The Obama Campaign Is Listening

by Todd Beeton, Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:15:12 AM EST

Via calitics, David Plouffe sends e-mails:

There has been an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots support for Senator Obama among Democrats and Independents in all 53 California Congressional districts.

In recognition of this tremendous enthusiasm, our campaign has asked the California Democratic Party to allow all persons who have filed to be a district delegate candidate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention to participate in the caucuses this Sunday, April 13, 2008.

We are confident that delegates elected from this pool will reflect the Senator's commitment to a diverse and unified delegation at the National Convention.

An overwhelming number of supporters have signed up to run for delegate, so there will likely be lines and tight space at the caucus locations. We ask for everyone's patience and cooperation.

Most of all, please enjoy this opportunity to meet other Obama supporters and elect delegate candidates to the Convention in Denver.

If you have any questions, please contact Daryl Sprague at dsprague@barackobama.com.

Thanks for your interest and active participation in Barack's campaign to change politics and change America.

David

The Obama campaign sent a really clear message today: "we are listening." This is how elected (and would be elected) officials are supposed to act when there's a public outcry about something. I've spoken to many Obama voters about why they are supporting him and one of the common threads is that they feel he'd be far more responsive to grassroots pressure than Hillary Clinton would be. I'm not sure if that's true but the events of today at least give me confidence that, while being president and running for president are two different things, as president Obama would be willing to change course if the public demanded it. That would be quite a change indeed.




Tags: 2008 presidential election, barack obama, delegate selection (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 134 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 7)

what would make obama a better candidate and certainly a better president is if he would stop running against Hillary from the right egged on my his media whore supporters.  I encourage everyone to read Paul Krugman today where he discusses healthcare and the latest anti-Hillary atrocity, pretending like the story she told about the pregnant woman who died because she was uninsured wasn't true.  Krugman winds it up with this,

"In other words, this was a disgraceful episode. It was particularly sad to see a number of Obama supporters (though not the Obama campaign itself) join enthusiastically in the catcalls against Mrs. Clinton's good-faith effort to put a human face on the cruelty and injustice of the American health care system.

Look, I know that many progressives have their hearts set on seeing Barack Obama get the Democratic nomination. But politics is supposed to be about more than cheering your team and jeering the other side. It's supposed to be about changing the country for the better."

Thank God for Paul Krugman.


by joker on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:56:19 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (1.75 / 4)

Well, it's OK when Hillary "commander in chief test" Clinton does it?


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:17:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 4)

It's OK with Krugman at least.

Nearly every article he has written this year criticizes Obama in some way, but I have not seen him utter one word of criticism toward Hillary, even when she does the same thing as Obama.


by bawbie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:31:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have not heard Obama respond to any concerns (2.00 / 1)

For example, I am quite concerned about the costs to sick or chronically ill people of their so-called "Consumer driven health care" proposals, which I and many others don't see as working. I think these are legitimate concerns because uncovered health care expenses are a VERY real problem for me. I see Obama as cutting costs by cutting benefits, leaving people to pay what their 'health' plans don't cover, or go without. (often they must go without, because the costs are ASTRONOMICAL)

Bush tried to do it with medical savings accounts, so people could save the money that they were supposedly 'saving' by CHOOSING cheaper plansthat covered less, but of course, that failed because salaries did not keep up with medical costs. I don't see you doing anything to change the fudamentals of that equation.

Well, Obama campaign, WILL THAT CHANGE UNDER OBAMA AND HOW?

What about the self-employed and people with pre-existing conditions? You mention costs for an 'AVERAGE' family 'will go down $2000 annually', (that is not much when you are paying many times that) but leave out people like us. WHY NOT MOVE FROM YOU TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS PEOPLE HAVE?

IF THE PEOPLE AND CONGRESS PRESENT YOU WITH A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BILL, WILL YOU VETO IT?


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Will Hillary? (2.00 / 3)

Or is she married to mandated private health insurance purchase?


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:44:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Hillary? (none / 0)

I think indentured to is a better phrase than married to.  Married implies a partnership, indentured indicating that you owe some people some things.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Would you enter a game where you knew ... (none / 0)

that most of the people who you were going to insure would be sick? Would you price their insurance low or high then?

Insurance is a gambling game. Without a mandate, the price will be high because it has to be to offset the sick people's costs.

If lots of healthy people - everyone - are in the pool.. then the insurance cn actually insure against unexpected costs AND be affordable..

Read this:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast /uploaded_files/032908%20-%20ahcj%20edwa rds_transcript.pdf

here's Elizabeth Edwards last week - an excerpt explaining part of it:

   "We can expect a woman who is diagnosed with a brain
    tumor to a better hope that she disclosed those headaches
    that she had 15 years ago but she first got that insurance
    policy, that health insurance policy because her health
    insurance policy may now be covered by state law that allows
    rescission even for an omission that seemed inconsequential
    at the time because she didn't know about her pre-existing -
    she didn't know about the brain tumor that she - 15 years
    before because there's no limit on the look back time. That's
    true in a number of states in this country. They can go back,
    look at your applications - did you completely describe your
    condition. Even if you didn't know about the pre-existing
    condition, they can rescind or fail to cover the condition if
    they - it was pre-existing at the time.
    Now the question is how do you know? Well then you
    take them to court and then are you required to prove the
    negative? I bet there's going to be states that say you do
    and if there is, I bet that's where these policies are going
    to be written. There are real consequences to the differences between the candidates and there's no way - there is no way
    for the regular voter to work this out in their heads even -
    honestly, it's not that easy for me and this is what I do
    with - I talk about health care. I have to say I have some
    trepidation about talking always.
    I was in Colorado one time, 2004, and I got the first
    question on grazing and I thought - I looked around I thought
    shoot, everybody in this room knows everything there is to
    know about grazing and I don't know a darn thing. Now I know
    a little bit but in some events, it's almost more difficult -
    I know a little bit and you all are likely to know lots, lots
    more so I would say there's a hesitation but the truth is
    that all of this is not just the rhetoric of somebody
    speaking.
    This is not a fairytale or even a speech. This is
    real life with real life consequences for people if these
    policies are put in effect and I say that if with some -
    because obviously what they talk about, what happens, there's
    a big gulf between it that you can just bet that we're not
    going to get anything better than what they're talking about.
    They have to at least be talking about the very best things
    and maybe we can get some reasonably close to that.
    Real life that I've lived with a devastating disease
    and I've had the very best medical care. All the while I've
    had it, I've been talking to lots of Americans who don't. They had the same condition I have, faced the same hurdles I
    have but without the insurance coverage to assure them of
    that best care and often without any care at all.
    If the costs move higher, those women or the coverage
    is reduced, those women who look to us and look to leaders in
    this country in the time of their desperate need will once
    again stand alone. It's not who we are, I don't think, rather
    we like to think we are. It's who we actually are and we need
    to shine a really bright light on that. We don't need to let
    those people for whom bad luck or genetics or misfortune has
    tapped stand alone.
    Shouldn't they know the personal consequences to them
    of their vote - both the importance of their actually voting
    and the consequences of the choices that they make. You are
    the way they get that information. You are the best, the most
    reliable source for them on making those decisions and the
    oneness, I think, I can't put the - say this too strongly -
    the oneness is on you to make certain that they make that
    decision. We don't end up in - speaking in 2012, about gee if
    we just know it in 2008 what the differences were. That's
    your responsibility. My responsibility is just to urge you to
    do it. Now I'll answer any questions that I can answer in
    whatever time they tell me before they tell me to stop and I
    didn't tell too many personal anecdotes, if you want to hear
    those, you're welcome to but thank you very much. [applause]


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Will Hillary? (none / 0)

It's not a mandate for private insurance--there is an option to buy into the public system (Medicare). The Democratic proposals (Edwards' and Clinton's) are not the same as the Massachusetts (Mitt) plan--it's disingenuous to ignore that key difference.


by Alice in Florida on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

It really is the hypocrisy that gets me.

I can't say I love it when Obama reinforces right wing narratives (e.g. on social security), but stabbing Democrats in the back is what the whole Clinton legacy is built on. They're the undisputed king and queen of triangulation.


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Krugman=Hack


by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:04:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

If they are listening, why aren't they SPEAKING?

Cat got their tongue?


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

What does this even mean?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

ok, so last week when there was a diary on this site praising Hilary for listening and criticizing Obama for "just giving speeches", you spoke out against that, right?


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

C'mon. They kind of got busted on this one. The positive spin to the very upset and angry Obama supporters is really pretty sad. It was a really uncool thing to have done in the first place. Those people worked really hard. They believed in something. Getting a same old politics elbow in the face is not what anyone would have liked to see done.


by Jeter on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 7)

Krugman is anything but a hack.  He was for global free trade in the 1990s and was attacked from the Left.  He was against the war in Iraq and he was attacked by the Right.  He was against Obama's healthcare proposal and you call him a hack.  In point of fact, he is consistently for policies he believes in.  

As someone who believes that mandates would be a disaster on a national level, I am profoundly against Krugman as I was to a lesser extent over global trade, but Krugman has always had pretty pure motives whether it pissed off Princeton or pissed off the New York Times.


by zadura on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

KKrugman's a hack, Hillary (excuse me) Hiwwawie is a corporate tool and Obamam linstens, but won't speak.
Just another day with the Blog Birchers.
by spirowasright on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

You are correct some of our Obama brothers and sisters should take the higher road. I have heard too that this story about the hospital is TRUE but when the media started asking the Clinton people about this they said they just assumed it was true and hadn't checked out all the details.
Fair enough but then I heard the clinton campaign
would drop this story. So  I think it would be best in the future to check out the facts and then you can tell the press yes it's true without backing down. This was a story Senator Clinton used often and so she should but her campaign made her look bad again..
by Politicalslave on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:32:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm surprised that you hadn't read yesterday (2.00 / 1)

The story was
pretty much the way she told it..

You Obama folk must realize that stuff like that
happens all the time, don't you?

Thats why we need Hillary's HONEST healthcare plan which includes a Cap on premiums and total costs at 5-10% of income

With Obama's sly mantra of so called consumer-driven healthcare", every false 'savings' upfront costs is achieved by increasing your risk of bankruptcy. By increasing the things the plan wont cover. People will be sicker and they wont be able to afford to go to the doctor or buy drugs.

Why is he exploiting our "hope"?


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, wasn't Hillary (none / 0)

doing the same thing?  Purging delegates?  Did she send out a memo?


by niksder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, not quite (none / 0)

she 'purged' about 50 people, he went after more then 900. just wee bit'o'difference


by zerosumgame on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:43:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, not quite (none / 0)

That's b/c she had 950 delegates, while he had 1700 delegates.  At least he listened to his supporters and put them back.  Has Hillary yet?  Has she promised to not overturn the will of the people by poaching pledged delegates?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's still purging, apparently (none / 0)

According to the AP, she's still 'gulaging' her fifty-odd purgees:

Earlier this week, Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took advantage of party rules to purge scores of potential delegates in a bid to ensure that only their loyalists travel to the August convention in Denver where the party will anoint a presidential nominee.

Most of the cuts, about 900 names, were dropped by Obama, leading supporters to complain that they had been unfairly excluded. Clinton's campaign dropped about 50 names from its list of prospective delegates.

While the AP piece had earlier referenced Obama's allowing in his cut delegates, there's no word on whether Hillary's letting her 'gulaged' (to use the term a Hillary fan used to describe the cut Obama delegates' plight) 50-odd folks back in.


by Phoenix Woman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did she order 50% cut without (none / 0)

looking at them at all? no. It looks like she went to the bother of evaluating them and cutting the ones she felt were not 'hers' (and before all the bloviating and whining, that was her job to do) as opposed to just whacking out about 50% without looking at them at all. One does wonder if he did it by zip-code or how he made the choice?


by zerosumgame on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

Believe it or not, we do not want a President who changes course because the public demands it.
That would be "government by polling" ... that is not leadership.
by Paul Simpson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

We want a president who is responsive to valid criticisms.  Since I hope you would agree that people (including many on mydd) provided some strong arguments for why the purge was badly handled, the decision to change the policy can hardly be called "government by polling."


4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.
by ashriver on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Obama's expensive PR firm tell you to say... (none / 0)

"The Obama Campaign Is Listening(TM)"

?

Because people can see that he isn't.. or can't..


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK George (none / 0)


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed, but it applies to Hillary too. (none / 0)


by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:55:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton cut delegates, too (none / 0)

Except she only had to cut fifty or so, as her campaign apparently isn't as swamped by people wanting to be delegates:

Earlier this week, Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took advantage of party rules to purge scores of potential delegates in a bid to ensure that only their loyalists travel to the August convention in Denver where the party will anoint a presidential nominee.

Most of the cuts, about 900 names, were dropped by Obama, leading supporters to complain that they had been unfairly excluded. Clinton's campaign dropped about 50 names from its list of prospective delegates.


by Phoenix Woman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama disses small town America - Put a fork i (none / 0)

Obama's response


by anevarez on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm (2.00 / 5)

You end with "..as president Obama would be willing to change course if the public demanded it. That would be quite a change indeed"

Wasn't that the prime criticism of President Clinton? That he was too responsive of public opinion. What was the dirty filthy word for it? Triangulation.

Every thing old is new again.


by ineedalife on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:42:06 AM EST

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 3)

Meet the new boss.  Same as the old boss.


by KimPossible on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:35:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (2.00 / 5)

No.  That's not triangulation.  The triangulation theory was that he would take one centrist view point and adopt some of his opponents ideas to help shield from criticism.... ie Welfare reform... or Bush's Compassionate Conservative Bullshit. Its sstaking out viewpoints, not tailoring message to whatever the public opinion is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulati on_(politics)
Here, read up and learn the proper term.

And the criticism of Clinton, WASN'T that he kept changing whims to public opinion... (although it could be said LBJ was that way) Its that he would change whims to try and please the press.  The major one was that he abandoned several campaign promises after media pressure.  Its a LOT different than Obama...

Obama's mojo is preaching that by forming a coalition of like minded people issue to issue... so lets say a bunch of citizens, regardless of party, all favor Stem Cell Research.... that coalition can work together to form a powerful majority and change the minds of politicians... it isn't just the politicians working together... its the CITIZENS working together.  He says you shouldn't NOT work with someone simply because they are Republican... if you agree on THAT ISSUE, then work together on THAT issue.  

SO its not public opinion, but MASS PUBLIC SUPPORT, something that Obama believes in and will obviously at least LISTEN too... unlike Bush.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:57:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 8)

What a joke.  Obama screwed up.   He got busted being what he really is, a Chicago machine politician, and did it so ham-handedly that he had to backpedal, and even THAT is taken as yet more proof of his perfection.  Really folks, don't you realize you have become caricatures?  If the guy crapped in the punch bowl too many Obama supporters would be lining up to extol the virtues of his excrement.


by dhonig on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:49:35 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 7)

the funny part is, he's made clear what the chicago office wants, and left it up to the state party to do the wet work at sunday's meeting. best of all for obama, he can now claim that it's "the will of the people" that all the fatcat bundlers got selected, and people like marcy winograd got dumped. over at that other blog, they've already decided that whoever got cut had some deep character flaw, and were unworthy. that's some strong kool-aid they're drinking.


by campskunk on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

Marcy has company at the curb with that other woman who got dumped by the orange romper room this week - Elizabeth Edwards. They like to Gulag women who won't sit down and shut up.

Elton John is right.


by Caldonia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:26:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

Not going to Denver == Gulag


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary 'gulaged', too (2.00 / 1)

And unlike Obama, she's still gulaging:

Earlier this week, Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took advantage of party rules to purge scores of potential delegates in a bid to ensure that only their loyalists travel to the August convention in Denver where the party will anoint a presidential nominee.

Most of the cuts, about 900 names, were dropped by Obama, leading supporters to complain that they had been unfairly excluded. Clinton's campaign dropped about 50 names from its list of prospective delegates.

No word on whether Hillary's letting her gulaged 50-odd folks back in.


by Phoenix Woman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 'gulaged', too (2.00 / 1)

I don't want to get too wrapped up about this one comment, cause it is just one comment, and I don't want to pick on one person in particular, but this really gets to the point of how screwed up the discourse has gotten over the primary. I mean, seriously, Gulag?

A year ago, the people throwing around language like this would have been ecstatic to have ANY Democrat for president. But now that somebody's favored candidate is losing the primary against another good Democrat, some mundane detail about the delegate selection process is a crime against humanity. Giving preferential treatment in handing out delegate seats is the same thing as throwing people into forced labor camps.

People seriously need to take a step back from the edge for a minute and get some fucking perspective.


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 'gulaged', too (none / 0)

People seriously need to take a step back from the edge for a minute and get some fucking perspective.

Hmm...would that fit on a bumper sticker?  Because I think it could be the motto for this whole primary.


by Captain Bathrobe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

can you name me one "fatcat bundler" that is a potential Obama delegate, and prove that they weren't on the cut list?


by bawbie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:47:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 8)

Obama is simply reacting, not leading, unfortunately.

Ditto for the bad gay press he received recently, which resulted in his talk about repealing "don't ask, don't tell."

Very transparent moves, IMO.


by mjc888 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:53:15 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 5)

His position on "don't ask, don't tell" has been consistent since before he started running of president.


by bawbie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:32:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 5)

Um, you really don't know what you are talking about.  Obama was calling for Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal since the start of the campaign and has held that position even before that.  Just because you support Clinton, don't rewrite history with lies.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:59:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Tell HEALTHCARE (2.00 / 1)

He is trying to avoid questions on healthcare it seems because he DOESN'T HAVE ANSWERS and his money depends on that refusal to REALLY change things.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:23:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Tell HEALTHCARE (2.00 / 2)

You do realize that this thread is NOT about healthcare, right?

All three of your posts have been complete divorced from what you were replying to.


by bawbie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:24:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Tell HEALTHCARE (2.00 / 1)

This thread is specifically about how responsive Obama will be to grassroots progressives. And many of us see his positions on the health-care reform debate, as well as his health-care advisers, as a strong indication that he will not be as responsive to the grassroots as his supporters fervently believe. As RonK Seattle put it:

What else doesn't [Obama's helth-care reform proposal] have? Right-wing opposition, of course! And why should it? It's not about socializing anything. It's not about regulating anything. It channels GDP to growth industries, relying on market mechanisms, pushing public dollars into private enterprise.

Did I mention that Cutler's new idea is not a NEW new idea. It's a version of the same new idea that starts to look good to anybody after too many hard days and nights on the trail of health care finance reform. "Great plan, dude ... how ya gonna pay for it?" "Why, efficiencies, of course! Information technology. Evidence-based medicine. Quality management." "Yeah, right."

Did I mention that medical institutions have track records many decades long as refractory cases where these and similar efficiencies are concerned? ["Refractory" -- that's med-speak for "stubbornly resistant to ordinary treatment".] So long as doctors run hospitals, they'll lag decades behind the efficient frontiers of institutional discipline.

And I should note that efficiency windfalls don't ordinarily solve distributional problems anyway, nor will this one remove underwriters' incentives to avoid high-cost subscribers or claims.

A similar idea, c. 1970, gave birth to the expansion of Health Maintenance Organizations. An HMO (it was thought) had a long-term investment in the lives of its prepaid subscribers -- a built-in market-based incentive to apply the most appropriate care in the most appropriate way. What a brilliant idea -- hence the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973! How did that all work out, anyway?

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/ 02/20/audiology-of-hope-360-special-topi cs-in-health-care-finance/

I know that a lot of progressives believe that Obama has our interests at heart, that he may say things to woo conservatives, but when he's elected he'll fight for what's best for ordinary Americans with every tool in his arsenal. It's just that I (and many, many others) don't see it that way at all. In fact, as I've said before, my biggest fear about an Obama presidency is that progressives won't apply the same kinds of pressure that they would if Hillary were president, that they will mistake his election for a progressive victory in itself and possibly even cheer him on even as he dismantles what little is left of our remaining regulatory restraints on capital. And Obama encourages this with his ridiculous claims that by appealing to Americans' shared common values, he (uniquely) can overcome the powerful vested interests in our country and bring about the changes that we all want to see.

As a certain ex-president once said, "Give me a break!"


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Tell HEALTHCARE (2.00 / 1)

I'm part of the grassroots, and, frankly, I'm less than enthusiastic about the great health care debate. It doesn't get me exorcised at all. Personally, I think there are far greater issues at  stake this election. I gather others feel differently and that's perfectly fine.

All I am really saying is that the grassroots isn't monolithic and we certainly aren't all one-issue voters, doubly so when the policy positions between the two are small to anyone but the most ardent of health care advocates.


by tessellated on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Tell HEALTHCARE (2.00 / 4)

See. Every democrat should be heartened by this event.

Something was done stupid. Why -- well, that's second to what they did afterwards.

Fix the stupid.

Hillary hasn't done as well fixing this stupid in her campaign, as evidenced by Mark Penn's continued involvement. But at other times she's altered her focus and strategy in ways that fixed other stupids, and that's good.

Too often, Democratic campaigns don't even NOTICE the stupid, let alone fix it.

It's telling (of something told many times before) that there are those who'd come here and dig around for something to ding Obama on, when we have an example of a Democratic politician doing something oh-too-rare in party politics...

...listening to us. Before things got bad.

I, for one, and pretty stoked. As a Democrat. And as an Obama supporter. But I promise you, were the tables turned, I'd be equally stoked... as a Democrat. Which comes first, IMHO.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:45:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Tell HEALTHCARE (2.00 / 1)

And, I hate to say it, but a lot of Clinton supporters are really bad at admitting errors.

When the Bosnia story broke, they kept defending it when the footage told a different story and then even after Clinton admitted it was wrong.

Even this health care story - some of the facts were wrong. It's not a big deal. One could admit it, go on and then focus on the major problems with the health care system. Instead, they dig in their heels and insist that an interest in getting the facts right means that one is against universal health care.

Frankly, as a mom, if my kids did this sort of thing they'd be in big trouble. The cover-up is typically worse than the crime, and the refusal to admit error makes the situation worse. You gain so much by coming clean and then pivoting to the big picture.  

Given the issues Clinton has with people trusting her, she's be so much better off demonstrating a commitment to getting all the details rights and correcting errors as quickly as possible. Yet the tendency to (literally) laugh off questions and dig in the heels is really, really ingrained in the Clinton campaign and often among her supporters.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:21:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The differences are pretty large.. Clinton does (none / 0)

something that we all have done, which really isn't a big thing, and you jump on her for it, she shows that her heart is in the right place on healthcare, and you jump on her for it. Obama does some things that I think are in a whole different category, not only morally reprehensible, but arguably against his obligation as a presidential candidate and as an attorney, and none of you care.. Actually, there are lots of examples where he has shown similar disdain for things that really bother me.

When these things are pointed out, you folks scoff..

You try to find similar things in Hillary's life, but you are obviously grasping at straws..


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BO is listening AFTER the fact (2.00 / 1)

yeah, just like he finally "agreed" to do a full interview with The Advocate after the Philly Gay News embarrassed him with a BLANK 1/2 page next to an interview HRC did with them... It took a BLANK page to get BO to talk about the Gay community and their concerns! He is VERY transparent. You nailed it.


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course (2.00 / 1)

In that interview, he completely made the interviewer feel like an idiot because he pointed out that he's the only one talking about gay rights in his stump speech.  Clinton only talks about gay rights to gay people, and it reminds folks that her husband, despite a lot of nice things to say, completely sacrificed them at the altar of political expedience with DOMA and DADT... both of which Obama would repeal while Clinton is only intending to repeal part of DOMA.

Obama goes for large mainstream audiences that hopefully includes gay people.  He doesn't microtarget constituencies to just tell them what they want to hear.  

It's ironic that Clinton says when asked that she doesn't look at polls, yet her entire campaign has been about looking at polls, and her highest paid advisor is a pollster.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (1.90 / 10)

Obama screwed up by trying to exert control over the delegate selection process.

If he were as resposive as his campaign claims, he'd have coughed his papers etc. from his time in the IL Leg.  He'd have made Goolsbee available at those press calls re trade...

He acted quickly enough when his delegates were at issue, but it took him months to address our failing economy, days to speak out on the Genocide Olympics after Hillary called for a boycott of the opening games,  Hell he even dragged his feet in speaking out about Imus last spring.

Hillary doesn't screw up over things like trying to control delegate selection so there's no need to "listen".  Frankly, I'd rather have a president who gets it right THE FIRST TIME!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:03:19 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

Just like she got it right about being under sniper fire the first time, right?


by tysonpublic on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:16:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

But... she... was... tired.  So either she's a liar, or she's incompetent when tired.  Makes me feel confident for her answering the "red phone" at 3am.... someone who can't remember sniper fire accurately.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! (2.00 / 3)

Seriously... is that all ya got?


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:26:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL! (2.00 / 2)

No, it seems we also got that Hillary did the exact same thing that Obama was doing in regards to the CA delegates, and Obaba fixed it by leaning his delegates stand, and Hillary has yet to go back and leave hers stand...and what we've really got is you completely ignoring those facts.  If he didn't do it right the first time, neither did she.  He's fixed it, she hasn't.  

So care to address that? I won't hold my breath.


by FlashStash on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:29:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The funny part (2.00 / 1)

Is that this memo makes it seem like it was the CA Dems who wanted to dump the delegates, but in reality it was the Obama campaign.

We're not fooled, though!


by cmugirl90 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:14:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

"Hillary doesn't screw up over things like trying to control delegate selection so there's no need to "listen".  Frankly, I'd rather have a president who gets it right THE FIRST TIME!"

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/10/ obama-clinton-scrub-california-delegate- rolls-of-potential-traitors/

LOS ANGELES -- Barack Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaigns are purging potential California delegates to ensure that only their loyalists vote at the national convention that will crown one of them as the Democratic presidential nominee.

=====

She's doing the same thing he's doing...care to adjust your statement, or did you just "misspeak"?


by FlashStash on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:31:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

Let's see:

Obama cut 900 out of 1700 delegate candidates.

Clinton cut 50 out of 950.

So it's "But Hillary did it too!"?


by KimPossible on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:37:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

Yes, she's doing it too...

If you disagree with replacing candidates, you disagree with it no matter what the number.  So it's ok for her to do it because it's a smaller number?  Please, enlighten us.


by FlashStash on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:39:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (1.50 / 4)

It's the scale that is noteworthy.  I guess math wasn't your best subject.


by KimPossible on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

Your right it is the math... he originally cut down the number of delegates to a more manageable figure than 1700.  So you're punishing him because he had more delegates sign up than Hillary?? That's silly She cut her list down to 850ish.  He cut his down to 750ish.  I fail to see how the math works against him, but Obamahaters will always find a way to spin anything that happens against him.

Either way it doesn't sound like it matters anymore.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 4)

If Obama hadn't cut the potential delegate list, he would be blamed for not controlling his supporters and making the state convention into a circus.  

He had almost twice as many potential delegates to fill fewer delegate slots.  Clinton won California, remember?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

But that's NOT what you said.   In for a penny in for a pound.  

Look your right scale is important, but based on your statements, he just destroyed your argument.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

So Obama did it worse?  That's the point, after Hillary's campaign said they would go after pledged delegates?  C'mon.


by niksder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Being right the first time on the war (2.00 / 1)

is more important.


by Priest Valon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

He doesn't have any papers from his time in the state senate to "cough up" and you damn well know that, given the number of times you've trotted it out.

Now, when will we see the rest of Hillary's papers,  since you are so keen on openness??


by bawbie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:34:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

He doesn't have any papers from his time in the state senate to "cough up"

Actually there are records, available available via public records requests from various state agencies.

Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun Times, Nov. 10:

At a news conference, I asked Obama, "Do your state Senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?

"Nobody has requested specific documents," Obama said.

'I don't have archivists'

However, the Chicago Tribune reported it has asked for documents from Obama's Springfield years and never received a response.

The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama's papers. Records from Obama's office -- if he kept them -- would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc., items the state would not have.

Now go wash the kool-aid ring off your mouth.


by KimPossible on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:44:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

where does that say that he say those documents?  it says "if he kept them"...


by bawbie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:02:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

Must... resist... perfect...setup...from...Clinton...Kool- aid...guzzler.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

Like she got it right the first time hiring Mark Penn -- and keeping him on after he destroyed the morale of her campaign staff?  Right the first time like that?  And then to keep him on in a different capacity?  Right the first time on that?  Like her inability to answer a conflict of interest question re: Colombia?  Right the first time on that?  Amazing.


by gchaucer2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

If Hillary "got it right the first time" we'd not be talking about Obama right now, would we?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

And we would have already had universal health care.


by labor nrrd on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:07:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

You mean like the Public support of NAFTA (in the beginning), refusal to fire Mark Penn, voting for the Iraq war....

That type of getting in right the first time?


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

"Hillary doesn't screw up over things like trying to control delegate selection so there's no need to "listen"."

Has She reinstated the delegates she purged? Or is she not listening because she has a deaf ear to everything but her own attacks?

"Frankly, I'd rather have a president who gets it right THE FIRST TIME!"

Like Hillary and her vote to invade Iraq?


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

The first time? Like her vote for the Iraq war?


by AHunch on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:34:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Like winning elections (none / 0)

I want a candidate who can win elections and run a good presidential campaign the first time.


by nwgates on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He doesn't own the IL papers (none / 0)

You'll have to bring that up with the IL legislative archive.

When asked for his tax returns, he released them two minutes later.  Two minutes.  How long did it take your candidate?

Obama is getting it right the first time.  That's why he's winning.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 4)

Obama ended up doing the right thing..
When he didn't do the right thing he was criticized.
He does the right thing he is criticized...
There was, or should have been, pressure on Sen. Clinton to fire Penn completely. Did you folks do that? Did she listen? Do you care?
How many here, over the years have contacted an elected official over a pending vote?
How many times did they listen?
It cracks me up that folks see Obama's response as a weakness and not a strength.

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:52:43 AM EST

Er, stupid bickering aside (2.00 / 3)

I find this encouraging.  The main problem with John Kerry (aside from the fact that he was a black hole of charisma) was that he was slow to react to issues.

When the Wright controversy broke, he had a YouTube video out to try and explain his relationship with his pastor within 24 hours and was on every news show to discuss the flap within that amount of time as well.  

If Obama will react to such a minor issue that the grass roots is having trouble with (basically he did nothing wrong, but some people's feelings were hurt), then I think we can trust him to handle the bigger stuff expediently and not let things fester.

Oh, and stop quibbling, people.  This is a positive story, let's keep it positive.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:56:22 AM EST

Hillary concern (2.00 / 1)

trolls are legion this morning.  And notice how they don't stick to the issue, just go down the talking point list.

I'm about an inch from just giving up on this site until after the nomination.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please Don't (1.50 / 2)

You gotta stick here with me until we can figure out a conservative site to go to that isn't a lost cause.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary concern (2.00 / 0)

Obama Talking Points... they are sticking to them even when they are dissed by the Obama camp.

If I didn't know what year it was, I'd swear I was reading posts from Bush-ies.  No politician deserves such loyalty.


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary concern (2.00 / 1)

Interesting. What I see are Clinton talking points!


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

All you folks talking about Sen. Clinton's concern for the working poor...These are the folks Penn's firm represents.
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/Bursoncache .jpg
..

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:59:57 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

He got caught doing what he's done his entire political life. Eliminate the people who might challenge him. If he gets caught, reverse course and say that he didn't mean it. If he doesn't get caught, pretend nothing happened. It must be the will of the people. Sounds alot like George Bush and Leiberman stuff to me. I don't want a politician to change their position because of polls and grassroot supporters. Sometimes a president must do what is good for the country rather than what is good for him/her.


by glennmcgahee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:07:55 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

Oh for fuck's sake.

These weren't "people who might challenge him", they are delegates to the national convention.

Given the Clinton's history and her statements on persuading pledged delegates, he'd better make damn sure that anybody that is sent to Denver to vote for him is strong and tough and the staunchest Obama supporters, because the chances are they'll have to put up with a lot of shit.

They aren't going to the convention to represent the country or the party, they are going to represent Obama.  Get some freaking perspective.  


by bawbie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

Except, as mentioned, he trimmed his list from 1700 to 800. Hillary trimmed hers from 950 to 900.

So we have here a difference between 800 delegates and 900. For a candidate who doesn't get as many delegates as Clinton. Considering that delegate list has to get a lot smaller, be ready for more "blood".


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:25:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

Listening? Or realizing how much they pissed off supporters they NEED?

There is quite a difference between "listening" and correcting, and changing BECAUSE it benefits you.

BO is always coming out wth "important" decisions AFTER other people take the risk. EX: He came out and urged Bush to boycott opening ceremonies of China O's AFTER Clinton did. Just like his calculated votes---AFTER he sees how the wind is blowing from colleagues. There's a great, decisive leader!

I hope all those supporters he pissed off tell BO AND Hatchet Man Axelrod to get lost!


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:43:32 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 5)

Wow. Obama could give a dying man CPR and you guys would flood these forums demanding justice for the broken ribs.

Seriously. And by the way, read up on the Chicago proposal to get the Olympics and realize that as a representitive of Illinois he has a different tack to take on the issue. Hillary very smartly exploited that, putting him on notice to either cross the Daley machine (which is vital to surviving politically in Ill.) and what was right.

He chose what was right. That's also a good thing. Don't mistake the Clinton politics in it. It was good politics on her part. And a test on his. He  passed.

Just like he did with this. No candidate or president is perfect (bill clinton bill clinton) but one of Bill's strengths was as a fighter and survivor. Hillary too. This comes from being light enough on your feet and smart enough in your politics to take punches, adapt, and keep fighting. Hillary supporters should be ecstatic to see the future Democratic nominee using tactics that have succeeded so often with the Clintons.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:56:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Hillary supporters should be ecstatic to see the future Democratic nominee using tactics that have succeeded so often with the Clintons.

We'll see about your "prediction".

And you agreed with my point---BO FOLLOWS, not LEADS. That's why he copied tactic that Succeeds with the Clintons. So, thank you!


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Iraq War...Iraq War...Iraq War.  "Follows," my ass.  Oh, but that's not the only one.  He's working with Senator Lugar on dismantling Russian nuclear missles and tracking them.  But...isn't he a foreign policy neophyte?  Why would he get involved in such a complex, unsexy issue?  Could be a sign that he is policy wonkish?

Oh wait, there's more.  He managed the ethics bill in 2007.  You know the one that in House was known as H.R. 1 due to its immediate importance to Speaker Pelosi.  His bill to end the war in Iraq was the vehicle used by the Senate in Spring 2007.

That was in the U.S. Senate.  Would you like to hear about his successes in the Illinois State Senate?  As a Civil Rights lawyer?  As a organizer for Project Vote (who registered over 100,000 voters in 1992 helping a young Arkansan governor win the presidency).  He's lead, believe me, he's lead.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lead as in (none / 0)

dead weight.

Follows... 26 bills he introduced in ILL Senate? ---handed to him.

Iraq War? Voted identical for FUNDING

100+ Present Votes--- has to see what others vote FIRST.

Lead, leader, leadership--- Just Words from him


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your blinders must be especially narrow (none / 0)

Whether he wrote the bills or not (something I wholeheartedly dispute in many instances), did he not manage them on the floor of the Illinois state senate?  Is it not a measure of leadership to pass bills through a legislative body?  I doubt most sincerely that Speaker Pelosi wrote any of the bills that has passed the House; did she not lead?  I further doubt that Senator Clinton wrote her successful legislation (such as the Veteran healthcare initiative with Lindsay Graham); did she not lead in getting the bill passed?

MLK never held any governmental office.  He never had governmental responsibilities.  But he lead with his actions....and his words.  I do not mean to compare the two (MLK has had a far greater impact on our nation than Obama) except to say that recorded votes are not the only measure of leadership.  Your candidate has campaigned on a resume of 35 years of leadership.  Only 7 of these have been in federal office.  All other years of service has been as a private citizen pushing her government to act in a righteous and just manner.  I will not dismiss her leadership on children's defense and welfare, on restraining executive power, in the areas of education and healthcare, because she did not vote on the issues.  Through her advocacy she made her views clear and pushed her government in the right direction (even if she failed).

Words, you say.  Are those 35 years of just words?  Denying Obama's leadership in October of 2002 is to ignore the forest for the trees.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your blinders must be especially narrow (none / 0)

I respectfully disagree. BO has been HANDED everything from his inspiring speech about hope and change (Duval Patrick) to his DNC old white guy supporters who hand-picked him (Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy all losers) to the MSM kissing his arse to the idiots who bought into his faux outrage over the Clintons race-baiting (which is a lie). Toss in no legitimate experience (being handed thoe bills to plump up his portfolio of "experience." Not bad for the "street urchin from Jakarta"--prep school, Columbia/Harvard grad. Oh, who as a black man could get "shot" goin to a gas station in his multi-million dollar suburban neighborhood.


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 03:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know how respectful that was (none / 0)

I can understand why you're not a big fan of Obama since you have a lot of the information you just posted wrong.

That inspiring speech on hope and change was written in 2004 (I assume you're referring to his first major national address) and Deval Patrick did not run for office until 2006.  Except for Daschle (that big national powerhouse who couldn't manage to keep his seat in SD), no national democrat endorsed him until after he won Iowa.  Moreover Hillary started with over 200 superdelegates.  The MSM spent the entire year of 2007 telling the world that Hillary's nomination was inevitable.  And after the ABC debate and the constant replay of the Wright remarks you still think their kissing his ass.  Finally, so you're saying that President Clinton just randomly picked JJ to compare to Barack Obama in South Carolina (John Edwards had won South Carolina as well, but lost the nomination; why didn't Clinton cite him? I think you know why).

Also, there is no evidence that his work in the Illinois state senate was handed to him.  Quite the opposite!  The documentary evidence demonstrates that he has worked hard to write and pass all the legislation that he got enacted in the Illinois and U.S. Senates.  Your claim is just another undocumented Clinton talking point.  Please prove me wrong.  I like to learn new things.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK... I accept (none / 0)

I assume you're referring to his first major national address.

No, actually I was referring to the speech Axelrod wrote for Duval Patrick when he was running for Governor of Mass. That speech, which is 1 1/2 years old is the one mr. inspiring used continuously early in the primary... If you're going to inspire me, can't you at least write your own words of inspiration???

If you believe that BO's candidacy just bloomed w/o behind-the-scenes planning long ago, I have a desert to sell you. Kerry, Durbin (Durbin and Daschle have been grooming BO for some time), Kennedy, Dodd, Leahy, Pelosi, Dean, Brazille, Reid... have all made very clear that they want this guy to be "the one." Hell, just yesterday Dean cancelled the NC debate... Hmmm I wonder why? Because BO is cleaning HRC' clock in debates???

Bill Clinton was citing history. Only THREE Dems have won SC--- JJ, Edwards, and surprise, Clinton. If he had mentioned himself, he would have been called an ego-maniac trying to minmize a black guy; if he mentioned Edwards, he would have been touting a candidate still in the primary race; sooo, he touted another AA. That made him a racist??? The man who has done more for the AA community than BO ever has??????

26 Bills passed under the credit of BO were HANDED to him in the State Leg of Illinois to pad his experience portfolio.

But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year.

Republicans controlled the Illinois General Assembly for six years of Obama's seven-year tenure. Each session, Obama backed legislation that went nowhere; bill after bill died in committee. During those six years, Obama, too, would have had difficulty naming any legislative ­achievements.

Then, in 2002, dissatisfaction with President Bush and Republicans on the national and local levels led to a Democratic sweep of nearly every lever of Illinois state government. For the first time in 26 years, Illinois Democrats controlled the governor's office as well as both legislative chambers.

The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James "Pate" Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.

Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama's. He became Obama's ­kingmaker.

Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio ­program.

I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"

"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"

"Barack Obama."

Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law -- including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.

Link is here: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/n ews/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK... I accept (none / 0)

You seem to have a problem with recent history, so I'm not going to continue this beyond this simple statement:  Hillary Clinton was the establishment.  To say any different is laughable.

Thus what Obama has done is amazing to be leading against the wife of the former president of the United States.  I mean you did not see GWB really struggling when his party was trying to establish the Bush dynasty.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

Yeah, he corrected a mistake.

Listen -- Everybody makes mistakes. Personally, I make them all the time -- at work, at home, in  my community work.  We are human beings and imperfect and sometimes we really fuck up.

The test is what happens when you make a mistake. Do you admit it and go on to correct it in some way? Or do you go into a defensive crouch, refuse to admit it and refuse to make change?

What I've seen from Clinton is the latter.  She couldn't admit her mistake on the war vote. She kept defending her Bosnia misstatements and now Bill has done the same, even introducing new errors in the account. Her campaign has been a mess with poor planning and she still hasn't cut Penn lose.

We've had a president with George W. Bush who was convinced in the utter rightness of his initial decisions. He can't make corrections because that would mean admitting error.

Personally, I am thrilled that Obama's folks made this change. I didn't think he needed to do so, since the campaign certainly had to cut the number of potential delegates. But I am glad that the campaign did it regardless, showing its openness to others' feelings and thoughts -- and that they did it quickly before it morphed into a big issue and story.

I am convinced that on the big things, he won't shift from core principles.  But we need a president who is more responsive and thoughtful and I think Obama demonstrates those qualities.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

He is a F.O.L.L.O.W.E.R.

He didn't make a mistake. He gutted his core supporters in favor of his bundlers, and when there was an immediate outrage from those very supporters he needs to get votes from, he did a 180. It had nothing to do with righting a wrong and everything to do with him saying "Holy Shit!" We just pissed off a lot of votes I HAVE to HAVE or I won't look like the HOPE & CHANGE guy I've been lying that I am! PLEeeeeeeeeze. He is a pol. An opportunist, and has had everything handed to him. e can't go off script, because he has nothing else, so he FOLLOWS others who take the risk, yes, Like HRC.


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

The strongest leader is the one who has the confidence to admit error and change course.

Unless you think that George W. Bush, the Decider, is the model for all presidents.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

BTW, I've seen no evidence that the people excluded from being potential delegates were different in any systematic way from those included.

It's just an assertion, with no evidence to back it up.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Unless you think that George W. Bush, the Decider, is the model for all presidents.

I don't, but BO has shown that he does over and over and over and over... "I'm a uniter, not a divider..."- GWB. "I'll bring ALL people together... hehehehe, after I infuse the most incendiary divider in America---The RACE Card!"---BHO.

That guy ain't gettin my vote. No way, no how...


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

When the Clinton campaign is dismissing him as just another Jesse Jackson and basically calling him an affirmative action hire, I'd hardly say it's Obama injecting the race card into the campaign.


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice try... (none / 0)

but wrong. It was BO who brought in the race card...over and over, starting with SC after he was so stunned that he lost NH. Make a pile of crap out of a correct and accurate, but NOT racist statement from HRC about LBJ-MLK (don't test me on this I wrote a book on the Civil Rights Act of 1964); says NADA when Chris Rock introduces him at a rally saying "you know, the candidate that's NOT the white one..."; no tears for Katrina victims; turns Bill Clinton's factual, and accurate comment about JJ winning SC (which even JJ said he did not take as a racially insensitive comment)... and on, and on, and on... using his 1/2 AA-ness to his advantage and exploitation at EVERY op. The Clintons have done MORE for the AA community that BO has EVER done.


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice try... (2.00 / 1)

I can hardly parse that.

I don't recall Obama making a race case out of New Hampshire. Mostly it was the media speculating about a possible Wilder effect attempting to explain polling discrepancies (which I don't buy, for the record.)

Of course the Clintons have done a lot for the AA community. I never said they didn't. Of course, one of them has been president, which gives them the opportunity to do a lot.

Do you think Hillary has never played the gender card? I personally don't begrudge her for it at all, God knows the media has laid into her with all kinds of sexist attacks. Some of it is a stretch, like getting asked questions first in the debate is somehow sexist...

Just the same, Obama has ever right to defend himself on race issues. Every time a black person says something controversial, he's called on to denounce it (e.g. Farrakhan) as if he's the leader of some sort of magical Afro hive-mind.


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

This is a flip flop, not "listening".
Axelrod and the Obama gang caught alot of shit from this and now they are trying to backtrack a major faux-pas.

Nice cover up, but watch those caucuses... there are still going to get alot of people pissed that they were not voted for.  


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

Hilary did exactly the same thing, as the article I posted above shows.   When are we going to hear you complain about her actions also?


by FlashStash on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

From what I read, Hillary didn't do the purge that Obama did AND those purged seem to be more of the progressive liberal wing of the California pledged delegates.

Obama wants the radicals to work to get him the vote, but he doesn't want them to represent in Denver.  It might prove embarrassing.


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

From what I read, Hillary didn't do the purge that Obama did AND those purged seem to be more of the progressive liberal wing of the California pledged delegates.

Neither of these things are true. Hillary also struck names from her list of potential delegates. And the notion that progressives were systematically purged from Obama's list is pure speculation. The Obama haters are just looking to drum up a scandal out of a non-story so they'll assume all sorts of ulterior motives without evidence.


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Are we seriously on day two of this non-story?  


by rfahey22 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:33:25 AM EST

well, it seems typical (2.00 / 3)

of the Obama campaign to do something like this and then merely say "we've asked the california democratic party...." as if it was their fault in the first place to do this.

I view Obama's action as an apology for a misstep.  Which is good, but it doesn't mean he will listen to people.  He just got caught here insulting his own supporters.


by 4justice on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:36:05 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

Two things.  One is that in selecting delegates you are supposed to pick the most loyal.  These aren't advisers, they are the ones who will vote for you at the Convention.  Since part of the HRC strategy is going after Pledged Delegates, it is more important to make sure of the people you are sending.  It may have been handled better but there has now been a correction in the process.

As a side note, One one hand the Clinton campaign says that Florida and Michigan must be seated in spite of breaking the rules, because their votes need to be counted.  But on the other hand they are actively trying to switch the votes of pledged delegates, in fact disenfranchising voters whose states played by the rules.  In effect saying "I'm sorry you aren't smart enough for your votes to count because didn't pick me"


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

To be fair, they only pledged to count the votes - they didn't promise that the votes would mean anything.


by rfahey22 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha (2.00 / 0)

This is how a campaign reacts when it is caught with its pants down.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:03:12 AM EST

Re: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha (none / 0)

So you prefer a campaign that won't change when it has made an error?

By the way, why is Mark Penn still a major part of Clinton's campaign.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Campaign "street money" (2.00 / 2)

Somewhat OT, but it is about the campaign...

I have no idea what to make of this, just found it somewhat odd.  GOTV street money. Is this commonplace?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-streetmoney11apr11,0,768306 8.story?track=ntothtml


by mady on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:20:22 AM EST

Good catch. (none / 0)

I saw a video about the same practice in SC where Obama refused to play but now I can't find the darned thing.  They called it something else in SC, not street money.

In SC the money was supposedly for voters to get transportation to the polls but the actual dollar amount had been growing each election.  Obama's campaign came in and said 'We won't pay it.  We have our own buses to help people get to the polls.'

The guy who made the video was saying the practice had always disgusted him and he is hoping now that one candidate refused to engage in it and still won, the practice would end.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 3)

"Hillary doesn't screw up over things like trying to control delegate selection so there's no need to 'listen'."

No, she doesn't.  She just goes after Obama's delegates.


by happycozy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:21:06 AM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

The way Obama has dissed his pledged delegates in California and being stingy with supporters in PA, he's going hand Hillary more delegates:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/11/ 11561/4827

Don't take loyalty for granted Obama, we aren't all hypnotized by you.


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 2)

If he paid the street money, you'll would be saying that he's acting like a Chicago style machine politician.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He didn't play 'street money' in St. Louis either (2.00 / 1)

And St. Louis Democrats still backed him big-time in the primaries.


by Phoenix Woman on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He didn't play 'street money' in St. Louis eit (none / 0)

And he barely (with 1%) won.  Perhaps if he got out that street money, he would have done better.


by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Heads I win, tails you lose.


by fwiffo2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

I'm glad to see this hopeful diary on the front page.


Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST

Begala: Clintonian-Rumsfeldian leadership (2.00 / 1)

"Longtime Clinton adviser and confidant Paul Begala took full aim at Mark Penn on Friday, expressing scorn for the recently demoted strategist, and comparing his time with the Clinton campaign to that of Donald Rumsfeld's tenure as Secretary of Defense.

"I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Penn," said Begala at a New York City breakfast sponsored by the non-profit group Public Agenda. "And for those of us who wanted to see him out from the beginning, it became almost a Rumsfeldian thing. And he is not even fired. He has been demoted. How could this be?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/11 /begala-nothing-but-contem_n_96226.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:52:03 PM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

That is called damage control becuse they were facing a backlash.

Their mistakes are piling up but rarely reported.

Clinton's laugh gets the media's attention.


by gotalife on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:54:09 PM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Yes, and it was very effective damage control.

Every campaign and every candidate makes mistakes. The question is how you handle it.

Meanwhile, Begala is comparing the Clinton's campaign's decisions on Penn to Bush keeping Rumsfeld so long -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/11 /begala-nothing-but-contem_n_96226.html

Which do you think is the worse campaign error? Obama's folks correcting a mistake in 24 hours or Clinton keeping on an incompetent strategist with ties to foreign countries and lobbyists?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

The Obama campaign makes a gross, anti-Democratic move, purging its delegate lists of progressives and leftists. Then there's an outcry and backtracking damage control, it's effectiveness to be determined by how the damage control is spun.

For Obamabots at least, the damage control was made effective by credulous spin by Obamabots such as the author of this diary. Those not Obamabots might be harder to spin.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (2.00 / 1)

the vitriol in this message board is downright depressing.  I've never seen Democrats so gleefully deride progressive policies or dismiss charges of racism.  Its disgusting.  It has a lot more to do with the supporters of both candidates than the behavior of either campaign.

This primary  has degenerated into a crude sport where people are just rooting for their own team.  This is exactly why most Americans don't give two ***ts about politics.


by direwolfc on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

Thanks Todd for this post. It is indeed refreshing to see a campaign that is reading what the netroots have to say and responding to criticism. I can't wait to pull the lever for Obama in November. Thanks for finding a positive angle in this story and giving it some play here on this site.


by wasder on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:35:10 PM EST

Re: The Obama Campaign Is Listening (none / 0)

ah jhl
"He gutted his core supporters in favor of his bundlers," ...we are discussing CA....
I respect you enough to know that you have links to  provide links to verify this claim as relates to CA.
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:23:32 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: