But if she would have stolen it I would have said great. If you expect every candidate to make up their own stances and not be able to use others for fear of "copying", then you will never get a candidate who wants the best of everything and end up with a lot of good ideas going no where.

If I was a candidate I'd wait until all the stances on the issues were stated by the other candidates, and then choose those that the people clearly supported and desired the most. Then I'd have a platform built on what the people wanted, instead of stabbing in the dark to what was best for everyone.

She is a legitimate candidate. Trying to marginalize her like this because she is a woman makes me very concerned for how much the lip-service Edwards ad Obama give as being for women's rights is merely for show.

The difference between President Clinton and Mrs. Edwards is not that people praise a man for being strong and condemn a woman for the same trait. The difference is that President Clinton believes and has repeatedly stated that he can strongly support his wife WITHOUT being negative about the other candidates. Now if Mrs. Edwards would say and do the same, I don't think anyone would have a problem with her at all.

The facts of the matter are these: That government does not create money–all it can do is take it from productive people; and that health care costs money. By attempting to assert your "right" to health care, you are attempting to assert that it's your "right" to compel me and millions of other people to pay your bills.

I don't think so.

Lets take a look at this ladies and gentlemen. What is the real problem with our health care system? Is it that over 40 million Americans are without coverage? Or is it just the American people that are the problem?

All of the large and costly (in more sense than money) plans are just a band-aid over a huge cut. Blood is going to pour over this little fix-it solution, and then we are going to have to not only fix the problem down the road, but we are going to feel the sting of the band-aid being pulled off.

Both Hillary and Elizabeth are about the same age, very smart women, feminists, law school grads, former working attorneys, and wives of
ambitious (and gorgeous) men. Look what Hillary has done with her life! Even without being elected president, she's been very near the pinnacle of power in the US as first lady and now a two-time senator. Elizabeth Edwards never made it past a bankruptcy lawfirm and now she's a stay-at-home mom (not that there's anything wrong with that...). Some commentators have said she's angry, and perhaps she is as her husband's campaign can't seem to move beyond 12 percent. But the root cause of this sniping, I think, is her seething jealousy. Remember the comment Elizabeth made about Hillary that Elizabeth thinks she has more joy in her life because of her life choices? Why would this issue occur to anyone except out of jealousy?

And we all know that no one has bigger universal health care credentials than Hillary. She's been fighting for it since 1992. Elizabeth's sniping is just plain bizarre. I predict Edwards numbers will go down. BTW, I'm an Obama supporter, but I hate this one-sided girl fight.

I'd rather a president with a strong, intelligent wife then what we have now, a first lady in a fog!

But isn't that what you loved so much about Hillary, she was outspoken and protective of her husband in the face of the right-wing conspiracy?

It's not like Hillary "was home baking cookies". Remember that immortal line from the Queen.

Actually, the doctors never told Mrs. Edwards that she had only "possibly 5 years to live." Yes, her cancer is incurable, but she could in fact live a great many years. Had she not discovered the spots during an xray for an unrelated condition, she may have gone years without even knowing her cancer had returned. Currently, she is receiving treatment that is stabilizing her cancer, treating it as though it is a chronic condition, like diabetes.

Also, they are bringing their children on the campaign trail with them. Imagine how exciting that must be! What a wonderful experience for them to reflect on when they are adults!

Also, I posted earlier to say that Mrs. Edwards is responding to questions asked of her by reporters, and I would expect her to answer them honestly, rather than stare at them blankly, so why are we criticizing her? I also mentioned that John Edwards did in fact respond to HRC's announcement, before this interview with his wife, so there is no need to criticize him for hiding behind his wife. He isn't – he just isn't receiving coverage of what he says.

For some reason unbeknownest to me, CNN pulled that comment, which contained no rudeness or profanity, or anything offensive. So, I'll try again.

2. Thank you Elizabeth Edwards, courageous speaker of truth.

However, the Edwards family are taking their eyes off the ball-or rather, off the Bush. Hillary is not the enemy, she is an opponent–a viable candidate for the presidency and while policy disputes are fine, perhaps productive, the on-going litany of personal attacks have little effect on Senator Clinton's campaign and they harm the Democratic cause to the extent that character attacks feed the Republican fear machine.

Hillary has been fighting on behalf children and adults without adequate insurance for decades. She does not need ideas from former Senator Edwards and the progressives in America do not need to watch the Democrats lose yet another election that should be a "slam dunk."

Mrs. Edwards is unassailable as the brave wife and Mother in a battle for her life against recurrent breast cancer. I cannot know what she is going through and will not pretend to. That said, I hope she will not consciously or unconsciously play on her unique situation to attack a candidate who, in almost any other scenario, would be a natural ally.

During a week when Bush is announcing a veto of the bipartisan bill extending health benefits to millions of the destitute children that are at the heart of the Edwards campaign, Elizabeth would do well to regain her focus and stop the personal attacks that blur the battle lines and give succor to the Republican disease devouring our nation.

Congress is owned by lobbyists. Clinton has learned by now that
working with the health care industry instead of against them is the only way it will ever happen no matter who's ideas are being considered.

She doesn't need to steal from Edwards or anyone else. If the plans from Clinton or Edwards or Romney look alike maybe its because its the best solution and one that at least gets its started.

Developing a national health care system won't happen overnight and won't be all it should be with the first program enacted. But we have to start somewhere.

I say we start by electing Hillay and supporting her efforts... and take a good look at who tries to stop it and why.

$110 billion dollors... we've spent a lot more than that on a war thats killed almost 4000 american kids. Maybe we can spend some on saving some peoples lives as well.

John Edwards is the last person I would want in the White House. But then I suppose half the attention of the President is better than the non-attention of the current administration.

The health care plan was the cause and passion for lots of time for Hillary while she was the first lady in the 1990's. At that time, JOhn Edwards was a nobody.

Elizabeth is getting more desperate and angry as she sees her husband is sinking fast in polls. She should learn to shut up to let him do the talking.

Sen. Edwards needs a spine.

Elizabeth shut up. You'r not on the ballot.

Either way both plans are crap

Do we think Obama and Edwards are principled and Clinton corrupt? Or do we think Obama (and Edwards?) are idealistic, with Clinton the only one of the three who understands how to play the game to succeed in Washington?

I don't want a president who doesn't understand how things work, doesn't understand how to get things done. I want my president to be competent, able to broker deals and make things happen. I want him or her to understand how power in Washington works.

I just wish we had a candidate who had demonstrated political acumen on the national and global stage AND wasn't so dependent on special interest money.

Posted By David, Dallas Tx : September 20, 2007 1:16 pm
In response I write. This is an example of the cowardice that is ruining the democratic party. Democrats were elected in large part, to end corruption in Washington. People like this are more driven by the nostalgia of the past than good canditates who we know will to do the right thing.

Where is the logic in electing corrupt potiticians to end corruption? We want to end lobbying not reward it. I ask my fellow Democrats to grow a backbone, and realize that we DO have canditates who are dirtymoney free AND the genius needed to rebuild our political process. Obama-Edwards.