. Greene Wants To Remove $500 Million in Military Aid for Nuclear-Armed Israel From NDAA

Netanyahu Lays Groundwork for Additional Strikes on Iran: 'We Didn't Deal With The Enriched Uranium'

Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans - Will U.S. Follow Suit?

Joe Rogan CALLS OUT Israel's Media CONTROL

Communist Billionaire Accused Of Funding Anti-ICE Riots Mysteriously Vanishes

6 Factors That Describe China's Current State

Trump Thteatens to Bomb Moscow and Beijing
(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: ARG Poll has PA tied between Obama and Clinton at 45-45
Source: Democratic Underground
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 7, 2008
Author: DU people
Post Date: 2008-04-07 17:42:11 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 4619
Comments: 259

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 217.

#1. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)

I doubt Obama is electable in the fall, but I KNOW Hillary isn't.

Sam Houston  posted on  2008-04-07   17:51:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#6. To: Sam Houston (#1)

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2008-04-08   9:37:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#10. To: ghostdogtxn (#6)

I didn't get the impression there was a big surge for Obama when I was in the southeast part of the state around Easter. It was non-stop MSM politics. People are sick of it.

angle  posted on  2008-04-08   9:57:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#14. To: angle (#10)

ghostdogtxn  posted on  2008-04-08   10:06:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#16. To: ghostdogtxn (#14)

I think there's a lot of misunderestimation going on about Obama.

Rendell & Hillary are right. He can't win a national. There simply aren't enough guilt laden whites out here.......thank god.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-04-08   10:13:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#21. To: Jethro Tull (#16)

There simply aren't enough guilt laden whites out here.......thank god.

It seems we have a lot of them here.

They are all very quiet about the fact that Obama will garner 99 per cent of the black vote, " because he is black", very quiet.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-04-08   10:19:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#89. To: Cynicom (#21)

They are all very quiet about the fact that Obama will garner 99 per cent of the black vote, " because he is black", very quiet.

I think you're old enough to remember how much of the Catholic vote JFK got in 1960. Do you ascribe his victory to "Protestant guilt"?

aristeides  posted on  2008-04-08   11:51:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#100. To: aristeides, Cynicom, Jethro Tull (#89)

I think you're old enough to remember how much of the Catholic vote JFK got in 1960. Do you ascribe his victory to "Protestant guilt"?

It's so silly to talk about guilt. If I vote for Obama, it will be out of a very healthy fear of the warmonger McCain.

There is no guilt involved, just fear and anger of the CABAL currently led by the Bush Regime.

You may have noticed, the ZioNazis don't like Obama. Why? If he is just like McCain, why don't they like Obama?

Did you see the thread last night? T-shirts made in Israel that say "Who killed Obama?"
Israeli designs 'Who killed Barack Obama?' T-shirts

Like Buchanan said, "McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi".

I don't know where this nonsense about guilt originated.

robin  posted on  2008-04-08   12:17:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#103. To: robin (#100)

It's so silly to talk about guilt. If I vote for Obama, it will be out of a very healthy fear of the warmonger McCain.

For reasons I don't understand you've chosen to ignore countless articles detailing O's foreign policy as one that is closely aligned with the other two candidates. Obama's redeployment is to other ME nations and his adoption of the recommendations in the Iraqi Study Group, and the endorsement of it's co-chair Lee Hamilton, sounds like an endorsement of Obama as a custodian of continued homeland security (see Hamilton's 911 investigation).

So, given this, some white guilt is a reasonable assumption for me at least.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-04-08   12:36:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#144. To: Jethro Tull (#103)

For reasons I don't understand you've chosen to ignore countless articles detailing O's foreign policy as one that is closely aligned with the other two candidates.

You're ignoring the other major difference between Obama and the other candidates: civil liberties. Obama repeatedly calls for restoring habeas corpus in his speeches. The other candidates do not do that.

aristeides  posted on  2008-04-08   14:03:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#156. To: aristeides (#144)

Obama repeatedly calls for restoring habeas corpus in his speeches. The other candidates do not do that.

My understanding is that he wants it restored for Gitmo detainees, as described here:

In an e-mail to supporters, Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that they were reintroducing the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to a defense authorization bill today. Last fall’s Military Commissions Act stripped detainees charged as enemy combatants of their right of habeas corpus. Watch Dodd introduce the bill on the Senate floor today:

thinkprogress.org/2007/09...eintroduce-habeas-corpus- restoration-act/

I can't assume he means for all of us at this point. Do you have a reference?

Peppa  posted on  2008-04-08   14:26:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#162. To: Peppa (#156)

Jeffrey Rosen’s TRB column in the February 27, 2208, New Republic is about how Obama would be the first truly civil libertarian president. That column really sums up what I like about Obama. As a libertarian, civil and fiscal, I don’t agree with a lot of his ideas, but I love his honest and strong civil libertarian bent. After the Bush 43 years this approach to personal liberty and privacy would be a welcome change.

And as far as government spending goes, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess he’d be less “liberal” than Bush. Sure Obama’s spending will focus on different areas than Bush’s, but in pure government expansion it’s almost impossible for Obama, or any other “spend thrift liberal,” to match Bush’s woeful record. Plus an Obama presidency might push the GOP to look deep into the dark night and find a core that seems to be lost in Rovian factions and coalitions. The Rove gloat of creating a generation of GOP rule died, oh, about two or three years in.

All that being said, I sincerely hope Obama wins either Texas or Ohio and forces Clinton out of the Democratic nomination race. Of course that would also involve Clinton conceding with grace. An outcome still in serious doubt at this time.

Here is Rosen’s lede:

If Barack Obama were to win the Democratic nomination and the White House, he would be, among other things, our first civil libertarian president. This is clear not just from his lifetime rating on the ACLU’s scorecard (82 percent compared to John McCain’s 25 percent). It is clear from the fact that civil liberties have been among his most passionate interests–as a constitutional law professor, state legislator, and senator. On the campaign trail, he has been unapologetic about these enthusiasms. In New Hampshire, I heard him end a rousing stump speech by promising the cheering crowd, “We will close Guantánamo, we will restore habeas corpus, we will have a president who will respect and obey the Constitution.” Has a political consultant ever urged a candidate to brandish habeas corpus?

Obama, the civil libertarian.

aristeides  posted on  2008-04-08   14:39:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#210. To: aristeides (#162)

Obama, the civil libertarian.

A voting record to support that would be nice. As a constitutional lecturer, how does he square with funding an undeclared war, now knowing what he does about the intelligence? As much as his credentials are supposed to prove, he shrinks from his known responsibilities. A leader would lead.

Peppa  posted on  2008-04-08   16:04:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#213. To: All (#210)

Found this interesting post re: Universal Healthcare.. thought I would share.

Maybe it's time to unpeel Romneys little onion too.

Hillarys Health Care Sham

You know, Hillary, we need to talk. Today you unveiled your shiny new health plan and I have to say that I am wildly underwhelmed.

First we need to get something out of the way. For you to proclaim that your plan provides, Universal Health Care is a decided misnomer. Universal Health Insurance might be more like it.

Universal Health Care is what they have in England and Canada and Spain and Germany and Japan and, well, every civilized nation in the world but ours. Its single payer health care provided free of charge with no need for interference by a greed-crazed insurance and pharmaceutical industry. Is that so freaking hard to understand?… Hillary Clinton yesterday set out an ambitious $110bn plan to introduce universal healthcare in the US more than 10 years after her earlier failed attempt.

And that would be great, if private health insurance in this country didn't already suck for air.

Senator, your plan is basically a national version of Republican Mitt Romneys Universal Health Care plan for Massachusetts, which has still left thousands in that state uninsured and even more struggling to make the payments on their new policies, which they are now required to have by law, but which may not pay them one thin dime should they actually become sick or hurt.

What you are trying to pass off here as some kind of bold new way forward is just another bureaucratic nightmare in the making, as the already staggeringly inefficient insurance corporations struggle to take on the millions of new clients and patients. That'll work. That'll work just fine for rich people like you and your husband and the Bush family.

Is there anybody here who believes that this plan wasn't conceived and dictated to Senator Clinton by passels of high-end lobbyists for the insurance industry? Yeah? Well, I've got some sports memorabilia in a hotel room in Vegas that I'll sell you. No, really, it's mine. We just need to go in there with our guns drawn to get it.

Found here: thinkprogress.org/2007/09...leahy-reintroduce-habeas- corpus-restoration-act/#comment-4081633

Peppa  posted on  2008-04-08   16:13:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#217. To: All (#213)

Another interesting take on Universal Healthcare:

September 17th, 2007 1:47 pm

Before people get all worked about this, let’s take a look at Hillary’s plan. She proposes a government subsidy of $110 billion dollars annually to assist people in affording private insurance. This is sure to grow as the health care corporation find ways of jacking up prices. Essentially, this is throwing more money at our already bloated health care industry.

Right now, we spend in excess of 9% GNP on health care in this country. No other Western country spends more than 3% of GNP to provide complete health care for all of it’s citizens. Moreover, our halth care service, as measured against other industriezed countries for quality, doesn’t even make it into the top 20!

If we implimented a Scandiavian style system, one with truly universal coverage, we could cover every Amercian citizen under such a plan for about 80 bilion dollars annually and provide better quality care.

Ms. Clinton’s involvemenbt of health care corporations in her plan is no different than Dick Cheney’s using energy corporation in his secret task force.

Throwing money at corporations for essential services is insane, it is inefficient, it is too expensive, and is ultimately doomed to failure. If you really want (and I do) universal health care coverage, the way to achieve it is to remove private corporation from the process. That would immediately get costs uder control and remove the enormous group of investor parasite that make money off the misery of others. Hillary ought to be ashamed of herself.

— Posted by Mike Brooks

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.c...asts-clinton-health-care- plan/#comment-253520

Here are a number of excellent posts regarding the issue, if you care to continue reading through them.
55.September 18th, 2007 8:49 am

Post #13: “I would also like to note that I am a fully covered working professional, but I still wouldn’t mind paying a few extra tax dollars (should it come to that) to live in a world where my friends and family who work part- time and entry-level jobs can live their lives without having to equate getting sick or having an accident with financial disaster.” — Posted by Ryan Golden (Brooklyn)

Well said, my friend. I wouldn’t mind paying a few extra bucks either…that’s called community operating in the best interests of everybody. Tax dollars and receipts do NOT belong to the government…they are public funds that belong to the people who paid these taxes. That would be you and me. For those who insist that tax dollars and the federal government that takes them from us, shouldn’t be spending federal money on things like single payer, not for profit health care, I would ask you why you believe that this money is somehow ‘largesse’ from the government. It is not….it is our money, to be spent how WE, the people decide it will be spent. Government doesn’t have the right to exist in a democracy, unless it reflects and serves the will and the interests of the people, who ARE the government. Has everybody forgot their grade school civics lessons?

I do not want my tax dollars used to promote ’socialized warfare’ via the heavily contracted and subsidized Military-Industrial Complex and the corporations that comprise this group. These corporations make huge profits designing ingenious ways to destroy people. Now that’s an uplifting way to spend your time, isn’t it?

I similarly don’t care much for the idea of subsidizing the airline industry….socialist ideas at work here? I particularly abhor the welfare payments called foreign aid entitlements that are used as a tool for control around the world. The welfare countries that operate with their palms up for the US to fill with our tax dollars is repulsive to me. That is socialized government. How about the subsidization of corporations that operate illegally offshore and continually cook their books in clever accounting tricks? The government looks the other way on this club. The Cayman Islands??? Isn’t that a nice vacation spot?

No one that I know is advocating FREE health care. What people are finding is that a single-payer, not-for-profit, universal health system needs to be built here in the US. I’m quite convinced that American minds, unfettered by the chains of corporate influence by private insurers (who really aren’t in the biz of providing care, rather they’re in the business of denying care to maximize their profits) can devise a sensible, fair system of health care that can and will provide essential health care for all our citizens. I would like to see this as a priority. Only when this item is taken care of, do we even consider the ‘applications’ of foreign governments for ‘help’ in holding up their governments. Let them fend for themselves while we right our sinking ship of state, first and foremost. I don’t want to read or hear one more suggestion by any candidate re:
1. tax credits 2. tax subsidies as an incentive to buy insurance from these private insurance companies that are no better than professional pirates. 3. any involvement that uses the old model of private health companies like Kaiser-permanente, United, or the rest. Those companies must have their fangs removed from our new healthcare paradigm. Otherwise, we are wasting time and there is NOT going to be any change.

— Posted by Peter G.

56.September 18th, 2007 9:06 am

Tiflitis at Post 50, really sums up how many physicians feel today. They are squeezed from all sides. They can no longer determine how patient care is delivered when they are second-guessed by some clerk in another state. The red-tape, insurance forms, and administrative help that is required to run a practice today is overwhelming.

This is a direct result of Nixon’s ideas brought to birth through the creation of ‘managed care.’ Mananged by whom? All we heard then was how this was the panacea to solve all the problems of health care. This would be the dawn of a new age in medicine. This would surely solve the problems of having arrogant doctors think for one second that they actually know how to diagnose and treat disease. It would also solve the irritating problem of the public actually have access to a doctor they liked and who could offer them treatments and care, as well as alternative plans of disease managment. Why, the nerve of them…the absolute effrontery of physicians to disagree with some private insurance customer service rep. in an obscure outpost office.

Imagine that doctors actually want to care for their patients in ways they deem appropriate! People get sick? This is not allowed by private ‘insurers’ because they are not interested in providing care, they are only concerned with disqualifying people through loopholes like “pre-existing conditions” and maximizing their own profit margins. Health care is expensive, because people get sick…face it. It is not an area of “business’ like manufacturing widgets, it is far too personal. This whole debate is nauseating. How about all Americans receiving a plan similar to the one our Congress offers to its members? Exactly the same. How about it?

— Posted by Mary Adams

57.September 18th, 2007 11:58 am

All the plans are politically unattainable. We need something simple like the Healthcare Access Card suggested at www.healthcaresoundoff.com

— Posted by Steve Schuster

58.September 18th, 2007 5:13 pm

tiflitis @ 50

Thanks for your insights as a medical professional.

The leading candidates’ plans do nothing to address the real problem which is created by the insurance companies.

Those that will allow anyone other than their physician to make decisions for their health care based on profit margins really needs a mental health professional which is obvious their health plan does not cover.

HRC’s plan just perpetuates the current disjointed system.

I would suggest everyone who intends to vote based on this issue to ask the opinion of their personal physician whom they should trust more than a politician.

I know from personal experience that making sure our medical claims are reimbursed by the insurance is a full time job for my wife. Most of the doctors we use keep on dropping the insurances and will only take direct payment, which puts the patient at the mercy of the insurance companies. I can safely bet I am not the only one that has tousled with an insurance company and it is usually over the same thing - procedures which are not covered, medications which are not on their preferred list, lost claims, incorrectly processed claims, layers and layers of bureaucracy, etc…. and all along the premiums keep on rising and the coverage keeps on decreasing.

So for anyone that believes the “market approach” is working I ask - working for whom?

Cheers, — Posted by Romulo

59.September 18th, 2007 5:20 pm hacp @ 43

The insurance companies may have trashed the '93 plan, and will for sure try to trash any plan that tries to separate them from the teat, but if a president decided to push health care reform to benefit the populace instead of the insurances, who would you back?

Now remember, the insurance companies rely on your belief that the system cannot be changed Cheers, — Posted by Romulo

Peppa  posted on  2008-04-08   16:38:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Replies to Comment # 217.

        There are no replies to Comment # 217.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 217.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]