Who's your favorite democrat hopeful?

[ConclamoLudus]

I'm just wondering, most poeple know that I lean to the right, but I am seriously wondering who the left is going to prop up right now. So my question to any democrats that may want to answer, who are you hoping to run against Bush and why? I know its really early, but its hard to get a read on what candidates are going to step up.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Are there any hopefuls? Surely there's a democrat on AT that has an opinion on this. I'm not here to argue against any of them, I just want to know who democrats like and why.

 

[Nitemare]

Sharpton 😀

 

[jahawkin]

I think Howard Dean has a very good chance at beating Bush. He is very good at articulating his position and is moderate enough to win the general election. He is the first politician I've ever seen (that is, since I've been alive) that can inspire and motivate people.

 

[spaceman]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Sharpton 😀

😉 i was going to say the same thing.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think Howard Dean has a very good chance at beating Bush. He is very good at articulating his position and is moderate enough to win the general election. He is the first politician I've ever seen (that is, since I've been alive) that can inspire and motivate people.

I like Dean as well, but isn't he the most left of the Democrat field?

 

[LunarRay]

No one has yet emerged with the charisma of Clinton and that is what will be needed to sway the middle away from Bush. John Kerry of Mass. is somewhat ok and has a war record... but, none others that I have seen.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think Howard Dean has a very good chance at beating Bush. He is very good at articulating his position and is moderate enough to win the general election. He is the first politician I've ever seen (that is, since I've been alive) that can inspire and motivate people.

Dean a moderate? Hardly....the man is left of Ted Kennedy and that's not easy to do. He's stopped just short of proclaiming himself a Socialist. Do a little reading on his views and some speeches/statements he has made. If Dean were the Democrat nominee he wouldn't end up with as many votes and Mondale did in 1984.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think Howard Dean has a very good chance at beating Bush. He is very good at articulating his position and is moderate enough to win the general election. He is the first politician I've ever seen (that is, since I've been alive) that can inspire and motivate people.

I like Dean as well, but isn't he the most left of the Democrat field?

I don't understand where Dean gets this label. Yes, he does appeal to alot of the left, and he does claim he represents the democratic wing of the democratic party, but when you look at his stance on the issues he is actually quite moderate. He will certainly look like a lefty compared to Holy Joe but I don't think its fair to compare a real democrat to a republican lite.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think Howard Dean has a very good chance at beating Bush. He is very good at articulating his position and is moderate enough to win the general election. He is the first politician I've ever seen (that is, since I've been alive) that can inspire and motivate people.

Dean a moderate? Hardly....the man is left of Ted Kennedy and that's not easy to do. He's stopped just short of proclaiming himself a Socialist. Do a little reading on his views and some speeches/statements he has made. If Dean were the Democrat nominee he wouldn't end up with as many votes and Mondale did in 1984.

Once again, look at his stance on the issues. Which ones in particular are socialistic, and which ones in particular are to the left of Ted Kennedy? I know you're going to say his health care stance, but he wants to implement the same health care plan for the nation that he enacted in Vermont. Last time I checked, Vermont is one of the only states that is not in a fiscal crisis, thanks to the "socialist" Howard Dean.

 

[Red Dawn]

Unlike this Forum most Americans are Moderates. The Dems will only win when they put forth a Moderate Candidate that's not Jewish (Reference to Joe Lieberman) The reason I say a Moderate that's not Jewish is because they would want a Candidate that is open minded about Israel.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Unlike this Forum most Americans are Moderates. The Dems will only win when they put forth a Moderate Candidate that's not Jewish (Reference to Joe Lieberman) The reason I say a Moderate that's not Jewish is because they would want a Candidate that is open minded about Israel.

I would have to disagree, this is a very moderate and balanced forum.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think Howard Dean has a very good chance at beating Bush. He is very good at articulating his position and is moderate enough to win the general election. He is the first politician I've ever seen (that is, since I've been alive) that can inspire and motivate people.

I like Dean as well, but isn't he the most left of the Democrat field?

I don't understand where Dean gets this label. Yes, he does appeal to alot of the left, and he does claim he represents the democratic wing of the democratic party, but when you look at his stance on the issues he is actually quite moderate. He will certainly look like a lefty compared to Holy Joe but I don't think its fair to compare a real democrat to a republican lite.

I find it funny that Dean states in his Reproductive Rights issue that government should not be in the practice of making medical conditions, yet in his Healthcare issue he believes everyone should have federally mandated health insurance. I find that to be contradictory, don't you?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: jahawkin
I think Howard Dean has a very good chance at beating Bush. He is very good at articulating his position and is moderate enough to win the general election. He is the first politician I've ever seen (that is, since I've been alive) that can inspire and motivate people.

I like Dean as well, but isn't he the most left of the Democrat field?

I don't understand where Dean gets this label. Yes, he does appeal to alot of the left, and he does claim he represents the democratic wing of the democratic party, but when you look at his stance on the issues he is actually quite moderate. He will certainly look like a lefty compared to Holy Joe but I don't think its fair to compare a real democrat to a republican lite.

I find it funny that Dean states in his Reproductive Rights issue that government should not be in the practice of making medical conditions, yet in his Healthcare issue he believes everyone should have federally mandated health insurance. I find that to be contradictory, don't you?

Not at all. How does having federal health insurance equate to making medical decisions?

 

[JellyBaby]

How does having federal health insurance equate to making medical decisions?

The feds would ultimately decide on levels of coverage, how often you can get service, who who get it from, etc. It would limit your freedom by limiting your choices, just as the HMO fiasco did.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

How does having federal health insurance equate to making medical decisions?

The feds would ultimately decide on levels of coverage, how often you can get service, who who get it from, etc. It would limit your freedom by limiting your choices, just as the HMO fiasco did.

That would not happen. Look at Dean's health care statement:

Guaranteeing coverage to all Americans will involve a mix of state and federal programs, as well as the existing private sector.

Do HMOs stop you from having some kind of treatment? No, some things they will not pay for, in which case you would have to pay for it yourself. Nobodys freedom is going to go away by making sure everyone has health coverage.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

How does having federal health insurance equate to making medical decisions?

The feds would ultimately decide on levels of coverage, how often you can get service, who who get it from, etc. It would limit your freedom by limiting your choices, just as the HMO fiasco did.

That would not happen. Look at Dean's health care statement:

Guaranteeing coverage to all Americans will involve a mix of state and federal programs, as well as the existing private sector.

Do HMOs stop you from having some kind of treatment? No, some things they will not pay for, in which case you would have to pay for it yourself. Nobodys freedom is going to go away by making sure everyone has health coverage.

Execpt that you can pick your coverage level with private insurance. You know in advance what is covered, and what is not. Once there is national healthcoverage, everyone will be treated the same. This will means if done as well as other countries, it will be slower, rationed health care for the masses.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

How does having federal health insurance equate to making medical decisions?

The feds would ultimately decide on levels of coverage, how often you can get service, who who get it from, etc. It would limit your freedom by limiting your choices, just as the HMO fiasco did.

That would not happen. Look at Dean's health care statement:

Guaranteeing coverage to all Americans will involve a mix of state and federal programs, as well as the existing private sector.

Do HMOs stop you from having some kind of treatment? No, some things they will not pay for, in which case you would have to pay for it yourself. Nobodys freedom is going to go away by making sure everyone has health coverage.

Execpt that you can pick your coverage level with private insurance. You know in advance what is covered, and what is not. Once there is national healthcoverage, everyone will be treated the same. This will means if done as well as other countries, it will be slower, rationed health care for the masses.

And how is this going to change under Dean's plan?? It won't. You'll still be free to have private health coverage.
Take a look at what Dean wants to do and stop the canned rhetoric about universal health coverage.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

How does having federal health insurance equate to making medical decisions?

The feds would ultimately decide on levels of coverage, how often you can get service, who who get it from, etc. It would limit your freedom by limiting your choices, just as the HMO fiasco did.

That would not happen. Look at Dean's health care statement:

Guaranteeing coverage to all Americans will involve a mix of state and federal programs, as well as the existing private sector.

Do HMOs stop you from having some kind of treatment? No, some things they will not pay for, in which case you would have to pay for it yourself. Nobodys freedom is going to go away by making sure everyone has health coverage.

Execpt that you can pick your coverage level with private insurance. You know in advance what is covered, and what is not. Once there is national healthcoverage, everyone will be treated the same. This will means if done as well as other countries, it will be slower, rationed health care for the masses.

I don't believe that at all. The marketplace and society will make the neccessary adjustments if inacted, and your argument against it will be top priority in its implimintation. The sky is not falling if everyone is guareented adequate health care. If you have a beef with health care, take your shots at outragous insurance prices and prescription drug overcharge abuse.

If national health care coverage is inacted, hospitals and clinics will pop up everywhere to meet demand, and rural America may get a much needed assistance in providing for the men and women who grow our food and live in remote areas far from the care available to most of us. In a way, national health care will be a boost in our economy, not a drain, as so many myopic conservatives seem to make you think.
😉

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

How does having federal health insurance equate to making medical decisions?

The feds would ultimately decide on levels of coverage, how often you can get service, who who get it from, etc. It would limit your freedom by limiting your choices, just as the HMO fiasco did.

That would not happen. Look at Dean's health care statement:

Guaranteeing coverage to all Americans will involve a mix of state and federal programs, as well as the existing private sector.

Do HMOs stop you from having some kind of treatment? No, some things they will not pay for, in which case you would have to pay for it yourself. Nobodys freedom is going to go away by making sure everyone has health coverage.

Execpt that you can pick your coverage level with private insurance. You know in advance what is covered, and what is not. Once there is national healthcoverage, everyone will be treated the same. This will means if done as well as other countries, it will be slower, rationed health care for the masses.

And how is this going to change under Dean's plan?? It won't. You'll still be free to have private health coverage.
Take a look at what Dean wants to do and stop the canned rhetoric about universal health coverage.

People also have the right to send their kids to private school, but most cant afford it after paying for public schools. THis is just another thing that i would rather the goverment not be involved in.

 

[JellyBaby]

What would happen is this: taxpayers would be hit with the burden of funding "free" health care. It wouldn't be good enough for many of them so they'd get double-hit paying for their own costly insurance.

I'd like to see the third-party insurers disappear from the health scene. Yeah, wishful thinking I know, but I'd prefer a direct pay system over what we have. More competition, more efficiency, more choice, a stronger doctor-patient relationship and lower costs.

While I'd really like to see every American covered I realize the federal government would just make a bad situation worse. The states can do what they will, at least there's a chance to reverse the damage done...or you can flee to another state if things get really nuts.

 

[Syringer]

No vote for John Edwards?

 

[Tiger]

Carol Mosely-Braun.
I makes me giggle everytime I think about it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Ass tubes for Republicans and Hillary Clinton for Pres. We could solve the energy crisis with high pressure turbines and health care in one swell foop.

 

[JellyBaby]

Beamer, no problem with your first suggestion but perhaps you fail to realize the latter one would eventually bankrupt the nation and further enslave us to the whims of elitist governance, not to mention we don't have a right to health care and it's not a constitutional function of the federal government.

I feel there are other ways to tackle the problem but the Ds seem to be stubbornly driving us into socialized medicene. Why aren't they open to other options?

No doubt, though, the Rs are gleefully spending every available dollar protecting us....them?.....from the Boggieman and that smells like an egg fart.