In regards to the Universal Healthcare debate I just noticed that Michelle Obama is/was a Community Outreach Vice President at Chicago University Hospitals. Her Salary was approx $300,000 per anum.

Judging from SiCKO it seems that all administrators at Hospitals if not acting unethically, are acting with profits in mind--even at so called charity hospitals. This is especially so at university hospitals that pioneered the grannie dumping technique illustrated in SiCKO. Whereby one outreach PR flack at USC Medical said: "Skid Row is the uninsured's best bet!" to justify dumping a old uninsured lady at a shelter on skid row in her hospital gown.

Michelle's $300,000 salary is a potential conflict of interest for any candidate who is promising universal healthcare. It's gone unoticed that the spouse of a candidate advocating universal healthcare is drawing a large salary from a hospital that has probably done things not that much different from USC's rather disgusting Grannie dump--that technique is not unique to USC.

Senator Obama has raised abot $800,000 from the health industry and employees Q1 and Q2. Second only to Hillary.

Here is  an excerpt from an interesting speech Obama gave in 2005.

"Responsible voices from all parts of the political spectrum are coming forth to say this in increasing numbers. Colin Powell had the courage to call his presentation to the United Nations on Iraq a "blot" on his distinguished record. And recently John Edwards said he made a mistake in voting to go to war in Iraq, and accepted responsibility for this decision. It is no coincidence that both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Powell no longer serve the government in Washington. Those of us in Washington are falling behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq. We are failing to provide LEADERSHIP on this issue."

When Edwards pointed out the nature of the 'quiet vote' for the Iraq Funding Bill he was offering Obama a safe way to separate himself from Hillary and the rest of the vichy dems who did vote for more funding.

In the last breath Edward's had just praised Obama's vocal anti-war speech and early opposition to the Iraq Fiasco. Instead of using this moment to point out that he, Obama shouldn't be lumped in with Hillary's considerably more hawkish politics, he decided to give her a pass and push back at Edwards.

Then Hillary jumped in after Obama's smackdown, but only after he inexplicably launched into a typically Obamaesque waffle:  about how good people like Biden had voted for funding (check the tape it's odd and little noted by commentators)

She collected the winning point for teling them both to settle down and direct their ire at Bush--that there were only minor differences between them all. LOL. WOW! I thought. Hillary practically fell over her self in supporting the Iraq war and still says she will keep troops there. Obama isn't serious about defeating Hillary, he's giving her a pass. More than that he gave her an opening to win the entire soundbite aspect of the debate.

These three points should undermine her support from liberals and moderates alike.

1)She's an "instinctive hawk".
2)She's the "insider's insider".
3)She's "running on her (famous) name".

that ought to take her down a peg or two.

Other attacks should be made by surrogates. It will not hurt if other candidates start saying these three things themselves. Republicans can't profit from it bacause all we are doing here is pointing out to liberals that she is not very liberal. She will have to defend herself with liberals against these accusations. I reckon having the other candidates saying these three things ad nauseum will work. let the memes cycle into the low-info consciousness and wake up the activist-junkies.