Why the DLC supports Obama and Clinton?

There will never be a "single payer system" because the rich will always have a separate system. In addition, since the government will not pay for many things that people want such as cosmetic surgery, lasix, dental, etc), that means that there will also be a private sector of optional procedures.

Also, anything that uses government funds to pay for things should not be called insurance. There is no insurance aspect in it. Please call it by want it really is: welfare.

"single payer health system"

WHO'S THE PAYER?

Just because the Democratic leadership uses weasel words doesn't mean advocates of government health care must also stoop that low.

Of course it's welfare, just as Social Security is a welfare program, not merely an entitlement program. And of course what we have now not only with Medicare but with private health care is not insurance, but pre-paid health care of all kinds. (True insurance would be catastrophic and would address things that normally never happen, like your house's burning down.) People really need to be more honest about what it is that they are seeking. (I realize such honesty has long been a casualty of contemporary liberalism in favor of evasion and weasel words -- "choose" and "choice" rather than the correct "abort" and "abortion" being the best example nowadays -- but some of us still insist on such things.)

* * *

"the rich will always have a separate system"

Under some plans, such as Conyers-Kucinich, this would not be true, unless you chose to be technical and state that the rich could always go to another country to enjoy "duplicate services."

"private sector of optional procedures"

Yes, but typically (as in Conyers-Kucinich) these are for non-essential services, truly elective stuff, that's all. "Dental and mental" care would be included in any thorough Democratic federal government health care plan. (That includes the simplest plan, extending Medicare to everyone, and adding coverage of unmet ["]needs["] later.)

What's interesting is the fake "moderate" front put up by the DLC, similar to what you see in Hillary Clinton and reminescent of the "We've Learned Our Lesson [From 1994's Elections]; Those Icky Radicals And Their Ideas Are No Longer Acceptable" "Third Way" nonsense back in the 1990s.

It's no surprise that Clinton and Obama were discussed at the expense of Edwards, who always has been weak. (Still useful as VP, however.)

Oh, and nobody intelligent ever was fooled by Edwards's fake populist BS.

Contrary to the fevered ramblings of DLS, I think the DLC is rather moderate. In fact it's been a vocal group of ideologues who have dragged the center toward the right over the past couple decades, thus trying to give the impression that a common liberal like Edwards is somehow extreme. I guess if you can fool enough people, then you can turn perception into a bit of reality eh?

"Effective leadership requires not outrunning your constituents."

Another way of putting it would be to say that effective leadership doesn't acquiesce to heel dragging... because if it did, then it wouldn't really be LEADERship.

"fevered ramblings"

Mirror talk.