Obama is getting lumped in with Hillary because of the large amount of money he is raising but he is getting if from the broadest base of donors and is not accepting PAC money (unlike a certain front runner)

Obama graduated from Harvard Law, Magna Cum Laude and president of the Harvard Law Review.  He could have written his own ticket and become the wealthiest lawyer in the world but he returned to Chicago to practice civil rights law.  That's the kind of character we need in the White House.

...is no more remarkable than the Clinton's.  They were both top scholars who have been public servants most of their lives.  They didn't have two nickels to rub together for years and only in the last little has Bill made a lot of money speaking.

I'm not sure I would categorize Obama as having more character than most of the other candidates.  I think he's a fine man, but he has a history of accepting money from dubious sources in Chicago.  I don't hold it against him.  I try to be a political realist and realize most successful politicians have made some bad choices. 

As for PAC's, there's nothing wrong with accepting money from a PAC.  Jim Webb's Born Fighting deal is a pac.  So is VoteVets and a lot of political actions committees devoted to pushing candidates who will support good causes.  The word PAC has become a dirty word because we've seen some bad ones, but they are not an inherently bad thing.  I'm thinking of forming one myself to put the issues relating to old, fat, washed up nightclub singers.  First thing my PAC is gonna push is to make airplane seats bigger and bring back the Twist. 

You brag that Obama has a plan for ?universal health care.?  He doesn?t.  His website boasts of a plan for affordable insurance premiums, and that may be better than the present situation, but it is not ?universal health care.?  That term should be reserved for a plan that says, ?You?ve got a pulse, you?ve got a doctor?; not ?You?ve got a pulse and $200 a month, you?ve got a doctor.?  In fairness, none of the other candidates has a true "universal health care" plan either.

When you click on them they take you to more information.  Below is a link to the main Obama health care page which has more links to further details, overview and Q&A.

http://origin.barack...

"As president, I will sign a universal health-care plan into law by the end of my first term in office." - Barack Obama May 29, 2007

*  No one will be turned down for pre-existing conditions
*  The plan will be similar to what is currently available to federal workers
*  If you cant afford insurance, you will be provided with a government subsidy
*  Your insurance will be portable and not tied to your job
*  You will have the option of buying health insurance from the private market if you want more choices
*  You won?t have to wait in long lines if you need to see a doctor
*  The government will help pay for the cost of very expensive treatments
*  Will place an emphasis on prevention. 

?The problem is there is currently no financial incentive for health care providers to offer services that will encourage patients to eat right or exercise or go to annual checkups and screenings that can help detect diseases early. The real profit today is made in treating diseases, not preventing them.?

*  Will bring down costs by stressing accountability which will also have the effect of improving quality
*  Will demand the implementation of electronic medical records (EMRs)
*  Will force health insurance companies to compete

My wife has an aneurysm.  We're not turned down for insurance--we're robbed, paying nearly 2 grand a month.  I also worry about the option of buying private health insurance to get something better.  Of course, there's no way to fix this, but I smell a two tiered system, one for the wealthy and another for those who are not.

I haven't read his plan but it there a how he's gonna do it part.  Some of this reads like pie in the sky, but I should read his plan before I start making pronouncements. 

When health insurance companies were forced to compete in Kentucky--most of them left the state, leaving the self-employed like me with no choice but a high priced Anthem plan with a big deduct.  I can afford to get sick and die, but I can't linger very long.  :)

Don't misunderstand, Todd--I'm not dogging Obama.  I don't have a pick for President yet, but I worry some of these plans are half-measures and the only real way to redo health insurance is  a total rebuild from the ground up.  Medicare did pretty well for my parents.  They had to buy supplemental coverage and the Medicare part D drug plan is a sell-out to the drug companies, but my parents received pretty good health care from Medicare and it was delivered to them in Florida where the system is as overloaded as any state in the country. 

As a member of the demographic

Giulianis favorables are because of 9/11 argubally our defining moment.  We were 11-23 at the time.

The healthcare is really confusing to me from a logical perspective since most of us are healthy and would not be taking out as much as we put in so its a net loss.  Its similar to the social security issue.  (I think private accounts score high for "us") 

I think the actual number has to do with the fact that while in college/looking for a job many of us dont have access to health insurance.  But, for people with "professional" jobs I would expect the numbers to be alot less.

Watch your language on the gay marriage issue the majority (56%) is against gay marriage.  I am in the civil union category on that one. 

No clue on the morman thing but its pretty close to the margin of error 

You know I use to fall in the category of those who favored civil unions but not gay marriage but now I find myself asking what's the difference?"  Is it just in the name? 

that all people are treated EQUALLY under the law.  I don't care what you call it, but nobody should get special preferences because they are black, brown, white, gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or atheist.  The law should be completely blind when it comes to intrinsic characteristics like these.

I agree in some respect.  For the reasons you have mentioned and because of the question that I have asked myself I now lean towards the idea allowing of gay marriage.  Aside from the ridiculous wording, this is another reason why I voted against the "Marriage Amendment."

As far as being treated equally under the law, I agree in principle but must remind you that it is simply not the case.  Society does not operate on these terms so why should the law totally ignore this fact.  This is one reason why I support affirmative action but that's for another discussion.

Many agree on civil unions, which is as it should be.  As for marriage, I believe if civil unions are in place then the only place the word marriage is important is in the church and that should be between the church and the couple getting married.

I can't believe the small government types are so eager to butt their noses into peoples bedrooms.  To me marriage is a public ceremony where two people pledge their love and commitment to each other.  What in the hell is wrong with this. 

I've been married three times, (proving my true support for the institution.)  If two gay guys want to get married--big deal. Hell, if they let me get married three times, anybody ought to be able to do so.

To deny gay people this special moment in their lives is indefensible, and against everything it means to be an American.  We're Americans--we're supposed to be the good guys. I think Congress, anti-gay nuts and everyone else who opposes this most basic of freedoms should get a life and keep their noses out of everyone else's.  I'm especially irritated with otherwise good Democrats who chicken out when it comes to this issue. 

One thing I knoe--this next generation of kids are gonna step up and make the change.  As we're too damned dumb to accept people who might be a little different, it may very weil take aonther generation of our children to come in and clean up our foolish, foolish mess.