To keep it positive, let's talk about what I'm thankful for.
Thank goodness that all three of the top candidates (McCain, Obama, Clinton) are all social liberals. Perhaps all three of them have what it takes to prevent insurance companies from denying paying customers coverage, based on a health episodes of many years ago.
If it were McCain vs. Obama, that would be refreshing, as both men think independently from their party, and are willing to defy party wishes to do what they believe is right. They are also willing to compromise with other leaders to find solutions to common problems that everybody can live with. Neither candidate is a polarizing figure (Bushes and Clintons both are), which will hopefully bring together this nation that has been split due to the policies. rhetoric, and poor speaking skills of G.W. Bush.
I don't believe the country will be that much different depending on who wins. They are all moderates (social liberals) with some common sense (and they all say things to please their constituents, but that doesn't mean it will be a top priority), so I'm going to go out on a limb, and predict that any of them will do fine.
I'm voting for Obama because that's what my gut tells me. He speaks more about working together for common sense causes, which we need more of on the capital hill. And if he weren't an intelligent problem solver, he would not have made it as a successful lawyer and a senator. Unlike Bush, this is a man we can look up to as an example of defying the odds (just look at his full name) to achieve the American dream. Out of all of the candidate, who will have the problem solving and communication skills to be an efficient head of state? That's Obama, without a doubt.
The MONEY QUESTION: Why do you oppose the idea of anybody who's willing to pay being able to get health coverage? If we can do it for cars, why not people? My friend, who was denied by Keiser due to a past illness, wants to know.
Last edited by p-did; 02-16-2008 at 08:19 PM.
|