Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman
She also points out his will leave 15 million out and yet still forces a mandate on parents of children that FORCES people to buy insurance and will have no choice but to also put in fines and garnish wages to enforce his policy. And these people are FORCED to pay costs estimated to be $1700 more a year than on Hillary's plan. Good luck for a family of 3 making $30k a year under Obama.
The reality is his plan because it leaves people out does not come close to lowering the cost of insurance to people therefor makes it affordable to some but not to all. And since he makes no amends for subsidies and programs to pay that difference for those unable to afford it, the reality is the number left out will rise year after year as costs continue to rise and those who are uninsured are still sick and continue to drain the system. As long as you have uninsured, you will have a continuous rise in costs making the gap and definition of affordable further and further from those its supposed to protect.
On health care I truly feel Obama pussied out and tried to take the safe route.
|
The cost of insurance under his plan is virtually identical to the cost under hers. Most analysts have said they're exactly the same plan with the exception of Clinton's mandate.
And complaining that his plan requires a mandate for children to be covered and boo-hooing over the cost to the parents....while at the same time sticking up for Hillary who mandates that EVERYONE buy coverage is the definition of hypocritical.
The $1700 a year more is crap, please show me an independent analysis that says the cost will be $1700 more on his plan than hers. My guess is you got that straight from her campaign website....not exactly an unbiased source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman
On foreign relations I think he is far too green and is making a lot of promises he won't be able to keep. Its irresponsible to claim you'll have all troops out in a year when you have no idea what the intelligence is saying is feasible and safe. Maybe its possible, but if it isn't is he going to force everyone out to keep his word, or is going to break his promise right away because its the safe and smart thing to do?
|
4 of our last 5 Presidents were governors before they were President and had absolutely zero foreign policy experience. 3 of those 4 did a good job with it. The 4th will be out of there on Jan 20, 2009.
Obama has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton did when taking office.
He also did not claim that he would have all troops out within a year. He said exactly this "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless going in"....and that military officials say that we can safely withdraw our troops at the rate of one or two brigades a month.
He has never "committed" to withdrawing them within a certain time frame because he doesn't know what the conditions on the ground will be when he takes office.
He wants to get them out as quickly and safely as we can, but has made no firm commitment on how long that would take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman
There is a very large swell of Clinton supporters who are part of the true dem base that are getting pretty ticked with Obama and starting to talk of voting McCain.
|
Who's that? You and your cousins?
All of the data available says the exact opposite of what you're saying here...Clinton voters for the most part will support Obama in the general, the reverse of that is not true. All of the exit polling says that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman
When you lose even part of the democratic base plus now have to fight for the independents who helped you in the primary but could just as easily head home to the right, that makes things interesting to say the least. Factor in the fact Obama's campaign is so against reinstating the Florida vote in any shape even at half the delegates being awarded and he has just alienated a very very important state that is always a toss up for each party. Michigan isn't thrilled.
Missouri a swing state in which he won but lost 110 of the 115 counties and won the city states with the large black population and votes and you got another swing state in heavy play.
|
Obama isn't losing any of the Democratic base....he's increasing it. I really don't know where you're getting this stuff from other than your blind loyalty to the Clintons.
Obama is getting young voters to show up to the polls, he's getting independent AND republican votes.
Maybe Hillary can win in the general (the polls show her losing to McCain though...and her numbers aren't going to get much higher, everyone in the country already knows who she is and what she stands for) BUT if she wins it'll be a 51 to 49 election, and she won't have any mandate to get things accomplished the way Reagan did when he won big.
Also, the Florida thing is a sham. The DNC and all of the candidates agreed that Florida and Michigan wouldn't count because they moved their primaries up without permission.
Now that Clinton won in those states and she's behind in delegates, she wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. She was the only one on the ballot in Michigan and none of the candidates campaigned in Florida....she won that on name recognition alone. Now you think it should be counted???
Hey, why don't we just count all the states where Clinton won and not count the states where Obama won? If we're going to change the rules to benefit Hillary and only Hillary, let's go all the way with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axeman
I truly fear that with Obama the Dems may lose this election as the states he won were largely red states and with no caucuses to lean on in the GE it could get extremely tight. He's going to have to make significant inroads with the base and I am not sure he can.
Recent polls show he has peaked and slipped in national ratings vs Clinton and McCain. His campaign is a tough one to start another uptrend of momentum with.
I hope I am wrong as the last thing I want is the Republicans in the white house come Jan. For the war ending if not anything else.
|
Not only can Obama win, but he can win HUGE. He can win by 10 points or more and drag in alot of new democratic Senators and Congressman on his coattails.
If you want to see huge republican turnout in November while independents stay home because they're sick of all the dirty negative campaigning, then Hillary is who the nominee should be.
If you want to see huge democratic turnout, along with millions of independent voters and about 10% of republicans voting for the democratic nominee, then Obama is who you want.
All of the data that's available is congruent with what I just said. I really don't know where you're getting your information from about the democratic base being ticked at Obama or these twisted versions of what his policy proposals are.