I'm in a quandary, as I admit that I was very young at the time, but my honest question is thus: Are all "Reagan Democrats" equivalent to Archie Bunker?  And if so, weren't these voters lost to BO from the get-go?  If so, is there a way for BO to win without these votes?  If not, what does that mean for the Dems chances in the GE given that the latest polls show that 55% of Dems believe that it would be unfair for HRC to become the nominee should BO be leading in delegates and popular vote (an increasingly likely scenario given the news out of FL and MI this week) and that 20% of Dems would not vote for HRC, regardless?  I'm feeling a little verklempt, discuss....

Sorry, but the initial post got cutoff for some reason...

Wolf Blitzer claims that its way too important that the Florida and Michigan Democrats be seated at the national convention.  Why?  And why does Wolf care?

 

This is all hooey.  Florida and Michigan voters should take it up with their elected representatives that voted to move their primary and the DNC (including one Harold Ickes) who stripped them of all delegates.  All the campaigns knew and agreed to this going into the contest.  Bill Nelson sued and lost in district court and said at the time that he would not appeal.  Seems the only thing that’s changed is HRC’s placement and the MSM’s desire to see this go on in order to boost their ratings.

 

So, as a Florida resident I say to heck with Florida’s delegates.  We brought this on ourselves and now have to live with the consequences!  So, thanks Wolf, but go cry your crocodile tears elsewhere.

Wolf Blitzer claims that its way too important that the

As a remedy to the "Florida Issue", why not sit the Florida delegates according to the Jan. 29 results and strip the state of Super Delegates as a penalty (after all, it is these "supers" that got us into this position).  Michigan would needs some type of re-do or divide the pledged delegates 50/50 as Clinton was the only candidate (of any significance) on the ballot.  Again, Michigan would need to be stripped of their supers as a penalty as they are responsible for this mess. 

Norah O'Donnell reports that in Ohio a majority of voters said that races was an issue in their selection and 80% of those went to Clinton.

Shame on Ohio.

I just got done reading this article by Dana Millbank on the Clinton Campain (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing it out).

Go me thinking...  Are Bagdad Bob and Monty Python's Black Knight the remaining spokespersons for the HRC Campain?

There seems to be an odd debate going on here about whose plan is more "Universal" than others.  In my opionion, neither Obama's plan nor Clinon's plan reaches the Nirvana of Universal Healthcare.  To me, that can only be reached if we are willing to go to a taxpayer-financed, single-payer solution.  While I believe that this is the best solution, my sense of where we are is that there is a snowball's chance in hell of this getting enacted - no matter who is elected president.

Accordingly, what is wrong with Universal Access to Healthcare?  I think that it is much more attainable in the end to say that we will make healthcare more affordable by attacking the administrative overhead that continues to drive up healthcare costs while adding no value to the process.  Additionally, we can toughen insurance industry regulations to mandate that they cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing condtions.  Finally, we can open up the federal insurance to make it available to everyone.

Again, I know it's not the ideal solution, but it sure seems to be to be a step in the right direction.

I appreciate (in advance) your feedback and analysis on this topic.