Rosemary, from your comment on the Republican thread re Affirmative Action.

If it's true that McCain is against affirmative action, I don't agree. And, as I remember, this is going against some of his earlier views.

I do agree with Obama (for once) that it should not be available for the children of advantaged parents--the children of the president, for example.

But this does not include most African Americans, Hispanics, American indians and other minorities.  Affirmative action has helped to bring many minorities into the main stream but we're not there yet.  I also think affirmative action should be available to white children whose families are financially and culturally disadvantaged.  

Shirley,

This is a political thread and everyone is welcome to post.  Without discourse we can never find common ground, so post when you want.  I'm way too left for the Republican thread but I still post there, although occasionally.

I wasn't denigrating McCain or questioning his love of country--I'm sure both he and Obama love this country.  But to me, McCain appears old, and he is repetitive.  I noticed this during the Republican debatesl.  I also think he's gotten some bad poltical advice, too often swinging from one topic to another without sending out a clear message.  He needs to tell the country what he intends to do on the economic front, which is where the focus is for most Americans.  And the Republican mantra of "cutting taxes" just won't work this time around. Things could change before November but right now  the economy is where it's at.  

I wouldn't get too upset about the articles from abroad; if anything, they're likely to lose Obama some votes (Americans don't like being told how to vote by Europeans) and the articles are not written to be read by Americans anyway.  I see today that between 15 and 20% of Americans haven't yet decided for whom they will vote.  These are the people who will decide the election.  It's up to the two candidates to make their case outside of Europe and in this country, but, honestly, if McCain doesn't soup up his campaign, he won't be occupying the White House next January.  But this is my view.   

Calico,

I certainly agree concerning the time it will take to resolve our problems--not in four years for sure, and I also agree that there's plenty of blame to go around, and we as voters are as much at fault as our representatives.  Apparently, everyone blames Congress but when asked about their own representatives they're usually delighted and keep voting them into office time and again.    

McCain's health plan is, in effect, tax breaks, but that hardly helps the folks who don't pay much in the way of taxes (and his tax breaks are rather small considering the current cost of a family health plan); we all need health insurance.  My guess is, since neither candidate is willing to go "universal" and single payer that we'll be in the same mess--only worse--four years from now.  I believe I posted somewhere this week the figures on medical administration for private versus single payer, and the difference was significant.  We need a form of Medicare for everyone.  France has an excellent system, rated number one, and its costs are half ours.  I have so many friends who can't wait to turn 65 so they'll be eligible for Medicare.  And they are all working professionals (mainly teachers) but with lousy insurance.    

There are two stories out about Obama's aborted trip to the troops.  The Pentagon claims he could have visited but without an entourage of press tagging along.  Obama says he was told he couldn't visit as it would appear to be political. If the Pentagon is telling it how it is, then it appears (at least to those who don't favor Obama) that he didn't visit because he wasn't expecting favorable press.  Since both the Pentagon and Obama have been inconsistent in the past, it's up for grabs and each side will use what works best for it.

Shirley, I do think we have to go after every energy opportunity (so long as it's enironmentally safe) including drilling, but it's more important to start working, frantically, on finding renewable energy sources; but, as I said before, we as a people have to start conserving energy.  There are many ways to tackle this problem and we should do them all.   

Rosemary,

When my husband and I went to live in Italy in 2001, we were paying (self employed) $1000 a month in the U.S. for our medical insurance.  I couldn't use it in Europe but didn't want to lose it in case we returned.   In 2002 it went to $1200 a month and then later that year we were cut off because we were living in Europe.  So in 2002 (with no pre-existing conditions and very few trips to doctors) two adults were paying more than $14,000 a year.  I can't imagine what it would be today, six years later.  Luckily, I turned 65 when I was diagnosed so can stay here and be treated.   In Italy, where I had state insurance, we were paying nothing in Terni, where we last lived; and in Perugia, I paid about $400 a year.  I guess different areas set the fees  differently.  I had to fight to get herceptin here (first told it would cost me $70,000 a year) but New York State is very liberal in its medical requirements and so I finally got it through my Medicare Advantage plan. In Italy I was eligible for herceptin but only if my cancer was over 1cm. Mine wasn't, although I believe this rule has changed.  As you can see from the figures above, insurance premiums are much lower in Italy and in most of the EU.  They are somewhat higher in France but the care is so very good there. 

So, $5,000 wouldn't go a long way for most families, and what about families who have tax bills less than $5,000; they still need and have to pay for insurance.   I don't believe $5,000 works, and I don't believe tax credits work.  But then I don't like Obama's plan either, and although I preferred Hillary's, that also wasn't single payer, which is what most countries have that provide  universal health care.  I am sure that in time this is where the U.S. will go, as it's the only way to hold down costs, but it will probably take another ten years to get there.  And I know lots of you think that would be a disaster.  But everyone will come around in the end as prices continue to rise.

One of the few things I can applaud about Bush is his policies on AIDS, so I'm glad we're giving triple the amount from last year; it needs to be administered carefully and, as we all know, that doesn't seem to be an available talent in the Bush administration.   Witness all those toxic trailers sitting empty and all those Katrina folks without permanent homes. Prudent administration of aid monies is possible but only if we get rid of the cronies and hacks who get their jobs  because of their political affiliations.  Did you read the article I posted on the Justice Department in this regard?

I'm surprised you blame the Democrats for their give-away programs since the Republicans have pretty much run Washington for the last eight years, including the less than two years in which the Democrats have had a majority, but that's because the Republicans have been afraid to vote down any of Bush's proposals and the Democrats couldn't get 60 votes to override a Bush veto.  Surely, in this case you should replace "Democrats" with "Republicans."  That's a myth about the Democrats and really needs exploding.  Go back and look at Reagan's  budgets and now look at George Bush's.  No recent Democratic administration can come close to either.  The last give away years of the Democrats (if you want to call it that) were during Johnson's Great Society years, but those giveaways actually had a positive impact on lives and didn't just disappear down a sink hole.

And now to start a real controversy, and what fun is a political thread without controversy.  This is from an article on the shooter in Tennessee.  I wonder if the families of the persons killed and wounded can sue the big three listed below, as some families have sued the gun manufacturers.  Sure hope so.

"Adkisson, who had served in the military, said "that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement he would then target those that had voted them in office," the search warrant states. Among the items seized from Adkisson's house were three books: "The O'Reilly Factor," by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder," by radio personality Michael Savage; and "Let Freedom Ring," by political pundit Sean Hannity."

And in the interests of disclosure, I am a liberal or as I used to be called "a bleeding heart liberal."  I always wondered why the latter term was considered pejorative since it refers to Jesus Christ and for the most part the people who used that term against me were Christians.  And to end on an Obama note (for sure you knew this was coming):  Obama, along with Scalia and Thomas, supported Adkisson's right to own that gun.

And the most recent news on Republicans--and John McCain's Bridge to Nowhere, which was by the way a Republican earmark:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens was charged Tuesday with making false statements after a wide-ranging probe into ties between an energy company and lawmakers in his home state, according to a federal indictment. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was indicted on Tuesday by a federal grand jury. In a 28-page indictment from a federal grand jury, Stevens was charged with seven counts of making false statements on his Senate financial forms.

FBI and Internal Revenue Service agents searched Stevens' Alaska home in July 2007 in connection with the probe, which has already snared two oil-company executives and a state lobbyist.

At the time, he urged constituents "not to form conclusions based upon incomplete and sometimes incorrect reports in the media."

The 84-year-old senator is a former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and is renowned for his prowess in steering federal funds to his vast, sparsely populated state.

He has represented Alaska in Washington since 1968 and is up for re-election in November.

Me Again:  Very much delighted with the last sentence.  I hope Alaskans decide to vote for a Democrat this time around.

And what's with these senators who can just about walk and still hold office.  I didn't previously believe in term limits but the ages of some of our representatives are ridiculous.  I'm one of the Medicare crowd and I'm certainly not against the aged, nor do I think John McCain is too old to hold office, but there has to be some limit to how long and to what age our representatives can hold office. I have an excellent memory, but even I can see some deterioration in my abilities in the last few years.  And it's not necessarily true that what we lose in memory and speed we gain in wisdom.  If someone doesn't have wisdom by the age of 65, I doubt it's going to miraclously appear at 66.  I think 75 (or perhaps 80) should be a cutoff.

Desperately need a third party, and more.

The Republicans and Democrats are fighting among themselves and we suffer.  I was hoping someone would start a Women's Party after what happened to Hillary, and I'm still hoping.  If I were younger I would do it myself, but it demands far too much energy.  It makes more sense to give a positive option to voters, which would be a third party where they can express their frustration with the wheeling and dealing that goes on in our political houses. Rosemary, I'm hoping some of the women who started the "Just Say No Deal" organization will take the lead.

I can't speak for Rosemary but I wasn't suggesting Hillary will run as a third-party candidate.  A nice thought but very unlikely.  This isn't about Hillary, at least for the women I know, it's about what she represented.  I was suggesting that the women who supported Hillary and are angry about the gender bias that we all saw during the primary start their own party and run their own candidate.  If such a party existed (I think it would capture at least ten percent of women's votes) it would give the DNC apoplexy.  The DNC might stop condescending to women since a larger percent of women vote Democratic than men.  Some Democratic women, many I'm sure, would be reluctant to give the Republicans the WH again, but in my contrarian view it's better to lose this one than continue with the status quo, with women always in a secondary position.  We have very few representatives in Congress and in state government compared to our numbers and also compared to the numbers of women who are active in politics. We're the ones typing up the agendas, manning the telephones, and doing the grunt work. Goodbye to that!

And what future is there for Hillary, beyond the one she has now.  She's 60; and since Obama apparently has decided he doesn't need her as his VP, if the process works as in the past, she'd be well into her seventies before she'd get another shot.  She's a well respected senator in New York and likely to keep on winning, so again what future are you promising her, that we can ruin, beyond what she already has? 

Member:  You sound a bit like a nanny, threatening us with dire consequences if we're not good little girls.   I'm delighted that there are so many women who are refusing to play nice.  And about time too.   

Roesemary, I don't agree with your last statement, at least partially.  It wasn't men who got women the rights they have now, it was women agreeing with each other.  Yes, there were large numbers who would rather not have had these rights and many today who still believe in the superiority of the male.  Most of them don't even know this they just act on instinct, and their instinsts tell them women are inferior.  I'm sincerely of the belief that this is one of the reasons so many women--and well educated ones too--were so hateful to Hillary.  They came forth with absurb reasons for this, includng "she didn't leave Bill."  And then there are the women who hate to see any other woman rise higher than they (but I think that also arises from an unacknowledged belief in the inferiority of women).  But with each decade more and more women have thrown off this belief and a woman's party with serious contenders would likely get enough votes to throw the Democrats into a tizzy, and it's the Democrats in the last primary that showed that women still don't count.  I also think it's important that it be labelled as a Women's Party and not as an appendage to any of the other parties.

I've always believed that we need more than two parties and I would definitely join a Woman's Party, campaign for it, and contribute to it.  I hope it happens. I should mention that the Green Party has nominated two women to run for it this year, and both are women of color:

Rosemary--you're right; we probably do need two women's parties.  But I would celebrate that as well, as there are certain policies that women generally agree on--obviously not all--that would bring us together, if both parties elected representatives to the Congress and the Senate, to get laws passed that help women and children while cutting out so much of the nonsense that passes for politics these days. Both senators from Maine are women and although I don't agree with them on certain issues, I find them to be more centrist than most Republicans.  One thing for sure, they're not glory hogs like so many of their male counterparts, including Democrats.  Someone once said of my male senator in New York (Schumer and a Democrat) that standing between him and a camera was the most dangerous place to be in Washington.  I think it was Dole (who had a good sense of humor).  

Another topic:  I'm listening to Democrats foaming about the McCain Celebrity ad, which I thought was both funny and exactly right.  "Celebrity without substance."  I just listened to a Democrat asking why he didn't use Tom Cruise who is also a celebrity?  What!  For me that would have worked even better--if Cruise isn't a celebrity without substance, who is?  Can't even act in my opinion.

But to my point. I have yet to hear any Obama fan (a more apt word than supporter, I think)  condemn the ad that he ran against Hillary that imitated the infamous Harry and Louise ad that the Republicans ran against the Democrats to insure we didn't get universal health care. Obama ran the ad back in the winter, long before the primary was decided, and I still don't understand how any true Democrat could have voted for him after he ran that ad.   It was smarmy to be polite!   

And as I wrote earlier, it looks like the trip abroad did not give Obama a boost--polls are tightening.  In my view, it was Berlin--and that speech--that did him in.  The idiot who suggested he give that speech should be fired.  And if it was Obama's decision, he should fire himself, and give Hillary the nomination.