Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 25, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

CAMPAIGN RHETORIC....Is soaring campaign rhetoric enough? Atrios says this:

Yes, I'd like to know that Barack Obama was truly committed to a health care plan which matched his rhetoric on the subject, but presidential campaigns, especially this far out, aren't won on policy documents.

I agree completely, but I still think there's an important distinction to be made here between cheap campaign rhetoric and serious campaign rhetoric. Among Republicans, cheap campaign rhetoric includes things like attacks on activist judges or support for a culture of life. Among Democrats it includes paeans to the importance of education or a commitment to keeping Social Security safe.

There's nothing wrong with stuff like this, but it's a freebie. It doesn't really tell you anything beyond the party ID of the speaker. Conversely, serious campaign rhetoric commits you to something. "No child should go without healthcare" is cheap rhetoric, something nobody disagrees with. "I think everyone over the age of 55 should be covered by Medicare" is serious rhetoric. It's not a 300-page white paper, but it clearly delineates a policy priority that not everyone else shares. "I think every man, woman, and child in the country should be covered by Medicare regardless of age" is really serious rhetoric.

This was my complaint about Obama's speech (here). The cheap rhetoric was fine. I'm all for it. And if he didn't want to get into details right now, that's no problem. But as it happens, he did get into details, and his details turned out to be pretty timid. They didn't distinguish him in any way from any other Democratic candidate who's ever mounted a podium. In fact, they made me less prone to view him as someone who's likely to stake out a genuinely aggressive position on healthcare in the future.

To repeat myself: I'm not trying to slag Obama here. A speech is just a speech, and he may very well have more to say about healthcare later when more people are listening. Maybe that's the smart way to play it. I'm just not sure he deserves any special brownie points for what he said today, that's all.

And now to literally repeat myself: I know that endorsing a serious universal healthcare plan is politically difficult, and maybe Obama is just working up to it slowly. That's fine. But high-profile candidates have a special obligation here. Dennis Kucinich can yell "Medicare for All" until he turns blue, and nobody's going to listen. That's not fair, but it's reality. High-profile candidates like Obama, Clinton, and Edwards can change that. If they commit to a genuinely bold healthcare initiative, it becomes a legitimate topic overnight. Until they do, though, it stays on the fringe.

Ezra Klein has a complaint similar to mine here. Mark Kleiman has a different complaint here. If you have a complaint, comments are open.

Kevin Drum 5:49 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Here's my political promise.

I promise to support the major Democratic candidate who is the first to support "Medicare for All".

Happily for all Democrats, 2008 is not going to be about electability. It's going to be about leadership, and THAT would be leadership.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 25, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Go with Gore. He's the one who cares, and the one who should have been President for the last eight years. Think about it.

Posted by: joan clark on January 25, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

And now I'm going to repeat myself. As Democrats, we are still arguing quaint notions having to do with merit, integrity, authenticity and experience.

The Republicans barely pay lip service to these qualities. They just get together to agree on a guy they can prop up in front of their machinery — a stooge, like Reagan or the Bushes, that bootlickers, fools, and fundamentalists can be expected to follow blindly.

Are we in danger of overthinking 2008 based on subtle distinctions over actual policy?

Posted by: Kenji on January 25, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

I agree Kevin (as I posted in the previous thread).

And frankly0.

I don't want someone who is trying to shake-down Big Pharma and the HMO's for campaign donations. I want a candidate who will fight for me.

Right now - given what Obama said, I can't tell. He needs to either commit himself to a position that endangers him politically (to prove he's on my side) - or continue to leave me and others unimpressed.

Now; I have faith that Obama will clarify this soon. He sure came out swinging after FoxNews on the Madrassa business. It took him a few days. So maybe he'll clarify on UHC.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone looked at what New Mexico is working on, the New Mexico Health Security Act? *cough* Bill Richardson.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 25, 2007 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

If they commit to a genuinely bold healthcare initiative, it becomes a legitimate topic overnight.

Which is exactly what Obama did today. He committed himself to UHC within six years.

But I'm done arguing with folks who want to diddle over minutia. I'll leave things at this: My prediction is that we will end up tracing the beginning of the birth of UHC in the US to Obama's speech today.

Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji: "[Republicans] just get together to agree on a guy they can prop up in front of their machinery — a stooge, like Reagan or the Bushes, that bootlickers, fools, and fundamentalists can be expected to follow blindly."

The cult of personality can be a powerful political aphrodisiac for apolitical party or organization. But Democrats have had their own powerful political personalities who have transended the issues of the day, and would win elections as long as they still showed a pulse, regardless of current events.

Franklin Roosevelt comes most readily to mind, but if you also look at the state or local levels of government, Chicago has had its Mayors Richard Daley (Elder and Junior), Massachusetts its Kennedys, Louisiana its Long family, West Virginia has the venerable Robert Byrd, and Hawaii had both Gov. John Burns and more recently Sen. Daniel Inouye.

Generally, the key difference between the parties is that such Democrats like FDR and John Burns got to where they were by appealing to the hopes and dreams of greatest common multiple of American people, while Republicans like Ronald Reagan and the Bushes attained their respective statures by pandering to the worst fears and instincts of the least common denominator.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 25, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Go with Gore. He's the one who cares, and the one who should have been President for the last eight years. Think about it.

Speaking about the man who should have been Pres, did anyone see what three of the five said about the decision? Scalia told people to "get over it", OConnor incorrectly insisted the results would have been the same if they hadn't intervened in the recount, and Kennedy said that it was Gore's fault that the case came to the SCOTUS.

They seem to be acutely aware of what the history books will say about them.

Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Chicago has had its Mayors Richard Daley (Elder and Junior)

Believe me, Little Richard is not mayor because of his personality.

Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Atrios on this one. While I appreciate the distinction Kevin Drum is making between cheap and serious campaign rhetoric. What I think he is still missing is the fact that Obama's speech contained both. In particular, he is missing the fact that it contained this very serious bit of campaign rhetoric:

"From Maine to California, from business to labor, from Democrats to Republicans, the emergence of new and bold proposals from across the spectrum has effectively ended the debate over whether or not we should have universal health care in this country."

And this one:

"In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we must find the will to pass a plan by the end of the next president’s first term."

And this:

"The time has come for universal health care in America."

All this strikes me as absolutely crucial agenda-setting, designed to lock in the acceptable minima for debate ahead, both before and after the next election. Obama is laying down a marker: the next administration must achieve universal coverage. If in '08 a candidate is elected with that commitment as a prominent element of her or his platform -- and especially if that candidate wins handily and with congressional coattails, as certainly now seems possible for a Democrat to do -- then this rhetoric will have very serious policy consequences indeed.

Posted by: Amileoj on January 25, 2007 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

Believe me, Little Richard is not mayor because of his personality.
Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Jane Byrne even said that she felt like she was just filling the time between daddy and the time Richard was old enough to be mayor.
And she really made a lot of major changes. She just couldn't erase The Machine altogether.

Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on January 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo:,/b> [Justices Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy] seem to be acutely aware of what the history books will say about them."

For the most part, the history books will relegate their names to no more than a footnote. It's the decision itself that will live in infamy.

For example, most history wonks like myself can't readily identify off the tops of our heads those justices who rendered the outrageous 1896 majority opinion that legally sanctioned racial segregation in the United States, but for the most part we will certainly remember the name of the case -- Plessey v. Ferguson.

If you really want to know those justices' names, all you have to do is Google the case -- and then look at the footnotes.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 25, 2007 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

1. Maybe Obama has figured that since Hillary is getting so much money from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, plus her big defeat when First Lady on healthcare; she will be afraid to take on UHC (and therefore a way to differentiate himself from her and gain votes, no matter how feeble his plan is). Doesn't she get more money from the two industries than any other Senator? (maybe wrong though since hard to imagine Lieberman not getting bigger chunks of insurance dough when he represents Hartford and the insurance big cats).

2. There is probably a fundamental and huge difference between the people who participate and vote in primaries. Many DO study positions and take note of policy differences. The people who determine the general election are probably more likely to vote on emotions, impressions of the person, who they identify with, who they like, and not what their positions are.

Posted by: Chrissy on January 25, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK
Which is exactly what Obama did today. He committed himself to UHC within six years.

Which is as meaningful as committing to, say, "social security reform" in 6 years.

But I'm done arguing with folks who want to diddle over minutia.

The difference between, say, single-payer and a mandatory-private-insurance plan is hardly "minutia".

I'll leave things at this: My prediction is that we will end up tracing the beginning of the birth of UHC in the US to Obama's speech today.

I doubt it. Universal healthcare has been a constant issue in US politics since at least it was a focal point of Clinton's campaign, despite the fact that no successful policy has yet coalesced. Unless Obama is elected and gets a plan he proposes adopted, his speech will be one of many rhetorical sidenotes that were responses to the public demand, but didn't do much to move things forward. If he is elected, and does get something passed, then sure, this will be seen as the start of his public commitment to UHC.

But, heck, with Republicans in several places proposing universal healthcare plans (even if bad ones) there's nothing bold about a Democrat committing to having something under that label in 6 years, and without some substantive parameters that, as far as I've seen, Obama's commitment lacks there's no real "initiative" here, either.


Posted by: cmdicely on January 25, 2007 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

I've certainly had it up to here with Democratic candidates who, in office, can hardly be distinguished from Republicans.

That said, the candidate who offers details of their plan will get nibbled to death by the ducks and quacks of the press, most of whom actually are Republicans.

The smart thing to say is that we need to do as well as the top ten healthcare providing countries of the world, and, when pressed for details, say that if they can do it, we can use some of the same techniques. Naturally, you need a sharp policy guy on staff who can dazzle them with brilliance, but in general there's also a lot to be said for the baffle them with bullshit approach.

There's a lot more Tom Friedmans in the press, easily baffled by bullshit, than there are Paul Krugmans, who need to be dazzled by brilliance.

Posted by: serial catowner on January 25, 2007 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Extradite Rumsfeld: "And [Jane Byrne]really made a lot of major changes. She just couldn't erase The Machine altogether."

I can't speak with any real knowledge to Mayor Jane Byrne's accomplishments while in office, because I was in high school and had other priorities.

All I really remember about Ms. Byrne's term is that she starred in a really cheesy USA Today commercial -- in which both she and investment banker Charles Schwab rode in the back of a taxicab while singing the paper's then-theme song -- and then she lost in a landslide to Harold Washington in the 1983 Democratic primary, because she and another white guy (the current Mayor Daley, per chance?) split the white vote.

I think that it would be interesting to envision how different Chicago might be today, had the very popular Mayor Washington not died in office five years later.

But Ms. Byrne did beat the vaunted Daley Machine, which was then headed by a hopelessly hapless Mayor Michael Bilandic. That was certainly no small feat, even if she did have considerable help from Mother Nature in the form of a "Hundred Year Blizzard" that completely sideswiped and paralyzed the Bilandic administration about five or six weeks before the 1979 Democratic primary.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 25, 2007 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK
That said, the candidate who offers details of their plan will get nibbled to death by the ducks and quacks of the press, most of whom actually are Republicans.

Boo-frigging-hoo. A candidate that isn't prepared to deal with that isn't prepared to deal with the political storm required to sell any actual substantive plan, either, and therefore can be counted on not to deliver, whatever vague platitudes they promise, if elected.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 25, 2007 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely's admission that he doesn't understand the difference between an election campaign and governance is illuminating.

Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

One of the commentators at Tapped did the research work for the negative nellies and posted some of Obama's ideas for UHC that he outlined in his book.

I have no illusions that this will quiet the devoutly obtuse, but hopefully it will help chip away at the edges of the false "Obama has no substance" meme that some seem so dedicated in spreading.

It's bad enough that during the run-up to Nov 2006 the Dems had to put up with the GOP haranguing them into the trap of providing a detailed plan to fix GWB's across-the-board mess, but to have Dems point their weapons at each other so early in the 2008 election season is quite baffling.

Posted by: Disputo on January 25, 2007 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Senator Obama was a big part of our getting universal health care for kids under 18 here in Illinois. he's been down this road before and did the job.
I really wish you guys would bother to look up the records of people before jumping to critiquing.
Past records are very helpful in knowing a candidate and what they will do.
Too bad the MSM didn't do this with Bushieboy in 2000 as Molly Ivins implored them to. It would have saved us much pain.

Posted by: vwcat on January 25, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Kevin on this. I'll up the ante, though, and add that so far I've yet to hear anything significant come out of Obama's mouth. He's awfully good at platitudes but hasn't shown me that has any substance to him.

Posted by: grapeshot on January 25, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo >"...My prediction is that we will end up tracing the beginning of the birth of UHC in the US to Obama's speech today."

Mr. Delusiono made a funny. Been out of the basement recently ? Ever studied history ?

Boy, here we go again w/the pompus stupidity.

"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.” - Otto von Bismarck

Posted by: daCascadian on January 25, 2007 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo: My prediction is that we will end up tracing the beginning of the birth of UHC in the US to Obama's speech today.

As we optimists like to say about events in Iraq, this is definitely a major turning point toward eventual victory.

After all the points raised in his speech, I think Obama needs only to repeat every time that he is aboslutely committed to UHCm without committing himself on details; details are part of the "conversation". Then in the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary, ALL the Democratic candidates will be committed to UHC, and the debate will be about who can work more effectively to get it, and to handle all the policy and political issues addressed by Obama today. Probably sooner.

Then if the Democratic candidate wins, he or she will have the mandate that Hillary lacked when she took up the issue in 1993.

Abraham Lincoln said "A house divided against itself can not stand." He never said what he planned to to about anything, only that the spread of slavery was bad. As we say nowadays, he "framed" the debate.

Between them, Obama and Bush have done that now.

Posted by: calibantwo on January 25, 2007 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Can I ask on what you base that optimism about Iraq? I am talking to actual living people who have been there, and I'm not hearing anything - anything - that would give me cause for optimism.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

p.s. - that is evidenced by the election results in the KS-02 (I worked for the Boyda campaign).

The KS 02 is home to Ft. Riley and Ft. Leavenworth, and they tossed Jim Ryun out on his ass by a wide margin and put Democrat Nancy Boyda in that seat.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl:
Can I ask on what you base that optimism about Iraq?

I believe (hope) Calibantwo was being ironic.

Posted by: Dave Howard on January 25, 2007 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

I hope so too...perhaps I'm just too invested and miss the less overt sarcasm/snark/irony.

Still working on getting a read on our new friend.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 25, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Still working on getting a read on our new friend.

Me, too, Globe.

Calibantwo,
Why a handle that has such a strong association with Shakespeare's The Tempest? Maybe irony once again...

vwcat: Too bad the MSM didn't do this with Bushieboy in 2000 as Molly Ivins implored them to. It would have saved us much pain.

Ain't that the truth. I said the other day that Molly has been so right for so long.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 26, 2007 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Unlike the esteemed Messrs Drum and Dicely, I view the current competition to win the Democratic nomination as an endurance race. Rabbits seldom win. I trust that Sen. Obama knows this and is planning accordingly. I am looking forward to the competition and I hope he is there at the end.

Posted by: Keith G on January 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with you, KeithG.

The battle at this stage, IMO, is for name recognition and correcting how the rightwing noise machine attempts to define/smear the candidates... as we've recently seen over Obama et al (Hillary, Edwards) and the madrassa accusations.

I fully expect to hear more details when it's time for debates.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 26, 2007 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

I said the other day that Molly has been so right for so long.

Molly Ivins has been absolutely right about absolutely everything for at least the last 20 years, and everyone who has ever dismissed her because she writes from left of center owes her an appology.

Those of us who have been smart enough to listen...owe her a debt of gratitude.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

*I do know how to spell apology. Apologies. My finger stutters on the p in that word on a regular basis.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK
cmdicely's admission that he doesn't understand the difference between an election campaign and governance is illuminating.

Having stated that there are some similar political skills required to sell ideas in either context is a mile away from what you said, but then, lying about what I've said is apparently something you've taken quite a liking to recently.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 26, 2007 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Those of us who have been smart enough to listen...owe her a debt of gratitude.

Yeah, Globe. I'm going to buy the rest of her books beyond Shrub and Bushwhacked to show some of my gratitude. I think she has written five books in all, IIRC.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on January 26, 2007 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK
Unlike the esteemed Messrs Drum and Dicely, I view the current competition to win the Democratic nomination as an endurance race.

I'm trying to find what I said that conflicts with that; you seem to mistake me as saying that Obama's actions so far are bad primary politics in the sense of strategy to get elected. That's not at all the case; I think that the kind of empty platitudes clearly trailing well-established public opinion, breaking no new ground, and making vague gestures that can easily be read by both the liberal single-payer supporters and the anti-single-payer mandatory-private-insurance supporters as supporting their plan might be as effective a cautious strategy for building support behind a candidacy without ruffling many feathers as Obama could reasonably find; its a good way of saying things that almost everyone (particularly if they aren't listening too closely) can hear as something they want to hear, that isn't at all threatening to any potential big-money donors. I'm certainly not going to speak for others about whether Obama statements so far make them more likely to support him.

My criticism is that he has done nothing to convince me that he ought to be the next President of the United States. There are few of the declared Democratic candidates (and few even of those who are still dithering on the sidelines but might still jump in) that have done less than Obama has in that regard.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 26, 2007 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

I have them, purchased as they were published, but they are in boxes because I start the moving process tomorrow...(UGH!)

Starting to petition dieties that I get called to step in and fill a gap at DDE at Ft. Leavenworth and that lasts until the move is done...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on January 26, 2007 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

I agree completely, but I still think there's an important distinction to be made here between cheap campaign rhetoric and serious campaign rhetoric. Among Republicans, cheap campaign rhetoric includes things like attacks on activist judges or support for a culture of life. Among Democrats it includes paeans to the importance of education or a commitment to keeping Social Security safe.

...and, I would add, mushisms about supporting "affordable health care for all."

But, again, Obama didn't do that. The point you're missing is that Obama made a public commitment to universal health care, in so many words. I agree with Atrios -- at this point, the commitment is fine; details can (and should, make no mistake) follow.

Posted by: Gregory on January 26, 2007 at 7:32 AM | PERMALINK

I think this is part of the reason Senators are penalized when it comes to running for president. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. Any specific plan they call for will be torn apart. Yet a governor has a record to run on, i.e. "I provided health care to every child under 6 and it worked."

Maybe he should run for a governorship somewhere first.

Posted by: KathyF on January 26, 2007 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I'll posts something similar as what I put over at Matt Yglesias (sp?) last night:

The important thing is to get the issue out there, open for discussion, by the people who make the policy. While you don't request a "300-page white paper," it seems to me that's the main complaint: He didn't get detailed enough in his description.

It's so damn early in this horse race that I certainly don't expect him to get too specific. Throw the idea out there, see who responds, and start the conversation among more than just us dirty fucking blogging hippies.

Posted by: Unholy Moses on January 26, 2007 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

The recent crush on Obama! is hard to explain. He's ok. But I have to say -- with no racism intended -- that if he were white he'd be nobody. Obama is like Oakland. There doesn't seem to be any there there -- certainly not enough to justify all the excitement over Obama!

I don't have a lot against him except that the few times I hear about what he says he is taking some semi-weaselly triangulation-style position, marginilizing Democrats who want to take it to the Republicans.

I don't get it.

Posted by: The Fool on January 26, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

Senator Obama was a big part of our getting universal health care for kids under 18 here in Illinois. he's been down this road before and did the job.
I really wish you guys would bother to look up the records of people before jumping to critiquing.
Past records are very helpful in knowing a candidate and what they will do.

Well, okay. Has anyone read
Obama's
entry at Wiki? Born in Hawaii, raised in Jakarta, high school in California, college in California & New York, a stint in Chicago before going on to law at Harvard & then back to Chicago, where he became a State Senator in 1996. This doesn't seem to have been a full-time position, as he taught at the U of Chicago Law School until he was elected US Senator. But he was already bored with life in Chicago. After four years in Springfield, he was already running for the House in 2000.

Okay, he's talented & he's glib, but he has no executive experience, little real legislative experience (he always seems to be looking for another job), and, worst of all, aside from his time in Chicago, seems to have almost no American roots. (Hey army brats: Does Obama sound like one of you?)

Barack Obama is a smooth talker. Rather like John McCain. If he is elected president, will he take that job any more seriously than anything else he's done in his life?

Posted by: Dave of Maryland on January 26, 2007 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

Dave--
How in the holy hell does where a kid's parents move when he's young have anything to do with ... well, anything?

Don't get me wrong -- I see your point. I just think it's stupendously misplaced.

Posted by: Unholy Moses on January 26, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Not a complaint -- rather a compliment. Thank you for using "literally" correctly. I get seriously peeved when it's used for emphasis but is actually false. "We are _literally_ on the cutting edge of technology" etc.

Posted by: Brad on January 26, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Our country's in a hell of a mess. Would all the Senators be Senators for a while, get us out of Iraq, and then move on. But they shouldn't move on to Clinton's flag burning bill. That's not a big enough problem.

Posted by: joan clark on January 26, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

more from wiki: 13th District in the south-side neighborhood of Hyde Park. In January 2003, when Democrats regained control of the chamber, he was named chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.[19] Among his legislative initiatives, Obama helped to author an Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to lower income families, worked for legislation that would support residents who could not afford health insurance, and helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.[20]
...
Reviewing Obama's career in the Illinois Senate, commentators noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build coalitions.[25][26] In his subsequent campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose officials cited his "longtime support of gun control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises," despite his support for some bills that the police union had opposed.[27]

All that while teaching law at the U. of Chicago.

Now he has publicly committed to getting universal health care in 6 years, and his speech displays knowledge of the complex problems that need to be addressed.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on January 27, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly