but he was known for being rather lazy while he was in the Senate.
One thing I've seen is this: Mitt Romney will NOT go down easily. I'm beginning to believe, flip-flops or not, that Romney is the candidate to beat on their side.
Thompson, well, aside from being a familiar face and really being a good communicator, he's going to have to run on his record at some point and that's not going to work out well for him. He was a corporate lobbyist and an underachieving Senator.
Romney, for all his faults, did manage the Salt Lake Olympics effectively and can point to some achievements(health care, budget) as Governor of Massachusetts.
it really bothered you enough for you to reply to me three times? What you say isn't wrong but I just think the difference is perspective...that's all. Nothing wrong with that. The fact that you're being an ass about it? That's unfortunate but its more your problem than mine.
I didn't say it was really nasty...I said that he obviously had strong opinions on the subject, especially given his guise of openness here, while he's leaving comments elsewhere that would suggest otherwise. Nothing wrong with that if hypocrisy doesn't bother you.
Given comments on a Politico article made by someone knows as 'AdamT', it might appear that you really do have a strong opinion on the subject, and you are simply masquerading as being open here, for whatever reason.
"Obama, by contrast, focuses on removing barriers to access and subsidizing care for those who can't afford it. " Edwards does this also in that those that can't afford the mandate are subsidized. It's the same thing, except that Edwards gets at universal coverage by making sure everyone is covered. Obama I guess will leave it up to individuals to get themselves covered.
Even if there were some kind of prize for having exclusivity on an idea on how to fix health care, wouldn't it be best if good ideas were implemented, no matter who it is that reaches the finish line first?
Aside from that, Obama's plan is the most realistic thus far, which may prompt some to say it isn't good enough. I would argue though that if someone can push a better plan through Congress while Obama is President, do you really think he won't sign it if it reaches his desk? Lets not get too crazy with this...of course I may be overlooking who I'm responding to.
Interesting...I kind of run into this a little bit; mostly I hear women who would feel guilty for not supporting Hillary. Others don't like her for the same misogynistic reasons the Republicans have been putting out there for years.
Personally I don't even think that Hill is the best female candidate we could put out there. I've had to convince my mom that female candidates CAN get elected...just not that particular one.