Mark F…yeah, it’s so refreshing they way Obama’s campaign started working to define the Clinton administration and Hillary as “devisive”, from the start. And how reasonable and moderate are so many Obama supporters.

I think you’ve got a few of your facts crooked. First, how is it possible that someone is “reading too much into her words”? It was a nationally televised live debate. He said what he said. She said what she said. A few million interested parties watched and took from it what they chose to take from it. But the argument that somone “read too much into her words” is just as silly as the argument that “words don’t matter.” She wanted a debate. She got a debate. She made her point. Reasonable people will assess it accordingly. I think this post makes an astute analysis of the most stark contrast between the two candidates.

Second, given the choice of “common ground” or “scorched earth,” the disctinction in what the candidates represent is clear. Both of them talk about change. Barack means changing the overall way of doing business in Washington, and actually having a government that solicits the input of and represents the American People. Hillary has made it abundantly clear that she means moving away from the Bush Administration and their disasterous policies. I support the latter, but the former means a great deal more, and it is obvious that one message is resonating with a wider swath of the population.

Third, I think you’ve lost sight of why the health care battle of the early 90s turned out the way it did. There are numerous individuals on all sides of that fight who have spoken out on the process, and the one point on which they all seem to sound the same note is the notion that Hillary thought the best method was to go behind closed doors with like-minded individuals, hash out a plan, and ram it down the throats of those who had even the slightest disagreement or other ways of achieving the goal. She talks about experience, but she hasn’t changed her tactic very much. When Edwards was in the race, she was just as critical of his plan as she is of Obama’s now. It’s as though she can’t conceive of anyone having a good idea that she didn’t think of first. That’s the Washington way, I guess, but it surely isn’t productive.

Last, I think you missed the contradiction inherent between “having very specific goals” and “starting with small steps.” Hillary’s way of thinking about that is “I set the very specific goals and you take small steps away from your position, toward mine.” That’s just not the way negotiation works. It’s not the way compromise works. It’s not the way bipartisanship works. In order to have a true working relationship with someone, you have to have a specific goal and I have to have a specific goal. If our specific goals are not the same, we have to come together in understanding that, and in establishing a willingness to know what each other’s goals are, and why/how we arrived at those goals. We also need to figure out where our interests coincide and where they diverge. When we figure out where they coincide, that’s when we take the small steps. Once we arrive at a compromise (the place where our shared interests lie), then we both need to reassess how tied we are to where we originally were. In other words, we let the circumstances at the time and the results of our approach dictate our course of action, rather than our preconceived notions of “the ONE RIGHT WAY” to solve a particular problem.

Remember, as Junior Johnson once said, if you sit down to a breakfast of eggs and bacon, the chicken is dedicated, but the pig is committed.

Clinton – “I am the one ready to FIGHT Republicans”
Obama – “Let’s work together to make the country better”

THAT’S why he’s going to win.

Example: she’s taken to calling her health-insurance proposal a “core Democratic value.” Oh, really? I was unaware that a plank of the Democratic Party was the idea that all citizens must be forced to purchase private health insurance or else have their wages garnished.

Conversely, I think that Barack Obama has shown that he will not be baited into lashing out against people who disagree with him. He is a consensus-builder, and Democrats in red and purple states believe that an Obama candidacy would have huge coattails in their states. He has the ability to usher in a true “governing mandate” in November.

Senator Clinton’s reference to overcoming opposition is a reminder of the heat she took in 1993 with her health care proposal. Those who opposed her and so-called socialized medicine still oppose universal coverage and will fight the concept to the end.

She’s right. It’s not enough to say “Let’s come together,” because the adage is true, that if you aim at nothing you will surely hit it. So in the quest to rebuild trust, we start with small steps, and Clinton says as much when she advocates seeking “very specific goals,” finding some common ground on an admittedly very hot issue, and moving forward from there.

Although I can’t agree with Jeff in Illinois that Democrats need to take revenge on the Republicans, he correctly cites Senator Clinton’s proven ability to work with the other party to get things done, which defines bipartisanship.

The difference between the Dem candidates is remarkable – a difference of executive vision. Change for Clinton means, getting a Democrat in the White House with a Dem-controlled Congress to exact a partisan revenge on an overly partisan GOP. Jeff in Illinois clearly is of the mind that the blood fued must go on. No, it must stop. It is time to heal and listen and compromise. The pace of political progress has been terribly slow under the partisan warfare model that emerged 25 years ago.