Is the party ceding too much ground with it's position on health care?

Some netrootsers are not happy with our candidate's position on the subject, and while his point is valid, that the Dem platform on health care is not true universal coverage, that the overarching argument that the candidate should be blamed for not carving out a hard position and support for single payer universal health care (SPUHC from now on here) ignores the nuances of our political system, right or wrong.

Firstly, to assume that any such sweeping reform would be passed through congress unscathed, Democratic majority or not is a pipe dream. Second, getting the public behind an idea that was successfully branded as socialist medicine could be more work than thought. Third, getting the public behind any political change beyond the popularity contest that is our election, is damn near impossible.

I believe that Senator Obama believes that SPUHC is in our best interest, and it is the system most capable of fixing our badly beaten system. I also believe that realistically, the best path to this is with baby steps, an idea supported by his (not so) universal proposal.

How dare you think that? I'm still getting back into the swing of writing and independent thinking..I really have only vaguely followed politics since the 04 election, probably up until December of last year. My (worthless) endorsement is still incoming. Until then, random thoughts.


Concern trolling the primary wars (candidates): Trust me, we'll all join forces. It may not seem like it, but letting this race go through Texas and especially Ohio is a great thing for the Democratic party. The infrastructure that it builds and the interest that it brings to the race is something that the best advertising couldn't buy come November.

Overly biased blogging: Blogs that I used to consider to be the gold standard are playing a game that I thought the left leaning blogosphere was above. If I wanted spin, I'd turn on the television. Kos, Jerome, I know that you are pretty open supporters of your respective candidates, and I can respect that. Allowing your communities to devolve into the void is a tough one to counter considering the setup of your respective site, but I only hope that this ends when our nomination process does. Neither are as vile as Taylor Marsh, whom I consider to be the Hannity or maybe more apt: the Baghdad Bob of the blogosphere. I haven't seen an independent thought come out of this blog since the primaries began.

This is the first in a series of posts set to detail my thought process and my choices in support for the Democratic primary. This post in specific will detail the time leading from mid summer last year, when intentions to run were coming in, up until before the Iowa caucuses.

May 30 last year, quoted from my MySpace blog:

Well the cycle continues to start earlier and earlier each year. Last time around, I was just getting into the world that was Howard Dean. This time we already have frontrunners: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Who's speaking to me?

Hillary has spent her time in the Senate positioning and running for President, pandering to the lowest common denominator idiot that will still think she's too liberal, and also in the meantime alienating the liberal base. Who would vote for her then? Clinton is the Republican dream nomination, an easy target with a big link to the all time favorite target, Slick Bill himself. Look, I like Bill Clinton a lot, but Hillary isn't speaking to me at all. She seems more concerned with regulating video games than addressing health care or poverty.

Barack Obama is an interesting guy. He has the most liberal voting record on the current Senate. He has just recently unveiled a plan for universal Health Care. He is a hell of a speaker. He has attained something of a rock star status. What's wrong then? Sadly, the voters. No matter how great this guy is, I don't see Joe Red-State voting for a black guy with a terrorist name. Politics will prevent this guy from being viable, as I just don't see him picking up any territory that Kerry couldn't. A good VP candidate perhaps and 2016 heir? Maybe then his experience can get him over the racist barrier, but for now?

I'm liking John Edwards. I'll admit I wasn't a huge fan in 2004 with his centrist bullshit, but now that this guy is far far away from Shrum Devine(seriously, who hired these jackasses?) he is speaking to me. Out of Iraq? Check. War on Terror a bumper sticker? Check. Universal Health Care? Check. Good speaker? Check. Strenghten the middle class? Check. Electable? Very much so, especially more than the other two serious candidates. Republican's are far and away more afraid of this guy than anyone else, he's difficult to attack.

As of right now, I support John Edwards for our candidate to run for President next year. You probably should too. Sure the usual suspects are there too, Sharpton, Kucinich, but let's be realistic. I don't see a scenario in which any given Democrat would be worse than any particular Republican next year, and with that it looks like I'll be voting that way anyway, but Edwards far and away represents our greatest chance at real progressive change. Any friends that I have in the Super Tuesday (it's in February this time!) states take note.

John Edwards really defined the debate and did himself some good in getting issues on the table, and as a result of his efforts, the policy of the two remaining candidates is largely defined by issues that he put on the front burner. For whatever reason, his candidacy just never took off. Looking back, I can say that in that time of following debates from May until January, my stances softened considerably on the "front runner's club." Barack may just be that damn good, good enough to get over what I referred to as a racist barrier, and Hillary, in spite of some pandering tendencies, has some really great ideas and would make a damn fine nominee. Either one of these two would make an incredible candidate and an even better President. Let me preface my "endorsement" with this caveat: If the other nominee were to take the nomination, I will fully support their candidacy and vote their way in November, and I believe that this election is important enough that we get past squabbles with the other Democratic campaign and make sure our party comes first. With all that said, the nominee that I feel is best to represent us, the nominee that I feel has the best chance of winning, and most importantly, the nominee that I feel will bring the best policy to Washington DC (BYAAAAH) is....

TO BE CONTINUED

Wow, reading through some of these older posts..I can't believe some of what I wrote. I was pretty damn good at this! Mark, thanks for the warm welcome back. I knew I never deleted this blog for a reason.

I'm going to spend most of the day updating these links, as much as I want to leave them, out of laziness and some kind of statement. With all of the primary hype, I haven't been much following local races. Anyone have any suggestions on who to look into? Does anyone with a little artistic skill want to donate a logo? Geocities ate mine.

As for the presidential race, I am ready to give my full endorsement to.....no, not yet. I have a clear favorite, but I feel I have to earn the weight of any kind of message I could put up here, rather than come back after a near four year hiatus and just throw a name at you. With that said, I will be working on an entire post dedicated to the primary timeline, and my thoughts surrounding it from the 6 man race, all the way up to the two man (person?) race we have now.

The blogosphere you ask? Well it's kind of gone mainstream hasn't it? Kos is still top of the pops, some names have changed and shifted on, and some people show how even a completely free site can be successful. It's great to see a lot of the names that I remember from the 04 era still on point, but even more so pushing a completely independent message..it seems a lot less group think than I remember, with the exception of the presidential election. The biggest disappointment? It appears that some of my old friends have also given up the business; unless my google-fu fails me, stockton and tweed are missing.

On to work on updating some of these links. See you soon.

Following a mish-mash of name changes and a self imposed hiatus, I am returning to the world of political blogging, and what better place than where it all started. As you can see, I have some housekeeping to do. Some of these links bring back some great memories.

Where have I been? Since the Left Times begat the (seemingly unavailable in archive form) Polexicon, which begat Blog Underground (something I think could have been a great idea if someone other than me, hell, anyone with a little bit of coding sense ran it) which begat my leaving political soapboxes of all kind. 2004 was very difficult for me, putting in so much time and effort only to see things go down in flames.

Since then, I have gotten married, and my son Connor is due in the next month. A child brings a renewed drive and interest in shaping things to come. Is it too late to undo the damage done by the Bush administration? Do I still have time to ensure that Connor's future is secure?

To ensure my notoriously fickle blogging habits, I am going to consider this what it is: me shooting the shit about politics. No scheme to build a massive soapbox, no plan to make money, no worries about readership. No name changes, no new domains, no massive redesigning, no higher functionality. Simple, me, and to the point, The Left Times is here to remain. I am much less worried about ping services, and focused where I feel the focus belongs: content.

It's good to be back, and the next week or so, look for me doing some catching up, musing about things that have happened before we get into where we stand now and my thoughts on that. See you soon.