Here are Hillary Clinton and Obama speaking about the same subject, preventive care.

“We have to change the way we finance health care, and that’s going to mean taking money away from people who make out really well right now, so this is going to be a big political battle,� Clinton said. “The insurance companies make money by employing a lot of people to try to avoid insuring you and then, if you’re insured, to try to avoid paying for the health care you received.� She stood at the front of the stage, declining an invitation to sit down next to the moderator. She spoke energetically but composedly, conveying the impression that she had spent a great deal of time preparing for the event because it was extremely important to her. “A lot of insurance companies will not pay for someone who’s pre-diabetic or been diagnosed with diabetes to go to a nutritionist to find out how better to feed themselves, or to go to a podiatrist to have their feet checked,� she said. “The insurance companies will tell you this: they don’t want to pay for preventive health care because that’s like lost money because they’re not sure that the patient will still be with them. But if they’re confronted with the doctor saying we’re going to have to amputate the foot they’re stuck with it. That is upside down and backwards!�

Now here is Obama. “We’ve got to put more money in prevention,� he said. “It makes no sense for children to be going to the emergency room for treatable ailments like asthma. Twenty per cent of our patients who have chronic illnesses account for eighty per cent of the costs, so it’s absolutely critical that we invest in managing those with chronic illnesses like diabetes. If we hire a case manager to work with them to insure that they’re taking the proper treatments, then potentially we’re not going to have to spend thirty thousand dollars on a leg amputation.� A young man asked about health care for minorities. “Obesity and diabetes in minority communities are more severe,� Obama said, “so I think we need targeted programs, particularly to children in those communities, to make sure that they’ve got sound nutrition, that they have access to fruits and vegetables and not just Popeyes, and that they have decent spaces to play in instead of being cooped up in the house all day.�

That is to say, if you’re a Democrat, here’s your choice:- “They won’t do it” versus “We should do it”.

It’s quite apparent _why_ Obama is feeding _his_ narrative; there’s a form of coherent wisdom out there that says Gore lost the elections because he was a policy-wonk and couldn’t help stop being one. (Which is also why ye olde Democrats _love_ a policy-wonk, after seven years of neanderthal-like leadership at the White House)

Not American here, but it’s rather fascinating how this is all playing out.

“too much” engagement is coercion? how exactly? he’s convincing people to become voluntarily involved in politics, not coercing them.

Its pretty obvious when Obama discusses an engaged citizenry he is talking about hs vision to tie people together through social programs.

29 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

I went to a local Obama meet up and was really put off by the Obamanuts. Even his otherwise intelligent supporters now believe that silly platitudes instead of concrete policy positions is what you need to run the government. ‘Yes we can’, ‘Fired up, Ready to go’ ‘Elvis is back’ are more suited for a a Christian revival meeting than a political campaign.

I think this fundamentally misunderstands both his campaign and politics in general, in my opinion. I addressed the policy vs. rhetoric argument — a false choice, IMO — here.

As a follow up, here is a great video of an Obama supporter being confronted by a skeptic and patiently explaining the substance behind Obama’s candidacy. You may not agree with everything the guy says, but think of this the next time someone trots out the “Obama supporters are all about the hype and not about substance” line. (And as an example of civic engagement, this entire exchange is a thing of beauty.)

Why I’m Supporting Barack Obama

The Democratic Party has been fortunate to have several strong candidates running for president this year. But I believe Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is the right choice for our country at a critical point in America’s history.

Some politicians earn respect through the force of ideas and policies. Others are natural leaders who inspire us to dream big. I believe Senator Obama can do both. He has a remarkable gift for articulating a vision of a stronger, more just nation. Like few politicians in my lifetime, he inspires us to put aside our doubts and believe again in what we can do as a people.

The type of leadership that Senator Obama can provide is sorely needed after so many have lost faith in the federal government’s ability to address major issues. It’s time we push past boundaries preventing us from adopting a sound environmental approach, providing health coverage to all of our citizens and creating new economic opportunities. We also need a leader with a strong vision for honorably ending the war in Iraq.

Senator Obama is best suited to inspire and rally the nation to handle these important tasks. I also believe that his appeal reaches beyond party lines, and if nominated, he stands the best chance of uniting the country.

I urge you to join me in support of a remarkable American: Barack Obama.

Kumar P. Barve

Majority Leader

361 House Office Building

Annapolis, MD 21401

Divorce is one of the most common causes of wealth destruction. Given your particular background (Doc), hope you are well protected via a pre-nup.

Sorry to hear that…but enjoy your newfound freedom. I was thinking of asking YOU about advice regarding marrying a non-desi…oh well…

As Reihan Salam put it, “he believes that democracy requires an active and engaged citizenry, and that government can create frameworks to help individuals and neighborhoods flourish.” (http://theamericanscene.com/2008/01/25/deranged-clinton-syndrome). He’s not selling something he doesn’t believe in, or have experience in. At the very least, he’s genuine and has a view that’s more in line to an old-fashioned reading of how the framers theoretically saw demoracy — ie: active and engaged citizenry.

The framers wanted a government that mostly left people alone. A minimal amount of activism and engagement by the citizenry is necessary for the government to function – but too much is coercion.

I am already “engaged”. I stand in line for hours at the DMV, spend hundreds of hours working to pay taxes and then spend hours filing and organizing my tax papers, follow the various regulations, etc. I don’t want anymore of this “engagement”. All this saccharine talk of engagement, activism and serving “a higher purpose” is a roundabout way of saying “I want to force you to participate in my agenda”.