Reply #68: I'm not firmly in her camp, but she would be great as Pres/Dem nominee IMO - but your

[papau]

positions that she takes layout are not quite what I see.

"lobbyists"?

Edwards (trial lawyers) and Obama (Health ins in 2004 - employees and family of lobbyists now) seem to be as deeply beholden to lobbyists as she is - and indeed until Federal Financing that prohits private financing, that is our system.


"her health care program funded by "tax credits" and her having a "mandatory"provision for this insurance. She said she can "envision a day when we will have to show "proof' of insurance when we apply for a job."

A universal program must have mandatory something - it is not funded by tax credits - and proof of insurance else a payroll tax makes administrative sense for new hires. - Her Medicare like public alternative is single payer and has the GOP shitting their pants - I like that.


Her CAFTA vote and conversion to fair trade over free trade makes her of interest.

Her energy policy is cleaner than Obama's albeit not as well thought out as Richardson's.

Her union support is weak - but is there - Edwards is much better.

Her environment record/support is fine as viewed from the left.

Her econ/tax policy proposals make sense - although I like Obama's removal of the SS wage cap for the payroll tax idea - but Obama says it is just an idea and won't commit to it.