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? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Did Clinton and Edwards Win The Argument On Health Care? | 204 comments (204 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 / 7) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#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 ]
    I think the question isn't (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by cloudy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:18:17 PM EST
    whether EE is with him on this or not, but whether he'll actually follow through and fight for real, universal health care.  

    [ 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 ]