home

Did Clinton and Edwards Win The Argument On Health Care?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Greg Sargent notes this from Barack Obama:

By the way, I'm going to be partnering with Elizabeth Edwards, we're going to be figuring all this out."

As Greg writes:

The key political context here, of course, is that back in April, Elizabeth revealed that Obama's health care plan wasn't her favorite [she expressly preferred Hillary Clinton's plan]. Enlisting her as a public voice on health care could obviously help with the Obama camp's outreach to women and help win over skeptics in general.

I have no opinion on the merits of the respective health care plans, but it is an interesting move to the LEFT by Obama (now in GE mode) and to a unified position on health care in the Democratic Party. Very interesting.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< The Justice Department's Double Standard | Is It All Obama Now In The GE? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Did Clinton and Edwards Win The Argument On Health Care? | 202 comments (202 topical)
    Obama had best not be using (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edward's name w/o her o.k.  But, if she is working with him on health care, this is excellent and may tamp down the Clinton supporters' distaste for Obama.  So, I hope this is accurate.

    Just Heard Him Say That (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    On the teevee while I was waiting in the bank line. The Dems are aligned now, so I am sure that this is party strategy and Elizabeth Edward is on board.


    Parent
    I Like And Respect Elizabeth Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    If working with her results in Obama adopting real Universal Health Care, it will be a point in his favor. If OTOH Obama does not change to a true Universal Health Care plan, him having Elizabeth campaign for him on this issue, will have no effect on me.

    Parent
    Precisely. (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by 0 politico on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:51:37 PM EST
    If working "this out" means leading him to a place where universal health care is part of his platform, that is a plus.  If it is just to make folks think he may move away from his current stance, then ... No thanks.

    Parent
    I'll wait to hear her say that (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    as, well, we know how many times we have had to hear What Obama Really Meant.

    Parent
    me too, after all the Precious , asked if Al Gore (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    can be his minder please, in a cabinet post (clearly somebody with my fears exactly) um, sure, um, he, um well, Al Gore will certainly have a "seat at the table"

    so lets see if thats anything more than the Al Gore thing...

    Parent

    If not Al, Tipper (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:03:49 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#149)
    by Melchizedek on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:30:22 PM EST
    I have no idea what that sentence meant. Rephrase?

    Parent
    Seeing as she was sitting 20 feet away from him (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by jimotto on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    when he said it, I think he had her OK.

    Parent
    Elizabeth Loved Clinton's Health Plan... (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by talex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    Obama bashed it with GOP frames of Harry and Louise.

    Now that Clinton is out of the race Obama will not see a Clinton policy proposal he doesn't like. How convenient.

    What a panderer. Just read today that a week ago he  did not want to see a divided Jerusalem. Today he changed his mind on that and does see a divided Jerusalem.

    What does Obama really stand for? Is he a flip-flopper or is flip-flopping just SOP for him? One day he say this. The next day he says that. One day he loves his Pastor and stands by him, the next day he throws him under the bus. One day he is berating Clinton for her Iran 'Obviate' remark, the next week he is saying "Everything" is on the table militarily.

    Elizabeth Edwards or not - can anyone really trust Obama's word on anything?

    I don't. He will use her to his political advantage and then have great excuses for why he could not live up to his word. Misspoke? Misunderstood? Circumstances? Yeah right!

    There is a pattern with Obama. And that pattern is you can't trust what he says from one day to the next. But the blind don't see that and just fall in line.

    Not this guy.

    Parent

    we're in a post-flip-flop world now (snark) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:07:16 PM EST


    Parent
    No one has done more for flip-flopping... (none / 0) (#166)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:45:33 PM EST


    Parent
    What do you mean... (none / 0) (#175)
    by 0 politico on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    "post" flip-flop world.  'Tis the season to get your flip-flops in order before the fall!

    Parent
    She (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by nacewsey on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    was at his rally today in raleigh (hehe).  So I'm guessing he just wasn't putting her name out of the blue; sounds like they've talked.

    Parent
    Then I'm sorry that Elizabeth Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST
    collaborated in what is essentially a dissing of Clinton.  Another revision of my worldview is required.

    Parent
    Might make the case as to why (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    John Edwards endorsed when he did. Perhaps a deal was made. I, for one, do not believe it. How could he get Reagan Dems and Repubs. lite with such a "universal" plan. I believe nothing he says. Bitter, you betcha!!!!!

    I find it interesting that obama thinks he just (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    has to align himself with a female and all will be forgotten.  And, I find it hard to believe Elizabeth would just roll over like this....time will tell the story.

    Parent
    Seeing as Elizabeth is more popular in NC than (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by jimotto on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    her husband, and he was speaking in NC, and she's an extremely competent and engaging person who is currently personally as immersed in the health system as a person can be, maybe his motives are other than what you think they are?

    Parent
    I doubt it... (none / 0) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:40 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd love this to be true... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    ...but my cynicism tells me that it's just a reaction to the spate of stories over the weekend about the Dems' having lost the opportunity to push healthcare reform due to Obama's weak plan.

    On the other hand, I don't think he could get away with using Elizabeth Edwards as a shield if they didn't have some sort of agreement between them. Maybe this was the quid pro quo for John Edwards' endorsement?

    'Twill be interesting to see what (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards has to say.

    Parent
    More Interesting IMO Will Be To See (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    if he actually makes any changes in his health care plan. Talk is cheap when not followed up with positive action.

    Parent
    quid pro quo? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Antigone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards, Sec. of H & H?

    Parent
    Partnering with Elizabeth Edwards? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by This from a broad on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    Why isn't he "partnering" with Hillary.  She has by far, more experience in this area than Elizabeth Edwards.  Could it bode better things for Hillary?

    No. It is another distancing from Clinton. (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes...it could mean the presidency for (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:18 PM EST
    Hillary...2 1/2 months is a long time until the convention.

    Parent
    Crissakes, no kidding! (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    This is disgusting.  Parting with Elizabeth Edwards?  Slap in the face.  

    Parent
    he isn't doing anything (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    with her officially and they have not had a single talk yet. Not one. he pulled that out of his butt in an off script moment.

    See Fox article below.

    Relevant part--

    An Obama spokesperson noted this won't be an official partnership.

    Parent

    So what? (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    I like Elizabeth Edwards, but hillary won the health care debate and probably because she has been arguing for it for 16 years.  WTF wouldn't he partner with her on it?  This is just an insult.  He can never give the woman one ounce of credit.

    Parent
    It is not all about (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by TomP on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton.  It's about universal health care.

    Obama working with Elizabeth Edwards does not demean Hillary Clinton in any way.  I'm amazed by these comments.  Did you not even listen to Hillary Clinton on Saturday.  Do you think she is so egotistical that she is envious of Elizabeth Edwards?  I don't think she is. I have much more respect for her.

    If this means a possible turn to a better universal health care plan, I bet Hillary Clinton is happy.  It is about changing America for the better, not the perosn who does it. Hillary Clinton has fought for those changes her whole grown up life and did so again on Saturday.    

    I bet Hillary Clinton is glad that Obama is reaching out to Elizabeth Edwards on health care, since EE and Hillary Clinton are close in views on universal health care.  

    Parent

    I sincerely doubt that. He should (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:57:48 PM EST
    reach out to the person who has worked on this for 16 years, and who the voters in exit poll after exit poll trust on this issue.  It's just arrogance and not particularly helpful not to utilize someone who has made this her hallmark issue her entire working life.

    Parent
    Is it about universal healthcare to you or (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by TomP on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    just about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

    I want universal healthcare.  I don't care who gets credit.

    People were fighting for it before Hillary Clinton was.  Walter Reuther.  Even Harry Truman in 1945.  

    Parent

    I want Hillary to get some respect. (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:19:26 PM EST
    She's the expert.  How hard would it be to just partner with the expert?

    Parent
    If he's partnering with EE because (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    she's in favor of Hillary's health care plan, how could it possibly not be a slap in the face to Hillary?

    And I'm sorry, I have no opinion on Elizabeth Edwards either way, but who the heck is she to be the expert on such a critical issue?  What experience does she have?  What does she know about health care?  About national legislation?  If Hillary's experiences while First Lady are discounted because it wasn't an 'official' executive position, then how it that Elizabeth Edwards, who's been the wife of a politician but not a politician herself somehow worthy?

    I read somewhere that Obama thinks he can win NC; is this his gambit?

    Parent

    Incase you didn't read the links (none / 0) (#163)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM EST
    Obama has no plans to officially partner with EE for anything, so says his spokeperson.

    he pulled that out of his butt to pander to the audience and the Edwards's who happened to be sitting right in front and then 'ducked out' before reporters could question them.

    Parent

    I read links. (none / 0) (#182)
    by TomP on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    I'm glad he said that.

    In fact, according to abc,

    "The Obama campaign says that formal talks are not yet in the works between the Illinois senator and Mrs. Edwards, but confirm that this is something they will do in the future."

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/9/14855/25309/157/510395

    Even symbolically, it is important.

    The primary is over.  Hillary Clinton will do all she can to help Obama.  

    Parent

    I know (4.00 / 4) (#129)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:36:47 PM EST
    It's because he doesn't think he needs her. He's wrong and he is a self-absorbed pr*ck. I fully believe that now.

    I just also wanted to point out that I also believe he was off message when he said that and pandering to a NC crowd. I don't think he has any ntention of getting Elizabeth's help beyond lip service.

    That's how he rolls.

    Parent

    I wonder what Elizabeth's answer (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:50:36 PM EST
    will be about mandates. I somehow doubt Obama will adopt them.

    I believe you may be correct andgarden. (none / 0) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:02 PM EST


    Parent
    I suspect he is using her name and nothing more. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    We'll see.

    ditto (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    I await hearing from her.

    Parent
    Get Up To Date (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    The party is now aligned, Obama is not going it alone. Of course Elizabeth Edwards is with him on this.

    Parent
    do you post this stuff (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    somewhere else where people believe it?

    Parent
    You Actually Think (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    That after clinching the Democratic nomination he is going to say on National Teevee that he is partnering with Elizabeth Edwards on health care without her knowing anything about it.

    That is the dumbest thing I have heard in awhile.

    Parent

    Try reading your own posts for comparison (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    Actually the way you are arguing, its clear that only the appearance matters to you. For the rest of us, the actual policy matters.

    Parent
    its the history of the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:08:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes Look At My Comment History (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    I have been relentlessly pointing out that Obama and Hillary have almost identical policy positions, but you and the fanclubbers on both sides have been too love struck to notice.

    Parent
    Then you have been spreading disinformation. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST


    Parent
    BS (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    I have spread no disinformation. Jeralyn is quite sensitive to that and were it true my comments would have been deleted.

    Has BTD been spreading misinformation as well? His oft quoted line is that there is not a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Obama.

    Too much kool aid does, evidentially lead to blindness.

    Parent

    he also says (none / 0) (#146)
    by SarahinCA on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:19:36 PM EST
    repeatedly that he isn't into the UHC debate, so I'm guessing that means he's not terribly interested in this particular issue.

    Parent
    Not Sure Why Exactly (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    But he has claimed to be more to the right of many here. Could also be that there being much traction for UHC in Congress today. Perhaps a well framed national referendum would wake up our reps. It would be a bummer to see that most Americans do not want it, though.

    The propaganda has been harsh. Socialism to dumbing down the so called best medical care in the world.

    Parent

    Oops! (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    Not much traction for UHC in congress today.

    Parent
    not eco policy (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    they are very different. Clinton understands how to get us to a carbonfree world. He does not.

    McCain $4 trillion for nukes, vetoes everything else.
    Obama, ethanol, nuke power and clean coal get more paragraphs of detail in his policy than any other sources. Its as if he never heard of wind or solar.

    Read through his plan and tell me how many billions of the $150 billion specificly goes to wind solar, geothemal or ocean energy infrastructure or creation.

    Research doesn't count. $2 billion for research into solar or wind is a joke when other nations are 70% powered by wind or solar.

    Clinton policy was the same as Gores or what is working now in the EU. Heres my breakdown of the differences.

    He has to adopt Clintons plan to get climate voters who read the fine print and can tell good policy design from just words.

    Parent

    Now If Only More Than 10% of Americans (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:33:41 PM EST
    Gave a hoot about energy independence and clean renewable sources than we would be in business. I know a lefty who is a super rich oil commodities trader, not necessarily an oxymoron, who said that Americans would not ever take conservation seriously until oil was at $200/ barrell.

    In any case, my guess is that Obama will put Gore in charge of the environment.

    Parent

    Democrats DO care about stopping climate change (none / 0) (#158)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    Pew has it at 70% or so. Unfortunately most do not realise what a terrible plan Obama has, or he would have the same fallout from eco voters as he did on UHC, which I think happened because when Hillary called him on attacking Democratic policy from the RW, and his wins turned to losses from there on out.

    Since "clean" coal sponsored the debates, his campaign, and you astroturfers as well, thats probably why people did not hear any debate about eco policy and did not realise he is not putting forth Democratic policy but is handled by Republican old farts with their Republican ideas about energy policy.

    Parent

    Astroturfers? (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:00:30 PM EST
    What is that?

    Talk is cheap though. When it comes down to changing lifestyle in order to be more environmentally correct, so to speak, there is very little action. I am always shocked when I see progressive friends who do not instinctively recycle by now. Maybe it is because they live in apt buildings and the superintendent sorts their garbage for them.

    Parent

    Not Love Struck At All (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    just disagree that they have identical policy positions. The health care differences are between a more affordable, UNIVERSAL and workable plan vs a more costly, opt out plan that could doom health care to failure. Differences in energy policy are described down thread and Obsma has put Social Security on the table just to mention a few major differences.  

    Parent
    policy differfences (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by noholib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    I was aware of these differences in domestic policy and they were the first reasons I supported Senator Clinton instead of Senator Obama (as passionate as I am about gender politics, I must say that initially they were secondary to these issues).  After reading Krugman on their health care policies and Obama's drifting toward Republican framing on both health care and social security, and after learning about Obama's energy proposals and his close close ties with an Illinois nuclear power firm - ?Exelon - the one from which his genius Axelrod came -- I became convinced that Clinton was more liberal than he on domestic policy.  It was hard to convince the "progressives" about that, so I didn't try too often.

    Parent
    sorry for typo (none / 0) (#136)
    by noholib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:50:00 PM EST
    differfences in my previous post is funny,
    but I meant only differences

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:09:53 PM EST
    I voted Hillary but did not think she was that much different in votes or policies. I just found her easier to take, more likeable.

    Parent
    very frustrating (none / 0) (#148)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    how few even read past the keywords of their eco plans

    Parent
    Given The Other Side (GOP) (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    Their votes and policy differences are miniscule. And as for the UHC, I wish that we had a chance of getting that through. Many more congresscritters have to be elected and on our side for anything close for that to happen.

    Given that I do not understand why Hillary did not shoot for the moon and propose a single payer plan.

    Parent

    Once Again Disagree That They (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    are miniscule. I worked in the insurance industry for a while and there is no way in he!! that you can cover preexisting conditions and allow young healthy people to opt out of coverage. Without that pool of people participating the cost would be such that it would doom the program to failure.

    With Obama, if elected, I think the most we will get is an expansion of the S-Chip program. His "poison pill" ads have almost made it impossible for him to implement any workable program.  

    Parent

    I Said Compared To The GOP (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:08:19 PM EST
    Hillary and Obama are no longer competing. And neither gave me what I would like on Health Care, the war, crime.

    Still miniscule, imo. Neither candidate has the luxury to stray anywhere left of center these days.

    Parent

    no one said that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:33 PM EST
    "partnering" is a very open word.
    define it.

    Parent
    The problem is that Obama (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    says a lot of thing, what he does is usually totally different from what he said. In other words, we don't trust him to tell the truth about his plans for his administration. Some of us don't think he has any. And yes, I do think he is using Elizabeth Edwards to get votes. And I don't think he is going to partner with her on health care after the election. Obama is great at using people, not so great at helping them.

    Parent
    Get off my back! (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    I don't want your talking points!
    "The party is aligned" is gobbledeygook---it means nothing. If you are saying that EE is sacrificing her personal beliefs on UHC care in order to help Obama get elected, then I am totally uninterested.
    If on the other hand, Obama is actually changing his miserable plan (nearly twice as expensive per capita as Clinton's), then good---but seeing is believing.

    Parent
    Hahahah (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:08:54 PM EST
    Get off your back. Well stop saying stupid things that make no sense. Your nostalgia for intra party war, and fanning flames, is not in the least bit interesting at this point.

    Parent
    Your insistence that people adopt the (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    approved talking points is quite counterproductive.
    If you think Obama will get (D) votes automatically, you are quite sorely mistaken. He can however win some of them with actual improvements in his policy platform---not to mention slowing down on the hideous FP gaffes.

    Parent
    I Am Not Assuming Anything (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:53 PM EST
    But I am not still stuck in the intra-party fights. Now it is on to the GE. You are entitled to shill for whoever you want now, but if it is McCain do not expect kid gloves treatment at TL.

    Parent
    You're slow on the uptake: for many of us, its (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    a contest now between two highly unappealing candidates. Saying "we're all on board" over and over again is quite useless for the millions of people who looked at Obama and firmly rejected him in the primaries.
    By the way, Obama will need more than Democrats' votes to win in the fall, so the "party unity" mantra is not very relevant.

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    Most voters are more like me and do not see either Hillary or Obama as anything more than a pol. Most who voted for Hillary, like me, are fine with Obama. Most also, are not going to do anymore than vote, and perhaps maybe send him a few bucks.

    But the extremists at the margins do tend to shriek loudest, I will give you that. .

    Parent

    Admire your positive attitude (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    but I am wondering why Obama is not crushing McCain in the GE polls if unity is really happening?  I mean he supposedly is getting a lot of Repubs and Indies, so why isn't he crushing McCain yet?

    Parent
    I Don't Think (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    That he will ever crush McCain. But I do think he will win. Many see him as the epitome of the American dream and will give him a chance on that. Others are sick of bad economy and war and usually after 8 years most want a change.

    Still I think it is nothing to take for granted even with Hillary on the ticket.

    Parent

    I know this is o/t but to squeaky, (none / 0) (#195)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:42:50 PM EST
    Why is he the "epitome of the American dream" What is the american dream?

    Parent
    Seen By Many As The Epitome (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:50:28 PM EST
    Is what I said. The biggest aspect is that he is black, and rose up through the system to become the first black president. Also that he is youngish. A lot of people want to support that kind of achievement. Many, including myself, believe that AA's have to work twice as hard for half the accomplishments as their white counterparts.

    Parent
    UHC and EE's help (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kelsweet on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    The article says that EE didn't like OB's plan, but that she liked Hillary's plan better. Now OB has brought EE in to help him with UHC. Nobody is trying to push the issue of HRC vs OB here that i can see, rather OB's character. It appears to some (me) that he is pandering again.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#130)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    A politician pandering, imagine that! I wish that they would pander more in my direction, iow more to the left than they dare.

    Parent
    The party is now aligned (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    huh?  I think it is too soon for that kind of statement.

    Parent
    bjorn...Why I believe you are correct...the (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    testy retorts by some obamaholics is very telling...Resistance Is Futile, Do As I Say, I Am Right, You Are Wrong, etc....rolling my eyes :)~

    Parent
    I Am Not Referring To (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:28 PM EST
    The relatively tiny super ardent fanclubbers that are prominent on the internets. By far most Dems accept the nominee. Just like in baseball, I am sure a few cannot accept the winner of the playoffs, most move on.

    Of course, and I do not see it as a contradiction, I want Hillary to be veep, for good of the country not to satisfy her fanbase.

    Parent

    By far most Dems accept the nominee. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    um, yeah.
    whatEVER you say.

    Parent
    Per Recent CNN Poll (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    Sixty percent of her Democratic supporters would vote for Obama, 17 percent would vote for McCain, and 22 percent say they would stay at home in November and not vote for anyone.

    That is not a relatively tiny segment IMO. I think you are confusing the blog world with the real world.


    Parent

    How Recent? (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    Sounds like a poll taken in the heat of intra-party nomination frenzy.

    Parent
    June 4-5 n/t (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:58:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Here Is A More Recent One (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    81% of registered dems will vote Obama.

    Parent
    A link to another comment (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    that lacks a link is not a useful link nor evidence at all.

    Parent
    Try Google (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    MO Blue also did not provide a link, but if the comment is one you want to hear I guess linking is not an issue, no?

    I have no reason to doubt either.

    Parent

    The problem with that number (none / 0) (#197)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    is that many "registered dems" are no longer "dems". Many of us have withdrawn from the party.  Has the DNC counted how many Democrats there are these days?

    Parent
    OK Then It Is Closer To 91% (none / 0) (#202)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:52:03 PM EST


    Parent
    dream on.... (none / 0) (#159)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:37:27 PM EST


    Parent
    If baseball were like the Democratic Primary... (none / 0) (#172)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    MLB would be screaming for one team to quit the playoffs, for the good of the sport.

    Parent
    Is she with him (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:20:06 PM EST
    or having to walk three paces behind?  We'll see.

    Parent
    Elizabeth Edwards (none / 0) (#184)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:14:45 PM EST
    Isn't she working on healthcare issues for the think tank run by long-time Clinton friend, etc., John Podesta?

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#34)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    I also thought that the Edwards camp said he wasn't interested in the VP slot.  After that speech Clinton gave, I think she might just have moved to the top of the short list.  It almost brought me to tears and I support Obama.  Where was THAT Clinton in February? Really.  Edwards for AG if Clinton isn't Obama's running mate.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by nacewsey on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:47:17 PM EST
    John and Elizabeth were both in attendance at his rally today in North Carolina. So i'm fairly certain they've at least spoken about this.

    Parent
    Yes, i'm sure they have, but that's (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    totally separate from the question of whether Obama is going to change his health care plan.

    Parent
    Chalk me up as having (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:54:20 PM EST
    a wait-and-see attitude on this one. Frankly, I'll be more interested in hearing a statement from Elizabeth Edwards on what she expects from Obama in "pairing up" with him on the issue.

    Considering that John Edwards' plan was the most populist and universal of the three, Obama has a ways to go in meeting the challenges presented. Will he tell us how he plans to include the 15 million people he previously didn't include? Will he explain that -- like Edwards -- he now will eschew giving a negotiating position to Big Pharma and the insurance industry titans?

    The Obama strategy: Let the pandering begin.

    I'd like a statement from Elizabeth, too (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    She knows this is Hillary's passion and 16 years of work. Why would she do this to her? It isn't good for Obama and it isn't good for unifying the party. Elizabeth has never been elected to anything, nor has she ever held a political post, an executive position in medicine or health care insurance.

    What is on her resume other than possibly pulling in some women because of her popularity? JE was only a one term Senator, himself...didn't he campaign through part of it?

    She better speak out on this or she will be as unpopular with Hillary supporters as Obama is.


    Parent

    maybe it's about Health Care (none / 0) (#76)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    why the assumption that if he gets Mrs. Edwards involved that somehow that means Sen. Clinton can't be involved also? and why the assumption that she is "doing this to her"? This isn't about Clinton, it's about Health Care... or rather Health Insurance, but as the old song goes, you can't always get what you want...

    Parent
    Well then he could have said he was (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    "partnering" with both. Hillary has the plan, so what's EE going to bring to the table?

    Parent
    Another interpretation is that this is (none / 0) (#157)
    by ExpatElaine on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST
    part of Clinton's move to have her  supporters join forces with Obama. Elizabeth Edwards has now publicly said that she voted for Hillary. She has also said that she thought neither she nor John Edwards should have made their endorsements public, but that she accepted John's reasons for doing so at that moment.  

    Assuming that Obama did get her agreement before he said this, I think it likely Elizabeth Edwards consulted Hillary as well as John before agreeing to Obama making a public statement.  

    However, this is based on my judgement of Elizabeth Edwards as a woman of considerable integrity and openness, rather than any  assessment of how Obama is operating in this new context...because I have no idea what is shaping how he operates.

    Parent

    Obama wasn't making any kind of (none / 0) (#164)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    official statement today.

    Parent
    And that's why the Edwardses (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    ran for it and refused to take questions after Obama's pronouncement.  Hmmmmm.

    Parent
    It was clear back when Edwards (none / 0) (#115)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    endorsed that Elizabeth was not joining in the endorsement. It appears to me that this is her condition for her endorsement. Good for Elizabeth for holding out for an issue that is important to her.

    Parent
    Then, since she was sitting there (none / 0) (#192)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:34:24 PM EST
    in front of him, she would have gotten up and endorsed him, it would seem.  Instead, the Edwardses didn't stay afterward, didn't take questions. . . .

    Parent
    I think you're reading too much (none / 0) (#203)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    into the Edwards' departure after the rally.  As people have pointed out, the details of this "partnering" haven't been worked out yet. Why take questions you can't answer?  During the whole will they/won't they endorse thing, they avoided media for the most part and only surfaced occasionally to discuss health care generally.

    I'm still skeptical here because Obama mentioned it as an aside and not as part of his prepared remarks.  The proof will be in what he actually does and how he speaks about health care from here on.  I'll suspend judgement on this move until Elizabeth herself speaks up about it.

    Parent

    Oh, we'll (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    see what happens. Hopefully it's not just another dog and pony show. Of course, the bad thing is that he's going to have to defend himself against his own mailers!

    And his Harry and Louise ads (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:56:34 PM EST


    Parent
    The change candidate. Hope he is (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    changing his stance on UHC, not just adopting Clinton's label w/o the substance.

    Parent
    Good one. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Landulph on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    It's going to be very, very difficult for Obama to adopt mandates, because the GOP can then use his own rhetoric against him. Remember, Kerry was tarred as a "flip-flopper" for a far more trivial infraction (and which wasn't really a flip-flop at all). I think Obama may be caught in a trap of his own making here.

    Parent
    You beat me by 9 sec. saying that! ha. (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:58:39 PM EST


    Parent
    And didn't Kerry say UHC is a non-starter? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:00:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Kerry has a primary opponent. (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    Ed  Oreilly. He's for single payer.
    .0005% chance of him taking Kerry, but a little pressure is always good.

    Parent
    Kerry will easily win (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Landulph on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    re-election, I'm sure--the only remotely credible GOP challenger botched his petition signitures and withdrew from the race. Still, O'Reilly will force him to spend his summer campaigning in mill towns and unions halls, and that seems a just punishment. I don't want Kerry to lose his Senate seat (give him some credit, he's been on the right side of almost every issue, from Iraq to dog fighting, since '04), but I would like for him to feel a little heat after the stand he's taken in this primary.

    Parent
    His voting record is good, (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by dk on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    but, to be honest, he wouldn't be missed at all by MA Democrats if he would disappear, and this MA Democrat is very excited to vote for O'Reilly in the primary.  

    Parent
    This one is as well (none / 0) (#194)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    I don't have a lot of hopes for unseating Kerry, but any little thing I can do to make it harder for him, I'm pleased to oblige.

    Parent
    I think I can find some time for a little GOTV (none / 0) (#199)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:47:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Yup! That's why I was screaming when (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    he did that. And I'm still ticked!

    What's he gonna do about J Cooper as his advisor if he works with EE?

    Parent

    Cooper overboard? Hope so. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:59:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Him and a couple others ;) (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:39 PM EST


    Parent
    To paraphrase Roy Scheider in JAWS: (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Landulph on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    "I think we're gonna need a bigger bus."

    Parent
    Interesting how he started with UHC (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:31:33 PM EST
    Hillary's great passion.

    Why didn't he start with one of the other major flaws and shortcomings he has?

    He just can't stop himself.

    Parent

    Will he bring in mandates? (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:57:58 PM EST
    Then McCain can use Obama's own ads against him.
    On the other hand, if he doesn't propose mandates or something similar to make his plan universal, then the "partnership" is cosmetic alone.
    Remember the story of Obama's meeting with the Edwards. EE was quite unimpressed with Obama's glibness.

    I think EE denied that Obama was glib. (none / 0) (#74)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:56 PM EST
    Didn't she say he was "charming?"  On the other hand, she is a pretty firm woman and unless John is angling for Atty general or something like that I wonder if she will play nice.  

    Parent
    McCain has Own Flip-Flops (none / 0) (#186)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    McCain has to be careful accusing Obama of flip-flops -- could by Obama's adopted DNC Platform and McCain has plenty of flip-flops on his own.
    And Obama can always say when the heat of the Dem primary battle was over, he and Elizabeth & HRC sat down and they persuaded him -- and there were very few differences any way.  I see having Eliz Edwards & HRC behind him on this as more powerful than any accusation of flip-flopping.

    Parent
    It's just political cowardice ... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    for a Dem Presidential candidate not to support UHC.

    I hope Edwards and Clinton both made this the price of their endorsements.

    This would go a long way to making me happier about voting for Obama.

    they're all cowards (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    None of them, Edwards, Clinton, or Obama, offered Universal Health Care, they offered Universal Health Insurance. As long as there is a for-profit attitude in our healthcare system, then Americans are getting screwed. None of them have the courage to stand up for a true universal healthcare system, but insurance is a good step in the right direction. I have always had more hope for actual passage of Obama's plan, but I always hated the reference to "Universal Health Care" from all the candidates, INSURANCE is not CARE, it's the middleman.

    Parent
    Yes, I get your point ... (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM EST
    but Obama's plan won't offer anywhere near the access of Edwards or Hillary's plans.

    It won't have the same systemic effect on the economy.

    And it won't make people see Healthcare as a right, not a privilege.

    Getting UHC is a longshot no matter who's behind it.  But with Hillary's plan we had a chance.  With Obama's plan we have no chance.

    Parent

    Agree to disagree (none / 0) (#81)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    I agree that we should view healthcare as a right, but since we're talking about insurance I don't think people would have gotten that view anyway. I think that this primary actually did a disservice in that regard. UHC is now supposed to mean you get insurance, instead of it's true meaning of Care. I think we surrendered some of the debate there...

    Obviously we can disagree with who's plan had a better shot about passing into law, but any of them offer much more than McCain.

    Parent

    just think (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    If, regarding health care, he said he'd be sitting down with Clinton to figure all this out.

    Now THAT would be interesting.  How come this isnt just more purging of Clinton?

    That's how I view it.  Kind of boring actually.

    I see it as there will (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    be no overtures to Hillary for anything--not VP, not cabinet, not nuthin'!  Out, damned spot!

    Sorry BTD; it just isn't in him.

    Parent

    I think you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep. and these massive GOTV (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    efforts among the 18-22 year olds not yet registered, are what Axelrove thinks they can make up in what they expect to lose of Hillary's base. If that drive is wildy sucessful, I expect they will flip us off, otherwise they may just make some half hearted measures toward Hillary, citing the good of the party to get her on board at the last minute.  It appears to me that the reason there has been no real concern for Hillary is because the people who pull the strings would like her purged. They will only acquiesce if it looks like they could lose.  

    Parent
    It would not surprise me if they were (none / 0) (#196)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:44:04 PM EST
    successful getting everyone registered.  That's just hanging around malls and concerts and getting everyone to fill out the reg cards.

    Getting them out to actually vote the first week of November will be the real test.

    And how many 18-22 year olds are there in this country anyway?  Won't they need like 90% of them to offset all the people under the bus?

    Parent

    Bah (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    "By the way, I'm going to be partnering with Elizabeth Edwards, we're going to be figuring all this out."

    I hate statements like this.  Figuring all this out?  Figuring what out?  It's so vague.  It is like when I tell my kids "maybe, we will talk about it later" when they ask if they can do something.  

    Yes, the same way he and his economics (5.00 / 10) (#33)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    team (all of who support privatization) will sit down and figure out what to do with SS.

    Parent
    Figuring it out=Getting schooled on UHC? (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    IMO, he should already have this figured out and that should be one of the reason folks prefered him . . .

    Parent
    Yes, he's going to sit down and figure out (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    foreign policy too.. one of these days.
    Hope and change, brother--hope and change!

    Parent
    Still apparently conflicted on whether (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    to make a trip to EU and Middle East.

    Parent
    McCain's suggestion they both tour (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    Iraq was clever.

    Parent
    That makes me lol!~ everytime I read it :) (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:20:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Another trip to the sheltered Green Zone? (none / 0) (#187)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    I think Obama should go with HRC, Biden and not go with McCain, whose last trip may as well have been to Disneyland.  Sorry, but McCain was so sheltered on that trip from reality....

    Parent
    Without preconditions, I hope (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:24:36 PM EST
    Obama could learn something about foreign affairs from just about anyone who reads a newspaper.

    Parent
    "figuring it all out" (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by noholib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    I didn't see the original context but "BTW" seems quite casual to me.  "Figuring all this out" -- well, better late than never? No one ever accused him of being a health insurance or health care policy -wonk before this.  So now he'll get a tutorial from EE, complete with the sympathy that she automatically evokes. Plus, this should put him in good graces with the sweet ladies, yes?  Right, all women are good, all women should aim high, except not that troublesome one who happened to keep fighting for that damn Dem nomination!

    Parent
    It's very Bush-like. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Read between the lines (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    Here is part of what he said that the MSM leaves out. check out the link for full context. What he said was not in his prepared remarks and I doubt anyone knew he was going to say it.

    Via ABC:

    "I don't think there's two people in the country who have done more to elevate the debate about politics who have focused on critical issues like health care and who have made us all think about our obligations to create one America," Obama said of the couple, remarking that over the 16 month primary process he has gotten to know them well.

    The Obama campaign says that formal talks are not yet in the works between the Illinois senator and Mrs. Edwards, but confirm that this is something they will do in the future.

    "Her presence here speaks volumes," spokeswoman Jen Psaki says, "Senator Obama hopes she will play an active part in his efforts."

    Elizabeth Edwards, fighting a very public battle with incurable cancer, has been a fierce advocate for improved health care for all Americans.

    The Edwards' sat in the front row for most of Obama's speech - but ducked out early to make a flight to a previous engagement.


    Parent

    Even Better (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:16:54 PM EST
    From Fox:

    John and Elizabeth Edwards sat in the front row of Barack Obama's Raleigh, NC, speech today, where the presumptive Democratic nominee talked about the economy. "I don't think there are two people in the country who have done more to elevate the debate about politics, who have focused on critical issues like health care, and who've made us all think about our obligations to create one America," Senator Obama noted at the top of his speech.

    When talking about his health care plan, Obama gestured towards Mrs. Edwards and told the approving crowd, "By the way, I'm gonna be partnering up with Elizabeth Edwards. We're gonna be figuring all this out."

    While John Edwards endorsed Obama at a rally in Michigan last month, Elizabeth Edwards kept mum on her choice, causing many to speculate that she had in fact parted ways with her husband and supported Senator Clinton.

    An Obama spokesperson noted this won't be an official partnership.

    Parent

    Such a statesman (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    When talking about his health care plan, Obama gestured towards Mrs. Edwards and told the approving crowd, "By the way, I'm gonna be partnering up with Elizabeth Edwards. We're gonna be figuring all this out."

    When did we ever hear that kind of poor English come from a president? :)

    This man wasn't raised where that kind of English is spoken. Nor did he attend schools that would have tolerated it in written reports. So, who's he pandering to?

    Parent

    I'm gonna take a wild guess . . . . ;) (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:25:49 PM EST


    Parent
    gonna (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by noholib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    Yes, this member of the grammar police patrol noticed the colloquial "gonna" and "partnering up" too.  Perhaps this is one of his efforts to to counter the charge of elitism.  Just asking ...  
    Even Senator Clinton dropped a final 'g or two along the campaign trail ...

    Parent
    It may not be saying much, but... (none / 0) (#120)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    It beats Bush-speak hands-down.

    Parent
    Gosh...there's another name on the tip (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    of my tongue...what is it?  I think it was someone who was actually one of the last ones standing in the campaign, had a pretty good plan, has been fighting for it for year...darn - I just can't think of it...

    Oh, right!  It's Hillary Clinton...wow, how quickly we forget, huh?  Something tells me that's the whole point.

    Now, I get that the John and Elizabeth were on the dais with him, so I get the shout-out, and back when Edwards was in the race and I supported him, I gave him all the credit for a great health care plan - it just seems a little too convenient that now, when Obama needs a lot of help with the women's vote, it is now Elizabeth's cause.  Not that she doesn't have a contribution to make, but I would not say that she has been leading the fight by any means.

    What I really get is that now that Hillary has given her concession speech, her name has been crossed off the list, and she's done in his book.  Buh-bye!  

    What a user.

    Parent

    I see it differently (none / 0) (#132)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    I don't see it as a snub to Clinton. I think that Elizabeth stood firm and said if you want me on that platform with you, you have to promise to stand up for UHC. She wasn't part of John's earlier endorsement of Obama. I think this was her condition for her endorsement.

    Parent
    I hope you're right, and I do not mean (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    to downplay Elizabeth Edwards' involvement, whatever it's "gonna" be; the more people who can push Obama on a better plan than the one he had - or has, I still don't know if he's still behind his own plan or "gonna" figure out a new one - the better.

    I just don't trust him.  I've seen him shift and pivot and flip-flop for months now, and I have no confidence that any issue is sacred to him to the point where he would stake out a position and not give on it.

    He says whatever he has to, wherever he is, and acts like we all can't see or hear him and cannot compare today's comments to all the ones that came before.  Some might say that is the very definition of a politician, but at some point, people have to be able to say with some certainty what it is their candidate stands for.  So far, all I know for sure is that Obama is for Obama, and he's "gonna" figure it all out, eventually.

    Parent

    I don't necessarily disagree with (none / 0) (#145)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:16:09 PM EST
    your distrust of Obama on this issue. I just think that the shout out to Elizabeth and the promise to "partner" with her on health care was done because she had the courage to hold him to a condition for her endorsement. I think her absence earlier and her presence today indicates that she put her principles first. We have to wait and see what it indicates about Obama.

    Parent
    And Hillary didn't say anything like that? (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    I can't imagine she didn't play many of the cards she held to fight for her programs and solutions.

    Trust but verify, both of you, Elizabeth and Hillary!

    Parent

    MSNBC first read is asking if Obama (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    is adopting Clinton's "solutions" slogan?? There is a lot of "figuring things out" going on - which I guess is good.  But I have now come to accept we will definitely not know if Obama has what it takes until after the election.  Because I don't think there will be any announcements that things have actually been "figured out" until well after that.

    I expect him to be 'borrowing' many of Clinton's (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    points. After all, it's all there in a nice neat lil' package and he needs some,  . . . umm . . . , answers.

    What that means if he gets elected? Well, your guess is as good as mine.

    Parent

    I resent this tremendously (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    Saturday, he picks up his golf clubs and disses Hillary's speech. I took that as his intention to be seen leaving his house so there would be no mistake he wasn't going to acknowledge her graciousness. The laptop thing was a joke.

    Today, he's dissing Hillary and picking up the assistance of Elizabeth Edwards for UHC. Someone tell me what it is in EE's background that is of more value than the 16 years Hillary has been working on this.

    Obama is so hateful he just can't stop himself, it appears. We should have a daily calendar: Diss of the Day

    I smell BS too.... (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    I also smell BS in the sudden discussions (and recent article) about John McCain and his first wife.  Very coincidental timing for that to come around, what with all the women being pissed off and everything.

    Someone should send Obama a clue and tell him pandering and vilifying are not the ways to win over Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    Obama is the "Unity" Pony, tho (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:17 PM EST
    That John McCain thing smells just like the Jack Ryan divorce papers that eliminated him from the ballot against Obama.

    If Obama wants UNITY to be attributed to himself, he is the one who needs to start it. And, the more he disses Hillary, the deeper the divide becomes.


    Parent

    Distance not unity (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by janedw420 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:16:18 PM EST
    Bringing Mrs Edwards gets the "women's work" off his plate--political maneuvers. I lost count of how many 21-and-a-half-year old women who support Obama interviewed by MSM this weekend. Many of them seemed so smug CLAIMNG they didn't need the women who support Hillary, and without a comma or theatrical pause, claimed we would HAVE TO come back because of Roe v Wade. I have found myself feeling like Kathy Bates in fried green tomatoes when she RAMS the back of the young woman' car. Instead of "I'm older with More insurance" I feel like "I'm older and I don't need Roe v Wade." Now, of course, I am logical, and a non violent person, but may women share this view. As an Appalachian, 3 college degrees later, I see Edwards being used. They hope his "Appalachia problem" will go away if he adds a talking head with a draw...

    So glad I turned off TV (5.00 / 11) (#69)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    and didn't see the sweeties diss my generation again.

    I'm done donating to save Roe v. Wade for them, I'm done defending clinics for them that even got me a concussion, despite how hard my skull has become from repeatedly cracking the glass ceiling -- but never getting through it.

    I don't have to go anywhere I don't want to go anymore, sweeties -- and I never have gone where anyone told me to go, and especially anyone so wet behind her multiply pierced ears.

    They are so young that they do not understand the meaning of the term "women of a certain age" -- our age.  They will find out.  It means we're older and we have more money for insurance, yes, but also more money that we gave and gave for the good causes.  Now we're just gonna keep it for ourselves in our retirement.  

    Parent

    That is how my mother feels. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by AX10 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:49:26 PM EST
    She doesn't nee Roe v. Wade anymore.  She does not believe in abortion.  So let these ignorant teenyboppers take care of themselves.  I am not here to have a bleeding heart for anyone.

    Parent
    That is the wrong attitude (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:43:43 PM EST
    and I'm sorry, I have no patience for people who only see policies through the prism of how it will or won't effect them directly. Roe v. Wade has been under assault since the day it was decided and I for one, will not back down on the right of ALL women to make their own reproductive choices. I'm 48 and you might assume I "don't need Roe v. Wade anymore" but I refuse to join that camp. Women's rights are for ALL women, not just me and mine, and certainly not just for women of a certain age.

    Roe needs defending and I aim to be there defending it, no matter which candidate is in vogue at the moment.

    Parent

    Roie is almost gone in my state (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:45:28 PM EST
    despite my years of defending clinics with my body -- and funding NARAL with my checkbook.  And amid the hundreds of middle-aged women defending our clinics, day after day for years, I rarely saw anyone under 30.  I took it as my duty then, but they want the torch now, I've passed it to them.

    And I certainly cannot donate to NARAL anymore.  PP, maybe, but I distrust so many groups now.  Even Emily's List is off my list for the pols it got me here who are not doing their job as super-delegates.

    I'm all for women's rights, I'm given much of my life to the battle, but I can't do it anymore.  I will continue to support real leadership on the issue.  I don't see it now.  When you're on the lines and see the new leadership arise, leadership that can be trusted, let us know.

    Parent

    No, they did not win it. So, we lose. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:01 PM EST


    This meeting won't mean anything unless (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by rjarnold on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    he actually changes his plan, which is really unlikely.

    Re: ELizabeth Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Politihal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    Funny, I took it to mean that he was dissing Hillary in favor of Edwards, not as a win by Hillary.

    Halli Casser-Jayne
    http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

    Wow! Did you read Ann Coulter's (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    article on  "Obama was selected" which goes on to champion Hillary against the so-called liberals for doing the same thing the GOP did in 2000.

    Parent
    Bush and Obama were... (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by AX10 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:06:27 PM EST
    the choices of the party insiders.  McCain (2000) and Hillary (2008)were the opponents to the party establishment.  I was wrong to think the Democrats were any better than the GOP.  This has a lot to do with why I will vote for McCain over Obama.  I would prefer to take the party outsider.
    Obama will be controlled by the likes of Pelosi (who won't touch Bush), Kennedy, and Dean.

    Parent
    yes. to all points (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:17:36 PM EST


    Parent
    How ironic... (none / 0) (#171)
    by sander60tx on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    Clinton is supposed to be the one who is the insider, isn't she?  How quickly the insiders become the outsiders and vice versa!

    Parent
    This is just plain ridiculous (none / 0) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    Hillary was on the losing side of a political battle between the DLC wing of the Democratic Party and the Howard Dean win of the Democratic Party.  

    Have a great time voting for McCain.  Maybe you'll get your wish and McCain will win.  Then you can wring your hands for at least 4 more years as McCain starts a new war and pares back almost all domestic spending except for military spending, which will go through the roof.

    The fate of our country is far more important than your petulance.

    Parent

    I avoid Ann Coulter, but (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    sometime's she appears before I can change the channel. She started this primary stating that she would vote for Hillary over McCain.

    Claims she despises his less than totally conservative stands.

    However, those hard right Republicans do love to see what they can achieve through mind games.


    Parent

    it would be interesting to know if (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    she and her friends feel the same way about O.


    Parent
    Coulter (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    is a vicious harpy.  she is not stupid.

    Parent
    So....after months of debate and (5.00 / 12) (#83)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    discussion between Clinton and Obama on health care, Obama is turning not to John Edwards, who had the first health plan in the campaing, but Elizabeth, the one who did not accompany her husband to the big endorsement announcement.

    Why Elizabeth?  Why not John?  Why not Hillary?  I mean, if I'm Hillary, one of the things I would have made absolutely crystal clear to him before I signed on for 110% support is that I sure as heck better be on the front lines of that fight.

    I'm sorry - but this smells like more love 'em and leave 'em action from Obama, and a big ol' punch in the gut to Hillary.  Again.

    And, while I'm ranting here, may I just say that I don't get the "we're gonna figure things out" comment?  Does this mean that he will be abandoning his own health care plan for something he sent out Harry and Louise ads against?  Or does it mean that his health care plan was always just something his people slapped up on the web site so people would find something there if they looked?

    Turst this man at your peril.

    Clearly a move for the women's vote--Elizabeth (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:48:36 PM EST
    instead of John.

    Gotta love the jujitsu.

    Parent

    Why not Hillary? (3.00 / 0) (#94)
    by nacewsey on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    well read this how you want, but he was in NC today speaking at a rally where Elizabeth Edwards attended. Healthcare is her big issue, and since he was in her state, I don't find it that bad that he said Edwards instead of Hillary.  Obama has already said that Hillary and he will be working together to solve the problems that need solving in America. Just because he doesn't mention her this one time, it's not a snub. k?

    Parent
    It looks like one. (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    Let's get real here. Snub or not, to partner with EE over Hillary is just not a smart move right now.

    Wasn't Hillary out polling Obama in NC recently even though he won the state?

    Parent

    hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    "Her presence here speaks volumes," spokeswoman Jen Psaki says, "Senator Obama hopes she will play an active part in his efforts."

    Their will be no official partnership.

    Parent

    CNN Last Night (5.00 / 8) (#98)
    by Dave B on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    I thought it was interesting that with the primary over, the coverage was - Obama uses the word Universal Coverage, but it is far from Universal because it leaves out at least 15 million people.

    They were saying that the only way to make the system work was to force young healthy people into it, which requires mandates.

    Couldn't get them to say it while Hillary was pushing that idea.

    Why isn't he "partnering" with Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    What a jerk.

    He can't Partner with Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by AlladinsLamp on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:14:45 PM EST
    Not on health care policy. It would be an admission and an acknowledgement.

    Best case, using Edwards to adopt all or part of Clinton plan.

    Hillary early on did expand her plan to more (none / 0) (#162)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    nearly match Edwards', as I recall.

    Parent
    What about those Harry and Louise mailers (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:28:05 PM EST
    he sent out profusely?  How can he now claim universal healthcare as a policy when he has been trying to scare the crap out of people about it for his entire primary campaign?

    Wow, talk about hypocrisy.  If he somehow decided that his healthcare plan was lacking, why didn't he admit it instead of bashing Hillary with Rove Republican Harry and Louise ads for the last six months?

    Clinton's health plan. (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    If Elizabeth Edwards preferred Hillary Clinton's health plan, why is Obama "partnering" with her instead of Hillary Clinton? It seems to me that Clinton would be the one who could help him with "figuring all this out".

    Oy.

    its the one thing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    he could do that might get my vote

    If it's real, good move! (none / 0) (#10)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:53:15 PM EST


    Pretty confusing: when to trust (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    Sargent and when not to?  

    btw (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    I think Democrats are winning the argument period.
    IMO the McCain candidacy proves it.  out of mortal fear of losing they nominated the most moderate candidate they had running.
    we are winning the argument and McCain proves it whether he wins or not.

    Oh defnitely. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    It's why I find it so disheartening that we have a candidate who doesn't think that our ideas are that good and the GOP has a candidate that wants to be a stealth democrat. This is the most insane election I have ever experienced.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    it is officially a dog and pony show BTD.

    A new rope-a-dope, bamboozle? He'll be working (none / 0) (#160)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:38:59 PM EST
    with Mrs. Edwards on the healthcare plan, he announces.

    Which could be a way of adopting the mandates which make Hillary's and Edwards' plans closer to true universal--without having to say he's adopting Clinton's plan, and thus not giving Hillary any credit.

    Or, it's a way of fooling the Edwards and Hillary supporters who desperately need and want universal healthcare, while he actually will still avoid mandates.

    This afternoon I heard him say something has to be done about people not being able to afford food, energy, transportation, etc., given the high increases.  Right now I can't remember what he suggested be done, but I thought that's right out of Hillary's campaign proposals.

    Recall he has done that kind of adoption in the debates. The "what Hillary said" answers. And he let Hillary get lambasted for saying it's the states who should decide on drivers' licenses for undocumented immigrants, but then he said the same thing the following week. (MCM incensed at her; ignored him.) Wow.

    So, what's he doing? And how's your trust level?

    Mine is still pretty low.

    Holding my nose won't quite do it--they better hand out gas masks.

    Primary source? (none / 0) (#161)
    by lambert on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:39:25 PM EST
    I don't see a primary source on the quote. Ever since Josh got kidnapped, I need backup for anything I see on TPM. Sorry.

    ABC link. (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by jawbone on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    Here.

    Thirty minutes into his speech, Obama interrupted his prepared remarks and pointed to the wife of his former Democratic rival to declare his intention of her role.

    "I'm going to be partnering up with Elizabeth Edwards - we're going to be figuring all this out," Obama said when addressing his proposed reform to the health care system.
    SNIP
    The Obama campaign says that formal talks are not yet in the works between the Illinois senator and Mrs. Edwards, but confirm that this is something they will do in the future.

    "Her presence here speaks volumes," spokeswoman Jen Psaki says, "Senator Obama hopes she will play an active part in his efforts."

    Parent

    I Hear That He Is (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    Soon to be released as the ransom terms have been agreed on. Sure hope so, as it will be great to have him back.

    Parent
    Once again, we are all trying to figure out (none / 0) (#181)
    by sander60tx on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM EST
    WORM.  I guess time will tell.  IIRC, he has advocated some sort of transparent national symposium with various players represented to figure out healthcare.  If that's right, then his "position" on the matter is really just a starting point.  When this issue comes before congress, it's not going to exactly match any one candidate's proposal by the time they get through with it.  I think that there is room for Elizabeth Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and others to work on this together.  He has already stated in his speech last week that Hillary will likely be central to efforts to achieve universal healthcare.   I think Hillary would be HAPPY if universal healthcare is implemented, no matter how that happens.  My guess is that Obama will keep this fairly vague for the forseeable future in order to make it more difficult for republicans to attack him on it.  May not work, but we know he is not known for sticking his neck out on any particular issue and I'd be surprised if he started now.

    If done by symposium (none / 0) (#201)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:51:43 PM EST
    the only thing we'll get, after years of work, will be some kind of glorious plan.

    We need people to get down and pump out some solutions and then get them into Congress.  We've already wasted nearly two years of Congressional majority in the interest of the 2008 election.  We've had essentially a two year stall.  We need to get things done quickly.  There's no time for symposiums and long drawn out processes for the most pressing, critical issues.

    I mean, this issue has been talked about for decades.  Other countries are there as models.  I really hope he doesn't draw this thing out forever.  I also hope he realizes that he's got to adopt some short term solutions at times, that won't be the ideal.


    Parent

    I am elated (none / 0) (#204)
    by clapclappointpoint on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:11:48 PM EST
    that Elizabeth Edwards is working on his healthcare policy.  I am also happy that he was able to move leftward going into the general election rather than having to make too many centrist motions.

    Did Clinton and Edwards Win The Argument On Health Care? | 202 comments (202 topical)