I'll try to offer some original thoughts here you won't find elsewhere.

* * *

1. Last night, Obama could have resolved many concerns with his power of proposal and veto.

For instance: "My proposal will categorically prohibit spending on abortions or illegal aliens, and I will veto any bill which contains such provisions."

Instead, we got (paraphrasing): "No provision of the bill specifically provides for abortion or payments to illegal aliens."

Naturally, the latter sets off alarm bells among skeptics, for all sorts of well known reasons.

Think about it. He's got skeptics out there. Why not address their concerns categorically? Why leave them dangle? More on that below.

2. Relatedly, he could have resolved concerns from skeptics by "showing his work."

For instance, he could say:

"Look, I bet some of you are afraid you will be pushed into a public plan against your will, or lose your doctor.

I don't think that will happen, but to be sure, I consulted X number of analysts, including Y conservative think tank critics, and we spent Z man hours going over this in detail. I played devil's advocate and inflicted some real heart burn on my aides, beating them up over details and challenging their assumptions. When we got done, I not only was satisfied, but we even convinced skeptical analyst B and C that we are right. You can read their column in tomorrow's paper."

Nothing like that happened. More on that below.

3. I think the Rep. Wilson thing was intentional, and pre-planned. It's a tar baby trick.

When Gov. Palin mentioned death panels, liberals were thrilled. Surely the country will side against her. When town halls got rowdy, liberals were thrilled. Surely the country will be disgusted. When Rep. Wilson made his comment, liberals were thrilled. Same dynamic.

Why tar baby? Because every one of these episodes distracts Obama from doing what he needs to do -- Point No. 1 and 2 above.

4. Again, think about it. Why doesn't Obama say anything which actually puts fears and concerns to bed?

There are three reasons that I see.

a. Some things, he just can't do. He could say, for example, that Michael Steele's senior bill of rights is redundant, and unnecessary. But he can't propose it -- because he will never squeeze $50 billion in annual Medicare cuts without rationing.

In other words, he can't put the fears to bed, because the fears are legitimate.

b. Democrats and their media allies have set up a construct, and pushed it relentlessly. Truth vs. Falsehood.

For instance, it is "true" Obama claims he can find $50 billion in Medicare fraud every year. If Republicans claim he can't, that is "false," because we don't yet know.

Obama's truth and falseness dualism reached a climax last night with his angry diatribe against Gov. Palin. But again -- it ignores Points No. 1 and 2 above.

The whole construct is another tar baby.

c. There is an element of bonapartism here. Obama views the plan's virtues as self-evident. He likes standing ovations.

That is what made Rep. Wilson's retort so astonishing. And politically effective.

* * *

To summarize, if you went into the speech with concerns, you would come out of the speech with concerns. And everyone agrees -- it is concerns, or fears, among independents which are killing support for the plan. Simply calling people liars, and making absurd claims about Medicare fraud savings, only makes things worse.

So, why would you spend time on a Ted Kennedy tribute, a philippic against Sarah Palin, and everything other than the core task at hand? I realize pundits seemed to like the speech, but pundits are rich enough to not feel the pain of the concerned independent. Those concerns are real, and they have not been addressed.

I found it very strange.

I appear to be on more than one of those lists.

Look, I empathize with your family's situation.

These situations are . . . well, situational.

I lived down the road from people who drove large cars, swore like stable boys at their family, and sat in the front row of their churches. They were also the most prominent local "victims" of the farm crisis.

I'm sure your situation was different. John Mellencamp used to describe hardship situations with hog farmers in southern Indiana, and I credited them. Heck, by knowingly patronizing his records, I subidized his relief efforts. Farm Aid, you might recall.

Yes, remember that I am from Indiana, where our local bard is John Mellencamp -- a leftist if ever there was one.

The last time I saw Mellencamp, he was promoting something called "motor voter" -- to help people register to vote when they renew their driver's license. The first time I saw him, it was part of the "Scarecrow" tour at the height of the 1980's farm crisis.

Incidentally, I always remember what my rural Democratic (!) mother used to say about the farmers. "If there is a crisis, why are they all driving Lincoln Continentals?" :)

Can you provide me a link with how much savings the president has gleaned from Medicare fraud during the first eight months of his presidency?

If the answer to that question is, "No, because the result thus far is Dead F. Zero," then I think that helps us make a great stride forward in understanding the plausibility of Obamacare.