Why does Obama have to suck so much on health care?
Why did Edwards (and Kucinich) have to drop out? I've been cautiously leaning towards Obama (mostly out of a distrust/disgust with Sen. Clinton over the war and various other matters) but the health care thing really gives me pause. Krugman compares their two plans, and concludes that Clinton's is far closer to affordable universal health care. She actually has provisions about limiting health care costs to a certain percentage of income, regardless of "pre-existing conditions" and all that nonsense.
That's a Big Deal. Then again, so is the war--which Obama said he opposed from the beginning, but continuously voted to fund. Then again, so is civil rights for immigrats, and Clinton won't support driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants (Obama does). I'm not going to even get into all their corporate ties and the nasty donations they've gotten from health insurance companies and credit card lenders, among other.
So yeah, crap. For the first time since I turned 18, I really don't know how I'm going to vote in the primary. For the record, in 2004 I went for Kucinich in the primary, and in 2000 for Nader. How about you?
P.S. Fellow Cartoonist With Attitude Jen Sorensen is also pissed at Obama over health care.
5 Comments:
You have to bring up Nader, the spoiler, again?
You are so idealistic - hard to understand this from your cartoons!
Both Clinton and Obama are OK.
I only bring up Nader to give my history of candidate support. Not to mention that I supported Nader in Massachusetts--hardly a contested state. In 2004, I voted Kerry in the final election.
Ralph would immediately stop being a "problem" if the Democrats would start confronting corporate America's stranglehold on our democracy.
Duh.
I was a Naderite in 2000 -- but then I lived in a solidly red state (Texas). I'm still sick of hearing people who ought to know better blather about "throwing your vote away." I embraced the progressive strategic voting idea endorsed by Molly Ivins and many others: vote Green if you live in a solid state; vote Democrat if you live in a swing state. If more people had done that in 2000 (especially in Florida), Gore's victory might well have been beyond theft AND the Greens might have established enough of a third-party presence to start dragging America back from the regressive precipice it's slowly slipping over. We'll never know now, I guess.
I'm in Florida now and will probably wind up voting for whoever gets the Dem nomination. I prefer Obama (after Kucinich and Edwards) but am not terribly happy with either him or Hillary. But I am confident that, with intelligent campaigning, either of them could beat any of the Republican candidates -- even McCain (though Hillary's pro-war record will make it harder for her to hit him in his weakest spot).
--nashtbrutusandshort
Categorical Aperitif
I was for Kucinich. Might still write him in all the same, being from Texas myself and all. Kucinich has the "best" Universal Health Insurance plan in my (and many expert's) opnion.
As for Nader - he never stole votes from the election. The increase in the number of people that voted in that election from the previous presidential election is more than those that voted Nader; so one could argue he brought fresh new voters into the election.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home