I saw that. Good show. His discussion with Jonathan was the closest thing I've seen to an actual factual and impassioned debate in a long time.

How on earth can Obama earn the faith of the community when he has hidden himself so effectively from that community?

Check his record. Who is this guy? What is in his past, including his own birth, that isn't shrouded in secrecy, kept under lock and key? And this is the guy you want us to believe has the best interest of the community, the whole community at heart? You can't be serious.

Obama seems to have forgotten, or never really understood, the American people need to develop a special bond with their President before they believe him. They need to know where he comes from. They need to know who he is. Who are his old friends, his role models when he was growing up? What makes him tick? Without this kind of basic background information made public, he's just another talking head.

You want people to start believing in this guy? First prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he has qualified to be President.*

Release his educational records, his senior-year thesis at Columbia, his Harvard records, for starters.

Sure, we need health care reform. But is it Obama's goal too, or just another political trophy for him to place on his wall of unfinished, half-thought out political theories?

You want the American people to place something as important as their medical well-being in the hands of someone who can't even tell us his real age?

Not a chance.

Yes, I know people are going to come on here and mock this post. But the bottom line is, the longer Obama hides his past from the public, the less trust he will garnish with the American people. In the end, if Obama loses the trust of the American people, he will have no one to blame but himself.

ex animo
davidfarrar

*ps: First: Release all of his educational records he is presently withholding, all federal records, including all previous passports issued, foreign or domestic, social security numbers that have been and are presently assigned to Barack Obama, Jr. or to any of his aliases.

Second: Allow his long form, Hawaiian
"Certificate of Live Birth" document, to be examined by a panel of (independently assigned) forensic experts to the determine the document's authenticity.

Thirdly: Depending on the information contained therein, produce corroborating evidence.

Lastly: Take the issue of Barack Obama meeting the "natural born" provision of the U.S. Constitution to the Supreme Court, even with his new appointment, and have him declared a "natural born" citizen. Then and only then will I address Mr. Obama as President Obama.

You know, Matthews is such a damn habit. I mean twenty years? Maybe 15.

Now I catch more of Ed than Chris. Ed is mad about this. Ed is a good solid liberal Democrat.

And health care is HIS PRIORITY.

Good Post. Ramona, I am going to try to sell him more too.

We have a whole host of friends here who just gave up on tv a long time ago.

I gave up on Jonathan Alter after an exchange with him about the leadup to the Iraq war and his weak excuses for not writing or even paying attention to the truth about Saddam Hussein's WMD status (it's my contention that there was ample evidence to indicate that Saddam had destroyed the weaponry.)

It doesn't surprise me that Alter's focused on the details rather than the principles. He's been terrified of Republicans for years, and clearly not much has changed. Just an unimpressive sort of guy, although I'm sure his family loves him.

His comments did make me think though, that perhaps Obama's team should clarify what exactly each part of the legislation is supposed to do and make the message crystal clear.

1. Get rid of pre-existing conditions.
2. Regulate cost practices to level out costs.
3. Provide the public option to force costs down.

(Going ahead without the Republicans will help clarify.)

I had watched this and there was comment throughout of negotiation and the closing was about negotiation. There is nothing wrong with this idea. It is necessary. However, where things frequently go wrong in Washington is negotiations often produce failure.

Why do we so often have to settle for a costly compromise that is horribly short on the actual solution side? I strongly question this and think it's just stupid beyond reason. Every April 15th everyone is legally obliged to pony up what is deemed their fair share. Tax inequities aside, the system then obliges government to deliver the goods. That our government so frequently fails in that obligation, frequently catastrophically, is a huge problem.

Alter kept focusing on the pre-existing condition provision as the most critical aspect of HCR. He is wrong. All that would accomplish, without a some parallel price reduction provision, is to INCREASE industry costs, and therefore, prices.

No, the most critical aspect of HCR is price reduction, just as Ed stated. Of course, pre-existing conditions and not dropping patients who need care must also be a part of any HCR, but by themselves, they would only act to drive up insurance premiums.

I do agree with one thing Alter said. That a public-option is mostly a means to a price reduction ends. Without some public-option the only other means to reduce prices would be to enact Alter's suggestion to regulate health insurance prices. I don't see how Alter figures this would be an easier sell than is a public-option.

Big Ed is a populist and for the life of me I can't figure out why Democrats don't get the fact that they need to be able to do populism. That may irritate the ivory tower set, but that was what won elections for Bill Clinton. It wasn't moderate mush. It was the ability to connect with the folks. Paul Wellstone could do it too from the left.