>As I keep saying, Obama tries to debate. But his audience is more comfortable with sound-bites, so he loses. When he does try a sound bite, he gives us the Post Office example.
>
>Seems to me that a large segment of his audience is uncomfortable with ambiguity or uncertainty, meaning they cleave to whatever easy answer somebody else comes up with. Cost. Choice. Death Panels. Medicare costing 50% and growing = government screwup. Dickensian conditions wherever government runs healthcare. These simplistic (and wrong) concepts are easier to understand than trying to grapple with an $1T increased cost that won't increase the deficit or an $850B expenditure that is described as a $49B saving. And as you note, he's losing the huge elderly voting population, partly because focus on and concern about health grows as you get older and people are affected by all the FUD, but also because people keep talking about Medicare $ reductions without explaining how that can be achieved without reducing service. If the plan is to cut 4% waste to achieve $500B from Medicare over 10 years, why the $$%^# don't they say so?!

That makes the most sense, but President Obama has seldom been specific in any of his speeches. And also, because ever since Bush 1 said "Read my lips: no new taxes," and then raised taxes, no one would believe him. :o)

He's also changed his position which gives the impression of lying. One example: during the campaign Obama clearly stated that he did support Hillary's plan of forcing citizens to purchase health insurance (mandating it) but the house bill clearly does and Obama even mentioned it in his speech under "individual responsibility."