No offense, but both of thee campaigns are lying through their teeth when they claim that their plans consistute 'Universal Healthcare'. Clinton's plan is Universal Insurance, it lacks any and all regulations required to actually guarantee that people actually receive healthcare.

It wounds to me that the title of this post should have been 'How Not Bowing and Scraping Before John Edwards Hurt the Obama Campaign'. Obama supporters were being a bunch of dick's after Iowa, and most of the rest of us managed to get over it.

It sounds, I'm not actually wounded :/

I'd still support Edwards over Obama in a heartbeat if it were an option. I'm fully capable of ignoring minor character flaws and not demanding that people share my frame of mind 100%. At least if they care about the things I care about.

Unlike Edwards, I resent to hell the fact that Hillary pretends to be a champion of the downtrodden while never actually paying her bills to the working man (but always managing to have the scratch to cover the salary of that man-of-the-people, Mark Penn). And I actually think that belonging to an organization that believes that the wealthy elite rule with the blessing of God matters. It's hard to believe she actually wants to do anything to solve the class problems in our society if she thinks they are divinely sanctioned.

the theory of sour grapes

i distinctly remember the first unkindness uttered in this race.
it was when edwards looked at hillary clinton and said, "if you want the status quo, vote for hillary."

there was a self-righteousness and air of moral superiority to john edwards throughout the campaign.

plain and simple, i think he begrudges obama his enduringness in this race. i think he is jealous and believes that he should have been the chosen contender.
and i think that underneath the policy issues, on a psychological level, he is angry that barack obama is the contender and not him, and would rather see hillary clinton win for that reason.
i think he takes pleasure in watching barack obama take these hits.
this way, he can still enjoy some spiteful sense of power in sitting back and doing nothing.

if you read shakeseare's historical plays and tragedies, political motives are almost always about slights, grudges, jealousies and hurts and practiically never about the issue at hand, which is always a presentable disguise for what is the real preoccupation.

shakespeare well understood that empires rise and fall on the politics of the schoolyard.

sorry to say, i think it is the politics of the schoolyard, and edwards went away mad at obama when he lost.

Hmm, does Obama's plan have no carrot to encourage uptake, such as a subsidy?

In any case, I think that it is disingenuous to say that Obama is lying when he disagrees with Elizabeth Edwards- that's politics. He reads the facts one way, she reads them another. Perhaps his plan will extend coverage beyond the level that left-wing wonks predict for the Edwards plan. Perhaps it won't. Perhaps lacking a mandate will get it passed.

A president cannot impose a health care plan. S/he can only sign what a majority of Congress passes. So:
Which candidate has the better chance of winning the election?
Which candidate has longer coat-tails?
Which candidate can, in the event of a primary loss, move his/her plan through congress, is s/he care more about the country than winning?
John and Elizabeth Edwards can also be powerful advocates for better healthcare coverage, but only if the Democratic nominee beats the arch-conservative Bill Clinton has taken to calling a "moderate".
(All that said, political gossip had it that Elizabeth E. was pushing her husband to endorse Obama, so if he actually lost her support by being unable to finesse their differences and sell the bigger picture and the larger goal to the Edwards, that was a huge blunder by Obama).

Again, look at the reaction of his supporters here. They just don't get it. Here's the deal- if Obama is sucha wonderful leader who will bring others along, then why did he not close the deal with someone who really wanted to support him over Clinton? That's the issue this situation raises. Your argument that he listens to others in this case rings as hollow when he couldn't even bother to listen to Edwards despite your pscyhoanlyzing of why it was this or that regarding Edwards. Your job isn't to explain Edwards. It's to explain Obama because this is the man you would want us to have as President. Rather than going into misdirection speak to the concern raised about your candidate. Your approach here just further legitimize the concern rather than dispell it. Do you not get yet that you are your own worse enemies with the way you choose to respond? This arrogance is problematic in the primaries in which you are o the bring of winning, and will be absolutely deadly in the GE against a candidate like McCain. It will also make governing exceptionally difficult. The very capability you are claiming obama has- the ability to build consensus is thrown into disarray by this story. I don't frankly get it either. What did he has to lose in private conversations by talking frankly with the Edwards about healthcare. Even if he disagreed? What is the "openness" or "post partisanship" in this? I don't see it. YOu claim its there. It should be easy to see rather than you attacking anyone who says he isn't being post partisan.

By the way, to the other line of attack against you- the whole "let's argue the policy" again misses the point. I believe deliberately so. It's not about the policy here. It's about how he couldn't get others to agree so the first instinct was the alienate them. A good leader of the type Obama claims to be- simply doesn't do this. It makes your whole argument for why Obama would be a good president ring hollow. Agree or not agree on the policies is irrelevant to how Obama handled it.

akaison, I think you're making some big claims about Obama's state of mind. I'd also note that this is a primary election, and as such the best opportunity for candidates to show their true colours on the issues they really care about. Remember that Obama is running as Obama, not as the Magical Compromise Man, even if he promises to become the Magical Compromise Man.

If you don't like him, don't vote for him, and tell other people why his policies are bad. Don't make these psychologised attacks.

Well, I'll assume that none of us were in the room during the Obama-Edwards discussion of health care. So, we have secondhand reporting that the Edwards felt snubbed. There are two ways to view that: (a) Obama told the truth and they didn't like it and when he said they were wrong (and he often tells people that), they didn't like it; or (b) he was dismissive of them in a contemptuous way.

Other than Clinton, John Edwards was the only other democrat with a national recognition. I'm sure he feels badly that his message went bust.

Perhaps he was promised Attorney General by Clinton and wants to keep a low profile. Maybe he was AG by both camps.

We don't know what happened and we are all speculating. My guess is that Obama wouldn't toe the line on Edwards version of healthcare and Edwards is not happy with that.

It's an anecdote people. Consider the source.

There are folks who claim that Obama's naive on the one hand in that he wants to get everyone (Republicans and Democrats) together to sing kumbayah. This is total BS in my opinion, but you can't cry on that score and then also cry foul if he sticks to his guns when discussing policy with someone who's left the race, instead of blowing smoke up their ass.

Get real.

I am not making claims. I am reading a diary that does it for me based on someone who actually interacted with the man outside of speeches that you have heard. Please also don't once again play hide the ball by telling me its a primary. It's also about who will govern and accountability. You had better start addressing these flaws now, or else in the GE you will lose so that you will never get the chance to govern. And please stop changing the subject. No one asked him here to compromise. Simply demonstrate the talent that many of yo u claim he has. Read the damn report. It's clear the issue was his interaction, not what his policies were. And if you think your argument at the end is where you want to go int he GE, good luck with Pres McCain. See, the problem here is that I've been paying attention. I note shifting sands of the arguments being made for Obama. That's to some degree okay, unless, it means we lose. In which case, it's not. I care about the GE. Period. To the degree, a candidate doesn't exhibit, and his supporters can't admit qualities that will allow him to win in the GE (not the primary that he's already won or about to win, but the GE) then I've got concerns. You really didn't address those concerns so much as blame the messenger for asking about them. Sadly, you won't figure this out until its not possiible to do anything about it. Kerry 2.0.

Ron Founier made a point that some of Obama's staff members find him to be aloof, arrogant and inflexible. This anecdote with the Edwards may support Founier's point.

I will say this if Obama admitted to the Edwards that his plan is not universal then it would have make him appear to be a hypocrite, in that he said one thing in private and another in public.

This post might as well be titled:

"Edwards Decided Neither Candidate was John Edwards".

Stunning.

this is not the only story to come out like this. And now,w e are suppose to "consider the source" What exactly does that mean- I am sure your fellow Obama supporters who were former Edwards supporters would like to hear you explain the train of thought. Again- this wasn't about policy. But nice try. All of this deflection suggests you are not yet ready to hold Obama accountable. This really is my question- are any of you capable of holding Obama accountable for anything? If so, what? I was asked the other day what I liked about Obama on another thread. And, many o fyou hwere asked what problems you had with him. I listed the things I liked. Not one of you responded to the poster asking for what you don't like. Several of you posted along that thread.

I always thought it odd why Edwards didn't endorse; this explains alot. Thanks, Ezra.

jacqueline, do you really think beneath his populist proposals and besides dealing with a spouse with cancer, that Edwards has the time and the secret inclination to snicker at Obama's foibles from the sidelines? This strains credibility.

How many democrats do you and other Obama supporters need to trash in order to have Obama compare favorably?

Oh, I forgot: the repubs were the ideas people of the last 15 years. They certainly will be the ones happiest with Obama's "health plan."

It wounds to me that the title of this post should have been 'How Not Bowing and Scraping Before John Edwards Hurt the Obama Campaign'.

Or, maybe, how having decent diplomatic skills is a good attribute in a wannabe President.

One thing that comes through time and again is the disconnect between the media concept of Clinton and reality.

It wasn't health care or a lack of humility that cost Obama the Edwards' nomination. He was rude and obnoxious--qualities that the press regularly (and wrongly) attributes to Clinton.

Similarly, for all the talk of Obama's popularity with the people, Clinton is actually the one with stickier voters, and is actually ahead in Democratic voters.

Akaison, I might be willing to converse with you if I thought you weren't a complete waste of time.

Given that nobody responded to your calls for criticism of Obama, perhaps it says something more about you than it does him.

"Or, maybe, how having decent diplomatic skills is a good attribute in a wannabe President."

And, my question outside of accountability is, if he can't talk to someone like Edwards who is fairly close in idealogy without turning him off, how in the hell is he he going to deal with the GOP using what people claim to be his strength- his ability talk to people of all stripes. Where's the proof of this ability here? Where's the accountability for the fact it's not being shown here?

I'm guessing that the folks who think this anecdote clearly demonstrates Obama lacks diplomatic skills are the same who think Richardson's just another Judas.

"that edwards has the time and inclination to snicker at the foibles"

i dont think edwards is snickering at foibles.
i think he feels unfairly passed over and is very bitter that he lost.

and holding anger takes no time at all.
it is a frame of mind.
it strains no credibility for me....it seems sadly obvious.

I am not the one who posted the call for people to provide criticism of Obama. it was a third party poster who did that. He asked me to give what I thought were Obama's strengths. And, he asked Obama supporters to provide what they thought were his strength. He (or she I should say since I am not sure about gender) asked this amongst a debate about Wright.

The irony of course as usual is that you think I am anti Obama. I am anti lack of accountability. I got banned from mydd defend Obama in the Wright situation. Here, now, I am still requring accountability.

You want to make this about me. That's fine. I am not running for the Presidency. Obama is. He already faces an up hill battle.

If the very thing he claims to be good at (post partisan/diplomacy/listening to peo) is itself not true- then we got problem in the GE and in his Presidency. It's really that simple.

You can of course continue to "ignore" me (although actually in your response you aren't), but it's not me that's should concern you. It's been able to make sure we hold him accountable.

OK akaison, my mistake.

Here's the thing: we have this story third-hand at best. I'm not ready to put much weight to it. And even if it is close to what happened, I'm not sure it really bothers me. Why? Because I was never a big fan of Edwards, and I happen to think the approach he and Hillary took to health care is the wrong one. So, that Obama stuck to his guns and Edwards is upset he can't get him to move doesn't suggest a problem with diplomacy to me. It suggests he's sticking to his guns. Diplomacy isn't the same as backtracking on your positions.

You want to hold him accountable for something? Hold him accountable for the way he talked/pandered on NAFTA in Ohio. There's a heckofa lot more meat on that bone.

I keep wondering what fantasy world people live in who think that some primary season campaign proposal foretells what a President will actually be able to achieve. Kudos to Obama for not lying to us - he knows that "mandates" won't be passed on the first go-round UNLESS the insurance companies are able to reap the benefits. Hillary has already been meeting with the bad guys in the insurance industry to reassure them and has gained a lot of support in those circles. Also, I don't want mandates UNTIL affordability has been guaranteed. The thing that always bugged me about Edwards - who has no history AT ALL as a progressive until it was his most viable campaign strategy - was that he had the audacity to claim that he "wouldn't negotiate" with the corporation, etc. What a bunch of bullshit. Would that he had run on a left-populist platform when he was a senator - because left-populist senators can achieve a lot in pushing the agenda forward. The notion that John Edwards would govern as the man he presented in the Democratic primaries - where running to Hillary's left was his only possible winning strategy - was preposterous. Obama presents himself in terms of the reality check that the Presidency obviously is. He's not a different man during the primaries than he would be running in the general. And he deserves credit for that. The other two were no more trustworthy in 2008 than when they showed their colors in 2002 voting for the war out of pure political opportunism. The wonk-eyed view of these different candidates is pretty narrow and, in the case of Krugman in particular, amateurish and lacking any credibility.

Akaison,

I think that the concerns you are raising are legitimate. People forget that we live in an environment in which any statement or action is used as a cudgel by the right-wing. Remember that McCain has the reputation and the record to be bi-partisan. This anecdote could be used against Obama to say that his rhetoric doesn't match reality.

"Clinton is actually the one with stickier voters"

Yeah, the Stockholm Syndrome among Democrats held hostage by the Clintons when they royally screwed up, recycled Reaganisms and/or embarrassed us. Some might even call it a "personality cult." Ironic, of course, for a Clintonista to admit this - given the crap about "Obamabots", etc. that Hillary shills like Taylor Marsh trade in as the desperation rises.

Does anyone seriously believe a John Edwards endorsement of Obama would have moved this Clinton grudge match even an inch ?

Why are we splitting hairs over Universal Health care? Unlikely a democratic president could push it through in the next couple of years anyway given republican resistence to the very notion. Better is to do a few essential things to help those we can.

Furthermore, the system is broken. Do we really want to roll out a broken system to everyone right now given all the other problem? Lets clean it up a little bit over the next couple of years and then look for ways to make sure everyone can get support for their health.

HEALTH CARE is not a top priority for most americans since we already have it. National security and the economy concerns everyone. Obama would have ended up like Edwards had he taken the same approach in his campaign. Remember in the debates following Edwards withdrawal Clinton talked about Health care all the time as top issue probably to win over Edwards vote.

Isn't imprecations used incorrectly in that paragraph? What is the deal?

This is certainly the most plausible account I've heard of why Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama. Edwards was pressing the very same non-universality point against Obama in one of the debates. The best response for Obama in seeking Edwards' endorsement is something like this:

"Look, I realize that my plan doesn't cover everyone. But there's no guarantee that Hillary will actually be able to pass anything, or that her evil centrist advisors will get her to follow through. I've got a pretty good plan that will make things better, a better shot at getting the popular mobilization to drive it through Congress, and fewer ties to the kinds of entrenched interests who don't want health care reform. Plus we agree a whole bunch more on foreign policy and a lot of other stuff. And, I'm willing to give you some kind of high-level position or other. So what do you say?"

But insisting on the universality of his non-universal plan is totally the wrong move. I'm really disappointed that he tried to do that, and I can definitely see how John and especally Elizabeth wouldn't take him quite so seriously after that.

(Of course, I'm still happy that I caucused for Obama and did some strategy for him at the County Convention. But this is really annoying.)

"i dont think edwards is snickering at foibles.
i think he feels unfairly passed over and is very bitter that he lost."

and you believe this because?

Micheline:

The main problem with Obama's strategy can be found in incidents like this. It sets him up to be called a hypocrite because definitionally, he sets himself up as such. Now, agree or disagree with the Edwards, his approach should not have been to come across as "aloof." That's not an example of someone who can reach across to people who disagrees with him. It shows poor judgement. Americans have shown in Kerry that they don't like aloof candidates. People are trying mightily to turn this into an issues discussion when in fact it's one about character, and how it will be perceived. This is the accountability part. To realize actions have meaning , and not just in terms of diatribes about policies on this or that. It contributes to my belief that his opponents are right to say that he's green. The reality is that there were any number of ways that he could have handled this, and he choose this way? Why? None of it required , by the way, that he agreed with the Edwards. The first among which was to not insult the intelligence of his audience. That's part of the problem here. I keep saying "no one is that smart" to various supporters of Obama not because I am trying to put him or them down. It's that they really shouldn't assume his audience is down or treat them as such. That's what comes across to the listener as insulting even as they claim they are post partisan etc. The moral of this story is practice what you preach, or people will not believe you.

I'm amazed that this debate is still going on after all this time. Ezra is not the only "expert" who has looked into the Obama plan. Indeed, not all of the experts who have examined it have concluded what Ezra has. See, for example, the following:

Experts who don't think mandates are all that important.

The designer of the plan on which the Edwards, Obama, & Clinton plans are based insisting that mandates aren't mandatory.

There are many more of these kinds of things I could find if I had the time to. The point is not that the Obama plan is better than the Clinton/Edwards plan, but that the differences are greatly exaggerated and that this is no issue to base one's vote on, since there are other differences between the two candidates that are far more important.

Maybe John Edwards thinks this is a make or break issue, but I don't. I think that Obama's opposition to the war, the fact that his campaign is almost entirely funded by small donors, etc., are reasons enough to ignore this issues when it comes to picking between the two of them. I personally would prefer a plan with mandates, but claims that Obama is pushing a "ridiculous lie" are seriously overstated. Neither plan is perfect, and we all acknowledge that single-payer would ultimately be best, including Obama himself. So let's put this issue behind us and stop acting like it's a window into Obama's ultimately right-wing outlook on the world. It's not, and to suggest otherwise is just crazy.

I think Obama is absolutely correct both to pass on mandates at this stage AND use the rhetoric of "universality" as his policy goal. First, Obama's plan emphasizes - as a political and strategic matter - offering affordable coverage "universally", i.e. to all. That it doesn't force everyone to buy health insurance without a guarantee that affordability has been achieved is a plus from the perspective of people who actually have to hash this thing out at the legislative level. That it grates on policy wonks is meaningless. None of the candidates can guarantee a goddam thing, so it's all lofty rhetoric at this point - but to campaign for a principle of "universality" - i.e. affordable and reasonably full coverage available to everyone - is crucial. Arguing the details of mandates on the wonk level in the context of a political campaign doesn't cut it. Just plain stupid. Which is why a politically naive technocrat like Paul Krugman gets his intellectual panties in a twist. Same thing with the Social Security brouhaha. Obama used the word "crisis" incorrectly - but it was a recognizable concept to the voters who are worried about long term benefits being there, especially the younger ones who don't have faith in the system, and he proposed a simple, progressive proposal for securing it. The "progressives" who went ballistic are living in a bubble of their own devise. Fact is, Hillary is far less trustworthy on this SS tax issue than Obama and her proposals are less progressive. Wonks need a reality check - parsing details is fine, but confusing that with campaign strategy or effective rhetoric in a political context is childish.

Akaison, everyone thinks they have a good reason for disliking the people they dislike, so that you can rationalize your feelings isn't terribly impressive.

You're in here every other day arguing that we nominate someone with fewer votes and fewer delegates because they aren't Barack Obama. Don't pretend that you're not anti-obama.

soullite- Show me the post where I wrote what you just said I wrote. It's easy. google my screen name, put in ezra klein, put in delegate counts, do what you need to do. Or, look up my name here. But prove it. I am certain you can't. To other Obama supporters- if you feel that liars such as soullite is the way you need to go to win- then you aren't better than what you think you are replacing. This is the accountability part. Do you start to make shit up to justify your candidate or do you hold his feet to the fire? Try as mightily as you can to change that subject, and you still end up with the same issue.

Of course Obama's plan isn't universal. What really bugs me, though, is the claim that Hillary and Edwards plan IS universal, which is also a crock. None will cover the homeless guy, for example.

Their are two take-home messages here about Obama. 1) He isn't as diplomatic as we'd like to think, and 2) he also isn't as likely to compromise away his principles as some believe, which is a bad sign when discussing a principle you don't like but a good sign if you agree with him overall.

Ezra, I realize that you think health-care mandates are more important than world peace, more important than life itself, more important than the fate of the planet. But I'm not sure John Edwards shares your odd passion. In the end, Edwards is a very vain man whose need for flattery dictates all.

I'm just surprised people will take a handful of third-hand anecdotes like this and conclude Obama has a real problem with diplomacy or being aloof.

The vast majority of the evidence suggests otherwise folks. Seriously, this is pretty thin gruel.

The Obama plan has guaranteed eligibility and affordability for all Americans. That makes it universal. Period.

Some very smart people are thinking entirely with their resentment here--don't go bitching about "non-universal" when the thing you're really complaining about is that it doesn't force people to pay. If Clinton would have just made an honest argument about adverse selection, she might have convinced me. (She might have even convinced Obama, who still hasn't completely shut the door on mandates). But this "universality" talking point is utter bullshit--stop pretending this is anything but a narrow technocratic debate on how, not whether, we achieve universal health care.

I, mean, Jeesus, at this point we aren't even arguing over policy, we're arguing over whether one particular mandate talking point is valid. And, obviously, it's not. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence here--you folks are obviously very bright people who are listening to arrogance rather than reason.

I'm tempted to say this anecdote makes me think less of Elizabeth, but honestly, people with far less skin in the game than she has have completely lost their heads over this argument, so I can't get too upset with her.

The part about Edwards wanting to poverty a focus of the campaign is interesting--not just in that I'd like to see Obama do that, but in that Clinton *also* hasn't made poverty a focus of her campaign, so if John was won over by anything she said to him, he appears to have been bamboozled.

I used to think that I'd be happy to vote for Clinton if she picked Edwards as veep, as he'd keep her honest. It really doesn't seem that way anymore.

Then again I probably shouldn't take the word of "a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps".

On top of the other links I provided above, here is a nice summary of the case against Krugman-esque assualts on Obama's progressive credentials on the basis of the mandates issue. We all seriously need to relax with respect to this issue. It doesn't merit this level of attention.

"and you believe this because?"

because i use shakespeare as a political playbook as you might use health care policy papers.

just as everyone here is surmising about how the difference in health care policy could be affecting an endorsement, i am surmising that edwards is bitter that obama has come so far.
i think he is angered by circumstance.
the way that he can maintain some sense of control and manipulation, is through remaining silent, while watching obama in the ring.
he was the one who said, "if you want the status quo, vote for hillary."

does he think the status quo is the best thing for america now?

Some more thoughts for the still-skeptical: Robert Reich, former secretary of labor, coming to the same conclusion the 80+ experts in my first link, the designer of the generic Democrat plan, and Harold Pollack came to. Obama's plan is not anywhere near as bad as people like Krugman (and Ezra Klein) are making it out to be.

jac

the point is there is no justification for your thinking. sure, you can just make stuff up as you are doing, but it doesn't lead to accountability. Really, as I've said, many of you are sadly proving my point. You should have a higher standard than this, but you don't, and that means more of the same. I am sad because I am left with 3 possible choices for President that are once again about choosing the least offensive. That maybe Obama, but thats hardly the standard with which I wanted to elect a leader. I wanted to vote for something rather than simply against everyone else. I sense that's what many of you so desperately want to. But, wanting it isn't enough. No more than wanting to blame this on Edwards is enough. This isn't the first instance of Obama being questioned about his tin ear.

As important as the whole are-mandates-good? discussion is, it's really not the central question for this post. That question is - how should a victorious mandate opponent deal with a defeated mandate supporter?

The answer isn't "Falsely claim that your mandate-free plan is universal." It's "Emphasize points of agreement, and make it clear that half a loaf is a pretty sweet deal anyway."

Endorsements hardly matter and John Edwards' certainly wouldn't have mattered or else he would still be in this race. Edwards is a nobody who for some reason thinks he is Al Gore. I hope he endorses Clinton before North Carolina just so it becomes crystal clear how little influence he has on voters.

Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, so it is hardly a surprise that Edwards would find her lies more appealing than Obama's consistency. I don't agree with his stand on mandates, but I do like that he stuck to his guns rather than pander to win a meaningless endorsement.

Akaison, you seem to want to hold Obama accountable for not being perfect, when perhaps even a perfect candidate couldn't have secured an Edwards endorsement. You also seem to want to put a lot of stock into third-hand accounts.

You can always play these kind of games. That the rest of us don't want to doesn't mean we aren't willing to hold the guy accountable. We just disagree there's much of anything here to merit concern. Like I wrote above, there are other issues with a lot more meat on them than what a handful of third-hand accounts of Obama's "aloofness" amount to.

Seriously, snap out of it.

"According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps"

What the heck does that mean? This anonymous source, who won't reveal his/her name even though he/she is supposedly "unaligned" is credible enough to claim "Obama blew it?"

Until there's more information on who this all-knowing source is and if they were actually in the room when these discussions took place I'm not buying it.

Guys, let's remember that this is an extremely undersourced story, that could very easily have been sent around by a Clintonite, trying to discredit Obama. Until we have a name to go with the story, it ain't worth the pixels it's printed on. This is another anonymous smear that doesn't deserve the time of day from any serious Democrat.

It's difficult to take John Heilemann's quoted comments seriously when he doesn't know the meaning of the word "imprecation"--an ignorance apparently shared by Ezra, who neglected to point out Heilemann's howler.

Very little about the tale makes sense, and Ezra's characterization of Obama's insistence that his plan would make health care affordable to all (hence "universal") as a "ridiculous lie" is, in itself, a ridiculous lie.

Ezra quoting Heilemann is kind of like Bush quoting Reagan--you don't know who to laugh at first.

For all we know, this story originated in the fertile mind of Karl Rove. Let's agree that Edwards ain't endorsed anyone nohow, and move along. Frankly, if this story did turn out to originate with Rove, we'd all feel pretty stupid discussing it - no?

Good point - let's remember that Ezra's wonk-cred derives from slavishly following Krugman's latest rabid act of incoherence. Seriously, what has the boy got - a BA? Does Ezra even have a Masters? Nope! Any publication in a serious academic economics or public policy journal? Nope! So, what does Ezra know - basically what Krugman tells him he knows.

yes, let's bury our heads in the sand and pretend that every story that is unfavorable is false and/or easily ignored. again, it keeps reaffirming my thesis about accountability.

"The point is not that the Obama plan is better than the Clinton/Edwards plan, but that the differences are greatly exaggerated and that this is no issue to base one's vote on, since there are other differences between the two candidates that are far more important."

Why then has Obama freely chosen to use mandates as an attack message against Hillary? Certainly I can't be the only one bothered by that flier with imagery taken right out of Harry and Louise and using scare tactics about having to buy health insurance even if you don't want it. If it is not important in context why demagogue it?

And Obama's Social Security plan is not progressive. It looks progressive, it sounds progressive but in the actual context of Social Security financing is not progressive. People who have actually studied the numbers like Krugman and (cough) me worry that it is a first sign that Obama has signed onto Obama advisor Jeffrey Liebman's LMS Social Security Reform Plan. (And to those who will earnestly point out that Obama is against 'privatization' of Social Security, it all depends of your definition. LMS despite relying on PRAs can fairly be described as not being 'privatization' at all.)

In my opinion Obama could have crushed Clinton by daring to run to where many of his supporters suggest his heart is anyway, which is to say to present himself as the progressive alternative to the corporatist Clinton. Instead he chose this goofy post-partisan stance that simply ignores the history and tactics of the Republican Party in the Gingrich/Rove/Norquist era. The Republican Party has exactly zero self-interest in making an Obama Presidency successful. America doesn't need a change in tone as much as it needs a change in direction. Which doesn't come by running to the right of Clinton.

I believe Obama will win the nomination and the Presidency and will be a competent leader but too many people are projecting too much. It may be hard to believe now but a lot of us had really high hopes for Jimmy Carter, a man elected on some of these same post-partisan themes in the aftermath of Watergate.

It's "Emphasize points of agreement, and make it clear that half a loaf is a pretty sweet deal anyway."

Even assuming the source is being truthful, we're so many links on the chain along the rumor mill away on this one, we can't rule out that he did exactly that, and she just took it the wrong way. Emphasizing points of agreement when the other person wants to talk about disagreements isn't always easy...or possible.

But yeah, it's possible Obama fucked up this negotiation. However, there's just been so much, ahem, ambient irrationality with regards to mandates, that Obama would be light years away from being the worst offender.

You've got to do better than that, Mr. Webb. Obama is for raising the tax cap to guarantee long-term solvency. People who have actually studied this, like (cough) me, know that his proposal is simple and solves the problem, while Hillary proposes a "commission" which means god knows what. Given that her commission to deal with the financial meltdown specifically includes Greenspan and Robert Rubin of Citicorp, I'm not impressed with that tack. Invoking Liebman as a scarecrow doesn't wash. Facts please.

"too many people are projecting too much"

Only people who don't actually listen to Obama. My support for him was strengthened when I heard him admit that he couldn't bring major changed from the Oval Office, that the pressures inside that bubble are enormous and that the responsibility was on his supporters and others to "make him do it", invoking FDR's challenge to A. Phillip Randolph. That candor was refreshing - as opposed to Hillary's "make the machinery work" message or Edward's pie-in-the-sky "fighting populism" (which would have gone the way of all flesh in the general election.) Obama's the only guy with a "change" strategy that makes any sense - it's on us to push the pols. I'm not aware of any significant progressive change that has ever been accomplished without there being pressure from below.

*pats akaison's head*

Ya doin' good, kid, ya doin' good! Just keep reading my little bedtime stories, and you'll be with me before ya know it.

best,
Karl

Certainly I can't be the only one bothered by that flier with imagery taken right out of Harry and Louise and using scare tactics about having to buy health insurance even if you don't want it. If it is not important in context why demagogue it?

That wasn't Obama's finest hour, but it seemed par for the course given Clinton's "not universal" demagoguery of Obama's plan, and is now completely overshadowed by Clinton's insistence that only experienced hawks like herself and McCain are prepared to be CinC.

The mailing was out of character for Obama's record of statements and debate on mandates, in which he suggested he'd be open to mandate-like back payments for free-riders seeking coverage.

health care plan with mandates=political poison

health care plan without mandates=policy poison

pick your poison

"According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps"

What the heck does that mean?

Oh, I missed this the first time. Shrum? Begala? Some FoxNews Dem looking to make trouble? Seems to be suggest one of the Clinton loyalists whom HRC has kept at arm's length for one reason or another. I suspect leaks like this may be one of the reasons.

Consumatopia wrote:

The Obama plan has guaranteed eligibility and affordability for all Americans. That makes it universal....
If Clinton would have just made an honest argument about adverse selection, she might have convinced me.... But this "universality" talking point is utter bullshit...

"Adverse selection" is a wonky argument in favor of universal coverage. If you have universal coverage, then by definition adverse selection is not a problem. Simply calling a plan that doesn't provide universal coverage a "universal plan," as Consumatopia does, won't solve the adverse selection problem. Clinton has a valid point even if she hasn't used the words "adverse selection."

"What the heck does that mean?"

It means not every Democrat looks at this as Clinton v. Obama. Something many of you are incapable of understanding, or won't understand until the primary is over and hopefully reality sets back in. I love for example how my analysis of the situation- to ask how can we make the candidates stronger- is perceived of by one of you as "rovian." Meanwhile, their analysis of obfuscating the issues, attacking the messengers, using highly partisan rhectoric, etc is ' post partisan." No Orwellian language here at all.

If you have universal coverage, then by definition adverse selection is not a problem.

Mandates don't get you universal coverage. More to the point, they aren't the only way of dealing with adverse selection. You could also subsidize the system to keep it afloat, or you could penalize people who stay out and try to get care later. (If you *never* get coverage, then you're not a free rider.)

It's universal eligibility, and universal affordability. The plan is applicable to everyone. That is universal by definition. All I'm doing is calling Obama's universal plan universal. All Clinton did was lie about Obama's plan.

I can be convinced on technocratic grounds. What you folks don't get is that the wonky argument is the only argument when it comes to narrow technocratic, negotiable unimportant details like mandates. If you make any other argument, you're just a liar. "Non-universal" implies that people are being denied coverage, which would not happen under Obama's plan. You could call Obama's plan "unsustainable" and then we could have an honest argument, but "non-universal" just starts the argument off beyond any hope of reason.

"Universal" is such a deliberate nonsense spin word that if Elizabeth brought it up in conversation with Obama then all hope of reconciliation was lost.

"high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate"

It's hard to know what to make of this. Opposition to insurance mandates has been Obama's very clear and very public position throughout the campaign. Was he supposed to suddenly change his mind when John Edwards dropped out to make Elizabeth happy? In what sense was the criticism of mandayes alleged to have been "high-handed"?

Clearly, the Edwards' disagree with Obama about health insurance mandates. If John Edwards doesn't want to endorse him because of that, fine. But why is the interpretation that "Obama blew it"?

akaison, you come across as awfully sanctimonious sometimes. Here you are, joyously citing a story without any sort of solid sourcing as a reason to be against Obama, and then you pontificate about what the "real" issues are. Sorry, but you have a long record here of jumping onto the slightest anti-Obama issue, fists flailing. Until I see some genuine debate from you, rather than name-calling, I decline to take your latest self-righteous stance seriously.

I know that you'd love to make the point that Obama's hedging regarding a position of his that you disagree with cost him politically, but I really don't think that's what happened.

Would have Edwards' endorsement helped Obama? Look at this poll http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_032508.pdf At least in N.C., it would appear that an Edwards endorsement would be a liability not an asset.

There's a reason why Edwards lost, and at least part of the reason is that people just don't like him. His endorsement is not as valuable as you think it is, and might actually have a negative value. Obama may have saved himself some votes by averting an Edwards endorsement.

John Edwards? I seem to remember the name.... wasn't he the disastrous VP pick for John Kerry? Is he still in politics?

The odd discrepancy between Edward's rhetoric and his congressional voting record has always unsettled me, and there is something about Edwards character, despite his laudably progressive platform, that just doesn't pass the smell test. Kerry's decision to come out for Obama, not his former running-mate only reinforced my doubts...as did this article by Shrum.

I'm not sure that, in this dust up, the fault lies with BHO.

"I'm not sure that, in this dust up, the fault lies with BHO."

Of course the fault doesn't lie with BHO. As the comments here prove, it is logically impossible for Obama to possess a fault. All criticism of him, his actions, and/or his policies is invalid and only really points out a fault in the critic.

Finally, we have our Reagan!

indie | March 30, 2008 7:09 PM

You didn't read the Shrum article did you.?

And you didn't address my point about Kerry.

It's so much easier to exaggerate and mock than to debate in good conscience.

o.k., anonymous: I guess you mean that you're also "Freaked-out Canadian" too?

I read the article. So, Kerry admits he should have picked Clinton for VP then. Yep. We wouldn't be in this mess now if he had.

But as to exaggeration and mocking debate, LOL...as usual, those within this thread who offer crits of Obama are personally attacked instead of refuted with reasons.

I stick by my statement that the dems finally have our Reagan, or desperately want to at least.

"the dems finally have our Reagan, or desperately want to at least"

Yeah, that would be a real disaster, especially if he was whip smart...

Yup, an Edwards endorsement before the NC primary isn't going to mean much in the state. It'll mean something to the press, I'm sure, but that's about it.

I've lived in NC for awhile, right next to Edwards' home town, and the guy really isn't a local favorite. He didn't do jack squat for us as a Senator.

akaison, our candidate has a 60+% favorable rating even now.Your candidate barely scratches 50%, and has negatives higher than 40%.

Tell me again how we're the ones ignoring negative stories and unfortunate facts?

At some point, you should just come and say what you want to: You don't think a black guy can win. Tell me why you think a woman can?

Soullite- I kind done with you. You are retarded. I don't have a candidate. I was banned from mydd for defending Obama. So when you say that- it's just makes you seem to me stupid. I don't care if others don't like me calling you that when you are writing what you write in the face of direct reality.

Indie- sadly, you are right. Which is why I won't waste my breathe. They don't get it. They never will,a nd when they do, it will be too late to change any of it becuase it will have been used to defeat Obama. These are frankly things he could correct now. Instead, he is surrounded I imagine by the types of folks that populate this blog telling him he can do no wrong. It's dangerous. but there you have it. ANd unfortunately, I think we will see a McCain win in the fall because of it. I actually think Obama could in theory be a better candidate thatn Clinton, but that will never happen from what I am seeing here and in his own actions.

I can only hope going into the fall he realizes what most be done and changes his game a lot. But we shall see.

by the way, indie, you are also right that the approach is personal attack. pretty much it doesn't matter what anyone says- one is doing it because one supporters clinton and is agains tobama. its' not because he's human and can make mistakes or that one wants the candidate to be the strongest as possible in the GE. As I said, ironically, I was starting to lean Obama, and got banned over at mydd for it, but here, I am told because I am not blind as to the flaws of needlessly alienating people- that means there is something wrong with me rather than the candidate. As I said- dangerous,b ut that's where we are.

What is universal about a health care plan with mandates? It is not universal, it is forced. And, it places a potential undue penalty on the poor. Just to be clear, I have never voted republican and support with all my heart a redo on our health care system, but I have a very hard time with the concept of a mandate accompanied by the threat of garnisheeing wages if one does not sign on. I cannot fathom that as being universal nor fair. As I wrote, it will only affect the people at the lower economic strata.

That is not Democratic to me.

It's heartening to see Clinton and Obama supporters getting along so well here. Makes me feel like we'll definitely be able to come together to stand behind whoever is the eventual nominee.

"Obama's weak health care plan may have imposed a substantial political cost, in that it cost him Edwards early, and potentially meaningful, endorsement."

It not only cost him Edwards' support, but it even more crucially cost him Petey's support. I single-handedly could've swung RI and OH for Obama if he hadn't been such a Marty Peretz / General Electric tool on healthcare.

-----

Heilemann's story of what happened behind closed doors is only part of what actually happened.

I've long been surprised that no one has really covered what happened out in the open after Edwards' withdrawal.

In the space between Edwards' withdrawal and Super Tuesday, the following all took place in plain sight:

- Obama ran yet another Harry & Louise ad slamming universal healthcare.

- Clinton went on MTP and defended the Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan using some of Edwards' language for the first time, including the crucial "automatic enrollment" line.

- Clinton began adopting several of Edwards' lines on economic populism in speeches.

I was party to no meetings between the candidates, but yet despite the fact that I was leaning towards Obama on the day Edwards dropped out, I was firmly in the Clinton camp by the time of Super Tuesday. Clinton gave Edwards supporters reasons to vote for her, and Obama gave Edwards supporters reasons to vote against him.

What happened in plain sight is the real uncovered story here.

"It's heartening to see Clinton and Obama supporters getting along so well here. Makes me feel like we'll definitely be able to come together to stand behind whoever is the eventual nominee."

If Obama "wins" the nomination by disenfranchising MI and FL, I'll be enthusiastically supporting Nader.

"I believe Obama will win the nomination and the Presidency and will be a competent leader but too many people are projecting too much. It may be hard to believe now but a lot of us had really high hopes for Jimmy Carter, a man elected on some of these same post-partisan themes in the aftermath of Watergate."

I think it's important to remember that Reagan's radical agenda would have been impossible without Carter first disemboweling the Democratic Party from within.

When you nominate and elect someone who feels compelled to showily stand outside the Party, you are laying the groundwork for those who want to truly destroy the Party's agenda.

If we want a Democratic electoral coalition that can govern, we're going to need lots and lots of converts from the other side, specifically among white non-college graduates inland from the coasts and Great Lakes. Those folks vote, and for the last generation, they've been overwhelmingly voting for the GOP. Until we expand the Big Tent enough to stop getting blown out there, we're going to keep being the electoral minority party.

Petey's words, not mine. From 2006. Click on my name.

But now Petey thinks the Democratic Party is too big, and he threatens to vote for Nader.

"he threatens to vote for Nader."

If Obama's General Electric backed putsch to steal the nomination while losing the majority of Democratic voters and disenfranchising MI and FL succeeds, of course I'll vote for Nader.

I've got no problem supporting a general election candidate I opposed in the primaries - see Kerry in 2004, for example - but I won't be part of Obama's attempted grand larceny of the Party.

(And FWIW, the voters that I talk about the Democrats needing to be a Big Tent Party in the quote you've pulled are the precise voters Obama has been winning about 25% of in two-way primary elections. I'd appreciate better thought out attacks in the future, por favor.)

"When you nominate and elect someone who feels compelled to showily stand outside the Party"

Well, that certainly explains why all the movement among establishment Democrats has been in Obama's direction the last two months.

You do realize you've become a parody of yourself, right? Not that anyone with half a brain would take you seriously before, either.

The voters you were talking about "have been overwhelmingly voting for the GOP" (in your words). No wonder they like Hillary so much -- she's GOP-lite.

And for you to support the Richard Scaife and Rush Limbaugh candidate over the candidate endorsed by Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy -- and then to complain about the purity of the party -- wow, that takes a lot of gall, Petey. That's all I can say.

Barbar,

your last 2 posts are confusing the hell out of me. Are you saying we do or don't need the voters Petey mentions. Or are you saying we need them but should actively alienate them?

huh?

The only lie is this blog, and what Ezra Klein has turned into at the hands of his corporate overseers here at the joke that is the American prospect.

I guess some people don't have a problem swallowing filth as long as it's putting money in their pockets, hardly any different than the Republicans themselves.

Why don't you just come out and endorse Hillary Ezra, and then turn your blog into just another Obama smear site. You'll fit right in with the likes of Armando and Jeralyn over at TalkLeft and all those who have flushed their credibility down the toilet for the sake of supporting the establishment and their designs on this country. Tell us, how does it feel to sell your soul?

This hand-over-heart populist pro-Edwards crap has long baffled me. I can't believe anyone ever took anything that guy said seriously, let alone continues to do so.

Ezra's man-crush on John Edwards says nothing to me about the politics or personality of Barack Obama. And I see absolutely no evidence that Edwards' endorsement does him any good whatsoever.

mara, I am simply pointing out that Petey is an inconistent, incoherent, and dishonest idiot.

ahh, Instruction by Imitation; got it.

Petey, it's hard for me to tell because you don't back up your assertions, but it seems to me that your complaint is that Obama's lead is coming from states with open primaries, am I right? You feel that those votes are less legitimate than closed primaries, because non-Democrats have an equal voice in them?

Have you ever done anything about this, or do you plan to, when it's not during a primary season? Advocate within those states to change their system, or push for the national party to change how it seats delegates from those states, or something like that? I mean, if open primaries are bad like you seem to think, they're bad whether we're in the middle of a close race or not.

"You'll fit right in with the likes of Armando"

One of the more amusing things about the widespread shilling for Obama among the "professional Democrat" class inside the Beltway trying to get hired by Marty Peretz or trying to get airtime on General Electric is that Armando has become a must read for folks trying to see what is actually going on.

Who woulda thunk it?

Petey prefers the Richard Mellon-Scaife and Rush Limbaugh candidate to the man who actually has a 10-point lead among Democrats in the national polling.

He prefers Ralph "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" Nader to the candidate endorsed by Russ Feingold and Teddy Kennedy.

And then he adopts the Karl Rovian tactic of accusing his opponents of doing what he himself is doing -- that is, betraying the Democratic Party and joining forces with the ugliest elements of the right wing.

Why, Petey, why? It hurts me to someone who used to be such a staunch progressive make such a public spectacle of himself. It's so sad.

I want to help you, Petey, really. Come back to the light, come back to the Democrats. But for me to help you, you must first help yourself.

We can do it together, Petey. Yes we can.

"He prefers Ralph "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" Nader"

I enthusiastically voted for Gore in 2000, and tried to convince others to do the same.

Unlike Obama, Gore was the choice of Democratic voters. Unlike Obama, Gore didn't try to disenfranchise the Democrats of FL and MI in a slimy bid to steal the nomination.

I prefer Clinton to Obama in 2008 because I care about progressive policy. But I'd have no trouble supporting Obama in the general if he were the legitimate nominee. However, the Obama campaign seems to prefer the support of General Electric and Marty Peretz to the support of Democratic voters, which is why he feels so able to spit in the faces of the Democratic electorate on things like healthcare.

"I want to help you, Petey, really."

You and Andrew Sullivan and Tim Roemer and Chris Matthews can go fuck yourselves with a sharp stick. You don't have the interests of the Democratic electorate in mind, so you are no friends of mine.

Latest Gallup poll of Dems nationally:

Barack Obama 52%
Hillary Clinton 42%

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

I don't want you to suffer any more, Petey. Step away from the Richard Mellon-Scaife and Rush Limbaugh candidate. Step away from "Reagan Democrat" Taylor Marsh. Step away from the woman who served on the board of Wal-mart.

Come back to the Democratic Party, Petey.

It's a big tent party. All will be forgiven. We all want to stray sometimes, we understand.

We can do it, Petey. Yes we can.

Petey manages the trick of combining limited intelligence with unbelievably overbearing self-righteousness.

Which I guess explains his John Edwards fixation. Birds of a feather and all that.

In the grand scheme of things, it's hard for me to see how disenfranchising the primary voters of MI and FL (and I'm not sure it should be called that) is a greater sin than unapologetically supporting the 2002 vote to invade Iraq. That, after all, is a vote with a very large body count. Nader's egomanaical 2000 run that gave us Bush ranks pretty high on the list of sins as well.

In the end, everybody's done some bad shit, of some kind or other. McCain looks likely to do more than anybody else. If we get Obama-McCain in 2008, Petey, I'm pretty sure that a few months of reflecting on the situation will get you on the right side. Maybe not yet, but things will become clear in time.

Once again, this diatribe over a minor difference is ridiculous. If anyone here actually cared about major health care reform, Dennis Kucinich would not have had to go out like he did. IF YOU LITERALLY CARE ABOUT "INSURING EVERYONE", SUPPORT SINGLE PAYER. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE IDEA THAT INDIVIDUAL MANDATES LEAD TO "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE".

Also, for EK to smear the California Nurses Association over "purity of ideology" is the pot-calling-the-kettle-black if he continues to raise the volume on this debate. If we're going to have a fight, let it be over the possibilities/specifics/strategies for a single payer system and not this piddling excuse of a campaign-necessitated "contrast".

It seems like I'm the only person alive who voted for Gore and yet doesn't blame Nader for everything Bush has done since then. I blame Bush on Republicans who voted for Bush, and on Democrats who voted for Bush, and Bush himself, and to some degree on people who didn't vote. On Nader and his supporters, not at all.

"In the end, everybody's done some bad shit, of some kind or other. McCain looks likely to do more than anybody else."

yes, but the problem isn't that they don't both do the same things. It's getting them to admit it.

ps, you can see that with folks like Soullite for whom Obama's shit don't stink. So we go round and round dealing with their denials of the obvious. They assume all who say that Obama's shit does stink are clinton supporters. When in fact, we are just stating the obvious.

Shorter akaison:

I don't care about logic, I don't care about evidence, and so I can be amazingly self-righteous while lying between my teeth.

shorter zilifant:

I came. I lied.

Cyrus, I'm curious to hear what you think of people who don't vote at all. Are they blameless?

Simply stating an assertion or your opinion isn't the same thing as evidence or logic. Saying I don't like the speaker or what he or she has to say isn't evidence or logic. Saying I don't believe it isn't evidence or logic. Fallacious or specious reasoning isn't logic or valid evidence. It's one thing if you are trying to spin me here. It's another if you think you have present logic or evidence. The former is shilling which is acceptable. The later means you are incapable of understanding arguments for or against Obama. The later is dogma.

akaison, you really have sunk to a new level of incoherence here. Have you considered giving Mark Penn a call?

Cyrus, I'm curious to hear what you think of people who don't vote at all. Are they blameless?

No, I don't think so. Sorry if I was unclear, but I tried to say that I also assign some of the blame for Bush "... to some degree on people who didn't vote." If I had to meticulously parse blaming an inchoate group of strangers for certain bad things over the past few years, I'd give non-voters less blame than actual Bush voters, but more than Gore or Nader voters.

In a naïve, idealistic, pie-in-the-sky view of democracy, people vote for whoever they feel they agree with or would make a good leader. In a cynical, pragmatic, lesser-of-two-evils view of democracy, whatever effect Nader and Nader voters had in 2000 is negligibly miniscule compared to the much largers groups of Bush voters and non-voters, as is the degree of stupidity needed to vote for Bush.

I can understand why asking you to use logic and evidence is incoherent to your position. Afterall, they are both anathema to the appeals to emotions that you use here.

Ah, right. Sorry, I read hastily.

But I don't know why you regard Nader supporters (or at least Naderites in FL -- maybe it's different in TX or something) more highly than people who didn't vote. For the purposes of averting the disaster that we're now in, a Nader vote and a non-vote are basically the same thing.

And in some cases, I'm particularly annoyed with Nader voters -- I understand if some poor person lives a life where they're too caught up in housing and feeding their kids to attend to politics. But if you're going to reach the level of information where 3rd party voting is something you might do, you probably don't have that excuse. Certainly a bunch of the folks I knew in Cambridge MA, where our precinct cast more votes for Nader than for Bush, weren't like that.

And even if blaming Nader supporters isn't right, blaming Nader himself is. People at his level are supposed to be able to figure this stuff out. That's what their job is, and he messed it up so badly that honest error isn't a plausible explanation.

I can understand the impulse to want to want to do the protest vote, but it's total bullshit given what we know of the last 8 years to do so. People, including Petey, should fully support Obama, period, if he becomes the nominee. This isn't about whether one should support Clinton or Obama not. It is again about accountablity. Obama supporters do him no favors by not recognizing his weaknesses as a candidate. That being said, his weaknesses doesn't dilute the fact that he is quantums better than McCain. It doesn't change the fact he could make a good president despite the mistakes. It doesn't change the fact that voting for Nadar would help McCain. These are the realities. Emotions are wrong with the Obamite arguments. They are wrong with the over the top response to an Obama campaign in the GE as well. Neither position is reasonable- again given the last 8 years. Anyone ignoring this, really needs to check where there moral compass is. And yes, I agree Obama screwed up in MI and FL. But so has Clinton. That's not the point. The point is to call them on it, but not throw the baby out with teh bath water.

The original article was plucked out of thin air and it's been referred to just about everywhere, on Huffpo, at Salon, now here. Why work to get a scoop when you can make one up?

Doesn't it make more sense to think that Edwards, like Al Gore, is staying out of the conflict for good reason? When these primaries are over, the Democratic Party will need some of its heavyweights to heal the wounds. Who will do that, if no one had the sense to stay above the fray?

Edwards is doing the responsible thing: he's thinking of November.

akaison has 18 comments on this thread, demanding accountability from Obama supporters in recognizing that all the candidates suck.

It's a strong case -- McCain has disastrous foreign and domestic policies, Obama couldn't get Edwards on board for an endorsement. Why are Obama supporters such cultists?

"It hurts me to someone who used to be such a staunch progressive make such a public spectacle of himself. It's so sad."

yep, poor Josh Marshall.

most of my comments are to folks such as yourself making snide remarks deliberately lying or misconscruing what's been said, but thanks for counting.

And even if blaming Nader supporters isn't right, blaming Nader himself is.

This, I agree with. (Or maybe just "thinking less of Nader himself as a person" rather than blaming him.) Nader's 2004 and 2008 candidacies seem like such vanity campaigns that it's hard to imagine his 2000 campaign wasn't.

But if you're going to reach the level of information where 3rd party voting is something you might do, you probably don't have that excuse. Certainly a bunch of the folks I knew in Cambridge MA, where our precinct cast more votes for Nader than for Bush, weren't like that.

I remember a lot of arguments used to justify voting for Nader. The Democratic Party might have moved left to recapture those votes. The two major parties are supposedly too similar. Similar or not, there really are a lot of issues they ignore. Third parties and independent candidates can be important parts of democracy (look at Vermont), and Nader's campaigns drew attention to them.

In hindsight, some of those reasons were crap: there's no reason a third party couldn't have pulled the Democratic Party to the left, but that's not what actually happened. And some of those reasons should have been apparent as crap even before November 2000: Nader never did much to help the Green Party in the first place. But in my more pessimistic moments, I do have a hard time seeing a difference between the policies of the two parties. Refresh my memory, exactly what have the Democrats done about torture and imprisonment without trial lately? Why hasn't anyone in Congress started impeachment proceedings?

Nader voters in 2000 were wrong. But they were wrong about methods rather than goals for the most part, and they weren't wildly, crazily off-base, and their mistake was so minor compared to that of Bush voters and non-voters that complaining about them is little more than the traditional circular firing squad among the American liberals.

" If we get Obama-McCain in 2008, Petey, I'm pretty sure that a few months of reflecting on the situation will get you on the right side. Maybe not yet, but things will become clear in time."

I Obama wins the nomination fair and square, sure, I'll be on board. I'm a Democrat. If I could vote for a turd sandwich like Kerry, I can vote for a douchebag like Obama.

But If Obama "wins" by continuing to go to the mattresses to stop legitimate re-votes in MI and FL by any means necessary, thus deciding that his personal ambitions trump getting all Democrats enfranchised, then I hear Ralph calling my name and others like me.

Given that my winter house in Florida and my pied-à-terre in Ohio lets me double-vote, and given that I usually manage to drag a bunch of folks along with me to amplify my two votes, I don't think I'll be in a position to affect the results, no?

(Trick question: since Obama won't be competitive in FL or OH anyway, my votes really wouldn't make a dent in McCain's victory margin no matter how I vote them.)

And, as always, given that Nader was one the few major lefty figures to endorse Edwards pre-Iowa, he does deserve some consideration if Obama decides to do his Katherine Harris imitation.

"Once again, this diatribe over a minor difference is ridiculous."

It's "ridiculous" if you think opposing universal healthcare is the same as supporting universal healthcare.

It's "ridiculous" if you think universal healthcare isn't important.

I'd say about 50% of the Obama supporters fall into either the ignorant or immoral categories outlined above.

"If anyone here actually cared about major health care reform, Dennis Kucinich would not have had to go out like he did."

But, of course, pretty much everyone with an IQ above room temperature thinks that the Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan is a much better way to proceed than with Kucinich's symbolic measure.

Or to be more precise, pretty much everyone with an IQ above room temperature who wants to see universal healthcare actually signed into law is in favor of Edwards/Clinton.

I understand Obama's employers over at General Electric won't allow him to be for universal healthcare. But while Obama may work for GE, the Democratic electorate doesn't.

Petey, mandates in and of themselves were never a progressive goal. I don't think it's any kind of misfire to be progressive and suspicious of plans that essentially strengthen a completely for-profit, cares-only-about-shareholders industry by forcing our most vulnerable citizens into their arms without clearing up issues of cost and quality and regulation and enforcement. Mandates essentially empower an industry that needs to be restructured on all levels.

"I think a mandate is a very bad idea. I think the difference between universal social insurance and a mandate is that universal social insurance, like Medicare, says that, as an American or a permanent resident of the country, you get health insurance, the same way you get Social Security. A mandate takes a social problem and makes it the individual’s problem. And in the Massachusetts version of this, on the website it says “new penalties for 2008.” You get penalized if you don’t buy health insurance, even if the health insurance that’s available is not high quality and is not affordable. Now, Hillary Clinton says that her version of this is better than Massachusetts, because they will have a substantial amount of regulation to make sure that you can’t discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, and you can’t have excessive deductibles and co-pays. So the approach is not bad, but it’s definitely a second best. The first best would be national health insurance.

The other problem with this whole approach is that you don’t get the cost efficiencies that you get from universal health insurance, because you still have all this paperwork, you still have all the profit by private insurance companies, you still have doctors being given incentives to go for the reimbursable procedures. And as a result, the cost-containment pressures hit patients. They come in the form of less care, rather than in the form of less waste." -- Robert Kuttner

But of course, these are all stupid concerns, right?

"But of course, these are all stupid concerns, right"

Right.

And I assume you've been around here long enough to save me from having to re-explain the particulars for the nineteenth time. (Someone ought to write a FAQ.)

if you're a newbie, a small modicum of research skills will allow you do the individual work on your own time frame in short order.

I'd suggest you begin my reading through Ezra'a archives.

You assume, somehow, that everyone agrees with the conclusions made on this site, when outside of this particular bubble the debate over the effectiveness of various approaches to the healthcare crisis are being debated, and up until this year I've never heard of mandates as being the cure-all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-not-single-payer-a_b_67836.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-not-single-payer-par_b_94239.html

Look, I really don't give a crap whether you trash Obama's plan or whatever. I'm just getting annoyed with this self-righteous garbage about mandates when what we could be doing is pressuring all candidates that the support for a radical restructuring of the health insurance industry is out there, and that part of that argument has always been single payer. There are problems with that policy as well, but I'm going to give Kucinich his due because he had the balls to suggest it when all the other candidates are tip-toeing around the real issues.

"You assume, somehow, that everyone agrees with the conclusions made on this site,"

No. Plenty of people are not on the universal healthcare bandwagon.

- John McCain is opposed to universal healthcare.

- Barack Obama is opposed to universal healthcare.

I'm sure Ron Paul is opposed as well.

But the Democratic healthcare politico/wonk community who haven't been snapped up by campaigns to shill is at something quite near unanimity in seeing the Edwards/Clinton plan as the best policy and politics for achieving an excellent UHC in the short-term with a glide path into an even better system over time.

------

Now, again, perhaps you think the difference between the Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan being signed into law and the kind of SCHIP+ we'd be lucky to get out of an Obama administration is a minor difference. But then I'd revert back to being unable to figure out if you just don't care about UHC, or if your IQ flatlines somewhere around room temperature.

Yeah, and I can ask you why you expect individual mandates would be so much easier to pass than single payer. As far as right-leaning demagogues are concerned, it's the same thing.

Petey, from my (and others') POV, you're the one who's against UHC because you support policies that place the responsibility of attaining it on individuals rather than expecting it from the gov't as a right. I don't really see how you can continue to rally around mandates as if you're being the "true" progressive when there are plenty of arguments out there that, once all the various myths about single payer insurance are dispelled, support the idea of gov't insurance. And it's becoming a popular idea among non-wonks too.

Once again, I don't particularly care whether you trash Obama. It's not about him. I DON'T CARE. On this issue of HC, I'm not convinced that either he or HRC are on the bandwagon for anything radical. Certainly you're free to have your own opinions, but I don't necessarily want you or others who think like you to persist in the delusion that somehow you're being the "true progressives" because the effectiveness of mandates qua UHC is still up in the air.

And pardon me for trusting my five aunts, who are nurses in California, on this issue rather than you.