I've noticed the I/we dichotomy as well. While it's not a major part of my reasons to back Obama, I think it definitely reflects an attitude that he feels it's not about him - it's about the country as a whole ("we are all in this together"). Since Clinton seems to have made it all about her - personally - then that may be why it's hard for her to let go. Since her campaign has been all about her, then losing feels like a personal rejection from the voters - not a rejection of her policies. No wonder it's been difficult for her to let go of this.

As to healthcare...

My main problem with the Clinton healthcare plan is that the mandate requires that people buy insurance from insurance companies, which are for-profit entities. What the movie "Sicko" showed us is that the profit motive is part of what has damaged the US healthcare system. For those that didn't see it, "Sicko" isn't about the uninsured - it's primarily about those people who HAVE insurance, either that they purchase personally, or that came through their job. However, these people who thought they were covered, were screwed over by "lifetime maximums", "coverage denied", etc. One person in the film accidentally cut off the tips of two fingers with a circular saw - his insurance company basically told him he had to pick which fingertip got reattached, because it wouldn't pay for both. I don't think Clinton's plan addresses things like "denial of coverage" by these companies.

If insurance were provided by non-profit entities (or directly through a single-payer system), I think we'd be lot better off.

Posted at May 29, 2008 9:55 AM in response to Campaign Dichotomy: "I am" vs. "We are"

Over on kos there was a great post which posited what Clinton would have done if Obama had made the Kennedy statement
(here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/24/8251/65136)

I paraphrase:
- memo from campaign headquarters ripping him for such a horrible remark
- surrogates all over the airways
- an ad highlighting the remark and how awful Obama is...

Think not? Remember "Bittergate"

And now Clinton is blaming Obama for keeping the focus on this? You have got to be kidding me.

Posted at May 26, 2008 10:03 AM in response to So...The Best Way To Counter The Off-Chance That A Desperate, Crazy Supporter Thought You Wanted Bad Things To Happen Is To...Claim This Is All A Conspiracy Against YOU?

Another brilliant post NCSteve...

Sen Clinton just doesn't seem to be able to see that even in losing, she's broken through the glass ceiling - opened the door to another woman to win the presidency in the future. The next woman will have far less of the casual sexism from the media, since the idea that a woman could be president will no longer be a pipe dream, since one came close. To all those who say that we should give it to her, since she's a woman - that's worse sexism than treating her equally to all other prior candidates who have come close, but not quite achieved the goal.

Jesse Jackson - by winning primaries and having a credible campaign in 1988 made it easier for Obama in some ways. However, I read an op-ed today in the Washington Post that has me thinking of the "West Wing"effect. That op-ed pointed out the parallels of this campaign to the fictional one in the last season of the West Wing, when Congressman Santos beat out Harold Vinick for the Presidency, becoming the first man of color to become President. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/25/AR2008052502282.html)

It may be that the popularity of the West Wing opened people's eyes to the possibility of a non-white person becoming president - and thus smoothed the road a little bit. Similarly, the presence of Dennis Haysbert as President in "24", Morgan Freeman as President in "Deep Impact" (I think - one of the asteroid movies). Perhaps it is Sen. Clinton's misfortune that television shows like "Commander in Chief" with Geena Davis as the President weren't more popular. There was also the movie "The Contender" with Joan Allen - I believe Jeff Bridges was nominating her to be VP as a mid-term replacement. Perhaps if these had been more popular, then it would have been easier for Sen. Clinton.

However, I think she would have done far better to have listened less to Wolfson, Penn and the like, and more to herself and "the better angels of her nature." I liked her more when she was advocating for kids... I liked her more when she was being her own woman, and relying on Bill. I liked her more when I thought she would recognize reality.

I know this is a very rambling post, but I will say this... I look back to the first debates of this cycle, and the democratic slate when we started. We had brown, black and white faces; we had male and female; we had younger faces and older ones; we had northeast to southwest, midwest, Alaska and the deep south. The democratic slate looked like America. We started this campaign with such hope, such a desire that this year be different. Let us keep that alive. Let us remember that feeling when looking at the slate of candidates that this year would be different. This year we won't be slaves to fear. This year we won't listen to "swiftboaters" and smears. This year we will look beyond the politics of the soundbite. We can do this - we can bring our country back from the brink of the abyss. Vote "D" in the fall....

Posted at May 26, 2008 9:44 AM in response to Some Further Thought on the A-Word Gaffe

He's worn the flag pin when speaking to veteran's groups before...

Posted at May 13, 2008 12:39 PM in response to "Hillary, My Eyes Are Up Here."

That is too funny...

Posted at May 12, 2008 9:44 PM in response to Obama's dream - the McCain nightmare

Hillary is 44 sounds like a right wing troll site. I can't believe any of these people are really democrats.

Posted at May 11, 2008 6:48 PM in response to “Onward To West Virginia” - H=44 - May 6, 2008 - Pt 3

I'm on board. Not only to protect Michelle, but to protect their two beautiful daughters.

What the right did to Hillary Clinton when she was first lady was absolutely shameful. Not to mention the disgusting jokes about Chelsea (John McCain with the "Janet Reno is her father" sh*t).

We need to prevent those smears this time. As I recall, most people have been respectful of Laura Bush. (Only limited mentions of the Stepford Wife stare) Perhaps we could ask for the same? Whichever of the candidates spouses becomes first spouse? (Bill or Michelle?) (Sorry Cindy, you'll have to suffer the slings and arrows of being called a Stepford Wife)

Posted at May 11, 2008 10:19 AM in response to a call-to-arms for Michelle

Nice one...

Posted at May 11, 2008 10:08 AM in response to On Bias

This is a really great post...

Personally, I think all of the ridiculous microtargeting of slivers of the electorate is silly. How I wish we didn't have exit polls. "White voters who make less than $50K who didn't go to college." Please.

I would love it if the media could take a collective deep breath and stop this polarization. It is their focus on these silly "narratives" that is driving this stuff. "Barack can't win the white vote"... Really - Utah anyone, Washington State, Idaho?

Oh and by the way... the whole "big state" myth should be over. If the CA primary were held today, between Obama and Clinton, Obama would win by 6 points. (He lost by 10 if you'll recall). (New SUSA poll. There are interesting cross-tabs, but since I'm lambasting microtargeting, I'll let you find them yourself) So, that should also kill the "voter's remorse" myth.

Now - can we move on please? I want to hear how the two nominees will deal with truly patriotic issues - how to deal with healthcare, how to fix the economy, how to improve our image with the rest of the world, how to bring our troops home and restore our readiness, how to reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels, how to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions so our children will actually have a future... I could go on and on.

I feel confident that if and when Barack is allowed to make his case to the American people on those topics - not merely contrasting his positions on them with Senator Clinton's (since they are different only by the tiniest bit) - but rather able to contrast them against McCain (e.g. Bush's third term), he will have no trouble winning over the Democratic base.

Posted at May 11, 2008 10:05 AM in response to Those obvious questions so seldom asked

While I think you are right about the "operation chaos" problem, not sure that entirely what swung those districts to Clinton. However, she does include 3 districts in NY (her "home" state), and one in Florida (where Obama didn't campaign). Even if she hadn't included those districts, she's still be leading him (by her count) 12-4. Including them makes her look silly.

My biggest problem with this powerpoint is the assumption it makes that seniors won't vote for Obama and that Hispanics won't vote for Obama. Nothing leads me to believe that they won't. In addition, the fact of the fellow in Illinois (don't remember his name off the top of my head) taking Dennis Hastert's seat (DEEP RED district) after being endorsed by Obama, and the fact that (despite GOP attack ads linking him to Obama and Pelosi) Cayzoux won in Louisiana in another deep red district, seems to indicate that Obama is not a drag on the rest of the ticket. In fact, Obama's presence on the top of the ticket may bring more voters to the polls and potentially swing more districts.

Obama's strength in the "toss-up" and "leans republican" states, and even in some seriously red states (CO, VA, NC, GA, SC, etc.) may require John McCain to compete in a lot more states, making the campaign more difficult for him. If Clinton is the nominee, McCain will be secure in holding those states, and can chip away at Clinton in OH, PA, FL and even in CA.

Posted at May 9, 2008 6:19 PM in response to Hillary Campaign Emails Out "Electability" Power-Point To All House Dems