Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
snoman
Published Letters: 192 Editor's Choice: 3
I think Sen Obama has had advantages in caucuses for a couple of reasons:
First, if other caucus states are like Washington there isn't a high barrier to entry, which makes it easy on newcomers. People were required to be registered voters but registration could be done same day at the caucus. The requirment to be a Democrat is that the person needs to declare that they are Democrats. It is on the honor system and a person can switch between caucuses or primaries but since both parties caucus on the same day it isn't like a person could go to both.
So if a person saw Sen Obama at Key Arena on Friday and were really inspired, they could participate in the process on Saturday even if they weren't prepared to participate before that.
Second, caucuses are immediate, everyone votes on the same day. Most primaries have absentee ballots, so a lot of votes are made based on voters' preferences from weeks ago. At the rate people have been changing their minds that time difference can be considerable. I think a lot of Sen Clintons success in places like California is that people mailed their ballots in before Sen Obama did any campaigning there.
I think as this contest goes on the difference between primary results and caucus results will narrow.
Side Comments:
It may seem weird that the Democratic party in Washington State doesn't base any delegates on the primary results but the history is that the primary is forced on us by our otherwise even handed Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed. We're forced to have a primary, that doesn't mean we have to make them meaningful.
Also, at what point do news orgainizations stop talking about proportional delegates like they are a 50/50 split. That is case when the margins are close (within 10%) and there are an even number of delegates for the legislative districts. Talking about today's results a splitting of delegates is like saying that a person who eats 2/3 of a pizza split it with the person that ate 1/3 of a pizza. Sure both people got some pizza, but one got twice as much.
Quick links:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
To address some points:
Who is covered:
"Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan."
So no, not just those people below the poverty line. It is also for those people who work but don't have health care benefits.
How much it will cost and how it will be paid for:
"Q. How much will it cost us taxpayers?
A. The Obama plan will cost between $50-65 billion a year when fully phased in.
Q. How will we pay for the Obama plan?
A. The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help
finance the plan. The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in
technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered
by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year,
as they are scheduled to do."
Now take a look at:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/summary.aspx
When I compare the two plans I see a lot more points of agreement than disagrement.
Although I will point out that Sen Clinton lacks the honesty to admit that, yes, letting some of the Bush tax cut expire is really a tax increase. Letting the cuts expire is a good thing. We could have had this plan enacted years ago but instead we gave millionares tax cuts they didn't ask for? It seems like it is a criminally bad choice of priorities and Hillary shouldn't be afraid to hammer that point home.
Instead she tells the people reading her plan that new spending amounts to tax cuts for everyone. Wheee! Free candy and sunshine for everyone! I would have assumed the "experienced" "realistic" candidate would respect me enough to admit that Universal Health Care requires a tax increase. Improving peoples' lives is something I expect my tax dollars to be doing and I have no problem seeing that witholding if that is what the witholding is going towards. It is the obsolete weapon system purchases and kick backs to Haliburton that get me.
First of all, that wasn't 30 years ago. Where did you learn math? Try 15 years ago.
"What kind of emotional idiot ARE you? Fifteen years ago they were in the Goddamned Whitehouse and she certainly wasn't on the board of Walmart then.
I leave you to the rest of your chicken droppings. You've entirely discredited yourself."
Hillary Clinton was a board member from 1986-1992. 16 years ago, not 15. But hey, lets start name calling over a little bit of nit picking.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html
Sen Clinton's plan isn't single payer either.
I think the fairest thing to do in those states would be to set up new contests between now and June. Have both candidates on the ballot and both candidates campaign in the states.
MI and FL tried to do an end run around the national party in order to make themselves more important in the nominating process. If there are real contests in those states they will have a lot of importance.
There is no way that the narrative of two states where Sen Clinton and Uncommited were the only ones on the ballot get to decide the nominee will fly with the American people. If Sen Clinton really has the support in those states she shouldn't be afraid of a real contest.
Sidenote:
A poster didn't get how Obama's healthcare plan is paid for. It is done by letting the Bush tax cuts on people making more than $250000 a year expire and by streamlining paper work. If that sounds familiar it is because it is almost verbatium how Sen Clinton will fund her plan.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
