I had the pleasure today, of talking to a lifelong republican, who is very excited about our new president. She said - he's young, he has a great wife, he lives for his daughters, he's got new energy, and he's got smart people. She said - we need something new, why not try this?

I smiled. I knew, despite not having ever spoken to her on this subject, that she was a republican. As a black person, sometimes you can tell by the way white people look at you that they are republican. It's just one of those things. But - here she was, happy to tell me, on terms that had nothing to do with race, why she was excited for our incoming president. One of her reasons was "smart people."

I don't care what anybody says. Smart people to go along with a smart president is a GOOD thing!

QT

>>I had the pleasure today, of talking to a lifelong republican, who is very excited about our new president

In my opinion, this is not good news.

Yeah, because getting republicans fired up about a liberal agenda is a bad thing!

I mean - we want a bloody fight in the streets over universal healthcare! It won't be as good if we get it without killing repubs!

And like... who needs to go green if we can't spill red republican blood in the process!

QT

>>In my opinion, this is not good news.

Yes, because we want four to eight years in which Republicans attack, obstruct and smear the president based upon the craziest, most ridiculous horsehit imaginable. We want more elections that are divided by red and blue states irrespective of socio-economic demographics, rather than bringing in more Obama Republicans who are discovering that maybe -- just maybe -- liberalism actually works. But naahhhh -- we don't want Republicans supporting the president. He's OURS! Or ELSE! Or else we nominate an unelectable Kucinich-Sanders ticket in eight years.

Either that or conservatives are finding that Obama's policies are more compatible with their shitty worldview than they'd thought. Also, meeting with McCain over cabinet picks.

>>Either that or conservatives are finding that Obama's policies are more compatible with their shitty worldview than they'd thought.

Which policies?

Sounds like Travis needs an ex-lax.

Messing around with the capital gains tax, keeping health insurance private- these aren't things that grab me as particularly progressive.

Let's go with the private health insurance.

1. He RAN on a promise of private insurance and other supplemental plans. Why would you be upset NOW that he's won, that he intends to actually do what he said? That seems dishonest at best. I thought that progressives were hand-wringing because they thought Obama was going back on some promises - but this is the exact opposite of going back on promises.

2. How precisely are you going to get health care done otherwise? I remember Hillarycare. Not much was accomplished there...

QT

>>How precisely are you going to get health care done otherwise?

Nationalize it. Single-payer insurance. Simple.

>>Nationalize it. Single-payer insurance. Simple.

Simple, perhaps. But that would change too much at once, so would never get done.

The proposed plan is quite similar to what has been implemented already in Massachusetts, and it works pretty well here.

>The proposed plan is quite similar to what has been implemented already in Massachusetts, and it works pretty well here.

Yeah, penalizing people for not having the money to buy in and giving tons of money to big insurance companies. Give me some of that hot action.

Nationalize it? Ok... I'm asking again. How do you get that done? Given the political realities - lay out the scenario in which Barack Obama succeeds in nationalizing health care.

(And I note, however, that you ignored my first point which was, in this case, more important. Obama NEVER promised nationalized health care, and the fact that he isn't now getting ready to deliver it is not reason to be mad at him.)

QT