Speaking as one of the working uninsured, I appreciate Mr. Shapiro's effort to describe the differences between the two plans. However, as has been said above, it's just choosing which flavor to feed the insurance beast. Until we get rid of the for-profit health industry, and switch to a true single-payer plan, the system will remain horribly broken.

An overused metaphor, to be sure, but they're both just rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. I appreciate the effort to make sure we all have a seat, and that the band keeps playing, but we're all still going down.

This has been a pet belief of mine ever since I learned about Obama. At first I thought it would be an insurmountable liability, and it may still turn out to be his downfall, if the media aren't standing by to correct and disabuse the ugly rumors that are bound to be passed around by the scumbags on the right.

But...what if? Can we dare to imagine a world where we can sit down with our enemies and negotiate from a position of strength? Sometimes I almost resent Obama for sending me on these ridiculous flights of hopeful dreaming. The old cynic in me is ready to gag. I gotta go kick a puppy or something.

The U.S. is not the only source of medical/pharmaceutical innovation. A great deal of important research is being done in (gasp) France, and Britain has contributed a great deal, as well. We're good, but we're not alone. It's a myth that insurance companies need to reap huge profits in order to fund research. The streams of research funding actually run quite independently of insurance revenues. And as for quality of care...well, for the majority of citizens, America's been put to shame by many other nations.

I have no objection to medical PROVIDERS making a reasonable profit. The crime is in how we pay for it--there is no place for profit, imho, in that. Screw the insurance companies. A single payer system can pay the providers (this includes pharmaceuticals, devices, hospitals, and practitioners) without screwing the patient. And ridiculous profit levels bring no benefit to anyone but shareholders and CEOs.

There are so many myths surrounding single payer care that we're going to be beating our heads against this kind of thinking for a long while. But I'm hopeful we can, eventually, turn the tide. Sadly, neither Hillary nor Obama appear to be the folks to lead us there.

"A real leader would have chosen a church more consistent with the teachings of Jesus, instead of giving this fanatic a wink and a nod."

All due respect, but many of Wright's sermons have to do with helping the poor and old, social justice, and creating a better world for the downtrodden. He's done an enormous amount for the disenfranchised of his parish.

All remarkably in keeping with the teachings of Jesus. Far more so, I would offer, than the bland bible-based rhetoric of the average preacher.

I don't condone the bits of his speeches that have been played and replayed on the MSM. But to dismiss him as a non-Christian hatemonger is fallacious and silly.

And damnthatxanadu, Hillary got her "free speech" shortly thereafter, when she held an "impromptu" press conference to talk about Iraq.

I've never been more proud to support Obama than I am this morning.

Ms. Walsh,

I am not among those who have written to scold you for your preference for Clinton (we all have candidates we favor over others), nor am I doing so now. But I found this post so wrongheaded that I had to protest.

First, your consistent tendency to conflate Obama's beliefs with Wright's is, well, selective at best. As has been said above, Obama has been more than clear about his differences with the more incendiary of Wright's approaches to political theology. Continuing to take a position of faux concern about its ramifications for Obama is merely keeping the mythology alive, and (conveniently) perpetuates the Clintons' "Who is he REALLY?? What scary thoughts is he hiding??" tactic.

Second, you claim to be on the left, and then tsk tsk about Wright's analysis of the history of minority oppression in this country. Are you really not aware of this history and its continued legacy? The left has always attempted to give voice to the voiceless--there are few other advocates for them, save the separatist radicals. Which brings me to:

Third, your puzzlingly simpleminded dismissal of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. EVERY civil rights movement has its separatist radicals. As a feminist, surely you remember the vibrant lesbian feminist separatist movement, and how, while they may have had some really silly ideas, they were invaluable to feminist dialectic, and provided a safe space for women to begin to discover themselves as women, separate from and non-defined by men.

The Nation of Islam, for all its sometimes offensive and divisive rhetoric, provides just that safe space for Black men to define themselves and discover their self-respect. They have helped communities that otherwise would go completely wanting for positive, affirming support. For Wright to commend them is not only natural, but completely rational for a man whose life has been shaped by racism and the struggle to raise his people above the level of second-class citizens. His anger at America--not just Bush, it didn't all start with him--is well-earned and real.

Disagree all you want with Wright, but you can't wrap yourself in the leftist flag and then cluck over what are some pretty fundamental tenets of leftist analysis of American social structure. You sound like a reactionary clutching her pearls about the bad America-hating negroes. If nothing else, it comes across as disingenuous and transparently self-serving.

I believe you're smarter than that.

What the hell happened?