Back when I graduated from law school, in 1977, there was very little taught to us about how to negotiate. A few years later, it became much more common to teach about this topic. I was watching the debate in Austin when I had a flash of insight into a fundamental difference bewteen the Clinton arguments for her election and the Obama appeal, which I think can be seen as a fundamental difference in negotiation stategies.
Most people are at least subconsciously aware that, when you bargain for something, you are trying to obtain an advantage for yourself. Customarily, you think that every gain for yourself is a loss for the other side. Buying a house or automobile, etc., is a simple matter of getting the seller to lower his price, or getting the buyer to raise his offer, until each party accepts the division of gain/loss. This is often referred to as zero-sum bargaining. If someone gains, someone else loses. Athletic contests, competitive games, etc., all follow this model. Senator Clinton emphasizes, in her campaign, that in order for us to gain what we want (health care, fair taxation,and so on), we have to fight against and defeat the powerful forces who are opposed to us. This is zero-sum framing. It is appropriate when there is only one dimension to the negotiation (i.e. how much will I have to pay for this consumer item involves only one variable: price.)
However, another approach to bargaining is much more likely to lead to agreement when multiple interests and multiple parties are involved. The example that I was first introduced to was an imaginary housing project where several different groups wanted to acheive different objectives; the developer wanted regulatory approval for the largest number of units to sell; affordable housing advocates wanted as many units of low-cost housing as possible, environmental advocates wanted to minimize the negative effects of a large development, and the municipality wanted an increase in tax revenue from the site. By engaging all parties in negotiations, and reaching a collective agreement about how much weight to give to each variable, it is possible to provide some benefit to each party, although no-one gets exactly what he or she wants. This is integrative bargaining. I have a strong hunch that Senator Obama learned about this in law school, and applied it during his work as a community organizer. When he talks about having all parties sit down to negotiate about health care, this is what he has in mind. When Senator Clinton talks about defeating the enemies of her health care plan, she is talking about zero-sum bargaining. The 50% + 1 approach to winning elections is zero-sum. Her argument that she will break the glass ceiling by being elected president is also zero-sum; for a woman to win, a man has to lose. Senator Obama has taken an approach to seeking the presidency that emphasizes how we all can move closer to the goals that we share by uniting with him. I think that, at its heart, this is the difference between the campaigns, and it shows how their style of governance would differ, as well. There is in this a substantive difference that is very significant.