anneshirley

Speaking of Obama lies, the one that most annoyed me was when Obama said that to pay for his health care plan he would get rid of the 15% premium that goes to Medicare Advantage plans, which only helps the insurance companies.  That was absolutely not true, and I know first hand because I am one of the many who are benefited.  I would have spent another $20,000, at a minimum, in my first year with BC if I had joined ordinary Medicare and not one of the Advantage plans.  Instead, aside from my co-pays of $10 and $20, I paid only $750.00. Yet now I read that Obama's next ad will be directed to Medicare recipients telling them that McCain will be coming after their benefits.  Perhaps that's true--I don't know--but I know for sure Obama is coming after my benefits and the benefits of all those enrolled in an Advantage Plan. 

That may be fair, and I am willing to accept what's fair even if it doesn't benefit me, but nonetheless it's a lie. 

LuAnne--I vote in New York City and have never been asked for identification.  I give my name, they open it to the page where I am registered and I sign.  I believe this means that if the name is in the registration book they can vote.  So we must depend on the registrar that the names are correct.

I looked up Obama's record with the Harvard Law Review, particularly an article in Politico.  My reading confirmed what I had read earlier that he had not written any articles for the review--at least this is what he and his campaign advisers have spread about. (He does a lot of hiding of his past.)  However, it appears he did write a case review on the right of a fetus to sue its mother for negligence during pregnancy.  His position, the fetus does not have this right--based on case law, of course.

Interesting paragraph at the end of the article, as follows:

In the end, though, Obama's time on the Review mirrored other aspects of his life. Even in the staunchly liberal milieus in which he has spent his entire adult life, Obama has managed to lead without leaving a clear ideological stamp, and to respect — and even, at times, to embrace — opposing views. To his critics, that's a sign of a lack of core beliefs. To his admirers, it's the root of his appeal.

I thought the above a fair comment on my view of Obama--obviously one of his critics.  I hate it that he can never be pinned down to anything.  I want passion and commitment from those I respect, and the courage to go against the crowd when it's the right thing to do.  I don't find that in Obama but I hope he finds it in himself when he is president.  I almost posted yesterday in response to something I read on a post that he reminded me of the character that Peter Seller plays in "Being There."  He seems to be a mirror to his supporters.  They assign to him the virtues they themselves expect in a president.  But mirrors don't have virtues, they just reflect.  

Anyway, article is worth reading.  Enter  Barack Obama Harvard Law Review to find it. 

I don't think they'll need me to look to for their politics.  Their mother taught for a number of years in an inner city high school and loved it.  After she married and moved far away from the area she resigned  and took a job in a very up-scale school, in one of the wealthier suburbs in New Jersey--parents are mainly investment bankers.  She absolutely hated it, and the students (unbareable snobs! her words), missed her former students terribly, quit and made the two hour trip (versus 15 minutes) every day back to the city school.  She's now staying at home for a bit until the girls are older.

Barack Obama can certainly write; don't assume all Harvard students can; they can't.  I worked with a number of them over the years, also edited their papers.  And writing good Law Journal articles is not easy although certainly different from fiction; however (and I will look this up), I believe I read somewhere that Obama never wrote any articles for the Review.  I will look that  up. 

It was up to Congress to use its checks and balances.  It didn't, particularly when it came to the war, which was Cheney's main preoccupation.

Don't hold your breath on peace in the Middle East.  Remember that one of my main arguments with Obama is his propensity to talk about bombing Pakistan.  And Joe Biden is rather famous within the Democratic Party as an interventionist, which is why some of us on the left, although we like him are not that happy to see him as veep.

Yes, we are in a minority but I don't understand why.  Most industrial countries have some type of socialist democratic government, some more social, others less, but all providing a greater safety net for its citizens than the U.S.

Rosemary, I believe that Gordon Libby is a friend of McCain's and that McCain gave him a funding party.  I hope that trying to terrorize the other political party counts.

Please someone comment on my two beautiful nieces.  Otherwise, why did I go to the trouble to put them up there? 

Pat,

You said, Lots of people in a variety of settings have expressed their concerns about Palin and no one seems to question if they have a bias against women just because they express that concern. 

That's not true, at least with respect to me. I wrote a number of posts wondering if women on the Obama thread had a bias against Palin and by extension, against women in general, but that was only when they used sexist terms to denigrate her, or questioned her role as a mother, wife, etc.

I understand that you don't like Al Sharpton--he's not to everyone's taste, but there is no possibility that Obama would ever use him as an adviser.  Obama is far too politically astute.  Remember this is a man who voted "present" 130 times when he was in the Illinois legislature.  He does not take stands that are unpopular.  To my regret anyway.

LuAnn--I am not voting for McCain and I don't believe either health plan will get implemented in the next four years but you keep focusing on that as though Obama's plan is offering something to people like you (without your husband's insurance), and he's not.  You really must read outside the Democratic talking points to know what each candidate is actually offering.  I just posted a website on the Health Care thread that gives a comprehensive review of each plan. The conclusion is that neither candidate gives sufficient detail to make any reasonable judgment on which is better for which person.  It's true.   They are deliberately kept vague so that the candidates have wiggle room.  In neither case, though, will either be implemented.  Perhaps Obama, who will be our next president, will make some changes to insurance regulations, the main one being the requirement that pre-existing and high-risk diseases be covered at the same premium cost as those in the low-risk category.  If he even does that, I will feel something got accomplished.  

You again associate John McCain with his age, and then jump from there to "old" ideas. I may be the oldest woman posting on these threads, but I am also the most progressive in my ideas for policy change.  I am, you should note, the only Nader supporter in the crowd. Women, 60 and older, are the heart of the Democratic Party and, as a number of recent studies have shown, older women are far less likely to move to conservative positions as they age. Yet, look at the way Hillary was treated when she was running.  I can just imagine what would happen to a woman of 72 if she ran!  I honestly think you have to rethink some of your ideas about age.  You did so about race, so you're well on your way.

Here's a link to an excellent article on both candidates' health care plans if you prefer knowing the facts to listening to the candidates' spin.  The conclusion is that both plans are not detailed enough to make any realistic predictions as to cost of either plan or numbers of uninsured that will now have coverage, or what anyone will wind up paying.  As the article states, both candidates distort the other's plan.  I really do dislike politicians.  Didn't their mothers tell them the Cherry Tree story!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163909 

LuAnn--I don't believe he said at any point that Sarah Palin had an autistic child; rather he said she knows the problems of autism.  I was surprised as well but assumed--I gave him the benefit of the doubt--that Palin has worked with, or has expressed an interest in autism.  She said at the Convention that she would work with special needs' children, not those with Downs syndrome, and autism is the current poster child disease for special needs children, mainly I believe because of the huge increase in reports of autism.  Many people believe that autism may be caused by problems with the environment--plastics, etc.  I haven't read of any alarming increases in Downs' Syndrome, and Palin fell into the risk category of having a Downs child because of her age. The "my fellow prisoners" was a natural slip, no worse than the Democrat in Florida who introduced Joe Biden as John McCain, and I can pick out similar slips by Obama and Biden.  Remember that Obama talked about 57 states and  Biden about FDR going on the radio in, I believe, 1929!  Actually, of all the gaffs I've heard this year, I thought Biden's was the worst, and the funniest.

As we get older, our thought processes change, but this happens throughout our lives--it's a continuum.   There's no break point at which we're one way and immediately after that point, we're another.  I can't bring words up as quickly as I could when I was 40, but I still do better than most people, whatever age.  Words are my business.  I don't think I'm senile because it takes me a second or two longer to find the name of a character in literature that ten or twenty years ago was immediate.  The slips that McCain makes are no different than the slips we make all the time.  In my view, I think you're convinced that he's old, and thus slipping into senility, and when you listen to McCain and he makes a mistake, that only proves what you already believe. I'm not saying this in a critical way--lots of people think this way, just trying to point out that when people believe a certain way they tend to look for validation of those beliefs.

You wrote earlier of the racism you experienced when you lived in Pennsylvania.  Think of those people with whom you were raised.  No doubt they would validate their belief that African Americans commit more crime if they saw an African American on TV being arrested.  Yet, if they saw a white American being arrested, it would never enter their minds that white Americans commit more crime. I think this is what you're doing with John McCain.  Sure he could be having problems but what you cite isn't evidence of such a problem. 

I've already moved on to the next phase. The Democrats will win solid majorities in both houses and Obama will win the White House.  But what the Democrats inherit is so damaged that I fear there is nothing they can do to rectify our problems in four years.  Americans find it difficult to wait for gratification so they'll expect to see all the country's problems resolved in four years, and they'll hold Obama to all the promises he's made, including cutting the deficit, cutting taxes, cutting energy costs, changing the health care system, improving education, and so forth.  They voted in a Republican even when Bill Clinton left the economy in great shape, so for sure they'll vote in a Republican in four years when the economy hasn't improved to any great extent.  I predict Romney will run again in four years and probably this time he'll be the nominee.  (Please God, let Sarah Palin go back to Alaska.)  The one solid achievement I hope Obama makes is at least two appointments to the Supreme Court--both activist judges.  I love activist judges, and if I read the code correctly last night in the debate, that's what Obama is promising. 

I must comment on something I read on another thread. Senators don't answer to presidents. (It's often the other way round as just one holdout in the president's party can often block the president's agenda.)  Each of the  branches are separate with none of them answering to the other.  There's a reason our government was designed this way, to keep power out of the hands of one, or a few individuals. Until Dick Cheney came along, it seems to have worked fairly well. Let's hope the Democrats, with a constitutional lawyer as president, will once again honor the intentions of the Constitution.