(CROSS-POSTED AT http://politicaltea.com) 

 so we don't have to believe in anything except the fallibility of our government. That's what I propose. Forget judgment, forget experience, forget ideology. Let's just be perfect. Yeah, universal healthcare; let's force everyone to buy government healthcare because the government is so efficient at what it does we also want it running our healthcare system. Who do you want up late at night on the big bad red phone making last minute deals preventing our country from getting nuked? The person who voted for us to go to war or the person who spoke out against us going to war? What's more virtuous, following the pack or speaking out against the pack? Blah, blah…I buy this, I don't buy that; our country needs this – no, it doesn't need that! I want my investments to be free of tax, no you must be taxed 30% and possibly more on everything you invest. Let's spread out all our wealth, give it away, take from the rich, give to the poor, yeah, it will all turn out much better in the end. Let's have a revolution? Replace one crooked man with another. What's the difference? You keep criticizing what is good for the country, you keep on perpetuating the cynicism and the politics of old. The more you follow Clinton and reject the Obama movement the more you reject the wave of the future; the more you condemn the Democratic Party. Oh, but what good is a candidate if not a candidate that bleeds universal healthcare, no matter the quality of such universal healthcare – we must have universal healthcare!!! Oh yes, all must pay for healthcare even if they can't afford it, so they can be afforded the opportunity to be assessed with the best technology science has to offer. If we don't do that, they might die sooner than otherwise. If they die sooner because we didn't have universal healthcare, we'll feel it's our fault – we could have done more. Yet, we all die in the end. So, what is more, what is too little, and what is too much? You ask so much, but you also ask the impossible. This is the blindness of bitter partisan political heads. They only know what they think is right, but see nothing beyond their own two feet. It's not let's do the best we can with the cards we're dealt, let's do the best we can by stealing the cards from our partners. Oh well, such is life.

Obama is riding his anti-Iraq War speech to victory and opponents are bitterly lementing over his using of it in such a way. It's sad. Yes, it really is. A man spoke out on an issue, a woman voted on an issue; blame one, blame the other; neither is right, neither is wrong; we're all just right or wrong depending on what it means either way to the reader. She had “evidence”, he had “judgment”. Yada yada.

Your criticism makes a mockery of the system. Whether you think that is good or bad is up to you. Oh, “it's the media's fault Obama is not being critiqued well enough” and well, Clinton is being critiqued too well. Wait, but wait, why would Clinton be criticized so heavily? Let's think. She is a former first lady, her husband is well-hated by nearly half of the country and the Clintons never were friendly with the media. The media has gone along with the change mantra that Obama represents, and whether or not that is purely progressive (as your savior, Krugman, would have us believe is the purpose of all human existence) doesn't matter; and, this angers you because you actually think Hillary or Edwards COULD make a difference, when in fact they would have so little unifying capability that they would put the system into disuse and degeneration. Honestly, another Clinton in the White House? in place of a populist Obama? What kind of horrendous damage would that have on the Democratic Party if she wins? The Party would ultimately fail in the general election.

The whole point of a democratic system is that change happens. That is why Obama is doing so well. People recognize something new is needed. Even if Obama is not perfect, which everyone knows he is not, he is someone new that can bring new light and a new face to issues that face our country's government. If we keep electing or putting the same names on the ballots, what's the point? Let's just develop an aristocracy or monarchy. That would be much easier and straightforward. Wouldn't it be joyful? Hopefully it would be your progressive aristocrats that do well. But, then again, democracy is only good when it's your people in charge, so changing the system doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. It might not even make a difference.

Bleh. I don't know how you can write about the same thing over and over. Everyone needs universal healthcare, but no one on these blogs offers any clue how to get there. They expect saviors to arrive out of the political abyss and they shine their illuminating blogolight on them and hope the world becomes the progressive world they hope it will become. I'm tired of it. You all say the same thing, ” I dedicate my life to this cause (in the majestic words of the John Edwards we all glorify), POVERTY MUST END!” But, we have no clue how, or if it is even realistic. How can we end poverty? Come on. Give me a real answer, not just that we have to elect John Edwards, the good miller's son. I want to hear some answers. And, even then supposing you think there is success in ending poverty at some point, how do you propose getting everyone out of poverty? Just going to put them all in the middle class?

Let's just do the best we can and not let our country decay from lack of turnover and freshness. You put Clinton back in office and you ruin our country. That's as simple as it gets.