I'm not sure if I have all the answers (in fact, I KNOW I don't!) but I will give you my take on the four subjects you bring up.

1. I believe in single-payer insurance just like Dennis Kucinich. I have looked at the three front-runners and I think Obama has this tell-them-what-they don't want to hear approach. Does anyone think that insurance companies will NOT come to the table with Hillary or with Edwards? Kucinich is really the candidate to vote for if you don't want insurance companies at the table. Yes, I realize this means that I'm compromising and I don't feel great about it. But I think Obama admitting he's talking to insurance companies makes me feel better than Clinton or Edwards not admitting precisely the same thing.

2. Much of the same as one. It sounds nice to not talk to Republicans ("nah-na-na-na-na!") except that it reminds me too much of ann coulter's "how to talk to liberals if you must" or whatever the title of her horrible book was. I think that anger is running high and I'm a social worker who's broke and has no insurance. So I'm angry too, but I think that the candidate who keeps his cool is the most likely to achieve his (or her) goals. Talking to Republicans for a President is part of the job....Please, let's be serious. One of the worst things about Bush is that he did not consider himself president of the whole american people but president of the people who elected him. I actually want a leader and a leader talks and listens to both sides and then votes with his or her heart and conscience. I see the strongest correlation between message and voting record with Obama. People will say that this is because he's inexperienced, but given more time I think people will quickly say "he's too liberal" to elect. Both his message (other than the honesty of "I'm going to talk to insurance companies and republicans...) and his record are to the left of the voting record/message of Clinton or Edwards. Obama is a leader and he listens to people but this is not the same thing as saying that he's a centrist compromiser (the Clintons, let's not forget, proudly called themselves centrist compromisers although when Bill signed NAFTA and welfare reform without really the proper safeguards for the poor on either side of the border I took it as a betrayal of even "centrist" "third way" Democratic values...)

3. Mandates for Insurance. I think there should be mandates. I can't really tell you why Obama is critiquing Edwards or Clinton on this subject, except maybe he's trying to be realistic in what can be achieved in this political climate. He seems to me to be the candidate LEAST likely to make promises that he will not keep. Both Edwards and Clinton have made more promises than Obama, but I don't see either of them with enough political power to achieve the goals they have set for themselves. For example, Clinton's plan for health care may include more Americans as she has written it, but even if she achieves the white house her plan will be subject to change. I think Obama is saying he thinks he can achieve at least as much as he promises on healthcare, and if he can he will try to exceed his promises, instead of undermeeting them. I actually kind of think this is a brilliant strategy.

4. Repeating Republican talking points. I'm not sure I always think this is bad since the talking points are going to get their space in the national media anyway once we choose a candidate. How the candidates should attack one another at this point in the election is something I don't quite understand. If they aren't tough enough they are criticised--the last article I read slammed Obama for not being tougher on Clinton in the debates. I googled this article : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/31/obama-slugs-back-at-tria_n_78921.html

from the Huffington Post and do you notice the way something is framed makes a difference? Obama says that he didn't take the easy way out getting rich after Harvard Law School by becoming a corporate or a trial lawyer....and suddenly the frame is that he is targeting poor Edwards. In fact, Obama's comments come in response, apparently, to Edwards accusing Obama of being too nice to be president, so if there was a dig there, I politely suggest that Edwards invited it.

This is getting too long and I don't mean to take up more than my fair space, but I suggest being careful about reading the frame around the discussion without reading the discussion in its context. I think Obama has a point that although Edwards has helped the poor, he has done it primarily from a position of wealth and although Obama doesn't say it, his family is not wealthy. Without wealth, he still has a background of working in poor communities as a community builder. He, like Edwards, is a reformer candidate, and I actually like them both. But Obama's message and his track record are more in sync. He is more authentic in everything he says and in every vote he has taken. Edwards voting record and his message are more artificial and cliche. Despite so many media reporters telling me Obama doesn't have a real message--look at his website. Listen to him speak. Look at his voting record. He's not just offering hope.

Have you read the candidates' stances on the issues on their websites? Do you think that there are major policy differences based on their descriptions of the issues?

I'm just wondering if anyone has done this and what their thoughts are. I refuse to say that it doesn't matter. (Policy that is). Thank-you to anyone who's still listening!