Rather they are against the idea of a 3rd Bush term, whether they are Democrats or not really doesn't matter.

Alright... you guys win. I just sent $50 to the Obama campaign. Anyone care to match me?

Sorry McBush

Party's Over!

From Politico:

Clint Eastwood feels 'sorry' for Clinton
By JEFFREY RESSNER | 5/20/08 12:57 PM EST

Hillary Rodham Clinton, you’ve got a friend in Dirty Harry.

Though a longtime follower of John McCain — dating back to the Arizona senator’s 2000 run against George W. Bush in the GOP primary — Clint Eastwood thinks Clinton deserves some serious respect. And enough already with the calls for her to quit.

“Everybody’s trying to talk her into folding, but it doesn’t seem like the spirit of Americana,” Eastwood told Politico before heading to France’s Cannes Film Festival, where his period kidnapping drama “Changeling,” starring Angelina Jolie, had its world premiere Tuesday.

“Put yourself in the place of [Clinton]: You’ve gone out there and made a thousand speeches, and you’ve shaken a million hands and you’ve been out there working your ass off,” Eastwood said. “And then somebody comes up and says, ‘Why don’t you just drop out of it?’”

The actor/director/producer/jazz aficionado — who had his own brush with politics as mayor of Carmel, Calif. — said Clinton’s fortunes could change: Barack Obama could trip over himself again, as he did with the controversies over his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s remarks about working-class voters clinging to their religion and guns.

“I watch Clinton and feel kind of sorry for her and wonder, ‘What are all these people telling her to run away for?’” Eastwood said. “She’s showing her strength by hanging in there.”

I for one am startled!

Not really, after many years of Rebulican control over congress and then the Bush years, I think the American people wan't nothing to do with Republicans.

Really, the question is, what will Democrats do with the power? Will it be more of the same, or will we see a move back towards what truly made America great: liberal and progressive ideas, honest open debate, open gov't.

I can't wait to see.

Interesting results in today's Gallup poll. But Hillary still does slightly better against McCain. So the poll probably indicates that most see Obama as the eventual nominee, but more believe Hillary would beat McCain. This is also what Carl Rove's electoral map projections show.

Judging from that SUSA Pennsylvania poll on the right, there may even be a few bitter voters switching over.

The Hillary concern troll candidacy argument is not withstanding the test of time.

Reasons for Hillary Clinton Supporters to Vote for McCain

1) Health Care

The McCain Health Care Plan provides a $2500 tax credit for singles and a $5000 tax credit for families. It also removes tax incentives for businesses to provide medical insurance.

If you believe that telling people to ‘go get your own insurance’ is a better plan than Obama’s plan, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that a family, with or without preexisting medical conditions, can get quality health care insurance for $5000 a year, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that a family, that does not have a tax bill of $5000 to be credited, can get quality medical insurance for even less than $5000, you should vote for McCain.

2) Social Security

The McCain Social Security plan is basically a rehash of Bush’s Privatization, while denying that it is privatization. It calls for ‘younger’ workers to pay less Social Security and Medicare taxes and to put that into ‘Private Accounts’.

If you believe that telling people to ‘go get your own retirement’ is a better plan, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that the American workers would be better off if Bush’s plan had been implemented six years ago, you should vote for McCain.

3) War

The McCain plan for Iraq is continuing war. The McCain plan for Iran is “bomb, bomb, bomb…”. The McCain plan is to continuing killing Iraqis and having our military continue dying until we achieve (an undefined) win.

If you believe that war is peace, you should vote for McCain.

If you believe that ‘the only good raghead is a dead raghead’, you should vote for McCain.

If you believe that war should be the first option, rather than diplomacy, you should vote for McCain.

4) Women’s Reproductive Rights

McCain has proclaimed that his ideas of quality nominees to the Supreme Court are Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.

If you believe that men should decide on what medical care options are available for women, you should vote for McCain.

If you want to see Griswold vs. Connecticut (the real goal of the hardcore Right-To-Lifers) overturned, you should vote for McCain.

it's not a matter of some Hillary supporters backing obama; it's a matter of how many... clearly, at least half of her supporters will vote for obama, but if the other half is hardened against him, then he'll probably have trouble, especially since the half that doesn't vote for him might be in some key swing states.

polls like this gallup one is worthless unless you know where those hillary supporters vote...

Well I now believe anyone from the Hillary camp can come over to support Obama. I had previously believed gotalife was beyond coming together, but I was wrong, my mistake.

WooHoo for Democrats in November!!

Reverse Robin Hood Why is John McCain wrong on health care? Think credit cards.

http://www.slate.com/id/2191699/

Excerpt from the article:

McCain argues that different states' regulations "prevent the best companies, with the best plans and lowest prices, from making their product available to any American who wants it." Although he hasn't given details, his supporters say that he favors an approach, endorsed by President Bush and championed by McCain's Arizona colleague John Shadegg, that would allow insurers to choose the state laws under which they are regulated. (I e-mailed the campaign about the specifics of McCain's approach and didn't hear back.) An insurance company that chose to be regulated under Arizona law could sell policies in New York without following New York rules. Arizona, like most states, lets companies charge what they want to people who are sick—or simply deny them coverage altogether. Under Shadegg's bill, insurers wouldn't even need to pick up and move their operations; it would be enough to file some paperwork with a state insurance commissioner and pay that state's relevant taxes.

If enacted, this proposal would cause a shift along the lines seen in the credit-card industry. Like the Citibank of old, New York insurers would have little incentive to continue doing business under New York's laws. Insurance companies can make bigger profits by offering different policies to different people based on separate assessments of risk rather than charging everyone the same, as a state like New York requires. An insurer operating under Arizona law would be able to offer healthy New Yorkers a cheaper policy than an insurer working under New York law that has to price policies the same for everyone.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? In the credit-card industry, there's a pretty decent argument that the old usury laws restricted access to credit, even among people who needed it and could use it well. And competition among card issuers has led to a proliferation of rewards programs—frequent-flyer miles, hotel discounts—that work nicely for people who pay their bills in full and on time. There's also a classic libertarian argument for deregulating credit cards: MasterCard never put a gun to anybody's head.

The problem is that without consumer protections, companies use pricing practices, like teaser rates, to attract cash-strapped families and then slap those families with interest rates of 35 percent or higher plus penalties of $35 a month. Rates can double or triple without notice, even if you never miss a payment. Credit-card use and bankruptcy rose together for years (until the 2005 federal bankruptcy legislation), and last year, banks made $40 billion in plastic profits. For families drowning in debt (often from health expenses, by the way), a credit card may be the only life raft—but in the memorable words of Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi, authors of The Two-Income Trap, the raft turns out to be made of cement.

BOSTON - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat say tests conducted after Kennedy suffered a seizure this weekend show a tumor in his left parietal lobe. Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma, they said.
ADVERTISEMENT

His treatment will be decided after more tests but the usual course includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy.

The 76-year-old senator has been hospitalized in Boston since Saturday, when he was airlifted from Cape Cod after a seizure at his home.

His wife and children have been with him each day but have made no public statements.

His doctors said in a statement released to The Associated Press that he has had no further seizures, is in good spirits and is resting comfortably.

Malignant gliomas are a type of brain cancer diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year — and the most common type among adults. It's a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.

Average survival can range from less than a year for very advanced and aggressive types — such as glioblastomas — or to about five years for different types that are slower growing.

That family's fate is epic - it's Euripidean!

I really feel so sorry for Senator Kennedy - even more than his family right now. That has got to be a devastating diagnosis to hear.

Jeeezuz. I really often think we were better off before they could tell us for certain that something virtually incurable was wrong with us and we had X amount of time left.

I don't necessarily find that all so progressive.

Too bad Soros only pays delegates.
My vote's for sale for 2 million.

Unity to save the Supreme Court.

Unity to save our personal freedoms.

Unity to save reproductive rights.

Unity to save healthcare.

Unity to end cowboy "diplomacy".

Unity to save the middle class.

UNITY! Democrats stand together to win!

"The only major demographic group that Hillary gets 51% or more of are women aged 50 and older."

For what it's worth, I am a women aged 50 and older and I absolutely despise Clinton.