 |
 |
 February 4, 2008
PULLING THE LEVER....So who am I going to vote for tomorrow? Answer: Barack Obama. I've got some good reasons and some bad reasons for changing my mind. The good reasons include (a) the ugliness coming out of the Clinton camp over the past couple of weeks, which has turned me off, (b) a growing sense that Obama's steadiness running his campaign under fire is a good sign of what he'd be like as president, and (c) some of the red state endorsements Obama has gotten recently, which speak well for his potential to produce strong coattails in November. There are also some not-so-good reasons. I'm half embarrassed to admit that this stuff even affects me, but the fact is that the actions of both the candidates' supporters and detractors has had an impact. Watching Andrew Sullivan rant and rave on a daily basis about Hillary, for example, has had the perverse effect of keeping me on her side. I just hated the thought of fever swamp hatred like that influencing my party's nomination. Conversely, today's Paul Krugman column, which was yet another installment in his months-long anti-Obama jihad, had the opposite effect. I don't like Obama's mini-demagoguery of Hillary's healthcare plan either, but for chrissake, it's an election. A bit of hardball is to be expected and I can't for the life of me figure out what Obama has done to drive a sensible guy like Krugman over a cliff. Anyway, I realize that this stuff shouldn't matter, but it's all part of the mix. And while I still like both candidates a lot (which is what's kept me on the fence for so long), I guess I finally decided that Bill Clinton was right: voting for Obama is a roll of the dice. I still don't know whether Obama is likely to be the Democratic Ronald Reagan (my hope) or the next Democratic Jimmy Carter (my fear), but I like his temperament, I like his judgment, I like his foreign policy, I like his obvious ability to inspire, and I think he's more likely to be RR than JC. I guess I'm willing to roll the dice. —Kevin Drum 12:42 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (445)Comments
Golly. I guess that your post is anecdotal evidence that reflects the shift in the polls reported today. Posted by: troglodyte on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKHere's the thing about Obama -- I don't think voting for him is a "roll of the dice" any more. He's looking more and more presidential as the campaign goes on. Posted by: mmy on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKSame here. For much the same reasons Go Obama! Posted by: blatherskite on February 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKI'm with you, Kevin. I've been a Hillary supporter forever and if she wins the nomination I'll support her in the general election 100% and with great enthusiasm. But when I cast my primary vote on March 4, it will be for Barack Obama. Mostly for the reasons you cited, but plus one: Obama said at the last debate that we would not maintain those permanent bases in Iraq. Hillary has never mentioned them. Posted by: marcia on February 4, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINKSo who am I going to vote for tomorrow? Answer: Barack Obama. Great News!!! If I was in California I'd vote for him too. Billary's racism and Krugman's and Ezra's lies about Obama's health care plan have pushed many people over to Obama's side. Playing the race card is despicable even for the Clintons. America is ready for a uniter not a divider. We want someone who will govern this whole nation not just a part of it. We want someone who cares about America not a political manipulator who cries on command. We want someone who can attract people of all races and gender, not just someone who attracts white women. Morning is coming back to America again when Hillary loses and Obama trounces her in the mud and slime she created. Posted by: Al on February 4, 2008 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINKAre you seriously equating Krugman's reasoned analysis of Obama's positions with the spewings coming from Andrew Sullivan??? Seriously? Posted by: cv on February 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINKThat's definitely a risky vote-- if Inkblot reads your blog. Posted by: calling all toasters on February 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINKI think it was the Obama campaign's gathering of oppo-research on Krugman that gave him a bad taste in his mouth about Obama as a candidate. In terms of actual policy proposals, I think Clinton is better on points (she's done an excellent job of making proposals that if enacted will go a long way to helping ordinary Americans; but we all know that campaign proposals never make it out of the sausage machine that is Washington with any passing resemblance). That said, I will be voting for Obama as well. HRC is my Senator and if elected will make a good president. But, taking everything into consideration... I believe Obama is the better choice. Posted by: sdh on February 4, 2008 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINKHRC is a roll of the dice too. Don't kid yourself that it's not. Posted by: david in norcal on February 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKSpoken like someone who doesn't have to worry about health insurance. Posted by: Horatio Parker on February 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINKI'm with you, Kevin. Clinton's reality, whether earned or unearned, is one of discord. The vision of a co-presidency with Bill pushed everyone over the cliff. And with your choice I don't think you will have buyer's remorse. Posted by: Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers on February 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINKSadly, Hillary's fall is not about her competence or policies but the discomfort with Bill's continuing role. Posted by: Cycledco on February 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKYou know I was just thinking to myself "It still drives me crazy that a sensible liberal like Drum is still supporting Clinton, I just don't get it" Way to go! Posted by: DP on February 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINKI agree with you Kevin overall, but I fell into Obama's camp a lot earlier b/c of the Iraq issue. Overall, I think Stanley Fish's blog on NYTOnline basically lays out why I seriously believe HRC would have a harder fight and create negatives for her that would impede her ability to govern: the irrational dislike of her is a rallying cry. Overall, there isn't much daylight policy wise. And Obama's steadiness in the campaign trail has really impressed me and has actually been far steadier than Clinton's imo who has so many more advantages. Posted by: Rhoda on February 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINKDrum says Krugman has gone over a cliff. But Krugman cites evidence a mandate is necessary to the achievement of universal coverage, and Drum has nothing of substance to say in response. Posted by: Lookingforareason on February 4, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKNot an easy decision, Kevin, but I obviously agree with your choice, and am encouraged by it. Hillary Clinton has the experience, but those extraordinary negatives are not appealing, not to mention the fact that she really does represent the same old direction of governance in this country (universal health care notwithstanding, her support of the Iraq invasion for political expediency, in my opinion, coupled with her support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment confirmed it to me). In addition, I have now lost respect for Bill Clinton. I was willing to consider his statements regarding the whole "fairy tale" and "kid" mess alone, and attribute that to misunderstandings by others, but when he made that stupid, childish, disappointing Jesse Jackson remark after South Carolina...well? Fuck him. As a President, he was brilliant, and head and shoulders above the rest (check out Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies"). But I don't want him to be in the White House ever again, his time is over and he is disgrace. Like it or not, Barack Obama is the best option for Democrats to win against John McCain, and also inherit a political realignment in our party's favor for the time to come. I fear that a Hillary Clinton nomination will continue to prolong the machines on both sides that I want to sputter and die. I mean, there is a reason that Barack Obama is getting all this traction, from all these corners. There is a reason that he is getting this unprecedented groundswell of support and enthusiasm, and it's not just for his speeches. It's pretty much a tsunami. So, to all the undecideds, if you must "hold your nose" and vote for Barack, take comfort in the fact that he's not the lesser of two evils. It's been a tough choice for me as well. What put me over the line into Obama's camp was McCain's resurgence as the Republican nominee. Why would Republicans, as nut-job as they've been for years, go with McCain who they don't like? The answer, as far as I can see, is to beat Hillary. If they're that rabid that they'd actually compromise when they haven't in years, I hate to think what a Republican get-out-the-vote motivator Hillary would be as the nominee. In addition, as you say, Obama has done well under the Clintons' attacks and, for all the talk of Hillary fighting strong against the Republicans in the general election, she's done a pretty lousy job with her and Bill's attacks, even hurting herself in South Carolina. If she's this klutzy in the primaries...? Posted by: Brian In Atlanta on February 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINKI knew there was a reason I liked you. Posted by: Jim Pharo on February 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I am disappointed. You are not the caring and wise person I thought you were. Posted by: emmarose on February 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKThis morning over coffee I came to the same decision for tomorrow. "I'm voting for Obama," I announced. My husband smiled, "I decided the same thing at three this morning." If Obama means what he says about activating the people - and as a community organizer, this must be central to him, then he could be the turning point we need to make a whole host of changes. Posted by: Victoria on February 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKI came down to this. Both are good traits, but in a country as broken as ours we need a fixer not an operator. This is why obama gathers a younger generation wanting to move past Vietnam era political battles while Hillary supporters want to keep fighting them - harder. Same as John Kerry. It is a loosing position and I am really looking forward to moving on. Posted by: Chris on February 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKDid you check with Richard Cohen before making up your mind on this, to see who he would be supporting? (If he was going to vote for a Democrat I mean.) You musta been one of those "Reagan Democrats". Posted by: Riesz Fischer on February 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKI still don't know whether Obama is likely to be the Democratic Ronald Reagan (my hope) You hope he is going to run an administration with no respect for the law, that produces horrible results, that is the basis for an enduring intra-party mythology that is completely detached from the reality of what his administration actually did which constrains policy choices for a generation or more into the future of the party and is instrumental in the party's decline as slavish devotion to the mythical policies of that idealized administration becomes ritualized in the politics of the party? Or did you mean "Ronald Reagan" in some other sense? You know, Kevin, if you think that Krugman's column is "over the cliff", don't you think you should have an actual logical argument to demonstrate that? Are don't you really feel any obligation to defend such things? Maybe the problem with Krugman is that he, unlike you, is actually reality-based. He reads and understands economics. He knows that universal health care without something essentially the same as mandates is an economic impossibility. He also realizes the simple political fact that if a candidate demonizes mandates as has Obama, then he will be completely incapable of fighting for them in the future. Krugman makes an argument. People like you, who pretend to be reality based, have aboslutely nothing coherent and sensible to counter it with. Yet you go about your business as if it all doesn't matter because -- well I don't even knoow why. Yeah, I can see why someone like Krugman might lose his cool over that. As Krugman argues, if Obama wins, we will have no universal health care under his Presidency. And we will have woolly-headed, irrational people like you to thank for it. Don't imagine that Krugman won't stick around to remind you all of your brain-dead decision when Obama's health plan, if any, comes to its destined grief. Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKI haven't missed reading a Krugman column since he started with the Times. Today I couldn't bring myself to clicking the op-ed, simply based on the title. What Obama campaigns on now will likely morph into many degrees of change before the country finally gets a decent health care plan. Krugman ought to understand this and just STFU for now. And I now love KD (Kraft Dinner) again. Posted by: Dilbert on February 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKthe ugliness coming out of the Clinton camp over the past couple of weeks Wasn't it Obama who jumped on the media bandwagon charging Bill Clinton with absurd racial bias? When he was really talking about Obama's Iraq policy? Posted by: elmo on February 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK>"Obama = Jimmy Carter" IMHO: Carter was far more a victim of conditions laid out by his predecessors (stagflation) than his own failings... and some very powerful groups were working hard to see him fail. In particular the right wing-military-industrial alliance. In that sense, Obama may have the same problem. Electability. That's all that matters in 2008. So follow the polls. But remember that many Americans are marvelous liars. What we should ask ourselves is: Which has the better chance of winning the White House in our racist and sexist culture, a black man or a white woman? Posted by: buddy66 on February 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKI think either Obama or Hillary will win in November, and will win easily. My reasoning has to do with a hunger for change and hope for tomorrow. McCain's call for a hundred year war is totally out of touch with the electorate. This is a country craving a change in foreign policy. It is also a country craving hope for the future. McCain is not exactly a hope and change candidate. My reason for voting for Obama has to do with my belief that the Clintons are part of the old. Obama represents the new. Although I don't believe anyone can really change Washington he can probably change some of its worst aspects. Its time to take a chance on change. Posted by: corpus juris on February 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKAfter thinking for weeks that I would support HRC, I made a similar calculation over the weekend. I will caucus for Obama on Tuesday. Obama is strong in an area that Democratic candidates have been lacking in past election cycles: the ability to connect with people on a personal level and to inspire them to get involved in the political process. Its all about the narrative and Obama gets it. Posted by: AK Liberal on February 4, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKKevin - If you read Krugman's blog as well as his op-ed column, and especially if you've read "Conscience of a Liberal," it should be clear why K keeps harping on Obama's lack of a mandate and using an argument against Clinton that will come back to haunt us when the Congress gets to the point of an actual plan. K believes -- and I certainly agree, as I gather you do also -- that getting health insurance for all is going to be a titanic struggle. K wants Obama to start preparing now, or at least to not do anything now that undercuts the effort later. And I don't think we need to put K on the couch to know why he's attacking Obama -- Krugman is a policy wonk, and he thinks the available data shows Obama -- and his free-market friendly economic advisers -- are wrong on the issue, not to mention politically naive as well. Posted by: Bob Gaines on February 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKWatching Andrew Sullivan rant and rave on a daily basis about Hillary, for example, has had the perverse effect of keeping me on her side. Why does it have to be perverse? Don't you remember that there was a lot of bile spilled towards Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., just to offer a couple of examples? As for Paul Krugman-- what makes you think he lost his mind? Why don't you think part of what's influencing him may be Barack Obama's electability? If Barack gets the nomination, I hope he wins, but I would be surprised if he won the general. I predict this election will basically be like all other recent elections that haven't had any amazing reason to send people rushing to the polls: basically the same demographic groups that usually vote will vote, those people you try to get going and who swear to you they will won't (as usual), and the youth-vote for Obama that turned out to be only in Iowa will reveal itself to be only an Iowa thing, as it has been. The American public, voting in a total turnout a few percent greater than the 1980s and '90s elections, will come out about 47% for Barack if he is the nominee, and the rest will vote for the old, patriarchal looking war veteran white man. Posted by: Swan on February 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINKI have to side with Krugman. Obama has too easily thrown around right-wing talking points in a Dem. primary. Leads one to believe that this is the way he will govern. Posted by: bmf on February 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKI don't see "ugliness" actually coming out of the Clinton campaign itself -- as opposed to the spin on perfectly innocuous comments by opposition and media. Everyone will jump in and say, look at what Bill said about Barack and Jesse Jackson in South Carolina. I challenge everyone who has reacted to the excerpts they've seen printed to go and read the entire 15 or 20 minute interview, see how infinitesimal that quote was and the context in which it arose from the question asked, and then make the statement that "Bill was playing the race card." There is no plausible argument for that whatsoever. So what are we left with in the way of "ugliness"? Hillary saying Martin Luther King needed a President (an effective one, she meant) to achieve the law that King fought for -- because the president has to sign the damned thing into law? There's been a lot if incredibly stupid reactive stuff coming out in this campaign from someone pulling quotes out of context and blasting them throughout the news, especially about the Clintons, and some liberal bloggers are just as guilty as mainstream pundits Posted by: urban legend on February 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKWhy is everyone so worried about John McCain? Granted, he will be the Republican nominee, but his continued shining on the Republican side will push the conservative base away from his candidacy, that's just too bitter a pill. Even if they decide to support McCain, they will do so realizing that he will not push their positions that much, if at all. They went nuts over Bush for the immigration thing, and to not raise a ruckus when McCain does it will be too tall an order. McCain's only real hope are the independents and some mod Dems, but Barack will have him sufficiently checked in that arena. Advantage: Dems. Posted by: Boorring on February 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINKSwan, enough already with your 'not ready for a black president' nonsense. Please, let us know when you think America might be ready for one. It's beginning to look like you're the one projecting.... Posted by: GOD on February 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINKHow can you compare substantive Krugman’s commenta to Andrew Sullivan rant Posted by: tt on February 4, 2008 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINKHere are my 2 cents (whose worth is rapidly declining against 2 pence or 2 cents Canadian): 1. The vote for Obama over Clinton in the Dem Primary could be seen as a desire, even a desperate hope, that all the ugliness of the past, oh twelve years including the mess that Bill C. was responsible for, blow over magically and all is right with the ol' US of A. It may be wishful thinking on the part of Dem primary voters but given the marginal differences between the positions of the two candidates, can you blame them? -Cool Dude Krugman has been given the gift of a huge platform for his undoubtedly sound opinions on the economy. What is he doing with it? He's squandering it on his bizarre, obsessive fear that Barack Obama will ruin the health of all Americans. Sheeesh, even if Krugman is correct on the quite arguable minutiae of health-care finance, let's not forget that legislating this is Congress's job. The sausauge-making that follows any president's proposal is going to grind it to bits. And the prospect of Hillary leading the charge on it makes me very, very afraid. Posted by: lindsay on February 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKI would like to see someone, anyone, refute Krugman's claim at the end of his column: If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.Of course, all we can see instead are what amount to ad hominem arguments from the likes of Kevin, that he's gone "over the cliff", and so no one need actually answer the argument on its merits. Funny, I remember a time when Krugman was called "over the cliff" by the Republicans, even though all he did was to look at the claims Bush was making in his campaign promises and realize that they could not possibly be true. How proud Kevin must be to join that number. Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKDoes this mean that you are pulling Inkblot out of the race? Bummmer. Posted by: optical weenie on February 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK
Did I read that right? You think Obama is more likely to be "like Ronald Wilson Reagan" than he is "Jimmy Carter?" Puh-leeze. Obama is going to surrender to the Iraqi insurgency and lead this country into a funk the likes of which we have never seen before. After he surrenders to our enemies and lets them come here to go to college, there probably won't be anything left of this country. You silly liberals won't be laughing when your beloved Macintosh computers are confiscated, will you? Well, who do you think President Obama is going to sell out first? You or the fat cats? Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 4, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINKWith either candidate, we will win big in November. I'm going with Clinton because she has the experience and her solutions to our current problems are better. I don't believe the country's problems are due to a lack of bipartisanship. That is the way our government was designed to work. What we need is more democrats and either candidate will bring them to the polls this fall. Especially a Clinton/Obama ticket. I also think she would be a much better campaigner against McCain than Obama would. Already I hear McCain's stump speech reflect his "bipartisan solutions" to fix our country. What's Obama going to run on? I'll be more bipartisan than McCain, so trust me? Posted by: w2 on February 4, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKAlso in California, I've known for a long time that I would vote for Obama, but my wife decided that way this weekend. She said she just couldn't forgive Hillary for voting to authorize the war in Iraq and more or less authorizing invading Iraq. Posted by: anandine on February 4, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKIt's funny, we both picked our candidates at the last minute because of Krugman. Although I went in the other direction. I'm gonna go for Clinton because of Universal Healthcare. I didn't realize it was really my biggest issue until recently. But it is. And I have to go with Krugman's analysis. Also, all the comments on all the blogs defending the recent Obama mailer have been pretty weak to the point of stammering. Posted by: Todd on February 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINKDecided yesterday to vote for Obama. There were three major factors: the Clinton campaign's unnecessarily disparaging tone and Bill's interference some days ago, the prospect of four years in which it might be very difficult to tell whether to hold Bill or Hillary responsible for a particular decision or situation, and the faulty logic Hillary displays in calling her vote to support the Iraq invasion a mistake (only?) because of the incompetence of the president in its conduct. Posted by: Monzie on February 4, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINKShame on me for sending the absentee ballot too soon. I voted for Hillary, but she's going to have some serious problems: 1. Her Iraq vote Norman, do not be surprised if the same world that shunned the United States under Bush will surprisingly come to its aid under the Presidency of Barack Obama, should a pull-out precipitate chaos. Posted by: Boorring on February 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKOf course, I meant more or less authorized invading Iran. Posted by: anandine on February 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINKThere's a good rebuttal of Krugman over on Kos right now. Good call, Kevin, calling bs on Krugman and the Clinton antics. FWIW, I'll be voting for Obama in the Global Primary tomorrow. One reason why: 13,000 people in Boise showed up to hear him. 13,000. In Boise. Posted by: KathyF on February 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINKSheeesh, even if Krugman is correct on the quite arguable minutiae of health-care finance, let's not forget that legislating this is Congress's job. For Christ's sake, don't any of you people realize that mandates are NOT "minutia" -- that both in theory and empirically the evidence is overwhelming that they are necessary to get to universal health care if one starts with anything resembling Obama's plan, or Edwards plan, or Hillary's plan? There are no real alternatives here. And no matter how Congress tries to slice and dice any health care plan, the only path that's going to get to universal health care is through mandates. If you put an insuperable political obstacle in that path -- as Obama has done by demonizing them, you just don't get universal health care. The point is, how long would we have to wait to undo the political damage that Obama has done to the concept? It certainly is not going to happen under his Presidency. So when might we get universal health care? 8 years from now at earliest? 12 years? 20 years? How long will it take before we are so reduced by desperation to adopting mandates, or are sufficiently far away from the damage Obama has done, that we can achieve true universal health care? And why on earth should any reality-based progressive vote for a man who is so happy to wreak such damage only so that he can win an election? Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINKKevin, didn't read all the comments so have no idea how people are reacting. I'm sure Obama supporters are cheering you and Clinton supporters are booing. But I just wanted to say that it's impossible not to let emotions get in the way so I feel your embarrassment. Been there, done that. Posted by: scruncher on February 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKObama's not the next Jimmy Carter. To be the next Jimmy Carter, he'd have to be president. I'd say he's the next Adlai Stevenson, a brilliant orator from Illinois who captivates all the kids and their professors, but loses. How they score this game is states. For the life of me, I can't see any states Kerry lost that Obama can win. (I can see two Hillary can eke out, Arkansas and Florida.) And the GOP imagineers haven't even gotten started on him yet. Maybe there will be a huge tidal wave of anti-Republican turnout. But probably not.... Posted by: Jethro on February 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKSo. Demagoguery from Clinton = bad, demagoguery from Obama = good. Gotcha. Obama wants to bring the GOP into the Dems camp? Not. Gonna. Happen. Not with the current leadership anyway. We need someone who knows how to throw elbows and that's Hilary all the way. Let Obama take the Veep spot (I'd prefer Edwards, actually) and let him watch and learn from the sidelines while a pro kicks GOP ass up one side of the aisle and down the other. THEN he'll be ready for prime time. Until then, not so much. Posted by: Strider on February 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK
You are ludicrous in your naivete, ma'am. The world will line up with skewers and knives to carve us up. Should a Democrat be elected President, I will buy two extra horses, invest in precious metals and guns, and acquaint myself with the use of stone age weapons and tools. I don't think the fuel will last very long, so no generators for me. I'll fill the cistern with clean water and settle in for a few years of slim pickings. Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINKOMG, Krugman needs to chill. You fix the mandate issue by instituting a Connector like they did in Massachusetts. It's the connector's job to define "affordability" and other policy details. It's a solution that's gotten left and right on board. A mandate, but with an administrative body empowered to basically write exemptions to those mandates based on ever-changing real-world conditions. And, of course, to push for continuing change so that everyone ultimately ends up covered affordably. And from a political perspective, you can easily get to a connector from either Obama's position or Hillary's, depending on which political angle you want to play up--shared responsibility or "no one will be forced to get what they can't afford." So, give me a break. Posted by: anonymous on February 4, 2008 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINKOthers also are thinking Obama through History has a lot of 'inspirational' models from Dale Carnegie to Benito. I hear nothing in Obama-speak other than ghosted words read over the teleprompter, words that offer vague feel-good nostrums instead of real solutions to real problems of real people. To equate Krugman to Sullivan is mind-boggling. Concerning the so-called ugly campaign, the Obama campaign can say anything in this media environment and never be called on it. That will change in a nano-second when your man becomes the apparent winner. Carter was far more a victim of conditions….than his own failings... ... …Buford at 1:07 PMOne event that hurt Carter immensely was the challenge of Ted Kennedy's run against him. It was a nasty campaign and soured the Democratic electorate which helped Reagan in a similar manner that Reagan's challenge to Ford hurt Ford. …move past Vietnam era political battles…. Chris at 1:03 PMDid you know that McCain is a Vietnam vet who is continually using his service as a campaign issue? ….there is a reason that Barack Obama is getting all this traction…. Boorringat 1:02 PMOf course, as long as he can defeat Clinton, he is the darling of the media. Once selected, his record will make him a laughingstock when faced by McCain's gravitas and media support. When the likes of Chris Matthews and hundreds of others fill the media with their smears, Obama won't be able to get reelected to his seat in the senate. Posted by: Mike on February 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK frankly0 - have you seen this? http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/04/krugman_wrong_on_obama_and_man/ I have to correct myself. It was 14,169. In Boise. Idaho. With thousands turned away. I think he will far surpass Ronald Reagan in the ability to turn Rs into Ds. Posted by: KathyF on February 4, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKShould a Democrat be elected President, I will buy two extra horses, invest in precious metals and guns, and acquaint myself with the use of stone age weapons and tools. I don't think the fuel will last very long, so no generators for me. I'll fill the cistern with clean water and settle in for a few years of slim pickings. And don't forget to cancel your ISP. Posted by: latts on February 4, 2008 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKKevin, the road you traveled to get there is less important than the destination you reached. I will be caucusing for Obama tomorrow because he represents a fresh start and a glimmer of hope. Hillary represents business as usual. That said, she is still several orders of magnitude better than any of the GOP candidates. For those who worry about Obama's lack of experience, I would point out that it was people with a great deal of experience (i.e. Rumsfeld and Cheney to name two) who got us into the godawful mess we find ourselves in today. As long as Obama surrounds himself with wise, experienced people like Joe Biden, he will do just fine. Thanks for making the right call, because I know that you are very widely read and equally widely respected. Go Obama!!!! Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 4, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKI suspect O or H would have near similar impact on my bottom line which is to change our country's course to a more rational and liberal one. Issues being more or less equal, it comes down to personal preference on little things like personality. Either candidate will be 1,000% better than a Republican president. H acts more hawkish but I strongly suspect that in action, an H presidency would not be more hawkish than an O presidency. Neither one would have gone to war with Iraq. No way. So I'd like it if H apologized for her AUMF vote but it doesn't matter at this point. Recent Clinton campaign ugliness has turned me off, too, and like Kevin, has pushed me toward O. I would not choose between them on the basis of health care because it is not going to happen anyway. Personally, I consider Obama temperamentally cautious. He's extremely bright and brings a lot to the table but I think he's a born centrist. Nothing wrong with that just not what I prefer. I believe he would have voted for AUMF had he been in office (political suicide otherwise and O is very careful). I wonder if Hillary would actually have a more liberal effect which is ironic given the lefty blogosphere's bias toward O. Funny, I like Michelle's personality more than O's. I like that either candidate will make history as a "first." We can only expect so much though because the country has tough problems from poor economy to Iraq with Republicans waiting in the wings to gum the works, take credit, and lie shamelessly to manipulate an unsophisticated electorate.
Democratic Ronald Reagan (my hope) or the next Democratic Jimmy Carter (my fear),... I like his foreign policy Hoping a president Obama mines fields in Nicaragua, reinstitutes death squads in El Salvador (they still exist in Guatemala) and presses for a Star Wars missile defense system that will not work, would seem odd from a liberal. Fearing a president Obama will withdraw military aid and comfort from oppressive regimes like Egypt and Israel, would seem an odd emotion from a progressive. Liking a foreign policy not much different than president W. Bush's is not odd for a moderate, though. It is pretty much the same as Sen. Kerry's. Change works as a campaign slogan, but many voters only want to change the party in power, not the power and how it is used. I understand Mr. Drum's choice. Obama might be a leader who can motivate America to a new, better place. It seems to me, however, that the hope Obama seems to best communicate is preventing change that liberal social democrats want. Safe, feel good, symbolic change, without any disruption of business as usual, seems to be all that many Americans want. I was planning on still voting for Kucincich, but last night was leaning towards Hillary. I guess I will find out tomorrow. Political Animal note: I found a used CD by the Brojos yesterday for a dollar. Posted by: Brojo on February 4, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKI changed my mind last night to support Obama after several influencing factors: 1) I watched the commercials of H, O, McCain, and Romney nearly back to back during the Super Bowl and I liked Obama's the best by far. 2) Someone posted a comic here the other day by Tom Tomorrow that made me laugh and got me thinking: 3) The post from Brad DeLong's website that was linked to here that talked about her personality during the healthcare blitz in 1993. And it all came down to one conclusion that I reached: Hillary doesn't seem to want to LISTEN to other people and Obama seems to be a superior listener. I think that goes a long way to "getting things done" in my book. Also, I've got this sneaking feeling that BILL isn't exactly going to be on a spaceship to Alpha Centauri while Hillary is in office and his presence is bound to cause more problems than it can solve IMO. Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on February 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK"You are ludicrous in your naivete, ma'am. Yeah, that was funny, and I'll take it. I knew walking in with that comment I was going to get criticized, but if you can still live to see the day, Norman, go ahead and mark my words, bro. With a War sword. Posted by: Boorring on February 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKAs a participant in the online Democrats Abroad Primary (it started at midnight GMT+13), I can happily report that I pulled my virtual lever today for.... Obama! I site many of the same reasons as Kevin for my decision, although I've been firmly in the Obama camp for some time. He simply has the right "package" of qualities which I believe will make him an outstanding President. Sure it's ultimately a crapshoot as with any candidate, but I am getting more and more convinced that he could really rise up to the meet the incredible expectations he has awakened. I'm still quite the cynic, but during the last several weeks I've enjoyed opening myself to the possibility that things really might get better. God knows, the wounds of the last several years are so incredibly deep, but Obama is maybe just the person to begin to heal them. Posted by: ami in deutschland on February 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINKanonymous, The Massachusetts plan has certainly NOT been a success, and mainly it has failed because mandates have not been enforced. Among other things, it certainly doesn't answer even the "coercion" issue -- if the "connector" decides that you must buy into a plan, because he/she claims that you can afford it, then you MUST by it, under some kind of "harsh" penalty, otherwise there's no compliance. And that brings back Obama's famous Republican talking points about how evil it is to demand such penalties. In the end, there has to be an element of coercion in any scheme that pays for UHC. (What happens if you fail to make, say, even Medicare payments when you're self-employed? Try to tell the IRS you just "opted-out" because you thought it shouldn't be coercive). Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINKFor Christ's sake, don't any of you people realize that mandates are NOT "minutia" -- that both in theory and empirically the evidence is overwhelming that they are necessary to get to universal health care if one starts with anything resembling Obama's plan, or Edwards plan, or Hillary's plan? Well, no. Individual mandates are not only not necessary to get universal healthcare from a "subsidy and choice" plan, they aren't even all that helpful. What is necessary is a universal, direct-premium-free (tax-supported) baseline plan that people get if they don't buy their own alternative plan. The point is, how long would we have to wait to undo the political damage that Obama has done to the concept? I would guess less time than it would take to undo the damage done by any mandate-based plan; inserting a universal baseline plan is a small policy change to a "choice and subsidy" plan, but it would seem to me to be more likely that a mandatory plan would, when it failed to acheive practical universality, be more likely to produce the kind of revulsion that would lead to the whole approach being abandoned than would a non-mandatory plan, which would be far less likely to produce direct harms rather than merely failing to produce potential goods. Posted by: cmdicely on February 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINKRe: "Driving Krugman off the cliff" I guess this is the problem I have with people who are critical of Krugman's criticism of Obama: I just don't see his criticism as "driving off the cliff". His arguments with Obama's approach are tough. But I have never gotten the sense that Krugman is obsessed on this. And I certainly don't think he has gone "off the cliff". In fact, the majority of criticism I have seen of Krugman has been of this "why is Krugman acting so crazy?" with very little substantive criticisms of Krugman's substantive points. There just seems to be a presumption that Krugman can't have a legitimate concern about Obama's approach. He must be crazy (or a secret Clinton supporter). Posted by: Chris Andersen on February 4, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINKChris: The question is, will Obama have the option to move past these battles? What if it turns out he has to fight them anyway and doesn't have what it takes to do so? urban legend: On the nose. It's a great choice. For me, it's a simple calculus. McCain will EASILY beat Clinton. With Obama, the Democrats have a good chance. Posted by: BombIranForChrist on February 4, 2008 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINKKrugman is one of those guys who is basically right all the time. He's been warning of ecomic problems for a little while, well, now it finally caught up to us. It's a little silly to trust him so consistently and then to go as far as saying his opinion on Obama is mad when you don't agree with Krugman. It's not as if Obama is far and away better than Hillary or as if there isn't a lot of evidence that Hillary is better. Posted by: Swan on February 4, 2008 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINKI'm so glad. I made my decision very early on that trading the WH back and forth between immediate family members was a bad idea for democracy. If HRC was such a great presidential candidate, then she should have run in 1992. As it is, I think she'll make a fantastic President of the Senate. The choice between Edwards and Obama was a lot tougher, but I finally decided to go with the one who I thought had a better chance of pushing his agenda through. It doesn't matter how laudable your goals if they never come to fruition. Posted by: td on February 4, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKWell, no. Individual mandates are not only not necessary to get universal healthcare from a "subsidy and choice" plan, they aren't even all that helpful. What is necessary is a universal, direct-premium-free (tax-supported) baseline plan that people get if they don't buy their own alternative plan. I have no idea what you're talking about here. You're saying that people should get a plan they don't have to pay for if they don't choose to play for a plan. From any economic point of view, that's only worse, placing further burdens on taxpayers to pay for free riders. Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKThe Massachusetts plan has certainly NOT been a success, and mainly it has failed because mandates have not been enforced. Which is, fundamentally, the problem with subsidy-and-choice plans that try to reach universality through individual purchase mandates. You either have to spend money enforcing them against those form whom the subsidy portion of a subsidy-and-choice plan has failed to make healthcare affordable (driving up the cost but not really improving the success of the program), or you just ignore them and hope people react to them despite their hollowness. A universal baseline alternative which can be replaced by a purchased (with means-tested subsidies available) plan is a much better approach, and a small modification to a subsidy-and-choice plan. It acheives universality by definition without the need for individual purchase mandates. Posted by: cmdicely on February 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINKDoes no one remember that Hillary sponsored the flag burning amendment to the Constitution? A rather big nail in her coffin for me. Posted by: moe99 on February 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINKfrankly0 wrote "For Christ's sake, don't any of you people realize that mandates are NOT "minutia" -- that both in theory and empirically the evidence is overwhelming that they are necessary to get to universal health care if one starts with anything resembling Obama's plan, or Edwards plan, or Hillary's plan? There are no real alternatives here." Is there any historical data on how many details of large program proposals from candidates have survived beyond the primary stage to general elections to a presidential program and beyond? Are we splitting hairs about something that is destined for the trash can anyway? Not being cynical here, just curious. -- C. Dude Posted by: Cool Dude on February 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINKKevin, vote for Obama if you like him. But let's not dismiss Krugman so easily. I've read every one of his columns for the past 6-7 years and he's been right on the issues more than 95% of the time. My conclusion - universal health care is less likely under Obama than under Clinton.
It was my Rahm Emanuel post that persuaded you, wasn't it? C'mon, you can admit it. Posted by: Brautigan on February 4, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINKJethro wrote "For the life of me, I can't see any states Kerry lost that Obama can win." I expect the Democratic candidate in 2008, whether Clinton or Obama, to pick up at least Florida, Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio, compared to John Kerry's result in 2004. And plausibly Obama has the better shot at Iowa. Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on February 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINKI would like to see someone, anyone, refute Krugman's claim at the end of his column:
Sorry to be so late with this, but here's a letter that 90 health policy experts have signed saying the differences between Obama's and Clinton's plans are not significant:
The inaccurate claim that an individual mandate alone would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 15 million draws attention away from the challenges we must surmount to make good medical care available to all. These challenges include adequate public subsidies, insurance market reform, outreach to people at the margins of American life, and long-term control of medical costs. Individual mandates may have a role in health care reform, but there is risk of a specious "Mission Accomplished" moment. It is a time for rolling up our sleeves and addressing the hard work required to get everyone care.
kenga, I looked at the link and the problem with the suggestion is pretty obvious. If you wait until a free-rider finally chooses to sign up for insurance, and then try to impose a penalty on them commensurate with how long they stayed off a plan, then what you are encouraging is a situation in which a free rider could stay off a plan for decades, and then, once their health turns bad, demand that they pay an enormous penalty -- which they may very well be completely unable to afford -- to join up on a plan. We don't do that with SS or Medicare, do we? We understand that the obligation must be met every single year of one's life. We don't allow people to jump onto Medicare late in one's life, when one begins to start to need it or understand that one will soon need it, because it's likely that the burden can't be met at that time. Yes, the state is essentially demanding that people behave responsibly throughout their lives so that they will not stick themselves or the taxpayers with burdens that are respectively overwhelming or unfair. If you're going to have UHC, the only way to make it possible for people so that there are no free riders and so that the burdens in an individual's life are fairly distributed across that life, is to have something essentially identical to mandates, that force people to pay as they go. Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINKYou're saying that people should get a plan they don't have to pay for if they don't choose to play for a plan. Forgoing available subsidy for an individually-selected plan is paying. From any economic point of view, that's only worse, placing further burdens on taxpayers to pay for free riders. Who do you think is paying for the subsidies in a subsidy-and-choice situation like all the plans under discussion, and pays for the enforcement of the mandates in a subsidy-choice-and-individual-mandate plan? OTOH, there aren't any free riders: if people are paying income taxes, they aren't free riding in the public system, and if people are eligible for subsidies, they aren't free riding in the public system, since they are foregoing an individual purpose subsidy. With income-based subsidies and progressive income taxes, no one rides free. Posted by: cmdicely on February 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKSo, Kevin, let me get this straight. You have the opportunity to buck either Sullivan or Krugman, and you're bucking Krugman? Wow. PLEASE reconsider. One thing about the "hardball" you mention: Obama's "hardball" demagoguing on healthcare makes it more difficult to enact UHC, by attacking what might be a necessary tool (mandates). Hillary's hardball has been more the general, bland "I've got more experience than he does" variety, which won't be very harmful if he wins the presidency. Finally, one more point (if there's any chance you might change your mind): you've been one of the blogosphere's clearest voices on the need for universal healthcare, and the potential benefits of single payer. Well, as you may know, Hillary's (Edwards-style) plan allows people to vote with their feet for single payer if that's what they prefer. That's a BIG advantage over Obama's program. I agree he inspires better than Hillary. But we've seen the disastrous results of not choosing the most qualified, best prepared, hardworking person. I'm going to vote for the nerdy chick with glasses -- the hypercompetitive, slightly bitchy one who always does her assignments, and who reminds teacher right before the bell rings that he's forgotten to assign homework. Yeah, the cool, hip kid might be funner to hang out with. But this isn't eleventh grade class president we're voting for. Posted by: Jasper on February 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKThis is just Kevin trying to make up for being one of the biggest cheerleaders IN FAVOR of invading Iraq. It haunts him. Posted by: Pat on February 4, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINKSince you seem to be affected by candidate surrogate tactics, perhaps you should watch this mornings interview of Michelle Obama, stating she would have to think about supporting Clinton. Charming that one. Posted by: Ann on February 4, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINKI don't understand how anyone can vote for Obama for president given his lack of experience. If he's qualified than any state senator is qualified! I think people are voting for him because the Republicans were so effective in discrediting Bill & Hillary when he was president. They achieved their goal. What about all of Obama's votes of present on controverisal issues? He gives a good speech but what has he actually accomplished? Also, why is Hillary condemned for her corporate law experience when Obama's wife has the same experience? Someone in the family had to earn money! State legislators in Ill. and Governors of Arkansas just aren't well paid. It's just too much like a high school election here - the cute guy wins. Forget the qualifications. Mary Anne Posted by: MaryAnne on February 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINKWhatever else one may wish to conclude about mandates, I think there's one obvious thing that one can't get around: Obama has made using mandates impossible for himself. He has essentially removed that possibility from the toolbox of solutions he could employ. And insofar as any alternative solution resembles mandates, or some other form of "coercion", he's on record demonizing it. It will of course be true that opponents of reform will do everything in their power to use his own words against him, whatever measure of coercion he might actually choose. And for what did Obama do this? To have a cheap political comeback. Yeah, politics of hope, alright. Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINKTwo things.Kevin did you tak too much acid once in your life or something? Deciding who to vote for is laudable but making the compaison of Obama to Ronald Reaguns or Jimmy Carter is laughably naive and ignorant. Second-Norman get used to it we're gonna have either Obama or Clinton as president. If you don't think the country is in pisspoor condition already then your living with your head in the sand. Posted by: Gandalf on February 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINKGOD at 12:57, I don't think the whole country isn't ready for a black president-- I think about 47% is ready. But I think the rest aren't. they might be ready for a black neighbor, a black co-worker, or even a black boyfriend for their daughter-- but when it comes to a black president, and it's just them alone with the lever in the voting booth, the answer is no. If Barack is nominated, I hope every person we have who hasn't voted before, every hippy marijuana dealers' lazy girlfriend and every student who doesn't care about voting and every sedentary person who thinks their vote doesn't count makes the effort. As for the head-to-head projections, it could be they are inaccurate because they are not taking into account properly the novelty of running female and black candidates as the nominee. It's an elementary fact you can learn in any American Politics undergrad course that blacks are not as politically active as whites in America. If those head-to-head polls versus McCain ask respondents whether they have voted before and how many times in order to determine whether they are likely voters, it could be they are underestimating Hillary's support and inflating Obama's. It could be that white women who have never voted before will be more willing to come out to vote for Hillary, but that blacks who haven't voted before will not be as likley to vote for the first time as the white women, even if it's for a black president. It's true that Barack had a slow start building up a lot of excitement among blacks, and it's probably because his image is a little more highbrow than, unfortunately, many in the black community are comfortable with. Jesse Jackson, for example, strikes a much more regular-guyish note. Also, the "likely voter" question may underestimate the number of white men who will come out to vote against Obama. They also may be more likely to vote for the first time, although they have not voted before, to vote against Obama than blacks would be to come out for the first time for him. And there are many more white men than there are blacks in America. Kevin, I think you're the one who drove off the cliff, not Krugman. Krugman's column today provides a cost analysis comparison between Hillary's and Barack's health plans. Professor Gruber who Krugman cites is a highly respected healthcare economist whom I had the privilege of attending one of his classes at MIT. Thus, Krugman's defense is factual based, while Sullivan's, Barack's campaign ad's, and yours are emotion-based and intellectually dishonest. I am disappointed in you Kevin, I will no longer be reading your blog. This is why political hacks should remain in the political arena, and not deal with the real issues of our nation, because they ignore them anyway. Posted by: Jonathan on February 4, 2008 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, Still don't know what you're talking about. You seem to envision that everybody can get a free, taxpayer supported plan if they want. Well, why wouldn't just about everybody choose that, unless it's a wretched plan? If it's a wretched plan, what kind of UHC is it? If it's not, how won't we bankrupt the system because everybody wants it for free? Where, by "bankrupt the system", I mean add huge additional burdens in tax? Posted by: frankly0 on February 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKJimmy Carter is an intelligent man. One of his shortcomings as president was his focus on the "trees" rather than the "forest." There is a story of an aide finding him up late at night trying to read the budget. Mr. President, the budget is way too detailed for you to read the whole thing. You have to understand it at a more executive level. I don't see Mr. Obama as being overly obsessed with the details; if anything that would seem to apply more to Mrs. Clinton. Another flaw of Jimmy Carter was that, at a time when America needed some inspiring leadership, he gave a "malaise" speech. In contrast, Mr. Obama might be expected to be Churchillian, or perhaps Reagan-like, in Kevin's terms, in terms of saying the things that lead America through dark times. I think Mrs. Clinton might be more effective hashing out deals with Congressional leaders, but perhaps Mr. Obama would be more like The Great Communicator™ with the public and the media. Or not. Einstein was wrong when he said "God does not play dice ..." Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on February 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum: A bit of hardball is to be expected and I can't for the life of me figure out what Obama has done to drive a sensible guy like Krugman over a cliff. Kevin, I've read the article and every other article Krugman's written on the subject, plus some of his books, and, for the life of me, I do not see what you see in any of it that's unsensible. Krugman is eminently qualified to provide guidance on an issue that is vital to millions of Americans. To call well-reasoned, thoroughly researched treatises on policy a "jihad" is pure demagoguery. WTF? As Doc at the Radar Station said, I'm changed my mind at least 8 times since last Wednesday, but you appear to have lost yours? Posted by: Sharon on February 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKIf you're going to have UHC, the only way to make it possible for people so that there are no free riders and so that the burdens in an individual's life are fairly distributed across that life, is to have something essentially identical to mandates, that force people to pay as they go. Individual purchase mandates won't work for that, because "mandates" aren't things you have to do, they are things you are punished if you choose not to do. The distinction is important. The main potential for failure at universality in a subsidy-and-choice plan is that, for some people, the subsidies fail to make insurance actually affordable. Individual purchase mandates take the perspective that expending resources to impose additional costs on these people that the policy has failed will somehow get them into the system despite the failure of the subsidy to make insurance affordable. This is clearly ludicrous. A universal baseline approach in a subsidy-and-choice system does not have this problem: it simply provides a default choice that cannot be unaffordable. It therefore acheives universality simply, makes any failures of the subsidy arrangement apparent without punishing those already failed by the system, and requires no separate enforcement machinery.
Two words, my friend--National Security. No one is going to hand over the protection of the wives and daughters of America to someone who hasn't worn the uniform. It isn't going to happen. The only chance liberals have is to put Wesley Clark on a ticket and pray no one notices that Clark didn't engender a lot of respect for himself while in uniform.
You are, without question, the stupidest person alive. Do you think with that brain or do you let one single pea fly around in your head, creating a dense echo that swells into a relentless humming sound that drowns out all sense and reason? I mean--what the living hell under the Creator's sun is wrong with you? You are too stupid to be believed. No wonder you can't get work as a barrister.
Plus, you're full of nifty facts none of us already knew... I weep at how stupid you are, boy. I just weep uncontrollably at what Rutgers has sent out into the world with a sheepskin and a resume. Posted by: Norman Rogers on February 4, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKFascinating to read Kevin and the rest of you. If I was voting in a democratic primary, I also would vote for Obama. The fascinating part is that Kevin and all you folks of good will seem to be making your choice on some combination of tactical and emotional reasons. Plus, Kevin's remarkable rationale that he hopes Obama will be Reagan rather than Carter. I think below the surface there must be a realization that the Clintons really are not very good people, or at least not good people if it conflicts with their personal ambition and perhaps that Hillary is not a good person at all. Posted by: brian on February 4, 2008 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKI agree that "a bit of hardball is to be expected." Thus I'm wondering why "Obama's mini-demagoguery" is understandable, while the Clinton camp's mini-demagoguery qualifies as "ugliness". So McCain is putting out anti-Hillary fund-raising ads right now, and -- of all places -- in the Political Animal banner? Let's hope more McCain money is spent this way. Posted by: JS on February 4, 2008 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINKBravo, Kevin. For me, it was Hillary's pandering and Bill's embarrassing insertion into her campaign. I also believe that Hillary ran on the Rove blueprint. She is a war enabler and I see this mess continuing under her. Finally, no health plan or serious legislation will pass if she is elected. I see some reverse coat tails. Time for the Hillary bots to switch off here. Posted by: Sparko on February 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK | |