Actually, that's not why her healthcare plan failed. It failed because of health insurance and republican lobbyists and propaganda that pandered to people's greed and YOU SHOULD KNOW that. But that would be TOO FAIR to Clinton, wouldn't it?

And the insurance situation in Mass. isn't the same one in Clinton's plan. It's quite different. No insurance company was required to reduce it's costs to the consumer. But of course, that can't or won't be said either, will it?

And if you don't get how if we all share the cost, that it will bring individual cost down, then you're willfully ignorant of how insurance works in the first place.

Greed, my dear anonymous, greed. Obama knows how greed works and it works well for him...just like the Republicans.

Wow, Obama's words of unity, love and peace for every human being speak through you.

So caring and passionate.

I see your point, but I think it's because those who don't want to hear what she has said about it, refuse to acknowledge it. Clinton said it loud and clear. She has said it many times. I think it's willingly glossed over. There is no one who is truly serious about looking at both plans from Clinton and Obama carefully and fairly who would say some of the shit that is said here.

And then, no one bothers to remember Obama saying that people who don't pay and need to go to the hospital could be "gaming the system" and need to pay a fine. Oooops. They never heard that.

Wait, your best argument is a comparison of dvd's at blockbuster to truly affordable healthcare for every man, woman and child?

Your best argument is a comparison of dvd's at blockbuster to an end of the monopoly of health insurance companies to rob the American people who pay with their lives and their retirements for healthcare that has nothing to do with health or care?

Your best argument is a comparison of dvd's at blockbuster as an example of the best of free will and free market?

How about we let you not pay for police protection through taxes and then when you are robbed and beat up you pay for each salary of each policeman for each day that they investigate your case, plus the court costs and salaries for the judge and courtroom personnel. Sounds like a deal to me. Now that's free market.

You must be joking?

I loved this movie, except for the ending in which I have to agree with Zacharek that it seemed to suddenly become an elaborate dark comedy of itself. It was as if there was a sudden change in director, change in script and change from the poetry that was the rest of the movie. The end abruptly lost the eloquence of the majority of the film up to that point and both Day Lewis and Paul Dano's characters suddenly became farcical imitations of themselves. Like a weird movie within the movie.

Having said that, I totally disagree with the rest of Zacharek's portrayal and criticism of the rest of this movie and of Day Lewis's Plainview. While I see similarities to his character in Gang's of New York, there's a deepening in Plainview that beyond that character and anything I've seen on the screen as of yet.

Furthermore, I cannot believe that Zacharek completely missed the transformation that comes over Plainview in the scene on the beach with his "brother" when he figures it out that the man has betrayed him. "...No glow of revelation, no gradual unfolding of rage or passion"? Wow, it makes me wonder that I saw the same movie as Zacharek or how she could miss the subtle play of emotions that I saw.

The feeling I get from Zacharek is more that she isn't comfortable with the tension that comes from a character that she can't seem to feel empathy for and/or the tension of not knowing or given glimpses of what makes a character tick. To me that's the beauty and sheer genius of DDL's Plainview.

But I also think she misses the subtle signs that are given with Plainview's conflict of emotions with his son. THAT was genius to me and gave more than enough hints as to the maelstrom that played just beneath the surface in DDL's Plainview.

I think also that Zacharek's judgment that this is a failed performance by Daniel Day Lewis is heavy handed and just simply unfair and her overall dislike for the movie has prejudiced her being able to see what was before her eyes DDL's performance. It seems to me suspect that a reviewer who dislikes a movie as much as Zacharek disliked "There Will Be Blood" could give an objective critique of an actor's performance of a character in that movie and that actor's technique.

Daniel Day Lewis's performance, technique, and portrayal of Plainview was bar none genius. Zacharek simply wants to throw the baby out with the bath water as in most of her reviews.

I think where this is coming from and what makes it a real issue is that McCain and the Republicans will hammer this hard if Barack gets the nomination.

Both McCain and Rove have said that Barack's biggest problem and biggest weakness is that he simply doesn't have the experience (read "maturity") to know what he's doing in the presidency.

Whether previous Presidents have had this experience may or may not make a difference if the Republicans can hammer this home hard enough.