Crude as it is, I have only one thing to add: I’ve spoken with ~15 people this month on their choice of Dem candidates: my plumber, a couple of my neighbors, some folks at the grocery store. I’m chatty and curious like that, and I’m also struck by the theme I have heard from 14 of that group (yes, I have been counting). “Regular” nonpolitical junkie types really want BHO and HRC to run together. I bet that makes your eyes bleed to read, but there it is. I don’t make that suggestion to them, people say it to me, unprompted. Over and Over again, for months now.
Outside the Village and the Virtual Village, that’s what Democrats want. Or at least the dozens of likely Dem voters I’ve spoken with since it became clear Edwards was out. Just sayin.
Front page
Not Surprised at that at All
Both of these people are extremely popular with most democrats.
"to run together"
What does this mean?
Do they don’t care who the nominee is? Is it a coin-flip kind of thing?
Or do they want their candidate to win, and for the other candidate to suck it up and take the VP nomination because it will make it easier fot the person they insist on to get to the White House?
A couple of months ago, I wanted them to run together too — but only if Clinton was at the top of the ticket (now I think that Obama would be a political liability in the number two spot, which is really all that matters in terms of the VP.)
***********
ps… I happen to think that the video is funny. Even if it is produced by conservatives, these two guys are obviously satirising the mindset they are portraying, and don’t let the GOP off the hook either.
The Video Is Funny
It’s suppose to be. They’re a comedy team. They do a series of these videos. Salon features them. They’re not backed by Republican money. Unlike Chris Bowers, these guys are putting you on.
CD, I hope that they get their wish. I have no problem w/
A unity ticket although I think it would be a waste to have HRC on the bottom. She would be much more productive back on the senate floor. If they could finagle a Clinton/Obama ticket we could have HRC for four and then BO could pick up the reins. By then he would have a lot more experience and he would be truly vetted.
I love this job!
More Red Stae Boys
CD, you can make up for any deficits you may be “suffering” in the religion department by viewing what the Red State Boys have to say about the Creation Museum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8MGAsid… I dare say that one’s religious instruction would not be complete without this.
Hillary's future
Josh Marshall (I know, I know, you love him like I love Paul Krugman right now) had a good write up on why he thinks Hillary would have more power and prefer to say in the senate the other day.
What has Paul Krugman done?
Other than offer completely and totally rational and fact based objections to Obama, unlike Marshall, who has descended into the pits of Freeperdom and misogyny.
Is it just b/c he doesn’t agree with the Precious?
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Aeryl are you always
this nasty or just with Democrats?
What has Paul Krugman
What has Paul Krugman done?
new
Submitted by Aeryl on Fri, 2008-05-09 12:18.
Other than offer completely and totally rational and fact based objections to Obama, unlike Marshall, who has descended into the pits of Freeperdom and misogyny.
Is it just b/c he doesn’t agree with the Precious?
I repeat, I have never seen a single attempt here to rationally defend the claim that Hillary’s health plan is “universal health care”.
You guys keeps saying “Rational argument”, “tough” and “fighter” as if repetition made it so.
You know what...
These attempts to provide a strawman at every turn are getting quite annoying.
Krugman’s original point was (and let me slow down to prevent any confusion)
Neither plan is perfect, Clinton’s is better
If Hillary’s plan isn’t “universal”, neither is Obama’s.
So what point are you attempting to make?
If Hillary’s plan isn’t
If Hillary’s plan isn’t “universal”, neither is Obama’s.
actually, Clinton’s plan does provide for “universal health care” achieved through mandates for “universal health coverage”.
the argument that Clinton’s plan is not about universal health care is about as valid as the one that says there are no red lights because some people run them.
Long way around a simple point
I suppose.
Not my intent to argue the semantics of it all.
It’s not single payer.