I’ve heard a lot of denials, rejections and explanations recently, and I started
wondering…what if people really meant what they said…praised or followed?

I for instance have said, prior to the infamous Ms. Ferraro, that imagining
Senator Obama were white, I don’t think he would be where he is. That
was suggested to be improper, and others said if Senator Clinton wasn’t female
she wouldn’t be either – and that’s probably true as well. Neither would have the
life story they have…and it’s that story that makes me rethink.

Both have political careers, one long, one brief, but both have a drive,
a will to move toward power and influence. Both seek a national health
care system that I have grave doubts about…because they don’t simple set
up a charity health care system for the poorer people, but an entire new
system from the one which has evolved.

Both are painted as tax-and-spend liberals and there’s something to that too.
Senator Obama, in fact, has spoken to “redistribution of wealth”, much like
Huey Long did in Louisiana in the 1930s and early 1940s. Such talk is very
attractive to those considered the have-nots…and Senator Obama’s church
is very clear whom they see as that group – black people.

That’s why scholarships, jobs and power networking is provided by his church
for black people. The Senator has taken it to a new level and makes a move to
expand the flock to not only white and Hispanic have-nots, but also the liberal
elite (read highest educated and wealthy) and to young idealists.

This can be read as progressive, new thinking and perhaps leaning toward
Socialism. It can also be read (as was done by Louisiana’s anti-Longs) as
putting the system above the individual and a new gang above the old gang.
The two Democrat candidates have wrestled each other further toward that
goal…not only with national health insurance, but also with foreign affairs.
Arrange everything and things will work better, which is not only a socialist
approach…but somewhat a gender approach as well…in my opinion.

This new politics has risen so high, so fast that an amazing group of people
have turned out to vote for it, and in Senator Obama’s case, even more mature
politicians have signed on (endorsed) his campaign. I wonder how many jobs
have been promised by the competitors…I would imagine (as in Long’s case)
every job has probably been promised twice…by both.

Since politics (human governance) is described as a pendulum it is not
surprising that it has swung thus…after all, we are coming out of carpetbagger
era where we had corporate governance for eight years. This era has expanded
business-like influence from war to financial instruments, and has been
close to disastrous.

So, I think, where does a smaller government, less government influence type guy
go? I want regulation- of the financial institutions and instruments which have brought
our economy to the edge, and polluting businesses and machines. I also want a fair, but strong system of law enforcement and military. All take bureaucracy and
wealth to provide, I hope, only just what is required…and not a bit more.

When I go past that – to national health insurance I come to a hard realization –
can it be done without dismantling Social Security and Medicare? Can the tax
base of this country possibly pay for both? And, if not, who would benefit from
national health care at the expense of those expecting promises of Social Security
and Medicare to be delivered?

I guess time will tell how much compromising will be done, and on what programs.
But, one thing I know you can’t have everything – it just doesn’t work.

And, come November, there are going to be reminders of that – in spades.
So…where does a blue collar guy go? It’s a question that has started working
on me, and I imagine a few million others.

Very good, IH. I especially like the part I bolded. However, I think you're more supportive of the military establishment than I am.

First I've never seen a politician make really big promises they could deliver on and all 3 still running have been making huge promises. All 3 have promises that would probably bankrupt us (Dems on health care, McCain on military and tax cuts). There'll be give and take, from my understanding there's a better chance of getting some done but scaling back for compromise in the Obama health care plan. I figure both will be about the same on military spending (McCain will be much higher, but mostly in ways that won't really strengthen us much) , taxes (can't really just let the cuts lapse, but neither would end up doing a much different phase out of the cuts) or even much smaller budget items like foreign aid (both would increase, but it's a minor budget item and done correctly is money well spent).

There isn't a major party small government choice, the choices are where you want big government to concentrate and again I don't see much difference between Clinton and Obama. McCain would be putting a fair amount of the increase into structures that have proven dysfunctional (like our wonderful search for Swedish grandmother suicide bombers program) without reform which wastes money and degrades our rights and security.

Now I could say that the Obama health care plan is less big government than the Clinton one, this would be accurate but we have no clue what either would look like after going through congress.

My problem is that Obama's new coalition is based on liberals, youth and the poor mainly, and since I'm none of the
above I have a knawing feeling feeling that "new" and "turning the page" is aimed at wealth redistribution (taxes and
entitlements) which might kick me in the kazoo. Clinton has been in the system long enough to expect more compromise...
heck, Bill made a career out of it on welfare, taxes...and yes trade. I still don't believe NAFTA is the villian it's made out
to be...I think it's more China, India and off-shoring companies (Halliburton, parts of IBM, Boeing and Motorola come to mind).

His work bringing industry back to the South Side convinces me of his willingness to compromise and understanding that both parties in a negotiation need incentive. I'm concerned about redistribution too but don't see either as more of a risk that way and McCain is too hard core in the other direction.

I agree that India and China have been a much bigger problem, but either the set procedures or the implementation of NAFTA is badly flawed and the damage is still substantial. Allowing the factories just across the border ended in a major nightmare for both countries, more Mexican drivers without a US license (driving is very different there and not being able to read English can cause substantial hazards) will be a disaster. Until we have a way to help workers in Mexico instead of corporations using them as slave labor NAFTA will remain a problem.

Universal health insurance, approached in a band aid fashion of adding it to the existing system would bankrupt the Country and actual health and wellness care for persons still would not catch up with the other industrialized nations. Keeping health care tied to employment will continue put the US at a disadvantage for competing internationally and continue to be the major impediment against
a person starting their own business. I think it is better to do nothing until we are in a position to instal a not for profit system. The present system is immoral and ineffective.