I'm impressed with people like Kristin who are such devoted activists and, since I will be voting for Obama, I wish her lots of success for her hard work. However, we must all recognize if we want what Obama promises, the work doesn't end with his election. Corporate money has been invested in Obama - less than in Hillary's and McCain's cases - and if he is elected more corporations will try to buy a piece of the action. Obama's supporters, those inspired to believe in him and the changes he alludes to and this nation needs, will have to remain active to counter the efforts of lobbyists. That is when the going will become tough.

I've never posted before, but have been reading these blogs for several years. You've hit on my discomfort - I support Hillary, and had thought I wouldn't mind Obama, I just felt he needed more time. But lately I've been getting more and more uneasy about the high rhetoric, and to my surprise, at a dinner party this past weekend, the room of a dozen or more democrats to the person had the same concern, many ever said if not Hillary, they were going to cross over in the general and vote for McCain for the experience. I don't know what I'll do yet, but is my encounter unique, or are we starting to see this general concern in the party overall?

What is the problem with Obama taking corporate money? I just want to understand the thinking behind this type of criticism.

SJD,

There is no real way to tell how the party is going, but if you look at polls, the data seems to point to nearly all Democrats voting for Clinton or Obama in the general election. However, Obama does draw a bigger share of independents and crossover Republicans.

I recommend a look at this item on The Audacity of Hopelessness to help understand the death throes of the Clinton campaign. A key passage:

"As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country."

What is the problem with Obama taking corporate money? I just want to understand the thinking behind this type of criticism.

It is the same problem as with any candidate taking corporate or other special interest money. They are more likely to do the bidding of the corporations or other special interests than take care of the people they are supposed to represent. That will help to explain why the United States is now more of a corporatocracy than a republic.

I once listened to a former representative who was turned off by the corruption in Congress. I still recall an example of his. He was trying to raise funds for re-election and had an appointment with a lobbyist. The lobbyist sat down opposite the congressman with only a brief introduction. Then without further conversation he pulled out his check book and opened it in front of the congressman. When he spoke, he asked the congressman what his position was on an issue the lobbyist was concerned with. If you need any explanation for that, let me know or ask your civics teacher.

Thank you Joel and Kristin!

So call me an iconoclast if you wish, but I think one reason Gore and Kerry lost is that there weren't enough people working on his campaign (and I do mean volunteers as well as staffers) inspired enough to get up at 4AM for the cause.

I was inspired by a presidential candidate a couple times: once in college when we went out in to the local airport in the college town to see Eugene McCarthy, and then 16 years later to be a local volunteer coordinator for Gary Hart. There was no pay for my work on the Hart campaign, and I spent many hours in the campaign office over a period of months. By golly we won that Oregon primary although the party establishment was against us!

Hillary Clinton is a very bright woman. But somewhere she went down the wrong road and bought into the idea that consultants know more than ordinary folks. Which is why Obama's response, "She's not insulting me, she's insulting all the people at this rally and all the people who have supported and voted for me" is so powerful.

I have also been inspired by John and Elizabeth Edwards (my first choice this year).

With regard to substance, of course words alone are not enough--but then neither is "experience". McCain's recent admission that individuals making up their own minds about Iraq policy may well determine his success as a candidate for president was refreshing! He can say "Failure in Iraq would be catastrophic" all he wants, but if confronted by a mother saying "My son is on his 3rd deployment and he didn't have a year at home between the second and third tours of duty", he would have to give a more detailed, intelligent response or look bad at least to the people in the audience if that interchange weren't caught and broadcast on TV.

I was offended by Hillary Clinton's lack of explanation for her vote on Kyl-Lieberman amendment---what does that say about her foreign policy? Or aren't we supposed to ask that because she is ready on day one and all that Obama has is the ability to attract huge crowds and inspire people?

I'm listening to the audio book of Audacity of Hope and finding things in it I like. If the Clinton campaign doesn't like me for doing that, not my problem.

Democratic politics went off the rails some time ago in this regard. I found Harry Lonsdale and Jerry Rust inspiring but I was supposed to support Bruggere anyway because he was the establishment candidate??

I have yet to be inspired by either US Senate candidate this year--at least to the level described by Kristen--but I know which actions by which candidates I found either intelligent or not what I want in a candidate. I can understand why Kroger partisans think he is a great candidate although I haven't chosen in that primary either.

There has been a fight in the Democratic Party for years now about the power of consultants vs. the power of "we the people". From what I have heard in the news (and comments from friends and others on the way the 2008 Clinton campaign spends money) it seems to me that the Obama decision to concentrate on organizing volunteers (aka "ground game") was a wise decision. After all, elections are a form of job interview. And if someone counts it a strength to have a well organized campaign which takes the views of ordinary folks into account, then that would seem to indicate Obama---even if he hasn't had a long federal career.

And, has been said by some, work for a major law firm and being on a corporate board should not qualify as federal political experience.

The assumption is corporate donations buy influence for corporate interests. Let's take Haliburton for example... Better yet, Exxon with a record setting 40 billion year, still fighting a punitive damages award for fouling a Sound in Alaska. No, lets see, more current - how about the exemption from liability for the telecommunications industry. Just follow the money in the current admin. to understand the concern.

Speaking of which, Greg Oden has endorsed Obama (tip to Matthew Yglesias).

That said, it is not a good thing if Clinton backers left the party. In fact, wanting them to go is exactly the opposite message of the Obama campaign. If we want to win in November, the whole party will need to be backing the nominee.

From today's Democracy Now:

Noam Chomsky: Why is Iraq Missing from 2008 Presidential Race? *

In a major address, Noam Chomsky says there has been little change in the conventional debate over a US invasion abroad: from Vietnam to Iraq, the two main political parties and political pundits differ only on the tactics of US goals, which are assumed to be legitimate. On the other hand, public opposition to war has also remained consistent, Chomsky says, but, whether Iraqi or American, ignored.

Listen/Watch/Read http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/26/noam_chomsky_why_is_iraq_missing

It's an easy cheap shot to say,well, if my candidate doesn't win the nomination, I'm voting for McCain. I could find myself thinking such a thing if Hillary had won. But it's clear that I would have held my nose and put the dot by her name if it came to that. Why would a Hillary supporter vote for a hundred more years of Iraq (McCain's own words), for privatization of social security, for another more dangerous war in the Middle East with Iran (Bomb, bomb, Iran..), for more right wing judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, and environmental protections, for more environmental degradation, and the list goes on. If that's the program the Hillary supporters want, then they belong in the Republican party. I think not.

If folks are seriously considering voting McCain instead of Obama, there may be little to say to them. The only thing that could explain such a possibility is a woeful lack of information.

Of course it's lack of information, but that characterizes a large portion of voters. We've all seen the surveys where 60% can't find the US on a world map, 70% can't name the Vice President, and 80% can't name even 5 of the 9 supreme court justices. Those percentages probably look better among voters, but not that much. (NB: I'm making those numbers up, but I think they're roughly accurate.)

The point is that millions of voters base their decision on everything EXCEPT policy. They go on gut feeling, likability, empathy, and little tidbits of information that they glean from their community. We need to be cautious, because McCain does have a good reputation among moderates and independents, and he gives the impression of being a humble, likable guy. If the tidbit of information they get is that he wants a 100-year occupation of Iraq, he'll lose. If the tidbit is that he's a straight-talking war hero, he'll win.

I think the most important thing for Obama right now is to push back hard on the criticism that he's all style, no substance. That critique is dangerously close to becoming permanently ingrained in people's minds, and that will doom him the same way that Kerry was doomed by the flip-flop critique. Truth doesn't matter in these cases nearly as much as perception.

I too love to feel inspired, but Obamamania just doesn't do it for me. Gotta admire his mojo, but function trumps form with me. Wouldn't bet against him, though.

As I read through this blog I am reminded of several others I have recently read. The huffingtonpost has several recent postings of a similar ilk. www.huffingtonpost.com if you’re interested.

His health care plan is not a little different from Sen. Clinton's, it's significantly different. As a disabled person living primarily on Medicare after paying into the system for more than 30 years, it would be a real kick in the pants if that system weren't there for me - that is, if I hadn't been forced to pay into it all those years that I worked, I wouldn't be getting out of it what I am able to now, not only in healthcare, but also financial benefits.

Everyone who can pay into the system should - no exceptions other than those they have both outlined, which is to say those at or below the poverty line and those roughly above the line + a % to be determined by the Congressional Budget Office or some similar entity based on family size + income and a few other factors. When Sen. Obama came after Sen. Clinton at the debate saying she would “attach wages” - well how the heck do you all think we collect Social Security taxes now? Would you make Social Security a voluntary program?

The ONLY way to truly remove the "special interests" that so many of you think Sen. Clinton is beholden to, is to completely remove them from being able to find a way to nibble away at the loopholes from coverage by making it Universal. Period. Otherwise the poorest and disenfranchised will remain uninsured, which will leave the rest of us underwriting the costs of their medical treatment at ER's all over the country.

One more thing Sen. Obama is DEAD WRONG about is the moratorium on subprime mortgages. He said that “wealthy people would benefit from this and the problem would get worse”. That is horse manure. Wealthy people don’t have subprime mortgages. Does he not know that or is he playing the American people for fools? I am truly curious about this question, so one of the blueoregon for Obama people can help me on this point, because I know he is intelligent and I can’t for the life of me understand his position on this issue. Wealthy people don’t have subprime mortgages. Duh.

All that aside, as for crossing party lines because I disagree with Sen. Obama's approach to this campaign, well, that's just something I would never do, even though I do not consider myself a yellow (or blue if you will) dog democrat. However, I don’t want to continue another 4 years of the hell that this country is in now and therefore I won’t vote for McCain under any circumstance. Whatever you think of either of the Democratic candidates - both of them are significantly better than he is on the great moral issues we face.

And for crying out loud - they can both beat the old man! Let's get back the Whitehouse and quit backbiting amongst ourselves. Both of our candidates are strong leaders we can win with.

Lastly, I am incredibly inspired by Hillary Clinton.

"We need to be cautious, because McCain does have a good reputation among moderates and independents, and he gives the impression of being a humble, likable guy"

Thanks Miles, that was my concern. This has been a great blog for me, many good points by those supporting Obama. I just would caution not to take lightly the growing unease among some democrats. I admit the group I was visiting were not overly informed, they were going with their gut - not with information. As to age (someone asked) all in their mid-40s to 50s, interestingly most were Asian. They were quite incensed that the media has overlooked their general support of Hillary, focusing instead on black and latino voters.

This site is a liberal site, and I am a conservative, and so am not given much weight. But I can not help but ask questions to you "progressives" out there since you all seem like fairly smart, though fairly misguided, individuals. Liberals hold reason above all, correct? Here some reason. Oh, and please stop reading if you have no interest in the well being of this country since you just won't understand.

Here we go. Now, one of your posts says "the hell that this country is in now." Now, this is quite prototypical of a liberal view point. You all hate this country, that much is obvious. HATE. It has become fashionable to be anti-nationalist, albeit incredibly adolescent. Most haters, and so most liberals just do not really think of things within the scope of FACTUAL history. This country, with all its faults, is a force for incredible good. For instance, it was this country (AND NONE OTHER) that was responsible for the abolition of slavery. Before 1776, slavery was accepted pretty much globally, and had been for thousands of years. But by 1804 it was NOT legal in every state north of Maryland, and within a hundred years not legal everywhere in the USA (to the DEMOCRAT'S chagrin). Now, before all the hating begins again lets sit and reflect...this is a GREAT thing, good for America, good for the slaves, and good for the world since everyone followed our lead...ok..you can all start hating again.

And since you are all hating again you are voting for Obama, which is the most unreasonable action you could possibly take in November. Now, the liberal media continues to tell us our economy is suffering right now, and the one thing thats easy to talk about is gas prices. They are going up. Now, the classic and well-worn remedy is to lower taxes, especially those on oil. BUT NO!. The democratically controlled congress is voting to raise them this week, and making it harder to compete on the world market. OH, I'm sure this is going to do wonders for our economy. It is the same thing with Obama. He proposes 280 BILLION additional spending. Who is going to pay for it? The American people thats who, oh goody, MORE taxes. Not to mention that universal health-care has been an unmitigated disaster EVERYWHERE its been tried. So great, elect a man who says experience doesn't matter, will destroy our economy by taxes, taxes, and more taxes, and to top it off, will not protect our national interests and your kidding yourself if you think a stable Iraq isn't in our national interest.

Good for you. I'm sure that the polar bears and salmon will thank you when the United States isn't around anymore to protect their rights since we are the ONLY one's who will. Grow up and stop hating this country since we are usually the only one's standing for good when the whole world isn't. Your right, it isn't perfect, but its far better than ANYWHERE ELSE. And if you believe different, LEAVE, its a free country.

Ethan-

I'm going to go out on a limb in responding to your "reasoned" post and say that probably none of us liberals HATE America. Certainly I don't, I love our country and believe that we should all work to make it the very best it can be.

Your right, it isn't perfect, but its far better than ANYWHERE ELSE.

Of course it isn't perfect, which is why a change of direction and ideas can make us better. The idea that we are better than "anywhere else" is rather subjective and debatable, but I'll concede the point. Even so, shouldn't we try to be the very best we can instead of resting on our laurels of simply being better than others? You trumpet the end of slavery as the U.S. leading the world, and you're right it was a great thing, but shouldn't we keep pushing forward to lead the world by example?

You clearly have different ideas about where we, as a country, should set our goals and how to reach them. Do I think that means you HATE our country? Nope, it just means that we have a difference of opinion.

Dan, Thanks for a great response. Look, I understand the argument that we should be the "best we can be" and I agree with it on a philosophical and theoretical level. However, the question stands as to what is the "best we can be"? And are we going to destroy what we both love by trying to make it perfect, when perfection is never going to be attained? America is great because we have all this freedom. But time and time again, our freedoms are becoming increasingly regulated by big-government, as well as sacrificed to accomodate the few to the detriment of the many. I also believe that the greatness of this country is downplayed considerably when it should be, as you put it, trumpeted. If we continue to focus on the negative time and time again, we will soon lose sight of the positive. I just hope that people that do not understand the great country we live in, will begin to have pride in it again. Whether you like it or not, Democratic candidates continue to focus on the negative aspects of our country, where GOP focus's on more positive issues. It is sometimes hard to understand how Democrats love a country they continuously rail against.

Ethan, there is an old saying "My country right or wrong but when it is wrong to make it right" or something like that. Are you one of those who says "My country right or wrong and anyone who points out problems and proposes solutions is someone who hates America"?

My Grandpa fought overseas in WWI. My Dad was Army Air Corps in WWII but was a little too old to be sent overseas. My high school friend lost a leg in Vietnam. I spent considerable time over the years lobbying for veterans issues like the medical treatement they deserve, without the red tape bureaucracy they don't deserve.

However, there are some "conservatives" who say that to "love America" means Republicans should always win elections, and there is nothing wrong with the treatment of Max Cleland in 2002 (being a Democrat who refused to let Pres. Bush tell him how to vote made him "unpatriotic" but that charge infuriated Republican Senator Chuck Hagel) ---and let's not talk about the Dole-Shalala Wounded Warrior Comm. proposals because that would mean mistakes were made regarding the treatment of veterans by Republicans!

Ethan, I'd love to know your background. Were you ever in the military? What kind of volunteer work have you done? The whole "I love American and don't focus on the negative" attitude makes it sound like no red-blooded American would ever talk about job loss, hard working Americans who don't have health care coverage, homeless veterans, or anything else you consider "negative".

Of course America is a great country. It is a country where a boy born overseas but whose family were able to immigrate to this country can grow up to be a member of Congress (David Wu, the late Tom Lantos and others), where a disabled vet can be elected to the US Senate (Bob Dole, Bob Kerrey, Daniel Inouye and others) and where presidential candidates no longer have to be Protestant white males.

But I'm guessing I have more respect for Sen. McCain and former Sen. Dole than you have for Sens. Obama, Clinton, or the others who ran for President in the Democratic primary.

One more thing: If a WWII vet who had been elected to the US Senate had spoken out against the Vietnam War, do you classify that person as "hard to understand how Democrats love a country they continuously rail against"?

That last is a trick question and I wonder if anyone has the historical knowledge to answer it.

The negative aspects of our country offer the greatest opportunities for improvement. Focusing solely on the positive does not help induce forward progress, in my opinion. It leads to complacency and a lack of appreciation for the priveleges we enjoy that have been purchased with the sacrifices of our citizens, past and present. Among those privileges is free speech, which allows me to disagree with the Bush administration and conservative ideology in a public forum without fear of censorship.

Campaigns are ALL rhetoric. I feel anyone who doubts Obama's ability has been swayed by Hillary's rhetoric. I just wish Obama would stop DEFENDING and take the high road. Simply one statement from him saying he will not play the character assassinatin game any more. Let the Harpy self-destruct. I had respect for H. Clinton until she started these bug-eyed rants, interspersed with stoic oratory in a funeral-toned voice.

And it really concerns me that H. Clinton is using the same PR firm as McCain:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mark-penns-tangled-corporate-web.html

I once thought Bill Clinton was not a bad president, and he'd now be looking really Great in history when weighed against the recently set low Presidential standards. EXCEPT for the hindsight view of NAFTA, which has turned out to be a slow slide into a third-world quality of life for way too many American workers. I believe those effects will soon trickle up to bite even those who think the plight of workers has nothing to do with them.

Can't help but correlate...a vote for Hillary is a vote for the folks who brought you NAFTA.

And a vote for McCain is a vote to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. And although I do not like sleaze tactics, if it means making sure McCain is not elected, I would not be offended by any opposing candidate who brings back THAT little Beach Boy video clip to remind voters just who McCain really is.

LT- My background is hardcore leftist. I never was in the military since for a good part of my life I was taught to hate it. I thank your family for their service and your's for our veterans. I went to a leftist college, where Bush was insulted everyday by my professors. I voted for Kerry last time and was involved in numerous activist actions against the Iraq War. I am also 23 and I have the passion of a convert when it comes to politics. I do not think republicans should always win elections. I believe in maintaining the freedoms that we have. I believe that there should always be debate and discourse, and think that by continuously preaching to the choir, we maintain partisan ideas. I also agree that all "hard working americans" should have health-care coverage, but I also think that government should not be the one to provide it. The private sector always does a better job by our wonderful capitalist system of competition, and so should be encouraged and allowed to continue making health-care more affordable. It is when government takes that competition away that things falter.

TorridJoe- What is more negative, the democrats saying to minorities, immigrants, gays, you need government to help you since you can't do it on your own, or conservatives saying you can do it on your own, you don't need governments help? I think the former has a far more negative impact than the latter. Also, conservatives have no problem with immigrants AS LONG AS THEY ARE LEGAL. Saying that someone against amnesty is against immigration is not being intellectually honest.

Dan- I love free speech, as we all. But to often it appears that the only people allowed to speak are those on the left. Whenever a conservative opens his or her mouth they are shouted down (see Ann Coulter at UCONN).

All I was getting at with the "hate" concept is that too often in the media people insult this country, without any real regard to how damaging constant negativity is. We should focus on both. There are always exceptions and we all say we love this country, and probably do. I just wish more liberals would act like it once in a while. I would also like to point out that I am referring to the Neo-liberal (ala Code Pink) not the classic liberal as represented by the saying "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it". Also, who ever said forward progress was better for our country? Why do we constantly need to change things? It is in this quest for heaven on Earth that we will only find Hell.

Thanks for all the thought provoking responses.

The private sector always does a better job by our wonderful capitalist system of competition, and so should be encouraged and allowed to continue making health-care more affordable.

That is too broad and statement and, as such, it can easily be ripped apart. Suffice it to say that capitalism has its virtues, but like any human venture it is capable of being corrupted by excesses. Competition also has its virtues, but when it has people on a treadmill to get ever more without being able to say "enough" and enjoy life then it, too, has become corrupted.

The private sector does not always do a better job. I would recommend reading the works of Peter J. Drucker who was known as the father of modern management in the mid-20th Century. He was no socialist, but he held the opinion that a well organized society needed three entities: private enterprises, government and non-profit organizations. The trick is to determine which activity goes where, but the fact that he held some belonged in government means that some "socialism" was necessary. The building of the Panama Canal was very much a socialist enterprise. So was putting a man on the moon; although, many functions in this task were handled by private enterprises. The World Health Organization report on medical delivery systems around the world had the essentially private system in the United States 37th on the list while the "socialized" system in France was first.

Ethan:

(1.) You say you didn't join the military because you were "taught to hate it" by your "hardcore leftist" background. Perhaps you haven't realized it yet, but you can still join the military. If you do not, you are a hypocrite.

(2.) You "conservatives" fail to understand that single-payer health care is not "government provided". Having lived in Canada, I can tell you absolutely that your ignorance is not bliss. Neither government nor corporate bureaucrats should make medical decisions, and, under any single-payer system that I know of, neither does.

(3.) You said, "The private sector always does a better job by our wonderful capitalist system of competition...", and I assure you that this is a religious statement, and not a reasoned one. 75% of private businesses fail. Like you, I would prefer that the power of government be reduced and, some day, done away with altogether, but the power of corporations must also be reduced and done away with, or else we will suffer even more than under government alone, since government is at least somewhat responsive to us.

(4.) I agree with you that the Bush plan for immigrants is an amnesty plan, but it is amnesty for the businesses that have profited greatly from exploitation of immigrants.

(5.) I know Medea Benjamin and several other members of Code Pink (including my wife), and they are not "haters". You need to look up the term "neo-liberal", because it doesn't mean what you think it does.

(6.) "...often it appears that the only people allowed to speak are those on the left": I assure you that being to the left of George Bush or Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama) is not the "left". In fact, there is no functioning "left" in America, and if you doubt that, you should travel to any other industrialized society.

(7.) Nationalism is a scourge. You would do well to separate your pride in the American people from your love of the government that you otherwise pretend to despise. The American people are overwhelmingly progressive in their attitudes and opinions. They are in favor of ending the occupation of Iraq, impeaching the vice president, creating single-payer not-for-profit universal health coverage, withdrawing from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA, and slashing the Pentagon budget in order to invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy. The failure of both corporatist/hegemonist parties to join with these majorities is evidence of contempt for democracy, which I hope is one of those values that you want to conserve.

There are always exceptions and we all say we love this country, and probably do. I just wish more liberals would act like it once in a while.

Ethan, I'm going to ignore some of the other things you say to agree with you on this point. I think it's easy to get caught up in the negatives -- the things we're trying to change -- and ignore the positives, and I think every critic should take five minutes of every day to remember what makes America great. Dissent, after all, is patriotic, so it's worth remembering WHY we're dissenting. It's because we love America and want to make her better and stronger. My favorite thing about America is that you and I both get to do that, even though we disagree on what, exactly, "better" and "stronger" means.

Hallie's comment above about how Obama is wrong on some policy issues raises some important substantive questions.

Everyone who can pay into the system should - no exceptions other than those they have both outlined. . . . When Sen. Obama came after Sen. Clinton at the debate saying she would “attach wages” - well how the heck do you all think we collect Social Security taxes now? Would you make Social Security a voluntary program?

I agree that having a mandate makes sense in theory, but will it make sense in the real world? Mitt Romney implemented a mandate in Massachusetts and the reviews are mixed. Many lower and middle-class folks still can't afford the premiums, even with a subsidy. So what do you do? Fine them? Arrest them? Social Security and Medicare have benefitted from being mandatory programs implemented through a payroll tax, but the plan that Clinton is proposing relies on the private sector, so a payroll tax doesn't work in that context. Her plan relies on people making informed choices about health plans, so it's very different from Social Security.

I'm not opposed to a health insurance mandate, but I'm also not opposed to someone who argues, as Obama does, that it won't work in practice. Better to reform the system to make it affordable for those who want to buy it and then deal with those who can't/won't.

As for Obama's stand on sub-prime mortgages, Obama appears to oppose both a moratorium on foreclosures and the freezing of adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), while Clinton supports both. In both cases, the moratorium would impact the poor and the wealthy. You say the wealthy don't take "sub-prime" mortgages, but there's no definition of what a sub-prime mortgage is. The wealthy do take ARMs, probably at a higher rate that middle class or working class people. A friend in DC bought a $650,000 condo three years ago with an adjustable rate mortgage. I have no doubt his payments have skyrocketed, but I'm not really worried about his fiscal health. He's a lawyer at a big firm and he'll refinance the loan when it's advantageous to do so. But he would love nothing more than the government to step in and prohibit his lender from jacking up his interest rate.

As for foreclosures, the real question is how you separate the "worthy" borrowers who were duped into a bad mortgage from the real estate investors who were just trying to flip houses for a profit, or the "unworthy" borrower who lied about his income/assets and finds he can't afford the house. Clinton's call for a moratorium gives all of them relief, but I think that has real potential to exacerbate the housing crisis and send the economy deeper into recession, which will result in more people losing their jobs, and by extension their houses.

There's no question Obama's economic advisors are moderates, not liberals. Personally, that's one reason Lee Majors and I are drawn to him.

Ethan, at 23 you are excused from knowing what happened before you were born. Disagree all anyone wanted to with Wm. F. Buckley who just died, or Barry Goldwater, they were gentlemen of the old school---meaning they had the manners that their mothers brought them up with (as opposed to the Coulters and Limbaughs who seem to confuse nasty attacks with intelligent argument) and could be polite to those with different politics. Google Allard Lowenstein. He was the flip side of Buckley politically, but they were such friends Buckley gave a eulogy at Lowenstein's funeral. Contrast that with the Republicans who thought they should have set the rules for Paul Wellstone's funeral because after all it was all about them, not those grieving the loss of Paul Wellstone and all the others on the plane. And then Republicans wonder why some people don't like them? It is being said in the tributes that Buckley rescued conservatism from the nut cases, the anti-Semites, and the John Birchers.

You also may not realize that statements like "Whether you like it or not, Democratic candidates continue to focus on the negative aspects of our country, where GOP focus's on more positive issues. It is sometimes hard to understand how Democrats love a country they continuously rail against." sound a lot like the Birchers and others who said things in the 1960s like "even if your high school friend was a casualty, if you say anything about how that was a waste you don't love this country because everyone is supposed to say they are behind the Vietnam War 100%."

Problem being that many of us knew that some of the people saying that saw nothing wrong with their loved ones getting deferments--Cheney got 5, Gingrich never served, but by golly they were more patriotic than Vietnam Veterans Against the War which was painted as a subversive group. What do you think the Swiftboating of Kerry was about?

I helped elect the first black person in my legislative district and campaigned for candidates who worked hard for veterans----and yet there were some who said anyone who "loves America" should campaign for their Republican candidate, as GOP designates patriotism not anyone who isn't a gung ho right wing Republican.

Bottom line is this: if you really care about this country, volunteer on whatever cause you believe in. But don't call names--that doesn't solve anything!

Those of us who have done volunteer work for decades and seen the fruits of our labor don't deserve to be stereotyped as Democrats rail against their country therefore it is hard to believe they love it. What is the point of such remarks---propaganda, making people angry, trying to promote a candidate or a cause?

There are campaigns which believe they have the revealed truth. As long as this is a free country, there will also be friends talking socially (over lunch, in a store, in the library, on the phone, etc.) sharing their views. If those views are something other than "this is a great country, we have a wonderful federal government, state government, county government and city government where no person is in need, no child is hungry, everything works perfectly", does that mean those friends don't love this country"?

I'm sorry, but that rhetoric didn't work when Nixon was president and said all good Americans were losing the war if they questioned Vietnam policy, and it won't work now.