The Next President of the USA will be?

[manderlyh]

Full Obama Speech

[Pb Derigable]

A Republican. 35% of the country will vote Republican no matter what, 35% will vote Democratic no matter what. So that leaves 30% of the country on the tipping point. you could say 10% will vote for another candidate. so thats 20% That's only 22 million people (110 million voted last time). So you would have to find 11 million people who wont have a problem with a Black or Women President. (I'm presuming Obama or Hillary would win the nomination). This country is run by Rich White Men. I'm not being a racist. The main issues will be Iraq in which everybody will say get the fuck out of there but no one will do it, and the economy. The tax cut will go a long way. which weill help the Republican's. Granted this would hold true if the replublicans don't put a complete ass up there just like John Kerry. For all the talk of how bad Bush was in 04 he still won.

Health insurance is getting to expensive for companies now. They oringinaly offered it to lure top employess from college. now since more and more kids are going to college, you don't have to fight over employees now. In the future the only poeple with company paid insurance will be Union and Govt. employees. In my union we get paid $40hr. but the company pays 17 dollars more to the union to cover the insurance. By law the union has to have 10 years of insurance money in the bank, so it cant go bankrupt or be sold out. Anyways its the union member who decide to cancel the insurance. Not the company themselves who could go bankrupt.

[zosodude13]

A Republican. 35% of the country will vote Republican no matter what, 35% will vote Democratic no matter what. So that leaves 30% of the country on the tipping point. you could say 10% will vote for another candidate. so thats 20% That's only 22 million people (110 million voted last time). So you would have to find 11 million people who wont have a problem with a Black or Women President. (I'm presuming Obama or Hillary would win the nomination). This country is run by Rich White Men. I'm not being a racist. The main issues will be Iraq in which everybody will say get the fuck out of there but no one will do it, and the economy. The tax cut will go a long way. which weill help the Republican's. Granted this would hold true if the replublicans don't put a complete ass up there just like John Kerry. For all the talk of how bad Bush was in 04 he still won.

Health insurance is getting to expensive for companies now. They oringinaly offered it to lure top employess from college. now since more and more kids are going to college, you don't have to fight over employees now. In the future the only poeple with company paid insurance will be Union and Govt. employees. In my union we get paid $40hr. but the company pays 17 dollars more to the union to cover the insurance. By law the union has to have 10 years of insurance money in the bank, so it cant go bankrupt or be sold out. Anyways its the union member who decide to cancel the insurance. Not the company themselves who could go bankrupt.

first of all... there will be WAY more then 110 million people who vote... I'm predicting a record turnout at the polls this november... and, I want to thank george bush for being such a bad president in the public forum, that he increased the people's desire to voice their choice for the next presidnt...

secondly... the democrats manage to lose this election, the party is dead. plain and simple. everything has been set up by the last 8 years of this administration for a democratic controled government... but, as usual, the democrats will find a way to destroy themselves from the inside... while the republican party will unite under their candidate, regardless of how coservative he is...

[Del Zeppnile]

Uhh.. since when are you the expert on what 'the vast majority of democrats want'?

Fwiw,.. 1. the vast majority of democrats are not looking at John McCain favorably these days,.. not even in comparison to Hillary Clinton. 2. given the fact that Hillary is a progressive liberal, her political pov has always been, and will always be, well to the left of McCain and any other repub candidate, and 3. Hillary being to the left of McCain and any other repub candidate appeals to the vast majority of democrats. Democrats want a progressive president, Del.

I can't help but notice that your post is noticeably lacking in any depth or detail (you know,.. 'substance') with regard to criticisms about universal health care, Delberto. Attaching Hillary's name to the idea does not in and of itself make universal health care a bad idea. Both Hillary and Obama are ready and eager to have the health care debate with whoever the republican nominee turns out to be.

Anyway,.. forget about HillaryCare, you best start worrying about BarackCare.

McCain vs Obama.. debating healthcare.. I look forward to that debate!

Uhh.. since when are you the expert on what 'the vast majority of democrats want'?

Well my point was that it is generally the Democrats in the middle states who end up deciding the Presidency. For awhile we called them Reagan Democrats (those with clearly more moderate to conservative views than the liberal Dems on the coastlines and the big cities.) And let's not forget that it was some of those 'Traditional Dems' in Ohio who ended up tipping the scales towards GW in the last election over the clearly left of center John Kerry.

Fwiw,.. 1. the vast majority of democrats are not looking at John McCain favorably these days,.. not even in comparison to Hillary Clinton. 2. given the fact that Hillary is a progressive liberal, her political pov has always been, and will always be, well to the left of McCain and any other repub candidate, and 3. Hillary being to the left of McCain and any other repub candidate appeals to the vast majority of democrats. Democrats want a progressive president, Del.

But I just don't see that as being the way the voting trends have ended up going. Both Gore and Kerry ran campaigns that were left of center and lost. And if we go back to Mondale and McGovern they ran pretty far to the left in that 'progressive' area that you are talking about and they were also soundly defeated. But if you look at the Presidential campaigns of both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, they were both pretty much moderates (at least in their campains) and they won. I believe that the telling point about the last two was that they had great appeal in the conservative rural areas that I am talking about.

I believe that McCain will have a lot of appeal to moderate Democrats. Hell, from my perspective he has been gearing his message to them for years now.

I can't help but notice that your post is noticeably lacking in any depth or detail (you know,.. 'substance') with regard to criticisms about universal health care, Delberto. Attaching Hillary's name to the idea does not in and of itself make universal health care a bad idea. Both Hillary and Obama are ready and eager to have the health care debate with whoever the republican nominee turns out to be.

I know I have been only laying a few glancing blows in this thread. But I am pretty much out numbered here, obviously. In terms of Hillarycare, I just see her plan as once again attempting to do far too much toward a socialized government controlled system that will meet stiff opposition at every turn. It may sound great to the liberals she is playing to, but if she were elected and tried to sell it in Washington, it will lead to her own political failures. Hillary will find herself lacking in support from even her own party when it comes down to the votes and compromises that occur with this fight. Do you really think the medical industry is going just lay down for her again on this? I don't think so.

It was interesting also to note in the last Democrat debate how much Barrack at least seemed to be against the mandates to require everyone to buy universal healthcare. Just that little difference alone makes him sound to the right of her, if even a little bit. And it was also interesting to note her harsh disagreement with Obama on the mandate point. THAT is not going to go well for her despite her obviously passionate beliefs on this issue. Hillary fails to appreciate the reservations of many Americans (many from her own party) into putting more government control on healthcare. When have we ever seen the Government run ANY social program well. And especially one so important to Americans.

I personally believe that healthcare does need some changes. But being that my family is pretty well versed in the system (my wife is a kidney transplant patient), I also know that the quality of care is still very good if you are personally committed to being engaged in what is necessary for it to work. And that may mean making career and personal choices that will put you in a place to benefit the best from whatever insurance plan that is attainable. I know that is not the case with everyone. But I don't want the government to step in and make it worse.

[Darth_Prime]

I was pushing hard for Dennis Kucinich

[Del Zeppnile]

I was pushing hard for Dennis Kucinich

Did it feel like pushing a boat up a hill?

[wanna be drummer]

Only when it seems applicable.

Why do you ask, bud? Does it seem to you that

many of my responses to you start that way?

Just about dude, yea

Most employers already pay for part, or most, of their employees' healthcare plans. You know, its usually part of one's "employee benefits" package. The rationale is that by covering groups of people.. say, a group of employees from one business.. costs are reduced in comparison to everyone having individual plans. When you enter the workforce you'll learn what an advantage it is to work for an employer who offers a good health care benefits package.

How much do you currently pay for health care insurance, wanna be?

How much do you figure you'll pay under Hillary or Obama's plans?

I'm fully aware of this Hermit. The point is, we need to drop the inflation of health insurance and make it affordable for most people again, rather than just taking money from successful people and letting the government start handing it out to only 15% of the population.

Question: Let's say that all of a sudden, the health supplement fiel (i.e.medical drugs) becomes sharply increased in price due to some crazy event. Where would the government get the money to pay for that from? The rich? How much of their money can you take? You need competition to keep the prices down because they're competing for customers. The government is not. With the government it's completely take it or leave it. Granted, insurance companies are spiraling downwards, which is why we need plans to fix their problems, rather than dump all of it to the government

By the by, I'm a supporter of universal health coverage for children born to families who can't afford it for them. Call it my soft spot

If you consider that "contributing back to society" would be "punishment" for

your future-imagined success, perhaps you need a change of mindset, bro.

Hermit, if I ever become rich or simply stay middle class, I will still continue to donate money to charities and to homeless shelters, etc. But no one should have to make you do that.

And aren't the Democrats claiming to be the party of the middle class? Well what the hell do they do for the middle class besides screw them over??

Fwiw, here's my perspective: Bush cut taxes; those tax cuts clearly benefit the wealthiest Americans moreso than everyone else. In a time of war and a huge budget deficit, his tax cuts are entirely irresponsible. The wealthiest Americans do not need a cut in their taxes, and America cannot afford to give them a cut in their taxes. These simple truths do not matter to Bush and his greedy cronies and supporters. Hillary and Barack are proposing that the irresponsible Bush tax tax cuts be rolled back on the wealthiest 1% of Americans (a tax bracket that does not include you, I might add). What that means is that Hillary and Barack are proposing nothing more than returning the tax level to the pre-tax-cut level for the wealthiest 1% of Americans (a tax bracket that does include both Hillary and Barack, I might add). For political purposes republicans call the Obama and Clinton plans "tax increases". Will their taxes go up, yes, but not because Hillary and Barack will raise their taxes, rather because they will be undoing/rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and returning the tax to it previous.. and more fiscally responsible.. level.

It's a matter of semantics and perspective. Repbs use semantics that reflect their

selfish and greedy pov; dems use semantics that reflect their compassionate pov.

Number 1, I think you mean the government cannot afford tax cuts, not America. Number two, fine. Bill Gates doesn't need more money. But again, they're hoping that those cuts will pay for their plans for universal health care. And what happens when they realize they're going to need more, especially as inflation starts going up again? Throw more taxes on the rich, or are they going to have to hit the middle class? The latter I'd think

Lastly, to simply call Republicans greedy and Democrats "compassionate" sounds a little irrational. Republicans advocate self-reliance. Democrats advocate taking from Person A and giving to less fortunate Person B. Were the Democrats compassionate when they support abortion (look at Obamas beliefs on the subject...)

Look, I'm not going to say Republicans aren't greedy (look at the ones in power) or that Dems are evil (Jimmy Carter's a good human being albeit terrible president), just saying that it's painting with a big brush (as I've been told...how many times? )

[wanna be drummer]

Hillary and Obama are proposing a policy in which they give and others benefit.

Bush and the repubs put into place policies that benefit themselves at the expense

of disenfranchised Americans and average, hard working middle class Americans.

Still think I like Bush's policies? Shame on you Hermit.

You've chosen the perspective that appeals to you. A perspective that you, like Bush and

his cronies, somehow seem to believe is consistent with your Christian principles and values.

..right?

I believe you mean "Protestant" principles and values

[kinda like your belief that you eating factory farmed meat products is

somehow consistent with your anti-animal abuse principles and values.

..right?]

Dude I had th greatest chicken wings I've ever tonight. Oh my god, I was in Heaven man!

Tell that to the 47 million Americans who are currently without any health care

coverage and who will get health care coverage under Hillary and Obama's plans.

And how long before they have to start putting in for that coverage? How long before Hillama thinks "Oh shit, we need more money"

We can't simply hand the reins over to some government bueaucrats and hope they know what they're doing. Hillary and Obama will take allocated money, put it into the health care system and then simply hope it works. They'd have to hire more people (a lot more people) to make everything run smoothly, which it won't as noted by everything the government does.

The gov't health care plan that members of Congress currently have is the same coverage that will be offered to every American under Hillary and Barack's plans. If its good enough for members of Congress, why would you think it wont be good enough for everyone else?

Really Hermit...the government is going to treat 47 million poor people the same as Congressmen...you really believe that?

[wanna be drummer]

Its not about "throwing money at it"; its about a complete change in philosophy, from a philosophy that only the well off get quality health care to a philosophy that in America, every citizen should have quality health care; from a philosophy that says its ok that 47 million Americans go without healthcare coverage, to a philosophy that recognizes the immorality of 47 million Americans going without health care coverage.

Hell yes it's about throwing money at it. Your philosohies are just that, philosophies. Just because it would be moral to grant 47 million people "coverage" doesn't mean that it will work in practice. In philosophy, the Soviet Union had a solid idea. Everybody makes the same and everybody learns to share. In practice, the country went to hell and the mess it it today. Same with China. What makes this ANY different? Philosophy? I think everyone realizes that 47 million peopel being uninsured is immoral, but it's the way of fixing that problem that is the issue. And government coverage to me is screwed up. Why don't we just give Americans Health Savings Accounts that are completely tax deductible. Why don't we let doctors and insurance companies negotiate prices? Why can't people do that with insurance companies? Why is the governments solution to everything "Take from that group of people and give it to those guys"? Why don't we just give those 47 million people TAX BREAKS themselves to make health care a little more affordable for them, rather than tax everyone else and give it to em all?? Why don't take what Bush did for the rich and do it for the poor? The Democrat way of thinking would be "Well that would cost the government money."

No...that would save Americans from losing more of their own damn money to the people in power

What you seem to fail to recognize, bud, is that you (well, your parents anyway) are already paying for the health care of those who currently have no coverage. When someone without health care has to go to an ER for basic medical care that would otherwise be provided by a family physician, the ER (hospital) ends up eating the cost, sort of. What the hospital then does is seek reimbursement from the federal govt (ie, the tax payers) and the hospital also makes up for some of their losses by raising the cost of hospital services across the board... which means you and me ending up paying $100 for pair of hospital socks (as an example).

I know, the $100 I paid to Medicare (to a teenager about to go to college, thats not exactly chump change ) are well aware of this

In the long run we the tax payers also end up paying for the costs related to the lack of preventive health care for people who have no coverage. Providing every American with health care coverage.. including preventive health care.. will mean the overall long term cost in the health care system will go down.. saving all of us money.

If you buy into the republican "government stealing your money" spin, bro, you'll never

be able to objectively and effectively assess or redress the health care crisis in America.

Yes Hermit, a monopoly on health insurance...will decrease the cost of health care...

Oh, and for the record, I think that the government taking $500 from me last year for Social Security that I will never get to have back, it stealing. It's being misused as a pension plan for old people and it's money that I will not get to see in the form of a social security check when I'm old

Imho, a healthy dose (pardon the pun) of skepticism is a good thing.

But this much we know for sure: the current system is broken. It is unconscionable that there are 47 million people in America who are without any health care coverage. We also know that HMOs and pharmaceutical companies are reaping in billions of dollars a year at the expense of the American populace. We alos know that we, the taxpayers, are already paying for the health care treatment of the poor and disenfranchised and its driving costs up for everyone. The people benefitting the most from the current system are big health care corporations.

Hmm...big health care corporations...and what will the government become if they universalize it?

Its time for a new approach. New approaches take courage, and there will always be those who resist new approaches.. who resist CHANGE. But the simple fact of the matter is that there is no stopping change; everything changes. In America, right now, its time for a change in our health care system. Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton will lead the charge.. are leading the charge.. to bring that change to America.

When equal rights for women was being debated in America one of the arguments against it.. an alarmist argument put forth by status quo supporting conservatives, btw.. was "if women are afforded equal rights, men and women will end up sharing the same public restrooms!". The current republican argument that universal health care amounts to "socialized" medicine (a suggestion that universal health care will lead to America becoming a socialist nation) is equally as absurdly alarmist as the 'equal rights for women will lead to co-ed public restrooms' argument was back then.

Number 1, change is not always good. If we change into a Fascist nation, would that be good? Second, you're right, the health care system needs changing. Throwing it to the government, is not that change

Get on the bus, or get out of the way bro!

Public transportation never appealed to me

Afaic, a healthy dose of cynicism about government is a really good thing.

Fwiw,.. in the big scheme of things,.. "aking $110 billion from people" who can afford it.. the benefit of the health of our nation and our people, is worth it. The amount of that $100 billion that will come from each of those who will be asked to contribute, will be an amount that is affordable, if not negligible, to them. You won't see me shedding any tears over the person who may have to reduce their budget for furnishing their fourth home so that our disenfranchised fellow American citizens can get basic health care. Besides,.. Bill and Hillary are not anyone to do anything that they themselves are unwilling to do. But they are doing something that Bush has never done: they are asking Americans to sacrifice a little for the betterment of our country.

Kudos to them, I say!

That's all well and dandy, but I still don't think giving the government any amount of money will make them into a decent health care provider for me or you or anyone else in this country

[wanna be drummer]

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country

can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

~ John F Kennedy, 1961 *transcript of the full speech*

You should be asking that to the people bitching that their unemployment check wasn't enough...you know, the people the Democrats love to throw money to

Where do Americans go for prescription medications?

Importation of prescription drugs from Canada rises despite

FDA's best efforts to protect Big Pharma's profits in the U.S.

I got this from a website that had a link to the Buffalo which I was going to post, but it wasn't written in the 30 days or something so I couldn't find it online apparently...which to me is bull shit...

"Universal health care: Is it worth the long waits?

Push is on for private insurance in Canada as residents come to the U.S. for timely treatment

Canadian Lindsay McCreith came to Buffalo for an MRI after being told he would have to wait over four months for one at home. After battling brain cancer, Lindsay McCreith is ready for his next fight: He’s taking on the Canadian health care system.

His case has potential repercussions on both sides of the border as pressure grows for health reform.

It started when McCreith, a resident of Newmarket, north of Toronto, suffered a seizure last year. He was told in Canada he would have to wait more than four months for an MRI to rule out a malignant tumor.

Rather than wait, McCreith, 66, quickly arranged a trip to Buffalo for a scan. The MRI confirmed his worst fears — a cancerous growth that a Buffalo neurosurgeon removed a few weeks later.

“If I had been patient, I’d probably be disabled or dead today,” McCreith said.

Now, McCreith is suing the Ontario government in a closely watched constitutional challenge that could reshape universal health coverage in the province by striking down the prohibition against patients buying private insurance.

On this side of the border, advocates of universal health insurance champion Canada’s popular public program as a fairer system that the United States should emulate, as seen in Michael Moore film, “Sicko.” Yet critics see the long waits for some services in Canada — mainly for non-emergency surgery — as an argument against an increased role for government in health care.

In Canada, McCreith’s story reflects a debate, intensified by the long waiting times, between those who want more for-profit, private care and those who fear the rise of two-tier medicine that undermines the public system.

McCreith offers little doubt about where he stands. “We have universal health coverage,” he said. “But it failed me when I needed it the most.”

“I was in the auto body shop business,” he said. “If I gave you an appointment four months away, you would go somewhere else. Why should health care be any different?”

As always,.. thanks for the discussion, wanna be bro.

[edited for typos]

I'm really tired dude. it's 2:10 in the morning, I ahve church at 10:00am and then a Super Bowl party all day (while reading 5 chapters of "Crime and Punishment" one of Dostoyevsky's famous works. Needless to say, I'm going to bed now

[Lake of Shadows]

I wouldn't exactly take Del's comment for a full-fledged Ted Kennedy-esque endorsement.

But I would say that I agree that Obama if anything else is adding a different vibe to the whole process that we haven't seen in the last several elections....can't quite put my finger on it though......

The Dem's better be glad that Billary is showing signs that it will be over before long. After Bill drifting off-alseep (well, he is getting old) during a MLK memorial, then his comments about "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too" that could be construed as racist (I didn't think so but can see why some may) and now top Dems are telling the Billary camp to chill out = the writing is on the wall Hillary-supporters.

One thing that I found disturbing - did anyone catch Mitt's 2 minute interview immediately following the State of The Union address? Here's his chance to speak to the country (i.e. plug himself) when asked his opinion and what would he do if elected and his response in a nutshell was "I wouldn't change a thing".

I nudged the wife during that and asked her "did he say what I thought he said?". Of course that wasn't Mitt's exact words but the message was there.

Let me speak from Stringy's heart to my fellow citizens of the Led-Zep board since I haven't commented much on this topic for the most part....my "fear" is the overall vibe of the country as a whole is that we are in a total and complete mess. Whether or not it actually is a mess doesn't even matter at this point, if the attitude of the country is "doom-gloom-despair" that goes a long way towards how we respond in our everyday thoughts, actions, etc. At this point after 8 years of Dubya to see the total negativity in the nation, the mess in Iraq, (not to mention my investment funds that have gotten HAMMERED the last few months but with others struggling to get by I feel guilty even complaining about that) but personally to hear Mitt in essence say "he wouldn't change a thing" turned my stomach. Four more years of "I wouldn't change a thing" is not a strong platform. At this point I'm seriously thinking we need someone to reenergize the country whomever that may be, regardless of party affiliation.

Del, I fully expect to be taken before the board of the "cheering section" or whatever the heck it was we were called on the old board for agreeing with one another so often......for my borderline bleeding heart rant above.

Oh I almost forgot.....

it IS over.

bye, Edwards.....and before long, Billary too....

I guess y'all can count me in as a 'cheerleader' then... good post, and I especially liked the part I put in bold. Well said.

As for Mitt essentially saying he wouldn't change a thing... that's nightmare-worthy... and perhaps I now understand TU's unfailing support of him.

[Del Zeppnile]

As for Mitt essentially saying he wouldn't change a thing... that's nightmare-worthy... and perhaps I now understand TU's unfailing support of him.

He is just saying that so that people aren't scared off by the plan to ban caffeine and alchohol.

[euro]

By default Hillary Clinton

[MadScreamingGallery]

From: http://www.dead.net/features/news/general-...ead-heads-obama

and: http://www.iclips.net/deadheadsforobama.php

Dead Heads For Obama

DEAD HEADS FOR OBAMA AT THE WARFIELD JUST ANNOUNCED!

DEAD HEADS FOR OBAMA

featuring

BOB WEIR, MICKEY HART, PHIL LESH & FRIENDS

The Warfield Theatre

San Francisco, CA

Monday, February 4, Doors 6:00 PM/ Show 7:30PM

Tickets are $35.00 general admission (main floor) and $35.00 (balcony) plus applicable service charges...all ages

Two-ticket limit per person.

Tickets will be available through Ticketmaster.com ONLY.

Will Call only event.

::Map The Theater

Deadheads for Obama

Grateful Dead Members to Reunite for Barack Obama

(San Francisco) Members of the Grateful Dead will host a get out the vote concert in support of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, February 4th at The Warfield Theatre in San Francisco.

Mickey Hart, Phil Lesh, and Bob Weir, joined by Jackie Greene, John Molo, and Steve Molitz, will play show together in support of Barack Obama.

The video website Iclips will be producing a live simulcast streamed via the Internet on www.iclips.net at approximately 7:30pm PST.

This will mark the first time that the members of the legendary band have performed together since 2004. They have agreed to reunite for this one-time-only event in order to lend support to Senator Obama leading into the crucial “Super- Tuesday” series of primaries held on Tuesday, February 5th.

PLEASE NOTE: Tickets will be available through Ticketmaster.com ONLY. Tickets will NOT be available at the box offices, charge-by-phone or Ticketmaster outlets. Two-ticket limit per person. Tickets are non-transferable. No refunds or exchanges. A service charge is added to each ticket price. In the spirit of fair access to tickets for fans, this is a "WILL CALL ONLY" event. UPS and Ticketfast will not be available as delivery choices. You must bring your government issued photo ID and your credit card used to purchase the tickets to the box office window on the day of the show to retrieve these tickets. You and your guest must enter the venue directly upon picking up your order. **Will Call tickets are not transferable and must be picked up by card holder. Alternate names for will call are not allowed. No will call drop-offs permitted.** *** TICKETMASTER, AT ITS DISCRETION, WILL CANCEL ANY AND ALL ORDERS THAT EXCEED THE TICKET LIMIT WITHOUT NOTICE. THIS INCLUDES DUPLICATE ORDERS HAVING THE SAME NAME, BILLING ADDRESS OR CREDIT CARD. ***

[Pb Derigable]

first of all... there will be WAY more then 110 million people who vote... I'm predicting a record turnout at the polls this november... and, I want to thank george bush for being such a bad president in the public forum, that he increased the people's desire to voice their choice for the next presidnt...

Thats what they said last time and the time before that. Remember the push to get young people to vote. and only 25% of young voters who were registered voted. They are not doing it this year. They hated bush last time, they hate him this time but he's not running. Every canidate is going to say im going to pull the troops out of Iraq and none of them will do it. In fact i bet the iraq war we be more favorable after the election, because that was the main thing to blast Pres. Bush on. The media is not going to be on it after a new president, because it's not his mess. It happen the same way with 911 and Pres. Bush. He came in under a bad enconomy and Osama bin fuckhead. They gave him a pass.

[allthekingshorses]

The Dead are getting together for Obama! Thanks for posting, I hadn't heard about that.

[Hotplant]

Neato-jet.^

I swear after listening to all the debates, I KNOW I could not stand to hear Hillary's stretched vocal chords for four friggen years. Whew...no way! Like a nagging housewife. Yuk.

I prefer Obama's soft gentle voice. He moves pretty good too!

I was watching some commercial where these people were dancing and I thought it was Obama. I thought, man, that dude can move it!

I still need glasses.

[Hermit]

Deadheads for Obama

Grateful Dead Members to Reunite for Barack Obama

(San Francisco) Members of the Grateful Dead will host a get out the vote concert in support of Democratic

Presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, February 4th at The Warfield Theatre in San Francisco.

The video website Iclips will be producing a live simulcast streamed

via the Internet on www.iclips.net at approximately 7:30pm PST.

Thanks for posting the announcement, MSG!

The Dead are getting together for Obama!

I whipped this up for the Grateful Dead

Get Out The Vote For Obama concert.

Bob Weir

Gerry Garcia, PigPen, Brent Mydland, and Keith Godcheaux will be

in my thoughts when Bob, Phil, Mickey, et al play in SF tomorrow.

[Del Zeppnile]

The Dead are getting together for Obama!

Funny, I would have thought the dead would be rooting for McCain.

Being that he IS ALMOST DEAD ALREADY!

.

[wanna be drummer]

he looks great for his age

[Hermit]

he looks great for his age

Yeah, John McAncient looks great for his age.

Uhh, just how old is he anyway? 200..300 years?

[Joelmon]

Thanks for posting the announcement, MSG!

Gerry Garcia,

My gosh !

A rare Hermit typo !!!

[Hermit]

My gosh !

A rare Hermit typo !!!

oops.

yeah,.. make that "Jerry".

[Joelmon]

oops.

yeah,.. make that "Jerry".

Don't you mean....

[wanna be drummer]

Yeah, John McAncient looks great for his age.

Uhh, just how old is he anyway? 200..300 years?

I'd take old over this