The issue is not mandates per se. The issue is when do you institute mandates. Why do you not deal with the issue as it is?

Obama has stated that he would consider mandates, down the road, when the situation might become as clearcut as you describe it. When we reach a situation where the only people who dont have insurance are those young and healthy people who think themselves immortal - who can afford it but choose not to buy. At that point, mandates are an easy sell politically - for everyone else will be part of the system, and will see that the uninsured are simply irresponsible freeloaders.

But for now, a mandated plan is a far more difficult sell politically. Hillary's plan puts an immediate mandate on 47 million people. Of course it also offers the PROMISE that insurance will be affordable. Personally, I am willing to believe that her plan really will be affordable to everyone (I'm not sure of that, but for the purpose of this argument I will accept it). But that is what you are laying out to people - and it isnt just the 47 million, it is everyone who fears that they may lose their insurance too - that they get a mandate, with penalties, and a promise.

People dont respond well to politicians giving them mandates with penalites offset by promises. It makes far more sense to fulfill the promise first. Roll out the subsidies and the rest of the plan. Create the situation where health insurance really is affordable (with subsidies where necessary) to all. They you dont have to sell the penalties with promise. There will be a reality created - everyone will have insurance except the freeloaders, and then everyone will join in agreeing to mandates, because no one like to feel that one class of people is gaming the system.

But the Republicans have two of their own group grudges perfected for years and are laying the ground work watch Charlie Rose program last night for a tutorial in the creepy world of State Rights and how they are starting to define Obama as a nice inspirational young black man pat pat but terrorist, oh my experience you know.  And the backup will be to move to the corrupt black politician the boneheaded mansion purchase, multiple federal trials freezer cash and a historic corrupt Dem City as back ground......... ugly and awful yes but real..

Im thinking if McCain adds a certain female former governor who has a good chance of tipping her old State Red and corruption as a backdrop with an activist USA in her corner, a NE moderate with her own history with the Hispanic community, a known non Bush groupie, and McCain reintroduces as the champion immigration reform against his Party ....he now has his own first and a powerful Hispanic draw......

GA fits between Fl and NJ

Hillary does NOT want to wage the rest of this primary campaign around the question of - how many ties can I point to between my opponent and some sleazy character. Trust me on this, she REALLY does not want to go there.

Because she may think that she has Rezko to throw at Obama - even though there is no evidence whatsoever of any illegality or unethical behavior. And if that is the standard - that even substanceless associations are fair game to throw at your opponent, then geez louise, there a dozens, if not hundreds of links and associations that can be hurled back at her.

Your point about nothing being proven is superfluous. Nothing has been proven re. Rezko - so she is here setting the bar nice and low - there doesnt have to be any merit to the mud.

Really now, what are they thinking.