[kenberg]

In 2004 the Rove machine was trashing Kerry's war record. McCain did not join in and in fact spoke out against this tactic. People notice such things. Possibly it is just my eternally naive twin once again taking control, but I like to think that this has something to do with McCain's increasing success.

The Rush Limbaugh wing of the party is no doubt preparing a book to be called Unfit to be a Prisoner of War.

Reflect as you will, it's an open thread.

[karlson]

Perhaps if everyone had much higher moral standards what you say would be true. But I think it's very naive to think this. I have no doubt that the current equivalent of the Rove machine, and the party as a whole, will get behind whoever is the republican nominee. In the end, the same people are going to be placed in top cabinet positions, and given the amount of appeasement that McCain has shown towards the Bush cohort, virtually the same policies are going to be pursued.

McCain may have been the maverick candidate 8 years ago, but imho anyone who thinks that today he doesn't represent the exact same people that have been making decisions for the last 8 years has his/her head in the sand.

[pclayton]

There was an article in the Orange County Register (traditionally right wing, but Libertarian these days) a few days ago about the non-effect of radio hosts like Rush on public policy and elections. Rush can bluster all he wants, but people will make up their own minds.

I got a call from a realtor who I know that couldn't make up his mind yesterday on who to vote for. He liked McCain, but couldn't get past the fact he supports same-sex marriage. I think he voted for the preacher or the Mormon. He didn't like Ron Paul either.

Scary ***** when there are people like this going to the polls.

[jtfanclub]

Rumor had it that the ticket in 2004 was almost Kerry-McCain. A lot of people see McCain as more of a Lieberman Democrat/Independent than as a Republican.

Of course, as a Democrat, I think this is a good thing, but that's just me.

[hrothgar]

For whatever reason, the Press corps likes to latch on to different narratives.

John Edwards gets crucifed for a $400 haircut, while Mitt Romney sartorial splendors are ignored completely.

In the case of John McCain, the press corps seems to have decided that the prevailing narrative is a "straight shooting maverick". Never mind the fact that McCain only started with the whole campaign finance reform after the Keating Five scandal.

Never mind the fact that McCain condemned Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as agents of intolerance in 2000 and then turned arround started kissing their ass in 2007.

Never mind his massive flip flop on Ethanol.

Never mind reversing his opinion on whether Roe versus Wade should be overturned.

(Media Matters has a great piece on how often McCain seems to have significantly reversed his policy positions chasing after the Republican nomination. http://mediamatters....s/200610310003)

McCain is a tired old man. I expect to see him ripped to shreds come the fall

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

Rumor had it that the ticket in 2004 was almost Kerry-McCain. A lot of people see McCain as more of a Lieberman Democrat/Independent than as a Republican.

Of course, as a Democrat, I think this is a good thing, but that's just me.

You think it is a good thing that McCain is seen as more of a Democrat/independent than a Republican? To me, that would just mean that should he get the Republican party nomination, he will take votes from the Democratic nominee, increasing the chances that a Republican will win the White house in 2008. As a Democrat, why don't you think that is a bad thing?

[PassedOut]

One woman I know, a McCain supporter, told me she will move to another country if Hillary Clinton becomes president. I accused her of exageration, of course, but was amazed by the depth of the revulsion she then expressed.

I just don't get it. Hillary Clinton may be a too-familiar face and a too-compromised politician, but she's certainly smart and, by all accounts, a very competent senator.

In any case, the campaign this year is certainly quite interesting. It looks like McCain for sure for the republicans, but I have no clue who the democrats will nominate.

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on Feb 6 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

One woman I know, a McCain supporter, told me she will move to another country if Hillary Clinton becomes president. I accused her of exageration, of course, but was amazed by the depth of the revulsion she then expressed.

I just don't get it. Hillary Clinton may be a too-familiar face and a too-compromised politician, but she's certainly smart and, by all accounts, a very competent senator.

In any case, the campaign this year is certainly quite interesting. It looks like McCain for sure for the republicans, but I have no clue who the democrats will nominate.

I voted for Obama yesterday (as did my father and my sister. My mom voted for Clinton).

I'm hoping that Obama is able to pull this out. While Clinton captured the majority of the delegates that were available yesterday, it felt more like an Obama victory to me. Clinton didn't win by nearly the margins that she needed to. Obama preally closed the gap on Clinton. The territory that is being contested over the next week is very favorable to Obama. This might give him an awful lot of momentum moving into March/April.

I must admit, I don't always agree with Obama on policy. I agree with Krugman that Obama's health care plan is flawed (I greatly prefer Clinton's). However, Obama was right on the war in Iraq and came out strongly against it while Hillary didn't have the judgement to try to stop Bush. This issue is very important to me.

Moreover, while I beleive that Hillary can and will win in 2008 I fear that it will be a pyhrric victory. I don't think that she will be able to move legislation through the congress. Moreover, I think that she'll have very short coat tails.

[mike777]

I also do not understand the hatred spewed at Mrs. Clinton but I do hear it alot from women. When I ask for an explanation out spews pure venom.

With Republicans retiring in droves from the Congress it looks like a huge victory for the Dems in Congress.

I understand about 20% more Democrats in total are voting in the primaries than Rep. This really looks like a huge victory for whoever the Dem party nominates.

With Obama or Mrs. Clinton and with a combination tax increase and huge slash in the defense budget we should see alot more government money for teachers and students, Nat health care for all, more government aid for children and preschoolers.

Mrs Clinton will put a stop on foreclosures of homes and freeze interest rates for 5 years. Both will provide better housing and food for the poor.

Finally we should see some real Gun control if not outright banning of many guns/rifles and perhaps even a ban on the death penalty.

Both will put much more progressive judges on our courts and fewer restrictions on abortions or government money for abortions. Civil rights for all including those accused of crimes will grow and not just for a privileged few.

Both will bring our troops home fast and talk with those who hate us rather than try and kill them.

Both will form a partnership with allies and listen to advice from them rather than bully them. More farm and other subsidies for alt energy sources. Force Detroit to make greener, cleaner cars. Stop harmful oil drilling in Alaska, coastlines and other places.

Both will stop global warming and return our planet to a green, clean and peaceful place where we are not hated for being an oil stealing, global warming, killing innocents, wiretapping, torture, deny civil rights bully.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

I must admit, I don't always agree with Obama on policy. I agree with Krugman that Obama's health care plan is flawed (I greatly prefer Clinton's).

I am not a particularly in tune voter, so it came as no surprise to me that I had no idea what the differences are between Obama's and Clinton's helath care plans. I haven't seen any detailed analysis of the differences in the little mainstream media that I listen to. So, I just took a few minutes to google "obama health care plan" and "clinton health care plan".

barackobama.com outlines Obama's plan. Obama's plan seems to include "Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All". I can't stand the use of "affordable" in advertising (campaigning is little different). What's affordable to me may not be to someone else. It seems to me a word that is intended to get one's attention without being meaningful. "Obama will make available a new national health plan to all American" with "affordable premiums" and "easy enrollement". There's more, but well, I'm already losing interest the abstract.

hillaryclinton.com (about the 7th google hit, whereas obama's page was 1st or 2nd) says that Clinton's health care plan will be "Affordable, Available and Reliable". Under Clinton's plan you would have "a choice of plans to pick from and that coverage will be affordable." Digging a little deeper, it seems Clinton's plan will provide "lower premiums and higher quality". Anytime someone tells me I will get more for less, I am skeptical.

Anyway, I have not come away from these two sites with a greater understanding of the differences in the two plans.

I have found the Krugman Op-Ed piece you reference. And, the difference, in Mr Krugman's opinion, seems to be mandates. But, I have now spent over 15 minutes researching the topic. Which, I expect, is about 14 1/2 minutes longer than the median voter will spend. I can't imagine that even a 1/4 of those voting in the Democratic primaries could accurately cite a single difference between the two candidates' proposals. The campaign is not going to be decided on policy.

My sense is that there are far more people who would never vote for Clinton than would never vote for Obama (in November). I also think there are far more voters who will make an effort to get to the polls for Obama than for Clinton. Anyway, I think Obama has a better chance of beating the Republican nominee, especially if it is McCain (who is viewed as more moderate than the other Republican candidates).

[mike777]

As I understand it both plans will save 100's of billions in health care costs.
I am guessing alot comes of that comes through preventive care and making sure we eat and drink the right stuff and exercise more and stop smoking.

In any case a plan that covers everyone and costs less at a higher quality has got to be good. If it costs a bit more than some think, I doubt anyone will be shocked and I doubt that would cause anyone to vote against it or any of the ideas they propose. The Dems should have all the votes they need to pass anything.

[kenberg]

Next Tuesday I will vote in Maryland. I'm a registered Dem so it's Clinton or Obama. I can't say that I am very comfortable with either one. I watch Obama and he is inspiring. Everyone agrees he is inspiring. Is that it? As to Hillary, it may be unfair but this Billary issue issue concerns me. During the first part of the Bush presidency there was an ongoing discussion of whether Bush or Cheney was actually in charge. In fact, it seems that it was Cheney. The Washington Post ran a series about the days after 9/11. It seems their point was that Cheney was very dominant and this was bad. I saw it more as someone has to be in charge and if the guy who is supposed to be it doesn't know what he is doing then necessarily someone else will take over. We need one president at a time and we need to know who it is.


As to the war: There is a lot of play about who held what position when. I see this as relevant but not decisive. More to my thinking: Who will be best prepared to make the best choices in the days ahead? As far as I know, no candidate (maybe Ron Paul) endorses complete military and political withdrawal from the Middle East (as opposed to complete troop withdrawal from Iraq). If we intend to keep a presence there, what form will it take? What will be the effects of these choices? My thinking here is not that they should submit their plans to me for approval. I don't know what should be done. The problem is that I am having trouble finding any confidence that they know what should be done.

As to this Clinton Hatred that Phil talks about, it's pathological. I am not fond of George Bush but my feelings are not even in the same category as the obsession that seems to seize some conservatives when someone says Clinton. My diagnosis is that what the conservatives really can't stand about Bill Clinton is that he was smarter than they were. They have their tricks, and for the most part, until Monica, Clinton rammed their cute little tricks down their throats. The idea that the hatred is because these guys are just so offended by corruption doesn't pass a laugh test.

[mike777]

" obsession that seems to seize some conservatives when someone says Clinton"

You may have missed some of the recent news, conservatives are voting for Mrs. Clinton over McCain.

As for defense issues, if they slash the defense budget and move the savings into helping the poor or our children or teachers or students this will limit what mischief they may do overseas in trying to steal oil, export democracy or bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of innocents.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

I can't imagine that even a 1/4 of those voting in the Democratic primaries could accurately cite a single difference between the two candidates' proposals.

From watching any debate or speech by either candidate, especially Hillary, the difference clearly seems to be that Hillary mandates coverage for all whereas Barack makes it available but doesn't mandate it be purchased. The back and forth between them generally goes like this.

HC: Universal healthcare is a cornerstone of democratic belief and a moral imperitive! BO's plan is not universal and mine is.
BO: That is just another way of saying you force people to buy healthcare whereas I make it available to all but don't force anyone to buy it, although I believe if it's available and affordable they will buy it! What will you do if they can't afford it?
HC: We will send subsidies to people who couldn't otherwise afford it.
BO: And if they decide to spend the subsidy on other things they can't afford like rent or food then what?
HC: They won't, everyone wants and needs healthcare.
BO: In Massachusetts they have mandated coverage and many people choose not to buy it. Those people then receive fines. So how are you going to mandate the coverage on everyone, by fining them if they don't buy it? By garnishing their wages?

At this point as far as I can tell, Hillary never answers the question but merely reverts back to step one. I actually am not sure which plan I prefer, but I much prefer Barack's honest approach to explaining his plan. Hillary completely dodges the question of how she will enforce the mandate every time she is asked, all I want is an honest answer to that question from her.

[mike777]

How can anyone be against affordable health care that increases quality of life?
IT IS AFFORDABLE!
IT INCREASES QUALITY!

[TimG]

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

As I understand it both plans will save 100's of billions in health care costs.
I am guessing alot comes of that comes through preventive care and making sure we eat and drink the right stuff and exercise more and stop smoking.

Saving 100s of billions while insuring (caring for) millions more seems a good trick.

A recent study done in The Netherlands (I think) concluded that preventive health care often costs more in the long run because of the costs associated with longer life. Unhealthy habits may save in the long run because the unhealthy people drop dead while the healthy ones see health care providers during their extra years.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

Rumor had it that the ticket in 2004 was almost Kerry-McCain.  A lot of people see McCain as more of a Lieberman Democrat/Independent than as a Republican.

Of course, as a Democrat, I think this is a good thing, but that's just me.

You think it is a good thing that McCain is seen as more of a Democrat/independent than a Republican? To me, that would just mean that should he get the Republican party nomination, he will take votes from the Democratic nominee, increasing the chances that a Republican will win the White house in 2008. As a Democrat, why don't you think that is a bad thing?

Because I'm a human being first, a Democrat, oh, fifth. Maybe sixth.

Why should I care whether Joe Lieberman is President or his separated-at-birth twin McCain is? Both would be a lot better than Bush, or Huckabee, or Thompson. I don't know what the heck Romney is, so I don't have an opinion on that.

My problems with McCain are with his personality. For example, Bob Dole endorsed McCain. Romney then said that was the last person who a Republican would want an endorsement from, pointing out that Dole lost very badly to a vulnerable Clinton. McCain's response was that how dare Romney say that Bob Dole wasn't a war hero!

Romney's response was the same as mine: huh?

If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain I guess I'll hold my nose and vote Hillary, unless McCain picks one heck of a veep. But I may change my mind several times between now and then. It really is a tough choice for me.

[mike777]

TimG, on Feb 6 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 6 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

As I understand it both plans will save 100's of billions in health care costs.
I am guessing alot comes of that comes through preventive care and making sure we eat and drink the right stuff and exercise more and stop smoking.

Saving 100s of billions while insuring (caring for) millions more seems a good trick.

A recent study done in The Netherlands (I think) concluded that preventive health care often costs more in the long run because of the costs associated with longer life. Unhealthy habits may save in the long run because the unhealthy people drop dead while the healthy ones see health care providers during their extra years.

I must have missed where the Netherlands is stopping/changing their nat health care based on this study. Why bother with this study? We could save money at the very least by not wasting money on studies people ignore.

In any case the cornerstone of the Dems plan is that it is affordable so do not worry.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

Why should I care whether Joe Lieberman is President or his separated-at-birth twin McCain is? Both would be a lot better than Bush, or Huckabee, or Thompson.

Are you conceding the race to the Republicans?

[Al_U_Card]

Pundits are having a field-day with the Bush-Clinton hegemony. Counting how many decades one of the two families could be in the Whitehouse and coming up with 40 odd years!

Peas in a pod but the black-eyed pea is the only one with a chance of bucking the trend and will (if he starts to succeed) likely follow even more closely in the Kennedy mold and have a tragic end.

The PTB will not brook anyone rocking the boat.....ever.