Thank-you for backing me up on the San Francisco Chronicle link. I had posted it earlier and then went to bed. Now I'm restless again...

And AKA Smith I do want to ask you about health care policies and your understanding of the candidates positions. I lived in Massachusetts health insurance two years ago when health care was going to become mandatory and in my poor person's salary it was bad news (to me) because 1) it was expensive 2) it didn't seem to cover anything. So if I got sick I'd still be stuck with a terrible bill.

In fact, I was a social worker at the time and I went to the dentist with health insurance and somehow still walked away with $3500 in debt I have no idea how I'm going to pay off.

So the health insurance issue means a lot to me too. My concern about Clinton is: why isn't this the centerpiece of her campaign? Why haven't I heard more about how her plan will prevent costs from continuing to skyrocket with no actual coverage like I mention above? And also--I guess I have to say it--it worries me how much lobbying money she has from the insurance companies. I think Obama has some too so it's not like he's a clean slate. But it worries me. Do you think about Clinton's plan will not run into the problems outlined above?

P.S. You will probably consider me an Obamafied nut if I say that my ideal scenario is for Obama to be elected, to bring down costs and make it available to everyone so that we choose it if it's a good deal--(not get forced to buy some crappola plan like the one they had in Massachusetts) and with a little charm, a few more Democrats in Congress and a whole lot of luck...that somehow single payer gets pushed through. Maybe in his second term. You will probably think I'm dreaming, but health care in America has gotten so bad, I don't see why all the Democrats at the very least are considering it. It's not even on the table, and it would cut millions from the cost of health care. This country is headed for some economic crisis, and something needs to give.

good response to ljwalker. I'm for Obama for pretty much precisely the same reasons that you are. I guess I should enjoy being called a kid at my age (35)....but I don't think it's supposed to be a complement.

I wonder if people who are older find it hard to take someone seriously who is either the same age (group) or younger--and in this case, they are thinking that he doesn't live up to the "hype." The hype--some of it--he can't live up to. But on the issues and in his voting record he is the most consistent, the most creative he seems to act on his conscience as well. This kind of leader has been missing from the left...maybe for my lifetime. Anyway, thanks for the smart defense.

Nice post. You're right. You can be serious, educated, any age, and for Obama.

I concur. And it's interesting what you say about your Latina friend since it bothers me the back and forth on these boards about race--I hope most people choose the person who represents their ideas/ideals best--not just the person who fits their gender or racial preference. 'Twould be shallow to choose the category and not the person.

Also, I can't help but wonder if Clinton secures the nomination and needs these smart, young, trendy voters in the general election, if there will be the same level of condescension and quick dismissal. If the same voters are supporting their candidate of choice, right, perhaps they will suddenly be seen in a different more optimistic light?

Hmmmm.

So other than 35 years of experience being married to another pol, and making nice with the Republicans in NAFTA, welfare reform, no child left behind, the patriot act, iran and iraq approval of force, bankruptcy reform, more campaign contributions from health insurance lobbyists than any other candidate, including the Republicans, how is voting for you candidate voting against Bush?

And also--do I have to support Clinton to be against the sexist media treatment of her? Or can I ignore the media, and choose the candidate who best represents my p.o.v. on the issues?

And--how is Hillary Clinton drumming up support among voters other than the party base? The Democratic party base has lost the last two presidential nominations, and Bill Clinton's support was not enough to get Al Gore into office. How is she going to be different? (35 years won't hold up to McCain's record, by any stretch. And he's the "straight-talker." How will she talk straight about her voting record supporting Bush consistently?)

Finally, is your candidate drawing on our "better natures" to get us to vote in this election? How?

Just wondering.

Shouldn't you mention that at the last I heard, Giuliani couldn't afford to pay those working for his campaign? Not sure if this includes his top advisors, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The reason those kids may be depending on their parents generosity is that they don't have the job market in this country that there was ten to twenty years ago. The college jobs are being shipped overseas. Right now I'm working in an accounting office (as a temp worker) that ships every project longer than 40 minutes (in word processing) to India.

No one's saying that baby boomers are irrelevant. But the younger generation isn't irrelevant either. Assuming that they're lazy dependents isn't going to help motivate them to vote for your candidate of choice. Recognizing that they have as much or more stake in the future of this country as you do, and treating them accordingly, might.