No. It didn't. It makes no sense why you are voting for him.

So he isn't proposing a total mandate but he is proposing a little mandate. I guess you proved your point.

From Mr. Obama's website

Does he not realize what this will do to the markets? He'll set Health insurance prices. Adverse Selection will be that all those employers with people with chronic diseases will lose their current coverage and will now go to the government plan.

First of all who is going to decide what a "meaning contribution" is going to be and then what % of their payroll will they be required to pay for the national plan?

How are we going to pay for that one? BTW if we keep expanding government programs wouldnt that turn into National Health Insurance? His whole section on improving quality of care is complete crap.

I read his views on health care. I laud his efforts to want to change items (especially mental health) I just don't agree with how he wants to change things.

Because Oprah told me to.

Admit it, after you read his silly ideas, you felt sorry for him. This is a sympathy vote, pure and simple.

Last night it occurred to me how odd this line of thinking is: complaining about an uninformed electorate on the one hand, and then criticizing nearly every means a voter has these days to get informed. Someone wants to have it both ways.

There is no such thing as an objective source in politics (which almost by definition is opinion). Getting the candidate's ideas from the horse's mouth is a good and fair idea, but you'll get his spin just as much as anyone else's. We have more options available to us to BE informed than any group of people in any era of the world. TV, radio, blogs, etc. ought to be praised, not criticized. What options did people have in 1980 to be informed about Ronald Reagan's policies? In 1960 about JFK's?

The system isn't perfect. I watch "Jaywalking" like everyone else and know there's a bunch of willful ignoramuses out there who don't know and don't care (of which many seem to have drifted to the Obama campaign). But if you want to hear opinions, from BOTH sides, all you have to do is turn it on, or log on. It's that simple.

That's a good thing.

Tex- the current way people learn about politics and candidates is anything but good. I don't know why this is just now occurring to you. It has been fairly commented on for years.

It is a chicken-egg issue. Did the candidates first boil their policies down to 15 second sound bytes, or did the news cycles start cutting out everything except 15 second sound bytes and the candidates then catered to the news organizations?

It doesn't really matter who did what first, in the end, because we are stuck with the simple fact that there isn't much discussion on issues in the media. The issues are oversimplified and discussed only if there is a big scary graphic pertaining to the issue. This is true of all MSM.

With the blogs, they are even more overtly partisan than the MSM in most cases. The blogs are where you can go to get the spin on an event involving your preferred candidate.

The place where you will find the most detailed information on a candidate's positions will be in that candidate's white papers (which are almost always on that person's website). Of course it will have spin. Are you going to tell me you have found some great source of information that doesn't spin anything? But more importantly, it will have details- far more than you will get from any other source.

The system is not perfect, but when has it ever been? More information and opinion and commentary, not less, is preferable. Reducing our political discussion down to a few candidates' white papers would be disastrous, IMO. It's a fine place to start, but there are things they won't tell you.

Dismissing all the available political commentary as "biased" is a complete red herring. There're better blogs and worse blogs, better talk radio and worse talk radio, better newspapers and worse newspapers, and so on. I suppose I'm simplistic enough to believe the market of ideas sorts out which is which.

It has it's problems, but overall I prefer it to the alternative. Currently voters have the ability to get the information they need to fairly judge a candidate. Whether or not they do is another matter. The one thing I appreciate about the current state of media is that the bias of the presenter is largely apparent, whether it be FoxNews, CNN, talk radio, blogs or the candidates.

Who is advocating less commentary? It should be pretty apparent that I want more commentary (particularly since my problem with the current state of affairs is the 15 second sound byte). I want more discussion, more analysis, etc. In the current state of affairs, the best place we can go to learn about a candidate's positions is a candidate's white paper.

It depends on what the alternative is.