Jim Johnson left Fannie Mae in 1998, I believe...

Posted at September 19, 2008 11:45 AM in response to McCain Ad Blasts Obama For Ties To Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson

If this is to appeal to disgruntled Hillary supporters, I think it may backfire. As the primary narrowed to two contenders, experience was the tipping point for many. Sure, the woman thing was big for many, especially as HRC grew as a candidate and person as the race went on. And there are probably some for whom gender is/was the major issue. But those same women often fought their way through obstacles only to be told they only got something because "you are a woman." He really could have found someone talented with a track-record, so it's a little bit of an insult in a way.

Posted at August 29, 2008 11:53 AM in response to CNN: McCain Picks Sarah Palin As Veep

This thread is a bit discouraging--substitute about any other demographic for 65+ women and you'd be skewered for making these sort of comments. Before making generalizations, it would be much more helpful to break the demographic down quite a bit more. Many 65+ women have supported the progressive movement for years. The other characterization that's a little crazy making (not here so much) is that low income over 65+ means low education--that's just how it was in terms of earnings in available jobs for many of the age group. But read the "undecided" with caution--with attitudes out there, is it surprising that many 65+ women would prefer to keep their opinion in the ballot booth?

Posted at July 18, 2008 4:19 PM in response to Poll: Obama Struggling With Older Women

Thank you, Greg, for trying to bring some reason to all of this.

Agree strongly with previous poster that you can screw up/be out-politiced _and_ still be unfairly treated.

Over the weekend, in a discussion of the subject on CNN (Reliable Sources) a couple of assertions were made. 1) It wouldn't have happened if Hillary hadn't been Hillary and 2) The public isn't distinguishing between reporters and commentators. Under the theory that it happened because Hillary is Hillary, it seems to me that this implies civility and fairness can be bagged if you don't like the person. And, the second point seems to give absolution to anyone, perhaps, except a print journalist... I would say that Kurtzman's panelists are usually more thoughtful. And that they were female, as panelists usually are when this is discussed.

Thanks again for trying to home in on a contentious issue. From my perspective, the constant pounding of the press on the polarization issue almost succeeded in making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even though my candidate didn't prevail, I'm very glad that we can move on to the General and hope it will be less dirty than usual. Not that I believe that it will for a moment--

Posted at June 16, 2008 3:33 PM in response to Was The Media Unfair To Hillary? Here's Our Rundown.

One of the panelists on *Meet the Press* said something to the effect that people hear different things when race &/or gender are involved. I live in Pennsylvania and believe that there will be Democrats who will have a hard time deciding to show up when the choice is between a woman and a black man. And I *live* in one of the big cities. I would have hoped that Governor Rendell would have learned from the reaction to Bill Clinton's remarks in South Carolina that candor is dangerous in this climate. That saddens me-- So I'd be skeptical about polling data out of PA, since the more politically correct will often not admit to their personal preferences in public. With that said, I'd certainly like to know the entire context in which the Governor was quoted. And how stupid do you think the Clinton campaign is? They just (sort of) stamped out the last fire. What possible advantage would there be to "playing the race card"? It's not going to change the mind of anyone who hadn't made up his/her mind up anyhow. Pennsylvania is not as easy to understand as racist/non-racist, though. Particularly in Western PA, the continual loss of jobs since steel departed has produced many desperate people, some of whom scapegoat to make sense of their situation. What a concept, though--politicians being criticized for telling their concept of the truth. No wonder they don't do it very often.

Posted at February 12, 2008 2:17 PM in response to Top Hillary Supporter: Some Whites In Pennsylvania "Are Not Ready" To Support Black Candidate

Has anyone seen an analysis of what happened in Minnesota beyond youth turnout? Why the bigger spead than the polls?

Posted at February 6, 2008 4:18 PM in response to Obama Wins Connecticut, Minnesota, Kansas, And Alabama

Premium growth will be stemmed (somewhat) by giving consumers the choice between a government sponsored plan or private sector plan. Since premiums are going to be capped on government plans, private plans will not be competitive unless they offer better rates. Since there are big expenses in "selling" [big commissions, "sales conferences" & lavish entertainment] and underwriting Group Insurance, insurers will have to cut out the fat. Drug costs would be lowered by regulation (which should bring down private plan costs as well). If that bothers you, it bothers me that generic thyroid goes up each year and that once WalMart, etc., instituted the $4 generics, other outlets could magically do that as well--at a profit. Other cost savings are going to be harder to capture in the short term. Everyone participating in health care delivery is going to have to make some changes, and so are consumers.

All of this is pretty theoretical unless you are lowish income and uninsured. Try getting some quotes in Massachusetts (make up a zip code) for unsubsidized insurance (about $30,000 income for one person, better than PA 2x poverty of about $20,000). See if you think you could a) afford health insurance on that amount of income and b) be able to pay your health bills under the plans available, assuming you've even been able to maintain continuous coverage so as not to get hit for a year on pre-existing conditions. And don't forget to factor in the present situation where those without prescription drug coverage (many of the "economical plans") have costs shifted to them since insurance companies negotiate big price breaks for themselves on drug reimbursement.

What really boggles my mind is that business interests are not clamoring for this. Even paying some percentage for not offering coverage, they will become enormously more competitive. Getting this off the back of business could really help true growth in the economy.

Posted at February 4, 2008 1:08 PM in response to Krugman Wrong on Obama and Mandates