Politics: United States Democratic Primary

[butterfly]

So, the total number number of delegates needed to win the nomination is 2,025, yes? That's the lowest number for a majority. Obama is currently leading Clinton by 143 delegates, with his total number at 1,631 and hers at 1,488. That's... not insurmountable by any means. Certainly not a good reason for her to curl up and go home.

Pennsylvia's primary is on the twenty-second of this month. Then Indiana and North Carolina on the 6th. West Virginia on the 13th and, finally, the 20th of May, Oregon gets to vote (along with Kentucky). The fact that my primary is so far away is a source of frustration to me.

I like Clinton's health care plan. When she and Obama talk specifics about issues and votes, I tend to find myself agreeing with her more often than with him when they differ (many times, they don't). Of course, in any race between Obama and McCain, Obama would get my vote in a heartbeat, but between him and Clinton... yes, I plan to vote for her.

The world that we live in is not post-racism or post-sexism (or, for that matter, post-classism and it certainly isn't post-homophobia). Either Clinton or Obama as our President will be a major step forward for this country. I'll be proud to call either of them my President.

Comments

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

My roommate has spent several needed years on welfare and food stamps (she has three children) and has never lied to or abused the system. This, I'm certain, does influence my opinion of it, as it has helped someone about whom I care deeply.

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

And have they treated her like scum? All of the honest people I know who have tried to collect benefits of any kind from any government agency have been made to feel like criminals.

I remember one girl I met while I was in college, who had a baby fathered by a rapist at the age of 15, and lost her mother to suicide not long after that. She ran out of money trying to finish high school, and went to social services for food stamps for her three year old, and got called a "lazy slut" by a state employee.

ETA: And yes, that incident among many others has influenced my view of things.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

No, they have not. And even if they did, I'm... baffled at this being your primary bastion of anger when you yourself say that Clinton is not the cause of people being assholes.

You don't trust governments -- I'm wary of the government but I trust corporations even less. I simply don't trust business to run health-care. The prices that people have to pay in America for simple health care is proof enough of that to me. I know people who cannot afford to buy basic care because of corporate greed. And that's influenced my view of things.

And I like Clinton in part because she has many more years of public record available (I can judge her not just based on her time in the Senate but for her time as First Lady) -- what she's said compared to what she's done. I tend to approve of her thoughtfulness -- she makes mistakes sometimes and rethinks positions, but I never feel that she does it heedlessly. Some of her speeches have touched me deeply, though she is not quite the master of rhetoric that Obama is. Generally, I feel that I understand and agree with her and her positions a great deal better than Obama's (he tends to be... more vague than I'd like) and that I agree with her stance on the issues at hand in the places where they differ (and I do feel that their politics are far more similar than dissimilar which is why I'm personally baffled when either Clinton or Obama supporters say that they plan to vote for McCain if their choice loses out).

[spiletta42.livejournal.com]

No, my opinion of Clinton's health care plan (or any health care plan) is influenced by my experience with the government. My opinion of Clinton herself is influenced by her failure to explain her involvement in illegal business dealings, and her campaign's willingness to make untrue statements about her opposition, and of course her changing viewpoint on the Michigan and Florida primaries.

As for corporate greed, that's what puts corn syrup in our coffee creamer and hikes up the price of fuel, so I'm all for distrusting them as well. However, if a corporation treats an individual badly, the individual has the option of going elsewhere. Once the government has control of health care, that will no longer be the case.

Those same people who cannot afford health care now will not be better off under a government health care program. They might possibly get something like the care they need (you'll have trouble convincing me that the government won't be forcing specific treatment plans in some sort of complex maze of red tape, taking choices away from the patient to save pennies while wasting thousands), but they'll discover that the money they "saved" is still not in their pockets, because the government will raise taxes to pay for such a program. Instead of failing to afford a doctor's visit, they'll find themselves short of cash to deal with rising energy costs to heat their homes, rising gas prices to get to work, and a shrinking list of options at the grocery store as the healthier, and more expensive, options will be out of their price range.

It's always the working class that hurts from tax increases, and this health care plan cannot be accomplished without billions of dollars in increased government revenue. A national health care plan sponsored by the government is impractical. It will force businesses to reduce their payroll costs with layoffs, and it will force smaller businesses out of business entirely. Self employed individuals will find themselves paying the government even more, when they're already often struggling under the burden of self-employment taxes. For those folks, the government gobbles up thirty percent of their income even if their income falls under the poverty line.

This country is headed for financial crisis, and what it needs is decreased taxes, not an astronomical increase.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Decreasing taxes has not appeared to have helped so far. Increasing taxes in the right places might. But that depends on believing Clinton when she speaks. If you don't trust her to try her hardest to adjust taxes to actually aid the economy rather than aiding merely the rich, then you don't trust her. That's not the sort of thing that can really be argued one way or the other, I think.

Obama's campaign hasn't been run spotlessly either. Like I say below, they're both politicians and there are certain things that I don't trust them about. Either of them.

Honestly, I think the whole system could do with being torn down and rebuilt but that's... not practical or really even feasible for a country as large as the US of A.

[thegrungediva.livejournal.com]

<

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i'm>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<<I'm wary of the government but I trust corporations even less.>>

Therein lies the rub.

Will the government screw it up? Undoubtedly. Will they do a better job than the corporations have been doing? Without even trying, they will.

Has Obama rejected Clinton's health plan? To my knowledge, he has not. I suspect if elected, he will start with her plan (why reinvent the wheel?) and work at it until it's something that can get through both houses.

I'm against Clinton because she voted for the war, and she had no excuse: she was either a fool or a villian. As a pacifist, it goes against my beliefs to support her. If she makes it to the ballot, I probably won't campaign as hard for her (as I would Obama), but I will vote for her.

Maybe Obama would have been just as foolish/villanous had he served on the Senate that year. Maybe I'm deluding myself in supporting him. Still, either one is better than McCain.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Still, either one is better than McCain.

Absolutely true no matter what.