And then there were four

[ndebord]

Edwards and Giuliani drop out, so now we have Romney/McCain or Obama/Clinton as our big four in a runup to Super Tuesday.

Is everybody happy with this outcome?

[Judy G. Russell]

Edwards and Giuliani drop out, so now we have Romney/McCain or Obama/Clinton as our big four in a runup to Super Tuesday. Is everybody happy with this outcome?And if we say no, just what exactly are we supposed to do about it?

McCain: There's no way I could even think of voting for somebody in his 70s without knowing who his running mate would be and where that running mate stood on every issue. Bad enough to vote for Bush, but to think of Cheney being a heartbeat away from the presidency... <shudder>... Add to all of that the fact that he appears to be condemning us to staying in Iraq forever, and oh... taking on Iran on the side...

Romney: To be a Mormon, you have to believe five impossible things before breakfast. Every day. I'd rather have a realist in the White House. (I'd really rather have a secularist in the White House!)

Clinton: I don't like the idea of an Imperial (and Familial) Presidency. Bush Clinton Bush was bad enough. Bush Clinton Bush Clinton? Nope. Don't like it. Not to mention the glee I see in Republican eyes when they think about running against Billary...

Obama: I'd love to believe that this country is mature enough for a black President. But I don't believe it. I think the bigots would be out to get him, and not just in terms of defeating him at the polls. (I do remember Memphis. And Los Angeles. And Dallas...)

So where does that leave me? Squarely in the "undecided" camp.

[ktinkel]

Do you think the country is more resistant to a black president — one who is plainly solidly middle-class, well-spoken, and appealing — than to a woman? We are pretty weird about women.

I share some uneasiness about Clinton, but it is mostly about Bill; if she wins she had better make him ambassador to France or Italy, where he can dally to his heart’s content and leave our governance alone!

[Lindsey]

Do you think the country is more resistant to a black president — one who is plainly solidly middle-class, well-spoken, and appealing — than to a woman? We are pretty weird about women.

I think you have a good point there, and I think all of the hoopla over Sen. Clinton getting somewhat emotional (but without actual tears!) in New Hampshire when nothing at all was made over Romney's three tearful episodes is evidence of that.

My preferred candidate was Edwards, so I'm very sorry (but not terribly surprised) that he has dropped out. I'm not crazy about either Clinton or Obama, but of the two, I prefer Clinton. That has nothing to do with Obama's race, but my reservations about whether he is truly ready to go toe-to-toe with the Republican attack machine. (The same kinds of reservations that Paul Krugman has so clearly outlined in his columns.) I fear if he sincerely thinks he can just hold out his hand across the aisle and charm the reactionaries to death, he is dangerously deluded. (And if he had all this irresistable charm that would inevitably lead people into bipartisan agreement, why have we not seen the results of that since he was elected to the Senate?)

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

And if we say no, just what exactly are we supposed to do about it?

McCain: There's no way I could even think of voting for somebody in his 70s without knowing who his running mate would be and where that running mate stood on every issue. Bad enough to vote for Bush, but to think of Cheney being a heartbeat away from the presidency... <shudder>... Add to all of that the fact that he appears to be condemning us to staying in Iraq forever, and oh... taking on Iran on the side...

Romney: To be a Mormon, you have to believe five impossible things before breakfast. Every day. I'd rather have a realist in the White House. (I'd really rather have a secularist in the White House!)

Clinton: I don't like the idea of an Imperial (and Familial) Presidency. Bush Clinton Bush was bad enough. Bush Clinton Bush Clinton? Nope. Don't like it. Not to mention the glee I see in Republican eyes when they think about running against Billary...

Obama: I'd love to believe that this country is mature enough for a black President. But I don't believe it. I think the bigots would be out to get him, and not just in terms of defeating him at the polls. (I do remember Memphis. And Los Angeles. And Dallas...)

So where does that leave me? Squarely in the "undecided" camp.

Judy,

Undecided and indecisive and terribly afraid we have no good candidates. Obama's connections to the Chicago machine tarnish him imo. Clinton? (Bill 2?)

McCain, who can't tell the difference between a religion and a people (Islam and Muslims) with his frequent calls to fight Islamist fascism.

Romney? The silver spoon son of a Motown executive who happened to be a Governor too? And he is further right than McCain, if that is possible.

<SIGH>

[ndebord]

Do you think the country is more resistant to a black president — one who is plainly solidly middle-class, well-spoken, and appealing — than to a woman? We are pretty weird about women.

I share some uneasiness about Clinton, but it is mostly about Bill; if she wins she had better make him ambassador to France or Italy, where he can dally to his heart’s content and leave our governance alone!


Kathleen,

Or Ambassador to the UN, where he can sample the entire world and talk grandly like the windbag he can be on occasion.

[Judy G. Russell]

Do you think the country is more resistant to a black president — one who is plainly solidly middle-class, well-spoken, and appealing — than to a woman? We are pretty weird about women. Not a clue. I think it's problematic either way.

I share some uneasiness about Clinton, but it is mostly about Bill; if she wins she had better make him ambassador to France or Italy, where he can dally to his heart’s content and leave our governance alone!I wish in the debate last night when she was asked about Bill she had said something stronger along the lines of how she would keep him in his place...

[Judy G. Russell]

Undecided and indecisive and terribly afraid we have no good candidates....<SIGH>At least we've eliminated (I hope) some really awful candidates. Rudi Guiliani for example...

[Mike]

At least we've eliminated (I hope) some really awful candidates.
Unless they come back as veep candidates.

[Lindsey]

Rudi Guiliani for example...
Amen to that!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Unless they come back as veep candidates.
I don't think you have to worry about Giuliani coming back as VP. I think he is pretty clearly poison.

Huckabee is another story...

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

That is about where I stand.

Obama’s notion that we could have universal health care without requiring the young and healthy to participate is wrong-headed. And I do not believe anyone can collaborate with the insurance companies and persuade them to give up the lucrative gig they have now with Medicare — that is deluded or naive.

He is charming and a brilliant orator. But not ready yet, or something.

[ktinkel]

At least we've eliminated (I hope) some really awful candidates. Rudi Guiliani for example...Oh, amen!

I was shocked to read that people from the NYC area thought he was a good candidate — I had the opposite reaction. In fact, I could scarcely believe he had the chutzpah to run!

[Lindsey]

He is charming and a brilliant orator. But not ready yet, or something.
Yeah, well, -- frankly I don't find him to be so very charming or so very brilliant. I honestly cannot fathom why so many people are swooning over him.

I watch his face when Hillary Clinton is speaking during those debates, and he always either looks as if he is sucking on a lemon, or he is quite literally looking down his nose at her. That just doesn't strike me as charming.

As to brilliant -- well, certainly he's no slouch in the smarts department if he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, but he wouldn't have the health care plan he has if it hadn't been for John Edwards. (And as far as health care goes, it's pretty much the same for Hillary Clinton, whose plan is almost exactly the same as the one Edwards first came out with.) Obama speaks in vague generalities so much of the time that I have a hard time listening to him -- my mind wanders off, because he is so obviously not going anywhere. Hillary Clinton may always be trimming her sails to the prevailing wind, but I don't think anyone can deny that she has an impressive command of the issues.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

Interestingly, Ann Coulter prefers Hillary over John McCain (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/).

[Judy G. Russell]

Unless they come back as veep candidates.Some might. Huckabee is a real possibility for geographical and philosophical balance.

[Judy G. Russell]

I honestly cannot fathom why so many people are swooning over him.Because he's an educated, articulate Democrat who isn't an old face and, specifically, isn't a Clinton. A lot of people are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of an Imperial (or at least familial) Presidency. Many people think of it this way: Bush-Clinton-Bush, bad. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, worse. So far, Hillary hasn't done a good enough job of answering that concern.

[Lindsey]

Interestingly, Ann Coulter prefers Hillary over John McCain (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/).
Ann Coulter is just trying to mess with your mind.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Because he's an educated, articulate Democrat who isn't an old face and, specifically, isn't a Clinton.
Educated? Yes. So is Sen. Clinton.

Articulate? Yes. So is Sen. Clinton. (And in debates, I think she comes off as more articulate than Obama.

New? Yes, but I don't know that that is automatically a winning characteristic. "New" also means relatively untried.

Howard Dean was a new face in 2004. And he generated a lot of sizzle for that, but in the end it sizzled out. What happens to the Democratic Party if Obama has nothing but sizzle and his sizzle doesn't last, either?

To hear some of his supporters talk about him, you would think he was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and while I certainly think he is a decent candidate, I just do not see what all the hyperventilation is about. I can't see that he has had such a huge impact on the US Senate in the time he has been there. The subcommittee he chairs has never even met. Not once.

A lot of people are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of an Imperial (or at least familial) Presidency. Many people think of it this way: Bush-Clinton-Bush, bad. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, worse. So far, Hillary hasn't done a good enough job of answering that concern.
Well, gosh, what is she supposed to do, go into the witness protection program and assume a new identity? I thought her answer in the last debate that it had taken a Clinton to clean up after the last Bush, and maybe it would take a Clinton to clean up after this one was pretty good, and really about the only answer that can be given to that question.

I have some concern about that "all in the family" aspect to the presidency, too, and that's one reason that Hillary Clinton was not my first choice as a candidate, but it's certainly not enough for me to disqualify her altogether. Now that my first choice candidate is out of the running, of the two that are left, my preference goes to Hillary. I like her health care plan better, and she just strikes me as having a better overall command of policy. The wave of popularity that Obama is riding right now seems to me to be as much personality cult as anything else, and that makes me uncomfortable. That had a lot to do with the way we ended up with the president we currently have.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I have some concern about that "all in the family" aspect to the presidency, too, and that's one reason that Hillary Clinton was not my first choice as a candidate, but it's certainly not enough for me to disqualify her altogether.As between her and any Republican in this race, I not only agree but will toss money into her campaign pot. As between her and a competent Democrat, I can certainly choose the other option without concern.

[Lindsey]

As between her and any Republican in this race, I not only agree but will toss money into her campaign pot. As between her and a competent Democrat, I can certainly choose the other option without concern.
Well, sure, they are both decent candidates. I just am not certain that Obama is prepared to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans to try to repair the terrible damage this last administration has done to the government machinery and to the Constitution, if he wins the Oval Office, as I think he is going to need to do. Being nice just ain't going to cut it with the bitter-enders, and as long as there are 40 Republicans left in the Senate, there will be bitter-end fights.

Also, I am concerned that his health care plan is going to end up torpedoing any chance of getting universal health care in this country for possible another 15 years. Krugman had an analysis of this in his column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?hp) today:

[A new paper by Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists] finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

<snip>

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I just am not certain that Obama is prepared to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans to try to repair the terrible damage this last administration has done to the government machinery and to the Constitution, if he wins the Oval Office, as I think he is going to need to do.Nobody is ever sure what a President is going to do until he (or she) takes office. It's always a crap shoot. And to the extent that someone may say, "Well, we know what Hillary will do because we know what Bill did," then I respectfully suggest that that is precisely what people are concerned about: that she is not her own candidate at all.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

Nobody is ever sure what a President is going to do until he (or she) takes office. It's always a crap shoot.
While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the man.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."

[Judy G. Russell]

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."ROFL! Yep, that's it for sure!

[earler]

The netherlands switched from a government managed social security to one in which everyone is obliged to buy insurance. The companies may not refuse anyone and tariffs are the same for everyone. It has saved the government about 20% in costs, too, since the taxpayers may deduct the insurance cost. Of course, there is a saftey net for the really poor.

[Lindsey]

And to the extent that someone may say, "Well, we know what Hillary will do because we know what Bill did," then I respectfully suggest that that is precisely what people are concerned about: that she is not her own candidate at all.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that we better know what Hillary will do because we know what Hillary has done, in the Senate and before. And we can see from this campaign that she absolutely is a fighter, that she has a commanding grasp of the issues, and that she thinks on her feet. I don't think the case on that score for Obama is as strong.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The netherlands switched from a government managed social security to one in which everyone is obliged to buy insurance. The companies may not refuse anyone and tariffs are the same for everyone. It has saved the government about 20% in costs, too, since the taxpayers may deduct the insurance cost. Of course, there is a saftey net for the really poor.
So you are saying that mandates are workable, yes?

--Lindsey

[earler]

Well the mandates work in the netherlands. If you are told: Spend x dollars for insurance or give it to the government, the motivation is clear. Bear in mind that bush sr. presented a similar plan during his administration.

The dutch government did its sums. The mandatory insurance system costs the government 40% less than a national health coverage with all the bureaucracy and inefficiencies that entails.

I should add that the netherlands has one of the best social service systems in the world. It is also interesting to note that while average height has stagnated, even fallen a bit, in the usa, it continues to increase in the netherlands, where the average height is a few inches more than in the usa. (This includes the large indonesian immigrant population, by the way.)

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't think the case on that score for Obama is as strong.Then don't vote for him. But you, and Democrats generally, better not delude themselves that Hillary is even close to invulnerable to McCain. The things you point out (what she did before her Senate career in particular) are things the GOP will capitalize on. And I doubt anyone can polarize this election more than she can.

[Lindsey]

Bear in mind that bush sr. presented a similar plan during his administration.
What? When? I have no recollection of that whatsoever. If he did, why didn't the right wing attack him for that as well as for raising taxes to try to balance the budget.

The dutch government did its sums. The mandatory insurance system costs the government 40% less than a national health coverage with all the bureaucracy and inefficiencies that entails.
Well, Paul Krugman makes a convincing case that a single payer system is far more efficient than what we currently have here in the US (in no small part because when you cover everyone, you don't have to spend resources trying to screen people out), but single payer is just not in the political cards for the US at present. It's going to be a hard enough fight getting universal coverage.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Then don't vote for him.
I don't plan to, not in the primaries, anyway. But I surely have the right to try to make that case to others?

But you, and Democrats generally, better not delude themselves that Hillary is even close to invulnerable to McCain.
I don't delude myself that anyone is invulnerable to the right-wing attack machine. And that includes Barack Obama.

And I doubt anyone can polarize this election more than she can.
I confess, I am weary of the Clintons being characterized as polarizing because the right wing and pundits like Maureen Dowd insist on demonizing them. The way that I and a lot of other people react to that demonization is that the more they are unfairly trashed, the more we feel compelled to support them.

--Lindsey

[earler]

The bush sr. administration floated the idea but there was no chance to get it through that session of congress. Then he lost in 1992.

Ah, single payer! Sure, lovely theory, but what happens in real life is governments run out of money and cut back, and there is also the question of rationing services. So, here in france, you know the country that michael moore said has the best health coverage in the word, people have been obliged to pay for a supplemental policy (unless their employer offers this as a perk) in order to cover their expenses. Same thing is true in britain, by the way. Now, michael moore says france is single payer. But it ain't the first untruth he has spouted. Paul krugman is another spouter. He seems to think he is the font of all knowledge. Alas, he is not.

The dutch had a single payer system, as I pointed out in an earlier message, but found it was more economical to turn to mandatory insurance, and the cost savings to the government (and the taxpayers!) confirmed this. All this obvious because it so well known that governments don't run businesses very well and should stay out when possible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying government should be reduced to being a traffic warden. But, in may areas it is less expensive for it to exercise oversight rather than management.

[Judy G. Russell]

I confess, I am weary of the Clintons being characterized as polarizing because the right wing and pundits like Maureen Dowd insist on demonizing them. The way that I and a lot of other people react to that demonization is that the more they are unfairly trashed, the more we feel compelled to support them.This is one of those "it doesn't matter why it's true" things. It doesn't matter whether she deserves (or they deserve) it: it's happening, and indeed it's been happening for 15 years. And if what's happening ends up (a) driving voters into the McCain camp or even (b) keeping voters away from the polls, it will be Bad News in November. I care a whole lot more about that than I do whether the Clintons are being treated fairly or unfairly...

[Lindsey]

It matters to me. Bill Clinton's presidency was from the beginning hobbled by demonization from the right wing that was livid that an upstart Democrat had dared to claim the presidency that they saw as theirs by right. And now he's being demonized by the Obama camp for not accomplishing miracles in the face of a hurricane wind of vitriol.

I'm tired of it, and I want someone who will fight it. I think Hillary Clinton will do that; Obama has already said that he will not. He wants to "get along" with them. As if the Republican Party has been willing to "get along" with Democrats for the last 30 years in anything short of complete capitulation on the part of Democrats. He would be eaten alive. Either that, or it would be like having Joe Lieberman as president.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm tired of it, and I want someone who will fight it. I think Hillary Clinton will do thatI think she'll "fight it" just as effectively as Bill fought the impeachment vote in the House...