1. His depiction of the SS 'crisis' is no different than the other Democrats. Unlike Hillary, who would punt it to a bipartisan commission (sic), he proposed to lift the payroll tax cap. This position, which I do not support, is better than Hillary's and no worse than Edwards.
2. He criticized SEIU because it was funding a 527 group that was spending huge dollars against him in Iowa. So while I think your point is well-taken, there's a bit of context you left out. This is not the same as being generically anti-union.
3. The gap in his health care plan arises because he does not include an individual mandate, as the others do, to buy insurance. So the coverage gap would be due to people voluntarily electing not to be covered. So he is not excluding anyone except those who would free-ride by not participating. (In actual implementation, late-comers would probably be able to buy in a higher cost.) I would prefer a mandate to no-mandate, but mandates are icky because the payments required could be burdensome. I would prefer a system financed by general revenue, but nobody is proposing that now. So on this count I think he is no worse than the others.
>Obama uses the Republican talking point when discussing the Social
>Security "crisis" and referred to the SEIU as a special interest group
>in a rather negative way.
>He is more hostile to Unions than Edwards and more hostile towards SS
>than Edwards.
>His health care plan sucks worse than Edwards in that it leaves too many
>uninsured.
>At least according to everything I've read. I'm open to evidence to the
>contrary.
>
>John Thornton
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk