Many vested interests that opposed health care reform last time may support it this time. Business interests who saw Clinton's plan as an intrusion into their prerogative now look at employer provided health care as a source of competitive disadvantage. WTO rules that prohibit subsidies do not consider national health care programs as a special subsidy to businesses because virtually every developed country has a government funded system, except us.

The cost of health care has risen at several times the inflation rate with increases of 7.9% in 2008, a year of near deflation. The increased costs are weighing down bottom lines and provide a disincentive to expansion and hiring. Thus, businesses are much more keen to see an intervention than they were in 1994.

Dealing with the myriad rules and regulations of various insurance companies adds substantial transactions costs to health care services. I was struck by how few office workers were in the hospitals and doctors offices portrayed in Moore's movie Sicko. When my wife needed throat surgery, I remember thinking why would a small Ear, Nose and Throat practice needed so many office personnel. Obviously, it's due to the third party payer system. No doubt, the key employee was the one who knew all the different insurance companies' intricate rules for reimbursement. She would be the one who made sure her office got paid. A national system with one set of rules would greatly simplify the procedure and reduce overhead and other transactions costs.

And that's why I like our chances this time.

Rumors in Korea suggest that Christopher Hill is staying on as chief negotiator with North Korea. This is the guy that struck an oral agreement to allow soil testing as part of the nuclear verification protocol.

When North Korea failed to follow through on their not-important-enough-to get-in-writing promise, his not-quite-ready for-prime-time-team announced that the U.S. and the other members of the gang of five had agreed to cut off fuel shipments to the recalcitrant North Koreans.

Only problem, Hill's team forgot to tell the Russians:

But the announcement met a strong reaction from Russia, as its chief nuclear negotiator, Alexei Borodavkin, said the news from Washington "surprised" Moscow.

Borodavkin told RIA Novosti news agency that Russia "had not agreed upon any joint arrangements with the U.S. about a delay or suspension of fuel oil shipments to North Korea as an offset against dismantling of the Yongbyon nuclear research center."

Nor did he tell any of the other countries involved, not even the South Koreans knew anything about their supposed commitment to punish North Korea for breaking its not-important-enough-to get-in-writing commitment.

Christopher Hill is another guy we don't need on our team after 1/21.

We lost the last two elections by one state. Which one can we win this year?

Close Losses

Ohio (big one last time)

Nevada (we will need two small states)

New Mexico (Richardson for VP)

Iowa (a real possiblity)

Florida (close in 00, not so in 04 and probably out of play this year)

Must Hold On to:

Pennsylvania (lose this and we can't win)

Michigan (lose this and we can't win)

Wisconsin (moderately instead of acutely critical)

Minnesota (moderately instead of acutely critical)

New Hampshire (pick up an Ohio and this one won't matter as much)
 

Her trends are down and his are up. I think these new national polls lend credence to the electability argument. For Democrats for whom victory in the fall is of preeminent importance, the evidence speaks for itself.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

He's also moving well ahead in the head to head poll against Clinton

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106945/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-49-Obama-45.aspx?loc=interstitialskip

I was going to post this in response to Chris Brown's "USA Fascism" post, but decided to open up a new thread related to the election.

We came so close to fascism during 02-06, the jingoistic and unquestioning MSM, the secret co-opting of the corporatik class, the imperial presidency, the cult of personality around the 9/11 faux-heroes, the "Criticizing the commander in chief is treason" patriotism chic, the "It's not illegal because we say it isn't" extra judicialism, the scapegoating of a poorly understood and easily demagogued groups (Gays instead of Jews this time) and the Deutschland for Duetschlanders like xenophobia. 

Fortunately McCain will probably not support, encourage or enable Fascism and will merely rule as a reactionary.

Nevertheless, my point is that we must coalesce behind whichever candidate wins the nomination. I hope some of the less lightening struck supporters on both sides would agree.

Too much is at stake.

I'm a Clinton supporter who wondered why so many (28% sticks out) of my cohort indicated they wouldn't support Obama in the general election. Obama is so clearly superior to McCain to me, I just cannot understand their dissonance. Similarly, I've heard so much Clinton hating on this and other liberal blogsites. I think there is a good 20% or more of the Obama supporters who really despise her worse than McCain.

I'd like to hear why. The only rule is that you cannot let your Obama worship get in the way. You can't use Clinton's criticism's of your favorite candidate against her. That's not a good enough reason to let the Fascist stay in power.

It's just McCain or Clinton and the next 4 to 8 years are on the line. Why would you support McCain (for a progressive to not vote, is defacto voting for the other side)?

Advertisers try to position their product. Find that well connected spot in the brain where a fast read on what the product is all about is readily accessible (Google Ries and Trout for more on this)

In a political campaign you actually have negative campaigning or what academics call de-marketing. So how will the Republicans try to pigeonhole our candidate? And what codewords will be used? 

One example I've already noticed is that Pat Buchanan constantly refers to Obama as a "community organizer." Nothing wrong with being a community organizer. To progressives, this is an honorable badge--to be worn proudly. But it means something else to the Repugs. It's a code for ultra liberal, utopianist, neosocialist, etc.

What else have you noticed being used?

If Clinton wins, she must pick Obama. He would probably accept. Eight years of seasoning and visibility will make him more acceptable to mainstream American and he'll end up being president in 2016.

But who should Obama pick? It would be foolish to pick someone from New York. He'll win there even if he gets crushed 57-43 popular and 40+ to less than 10 in the state count.

Are you a hardcore Obama supporter? Are you one of the new to politics types who sees Obama as the hope of the future?

If so, you must be completely mystified by all this uproar over what some minister says. You must be outraged by the phony angst of the MSM and the self righteous piety and coat lapel patriotism expressed by pundits who seem to have been desperately waiting for a chance to tear Obama down.

After all, to win the election, you have to get nearly 100 million people to support you. Do you have to publicly repudiate every single one of them who says something stupid, regrettable or even despicable? 

Whence the outrage over Wright? I'm a Clinton supporter and long time Democrat. Honestly, I don't see it either. 

Of course, I didn't see it either when the MSM, compliantly led by wingnut shills, made a huge big deal over ONE of THREE Purple Hearts that Kerry received. It went on for days and days. "He only got a little shrapnel in the arm."
 
"We're not arguing about his other TWO Purple Hearts, but we don't think he deseved the third one."  I remember thinking "you gotta be kidding. Somehow though, the whole argument was framed as "He's not really a great American hero. He's just another liberal phony."

I didn't see it either when "Dukakis looked so stupid riding in that tank," but Bush "looked manly and majestic" striding on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit. I didn't think his straight forward, "I don't believe in the death penalty" response to Bernie's completely inappropriate "Got you" question was that bad.

I didn't see it either when the MSM pronounced Reagan the winner of debates versus Carter and Mondale based on a single key one-liner when both of them demonstrated overwhelmingly superior vision and policy knowledge in their answers to every other question.

If you're an Obama supporter, especially one of the "new" people being brought into politics, then all I can say is:

Welcome!