Backing Obama into a Corner

I have been asked by two people today about Paul Krugman and why he is continuing to attack Barack Obama. I don't want to get into the details of the accusations, there's been enough on that, but I do want to offer an explanation by making a couple of points about the strategy.

First, Paul Krugman has been researching and writing about health care for a long time and he cares deeply about health care reform. It's one of the issues that has dominated his column for a long, long time. He sees an opportunity like we have never had before to make fundamental changes to the system that will increase its availability, help to control costs, and so on, and he does not want to see that opportunity lost.

One way to respond to worries that Obama won't push hard enough for health care reform if he is elected is to force him to take strong positions now, to bait him into promising that he will in fact pursue this issue. You say, if you are someone people listen to, something like "I don't think Obama is very serious about health care reform." When he or his spokespeople respond that he is too serious, he cares as much as Hillary or anyone else, just you wait and see, you have forced him into a position that will be much harder to back down from in the future. And that is the point. Make him clarify his position now, then hold him to it (and stop him from saying things that will make it harder to pursue reform when the time comes).

Second, it's important to think about who the audience is for his columns. Most people who read Krugman don't do it at the NY Times website, and they don't read every column, follow his blog, read his books, and so on. Not even close. If you aren't an economist or a political junkie, you may not even know who he is (my parents don't have a clue - they get Krugman mixed up with Kagan which is funny, not ha ha funny though). Most people read the morning paper and if the column is there, they (may) read it. If not, they never see it. He has indirect influence on the political dialogue, and that may affect what they hear, but his direct line to them relies upon his column being syndicated, then read.

My local paper does not print every column. I have no idea how many they print (1 out of 5?), but it's probably less than you think. So the syndication audience reads far less of what Krugman writes than most of us. Thus, you'll see him repeat the Bush quote “I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.” in many columns, I think it even appeared in consecutive columns. If you read everything he writes, it might seem repetitive and naggish, but that's because you are not a typical reader. The typical reader - even with all the repetition - may not see it at all. So when it appears that he is going after something or someone in column after column, doggedly pursuing an issue, when he is being shrill so that his voice stands above the rest and catches people's attention, I think it's important to interpret it in this light.

Comments

[Bupa]

Still, for those of us who read every column he writes it is tiresome. It is also disappointing that we are deprived of other interesting things he could be writing about. It's an opportunity cost.

Luckily, we have his website which is not so relentlessly single-minded.

[save_the_rustbelt]

If the Democrats self destruct President McCain will not push forward a health care agenda Krugman likes.

Krugman may soon have to accept a candidate he doesn't like so well.

And by the way, among people who really know something about healthcare, Krugman's name rarely comes up.

[2slugbaits]

Mark,

A few months ago Krugman's criticisms of Obama's plan were constructive, but lately he's moved beyond that. I support Obama, but I also agree that Obama's healthcare plan has some holes in it. But the way Krugman has criticized Obama's plan is counterproductive. Hillary's plan, while better, will never get off the ground. If Krugman does not understand that political reality, then I guess we're miles apart. Hillary's healthcare plan will be dead on arrival before it ever gets to the Congress. Obama is both more likely to win in November and to bring along a large enough Democratic majority that we might actually get decent healthcare. The problem is that Krugman's harping criticisms are now counterproductive because they are likely to cause the Obama campaign to harden its position and become evermore evasive. That's exactly he wrong strategy. Instead of making it harder to adjust his healthcare plan, Krugman's tactics will end up having exactly the opposite effect. Krugman is a great economist, but politically he has a tin ear. If Krugman were really interested in making healthcare a reality then he shouldn't be going about it this way. Now Krugman is a smart guy, so presumably he knows this. And that gets to the nagging suspicion that many of us have that Krugman's hidden agenda is more personal than he is letting on. We all remember how bitter he was after the 1992 election when he was passed over in favor of his rivals Laura Tison and Robert Reich.

[Zero]

Mr. Thoma - thanks for your explanation. It explains part of the game columnists play.

[Marcello]

>We all remember how bitter he was after the 1992
>election when he was passed over in favor of his
>rivals Laura Tison and Robert Reich.

more loathsome and unnecessary ad hominem attacks.

Anyone who thinks a political neophyte has a better chance of getting his health-care plan through rather than Clinton's, or Edwards, is dreaming in technicolour. (yes, that is a 'u' in colour. I am a Canadian who doesn't care who wins). His plan, such as it is, is _marginally_ more 'business palatable' than Clinton's, but is still way waY WAY more socialistic than his enemies can stand, so they will battle it //just as hard// as the Clinton plan. It makes much more sense to push the best plan the Dems got, since the small differences between the Dem candidates' plans won't mean a rat's ass to the forces lined up against them.

and recall, that those plans are ALREADY dumbed down in attempt to appease powerful business interests. and what has that got them so far ?
Eh ? (had to throw that in)

That is ALL that Krugman is saying. it really is amazing how political mania/myopia prevents even people who //mostly agree// with each other from seeing what is clearly in front of them.

[btg]

i would think that more people read him in the print version of the times, or on their website, than via syndication.

perhaps the reason why many papers will only run 1 in 5 of his columns is BECAUSE he is so repetitive. like marcello, i am canadian, and the Toronto Star will occasionally publish a column of his when it isn't strictly of interest to American audience, which is true of almost everything he writes on health care.

The thing is, here we are, supposedly in the middle of an economic meltdown, and he keeps repeating himslef - why not go into other items in the platforms of the remaining candidates, in both parties, or talk about broader economic issues.

[robertdfeinman]

I must be in an especially pessimistic phase in my life currently, because I don't see much reason for people in either Democratic camp to be hopeful.

What is being argued over are fine points in a health plan that is wrong from the start. What is needed, and what everyone who understands the issue really wants, is universal health care, not universal health insurance. This isn't on the table because both candidates realize the the for-profit forces in the health industry will never permit it. Even if one of the candidates was to come out with such a plan the influence of the health industry in congress is strong enough to prevent adoption (or even consideration).

I base my negative opinion on several historical precedents. The most telling is that more than 50 years after the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of tobacco was released these products are still being sold in the US. Then there is the snake oil (sorry, herbal supplements) market where the FDA was enjoined from testing them for efficacy. There has only been one case where a profitable product was taken off the market and that was during Prohibition. The economic forces reversed that with the support of a large part of the population.

So, whichever candidate wins the nomination, and assuming he or she gets elected, the chances of real reform in a broken health care system are slim. People have been staring at the minutia of this problem too long and are missing the big picture. Edwards was willing to do battle with the industry. He may have been naive or unrealistic, but at least he was willing to point the finger of blame. The current pair are not looking beyond incremental tweaks.

Is this just a realistic take on the political landscape or are both of them too beholding to vested interests to push for comprehensive change?

I don't think that boxing a candidate in will carry any weight once that person is in office. Elected officials can always find unforeseen conditions which give them a license to break campaign promises.

[glory]

i know you like krugman and all -- which is fine, i do as well -- but at what point to you become a krugman apologist (i.e. complicit in his axe grinding)?

[esb]

We are within twenty-four hours of the knockout punch to the Clinton campaign.

What we are witnessing is a social tsunami of epic dimension reaching its critical mass, ready to arrive at the shore and sweep away whatever oppposes it, starting with the Clinton "machine."

This wave has its foundations in raw emotion and not in policy, and I doubt that the Krugman policy criticisms matter even to the extent of a scintilla.

The beauty of this drama is that when the American "man on a white horse" finally arrived, he was (part) black.

Life imitating art ...

[Economists for Obama]

I now read every Krugman with the expectation that he's going to toss in a gratuitous dig at Obama. Today it reached new heights of weirdness, with his accusations of "venom" and a "cult of personality" among unnamed Obama supporters. My guess is that after having to worry professionally about the Bush administration for the last 8 years, he's just lost a bit of perspective.

[RW]

"unnamed Obama supporters"

Hardly, we have "Economists for Obama," "esb," and "glory" one, two, three right here.

Being stuffed in a pigeonhole feel uncomfortable? Stop doing it to others then.

[James]

Just as Nixon fatigue drove the nation to turn to a relatively unknown politician in Jimmy Carter, so Bush fatigue is going to drive the electorate to select Obama (this is not to imply he will be a president like Carter).

If the democrats select Clinton to run, it will be a blessing for McCain who will sweep the independent voters, which is where Obama dominates Hillary.

And in the worst case, if the Democrats have a 'brokered convention' and the choice is seen to have been made for Hillary by the super-delegates, McCain may as well start moving in.

That's the reality. Krugman can critique Obama's positions all he wants. But the kind of sniping he refers to is pure Clinton hardball politics, and its what this country is sick to death of.

No wonder that the maverick McCain was chosen by the Republicans over the establishment candidate, Romeny, and his backups Guiliani and Thompson who never got off the bench.

Krugman is showing the side of the academy that makes it a bit player in the realm of politics; petty, short sighted, spiteful, vain, self-obsessing, and the sheer antithesis of inspiring. This is old news to anyone who has ever seen university department politics in action, and the consolation is the things they fight about mean relatively so little to the world at large, for which we thank God indeed.

[calmo]

One (James for sure, but I can rethink him out of it, you?) would think that Clinton was the incumbent, with all that "hardball politics":That's the reality. Krugman can critique Obama's positions all he wants. But the kind of sniping he refers to is pure Clinton hardball politics, and its what this country is sick to death of.Or was that a deliberate slide from the BushCo "hardball politics,...what this country is sick to death of"?
We already saw the wisdom of the Repubs machine (Holly's note about Reagan's "speak no ill of your (so sensitive) Repub colleagues" and how it did not slow GWB from downing MarbleMouth) which is all cheering inside and all smearing outside...and that miserable participation rate as independents, not susceptible to beauty contests orchestrated by the media, just can't vote for these clowns.
You wanna make a dent in PK? Let's see some thoughtfulness and argumentation...noodling...performance between the ears and not the cheering leading or smearing.

[Joey]

Does anyone have any thoughts about why the big time lefty econobloggers (Thoma, DeLong, Krugman) are generally more derisive than the righties (say Mankiw, Cowen, Becker)?

The lefties also seem to post more often on political issues? Does anyone else feel this way, or am I off my rocker?

[RW]

You're off your rocker Joey but someone is sure to be just as loony and will agree with you and then you'll feel better.

[lonesome moderate]

A quick check of the NYT website suggests another possible reason--that Krugman knows his audience and is interested in pleasing them. Yesterday's column is still listed as #1 in popularity there, 26 hours after it was published. His columns are usually popular, of course, but not this popular; if this wasn't his biggest hit ever, it must be close. That doesn't mean it wasn't crap, but hey it's got a great hook and a killer backbeat, you can dance to it and sing along with the chorus.

If PK would rather have millions of people saying that his column was crap than not have them say anything at all, then I guess he must be a capitalist.

[anon/portly]

"...when [PK] is being shrill so that his voice stands above the rest and catches people's attention..."

I would actually disagree with MT on this; I find it hard to believe PK consciously alters his style to achieve this effect. (Then again, mabye he has said to MT something different). I think he just expresses his criticisms in an unusually relentless, self-assured fashion.

If you have sympathy, any, with the target of his criticism, it can seem over the top. I recently re-read some of his early columns on Bush's economic policies from the early years, and they certainly seemed to have a much higher style-to-content ratio back then than they do now.

I don't think Obama supporters can really complain; all they can do is wait and see whether Krugman's insights prove true or theirs do.

What I'd love to ask MT is not how PK can criticize BO but how can he write that "Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say ... was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws" without some slight miniscule tiny nod in the direction of his colleague Maureen Dowd? I'm just curious as to whether he a) knows and/or b) cares and/or c) can professionally even allow himself to know or care that he writes alongside the phenomenon's most heroic figure. (Or is Dowd not that person? I thought she was).

[acerimusdux]

I'm not buying it. If Krugman were that concerned about pushing Obama on health care, he'd stick to criticizing him on health care. The first column or two I defended him, even if I thought he was exaggerating the differences quite a bit, because that's what I thought he was concerned with.

But instead he's now adding on a bunch of other petty criticisms that have even less substance, and don't touch on the health care debate at all. Even on the health care issue, lets be real. Obama's plan is very similar to Hillary's. The only real difference is in mandates.

The best estimates seem to suggest this difference will impact about 3%-4% of the country, if Obama uses an opt-out instead of a mandate. That is, an opt-out, with the heavy subsidies in the type of plan Obama proposes, gets about 80% of the uninsured covered. The mandate covers more, about 95% of the uninsured, but still doesn't get to 100%.

Krugman was very misleading on his blog when he claimed that a Gruber study of a plan with no mandates was of a plan "broadly similar" to Obamas. It just wasn't a similar plan. Obama's plan includes both employer mandates and mandates coverage for children, and Gruber himself estimates it gets to about 95% coverage.

Finally, the 3%-4% who don't want health coverage even if it's affordable, are generally healthy people who don't need or want much health care. This is why it doesn't cost much more to cover them, they won't go to the doctor even if they are covered.

[anne]

Paul Krugman is a columnist of astonishing penetration and courage, and has been so from the beginning. The carefully considered criticisms of a number of Barack Obama's policies and of tactics used by the campaign have been incisive and completely warranted, and I could not be more thankful.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

February 1, 2008

Obama Does Harry and Louise, Again
By Paul Krugman

The Obama campaign sends out an ugly mailer. * Sorry, but this is just destructive — like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don't buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed.

"Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?"

* http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/More_negative_mail.html

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/more-obama-ugliness-on-health-care/

February 5, 2008

More Obama Ugliness On Health Care
By Paul Krugman

I really, really wish he would stop this: *

"Obama likened Clinton's health care mandate proposal to eliminating homelessness by requiring everyone buy a house."

The Clinton plan does every bit as much to ensure affordability as the Obama plan. This is just grotesque.

* http://thepage.time.com/super-tuesdays-morning-shows/

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/more-obama-ugliness-on-health-care/

February 5, 2008

More Obama Ugliness On Health Care
By Paul Krugman

I really, really wish he would stop this: *

"Obama likened Clinton's health care mandate proposal to eliminating homelessness by requiring everyone buy a house."

The Clinton plan does every bit as much to ensure affordability as the Obama plan. This is just grotesque.

* http://thepage.time.com/super-tuesdays-morning-shows/

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

February 1, 2008

Obama Does Harry and Louise, Again *
By Paul Krugman

Ezra Klein ** adds a screenshot of the original Harry and Louise ad — they’ve obviously deliberately copied it. Just to remind everyone, Harry and Louise were the center of the vile smear campaign the insurance lobby waged against health care reform in 1993 — and this time a Democratic candidate is doing the smearing for them.

Ezra also points *** us to an Urban Institute study that shows that yes, mandates are essential. The key passage:

"Voluntary measures would tend to enroll disproportionate numbers of individuals with higher cost health problems, creating high premiums and instability in the insurance pools in which they are enrolled."

I know that Obama supporters want to hear no evil, but this is really, really bad.

"Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?"

* http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/More_negative_mail.html

** http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=health_care_debate_mandates_as

*** http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=do_individual_mandates_matter

[ken]

Obama has run an intentially divisive campaign to divide the democratic party.

He has demeaned the battles liberals have fought in the past. But it was these battles that made it possible for him to run for president in the first place. He has been the beneficiary of those politics and now seems to think that with his rise to power all that is no longer needed and that we can now just leave those still behind, behind.

I will never agree with Obama and I will never, under any circumstances, support him.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Read Krugman's blog today.

He is losing it. He is sitting in his office in a tin foil helmet.

Per the Professor, there is a vast media conspiracy to bring down the Clinton's, including criticisms of Hillary's pants suits or something.

Wow. Krugman should stick to economics.

Nanu Nanu. Mork calling Ork.

[save_the_rustbelt]

From KRugman's blog:

"Add: If you want to see what playing the race card looks like, watch the Willie Horton ad. What do we have here? MLK/LBJ — but that was totally innocent. Jesse Jackson — a stupid way to spin a big loss, but hardly part of a coordinated campaign. Cocaine — stupid and crass, but only race-based if you want to see it that way. Pretty thin gruel.

Folks, you’ve been played like a fiddle by people in the media who just plain hate the Clintons. They tried to take Hillary down over her clothes, her voice, her tears. When none of that worked, they invented a race war.

There are some perfectly good arguments against Hillary — Iraq, the presence of people like Mark Penn, the big-money Dems in her circle. But this really is Al-Gore-says-he-invented-the-Internet stuff. And it’s deeply depressing to see so many progressives fall for it."

[paine]

mark
i agree
paul is exemplary on health system economics
and obama well
the cobra hasn't exactly come out of the basket yet
but ....

i might point out
mandate demogogics
oughta have a certain youth appeal
after all as cohorts they are expected
to pay in more
then they will draw out
wider coverage also can mean
more health dollars in the pipe line
given a supply as inelastic
as my 60 year old desk lilly
tendons ....

[paine]

pk
mind set

chivalry rhymes with hillary

[paine]

"We all remember how bitter he was after the 1992 election when he was passed over in favor of his rivals Laura Tison and Robert Reich."

are u being ironic here ???

mark has it right

paul is just being paul

the people's republic of paul speaks

when at full charge
the krug-horns can hook dem as well as rep

[paine]

"What we are witnessing is a social tsunami of epic dimension reaching its critical mass, ready to arrive at the shore and sweep away whatever oppposes it, starting with the Clinton "machine."

god i sure hope so
the polboards at thecenter of national jackassery ned and deserve a brutal rip tiding
bing bang gore drowning

to me the clintons stand for two generations
of total donkeycrat failure
to think the lbj era 64-65
was the lone last ranger
of the new deal
since then
its all been
mince meat and identity

[James Kroeger]

Here's a little comment I made on this topic on the Dailykos blog yesterday:Congratualtions! You've managed to convince me that Krugman is largely right. Your shrill attack on the man seems to validate everything he was saying. And I want you to know that I am an Obama supporter who has been growing steadily more hopeful for the prospects of an Obama presidency ever since John Edwards quit.

The first thing you'll want to note is that Paul Krugman did not criticize Barack Obama; he criticized those overly passionate Obama supporters (like yourself) who are very reckless in your tendencey to demonize in your minds any who criticize various elements of the Obama campaign, including many of BO's stated positions on the issues.

Look, the man is not perfect. Criticism is a good thing for those who are able to calmly listen, like Barack Obama does. Know this...while in your mind you think you are defending BO from his enemies, you are actually doing the opposite of what Barack wants you to do.

Anyone who has listened to PK's comments over the past year could tell that his favorite candidate was John Edwards. He does not hate Obama but he understandably hopes that he might be able to influence Barack's position on economic issues. (I happen to agree with Obama's opposition to mandates, but only because I want to see Medicaid for all, period.)

Paul Krugman is the best friend the Democrats have ever had within the economics profession (at least going back to John Kenneth Galbraith). He has an honest difference of opinion with Barack Obama on an economic policy discussion. He is not trying to get Hillary Clinton elected (although I do think that he has found your mindless knee-jerk demonization instinct to be rather annoying...indeed, the hysterical response of Obama supporters is what inspired him to write about it ONE MORE TIME).

My advice: Have some faith in the man (Barack); he can easily surmount these disputes that Democrats have amongst themselves. He really does have this thing in the bag. You can be much more gracious from now on...

[lonesome moderate]

ken:Obama has run an intentially divisive campaign to divide the democratic party.

He has demeaned the battles liberals have fought in the past.

Ken - what has Obama said that you interpret as "demeaning the battles liberals have fought in the past"?

[paine]

james k

you be a statesman

nice repost or is it reposte or is it ...re-kos-ed

[billyblog]

Perhaps one of the reasons Paul Krugman is "repetitive" about issues such as health care insurance reform is that he senses that even some of his professional colleagues still don't get it about what he has been arguing in terms of the superiority of the Clinton plan, with individual mandates, over the Obama plan, without such mandates, specifically for the 19 to Health Debate Reality Check: The Role of Individual Requirements, by Len Nichols, New America Foundation, Jonathan Gruber, MIT, and Mark V. Pauly, University of Pennsylvania, December 6, 2007.

A relevant quote for present purposes from the above is as follows:

"Recent estimates [by Gruber et al using über-wonky econometric models, i.e., not working from handouts from the marketing types at either of the campaigns or from the analytically frictionless declamations of soi-disant health care economics geniuses in the blogosphere] suggest that a plan with uniform generous subsidies but without a mandate [and by this they mean individual mandates for the otherwise uninsured] would cover no more than one-half of the uninsured in the U.S. Even with other cost-saving measures and a child mandate [as provided for in the Obama plan], we think that it is very likely [a polite euphemism for: "Hey dude, you got a better model?"] that at least 15 million Americans would remain uninsured."

Hmm. That would be 15 million uninsured, out of an estimated current 47 million uninsured in the U.S. (I take it that we don't have to detour into Mankiw-like fatuousness about this being a grossly over-inflated number.) The Clinton plan, by comparison and using the same modeling methodology, would have an expected outcome of reaching at least 45 of those 47 million.

We'll come back in a moment to why we have other reasons to worry about the fact that a net 13 million difference, under the best of circumstances, between the Obama and Clinton plans might be just the tip of the iceberg of some more fundamental objections to the Obama plan.

But let's turn our attention for the moment to acerimusdux's way of doing math – and way of representing to a third party audience (the members of this blog) the views of someone (Gruber) whom acerimusdux's intellectual adversary (Paul Krugman) has used to support his own argument. And, oh yes, acerimusdux has done so without having the courtesy, energy (?), or, dare I suggest, intellectual probity to provide a link to the appropriate documentation, i.e., what Jonathan Gruber himself has said and has intended to say.

That's right, acerimusdux: 15 million is 95% of a U.S. population of 300 million. So you can be proud of your fourth grade math ability to use 15 as the numerator and 300 as the denominator, and come up with 95%.

But look us in the eye, acerimusdux, and tell us, especially those of us who have a low tolerance for sophistry and disingenuousness, that you don't think that Jonathan Gruber would be aghast at the way you rhetorically recontextualized the point he was making, and in the process, ablate, of course, any focus on the overall context and policy points he was trying to make?

I'll leave you to struggle with your conscience on that one, and turn now to why the lack of individual mandates in Obama's plan will arguably have negative consequences far beyond a possible best case difference of 13 million uninsureds between the Clinton and Obama plans in terms of the goal of universal coverage.

I'll be brief and synoptic (for me at least!), because Krugman and others have argued this point over and over again, and I have yet to see how anyone has seriously engaged their arguments on the matter, as distinguished from attempting to dismiss them because they have, in the eyes of the dismisser at any rate, the "thick ankles" of being "repetitive," "too wonky" "shrill," and other such irrelevant tripe that anyone of us here would tell our sons and daughters is not a principled reason for avoiding in engaging an argument on its merits.

Thus, Krugman and others are concerned that, with his "no mandates" pledge for the 19 to Desperate Housewives and football banishing C-SPAN cameras – his health care insurance reform plan.

By the way, since you, acerimusdux, say that initially you "defended" Krugman in his criticisms of Obama's health care plan, I will assume you do not especially need links to what I am about to say about Krugman's criticisms, and those of other likeminded people, of the logic of Obama's plan in its intended implementation stage. But if your memory has failed you at any point, let me know and I'll be glad to help you refresh it with documentation which you surely had at one time, but which may now have migrated to and out of your Recycle bin.

1. The Private Health Insurance Industry (PHII) will be able to force a trade off -- not just, but especially, in front of the C-SPAN cameras at the Big Table -- between no mandates and adverse selection. That is, to the extent that Obama sticks with his campaign pledge of no mandates, he will be forced to dilute adverse selection (i.e., community-based rating) in the PHII plans. "No mandates" and "adverse selection and community-based rating" are two desiderata which are in inverse relation to one another, at least as far as any elementary textbook on Health Care Insurance Economics is concerned.

Subpoints, in dialogue form:

PHII: President Obama, can you really see yourself running for reelection in 2012 on a platform, as contextualized by the friendly Republicans, saying: "You read his lips in 2008 when he said 'No Mandates!' And now you have them! And, hey, we have a few anecdotal horror stories here from the now grown children of Harry and Louise, you know, the ones President Obama used in his campaign against Senator Clinton back in 2008, to tell you why this was a bad idea."

2. The principal pernicious short term effect of the dilution to adverse selection will be to compromise community based rating through the politically forced mechanism of dumping a disproportionate number of the economically tough cases into the public option. And/or into an "off balance sheet" government financed reinsurance program which will fool no one, especially those with an interest in pointing out how miserably "inefficient" Big Government is in meeting our needs – especially for health care insurance.

KRUGMAN: But PHII cherry picked, they cherry picked, they cherry picked ….

ACERIMUSDUX: Oh Paul, stop being so shrill and repetitive.

3. The long term effect will be to undermine the intent of the public option as a stalking horse for an eventual single payer system.

And, yes acerimusdux, I am a "shrill" advocate for an eventual single payer system, and am quite willing to argue that today's proposed health care insurance programs should be measured in a paramount fashion against their anticipated ability to lead us towards, rather than away from, the Holy Grail of single payer.

How about you?

I can't believe you, as a previous "defender" of Krugman, are one of the single payer fanatics around the blogosphere who can be seen arguing that one of the best reasons for supporting Obama is that his health care insurance plan is bound to be hijacked by PHII and turned into such a mess – after a generation or so of stupefying inefficiencies and degraded quality, of course – that even the general public will finally get wonky enough to clamor successfully for single payer system.

Why am I an advocate for an eventual single payer system? Well, in addition to being a bleeding heart liberal who thinks it unconscionable that "only" 5% of the U.S. population will be left out of insurance coverage by an Obama plan (if we're lucky), I also have a substantial body of economic and otherwise evidence-based reasons for saying that a single payer system completely dominates, in terms of economic efficiency, over any non-single payer system – i.e., any non-single payer system which achieves, at least asymptotically, universal coverage.

Single payer even dominates in terms of overall quality measures, as we know from the experience of other countries with these systems, and, oh yes, as we know from that small pilot project we've been running here in the U.S. of A. for the past 40 odd years, the one known as Medicare. Adjusting, of course, for the economic and political depredations which constitute PHII driven Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage programs.

If you don't agree and need the links to help you understand some of these basic principles of Health Care Economics 101 which Krugman has been "shrilly harping" about, I'll gladly send them. Hint: they're available with the simplest of Google searches.

By the way, while we are on the subject of links, acerimusdux, do you think you might break form and send me a link which supports your claim:

"Finally, the 3%-4% who don't want health coverage even if it's affordable, are generally healthy people who don't need or want much health care. This is why it doesn't cost much more to cover them, they won't go to the doctor even if they are covered."

Pardon me for suspecting that you can't quite fit the Mack truck you're want to drive between the gap you've pried open here rhetorically with your "generally" -- but only rhetorically.

Special request: don't bother sending me intuitively based arguments about this matter, such as were somewhat embarrassingly presented by the otherwise bien pensant Dean Baker (plus the links therein) in his recent exchanges with Krugman over this issue.

Just the – econometric – facts, bro. Leave the gut instincts to the Bushies and other non-analytic types:

"Econometrics? We don't need no stinkin' econometric analysis."

There are one or two other things you said in your post that I am not in, well, 100% agreement with. But this will do for now.

[anne]

Repeatedly Barack Obama has taken stances on critical policy matters that are troubling, but because of the immediate attacks by Obama supporters at the least criticism the stances are never modified or even re-considered and explained.

I am still waiting on protecting Social Security. Waiting on explaining both a problematic health care policy and dermeaning deceiving attacks on Hillary Clinton for proposing an alternative policy. Waiting to understand why we will add 100,000 soldiers to our military if Obama becomes President. Waiting to learn of plan for leaving Iraq. Waiting to learn of plans for policy in Afghanistan and to Pakistan.

[anne]

Billyblog:

Looking to the Obama plan:

"Hmm. That would be 15 million uninsured, out of an estimated current 47 million uninsured in the US.... The Clinton plan, by comparison and using the same modeling methodology, would have an expected outcome of reaching at least 45 of those 47 million."

[anne]

"The lefties also seem to post more often on political issues? Does anyone else feel this way, or am I off my rocker?"

Simply notice the language and understand the political denegration and deception. Why do righties post on classical music? Why do righties makes better catchers? How do righties use spinach in salads, and why ruin a fine salad with spinach anyway?

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

I continue to agree that Hillarycare with its mandates beats plans with no mandates. However, unfortunately, no current candidate is doing what John Kerry did in 2004 on social security, which is to defend the current system as it is. Hillary supports having a bipartisan commission make recommendations and then following them. I do not trust a bipartisan commission on social security farther than I can avert my eyes.

[hari]

It is ridiculous how a social policy question can so easily become a rallying cry - among these intelligent crowd! - for name-calling and whatnots.

I'm sure no referee can resolve your prediliction right now, as the contest heats up, and OB makes his way up the totem pole.

But the crux of the matter is (1) rising cost of health care (2) lack of insurance for +40 million (3) a federal system which don't seem to understand how they got into this prediliction with health care system.

Mark is right in informing (for those who have not read PKs output long before he became a so-called media pundit) about PKs preoccupation with healthcare economics. In other words, he's not inventing arguments for sake of argument.

In EU, we've succeeded in resolving the social insurance and healthcare problem by pursuing a single-payer-system.
It's not only cost effective but (also) demands all citizens are covered - ie. mandated!

US made its mistakes based on false economies and by using the ideological broom to stick it in the eyes of those who called for "universal healthcare". That problem - thank God! - is now overcome. Or, is it?

There's no good economic alternative(s) to a single-payer-system.
If OB wants to get it thru by reaching out to GOP side and seeking a consensus - I'm afraid he's not studied the ideological content of GOP policy stand.

So, be glad that the damn thing will finally be upfront on the national platform of Demos come Nov election. GOP or no GOP support, the policy change is long overdue, and, I suspect, it'll finally be approved and become law of the land.

[Bruce Webb]

Barkley perhaps I misheard Hillary but I did not come away with the notion that she was proposing a bi-partisan commission focusing narrowly on Social Security but rather on one that would look at both Social Security and the General Fund in comparable context and identify where the real problems lie. There would be a great deal of difference between a Bi-Partisan Social Security Commission (open as you note to shenanigans) as compared to a Bi-Partisan Unified Deficit Commission which is realistically what I (and I dare say you) have been pushing all along.

Once the rhetoric is brushed aside and the actual numbers are laid out in black and white Social Security 'Crisis' melts away. I know that and you know that and increasingly readers of the Econoblogs know that because over the last four years an initially small handful of people have laid out and pointed to those numbers to the point that even the trolls have snuck away. The main difference between the state of argumentation between 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 is that opponents of Social Security formerly rather smugly assumed that someone else had done their due diligence and homework on the numbers only to find out that those who knew the numbers and opposed Social Security anyway were practicing various varieties of bait and switch.

So even if there is some sort of narrow Social Security Commission I am not afraid, I'll just throw Rosser's Equation in to clear the room and follow it up with the Low Cost Alternative. I don't see how any kind of Commission can either formulate any kind of suggestions or get Congress to implement them in any time before the actual economic reality dawns. They won't be able to get away with impressionistic phrasing, at some point they will have to use real numbers and in doing so will get pinned to the wall.

It is one of the real ironies of Social Security that even a small tinkering with the benefit formula makes the paper problem go away. And the politics are such that any such tinkering can't actually affect anyone's benefits in the short term, meanwhile the economic numbers keep trampling the models. No change in future benefits is irreversible and astonishingly small changes combined with expected short term growth totally undercut privatizers' real goal of ending Social Security once and for all. We are pretty close to being in the position of asking them 'Throw me in that Briar Patch'. Any 'solution' in any direction except private accounts leads to a long term win for supporters of traditional Social Security.

[me]

"Per the Professor, there is a vast media conspiracy to bring down the Clinton's, including criticisms of Hillary's pants suits or something."

It might just be the same right wing conspiracy trying to bring down McCain too. Sorry, I guess that is tin foil too.

Anne and robertdfeinman have it correct. Obama will get rolled so badly by the right. remember John Kerry?

[me]

"Per the Professor, there is a vast media conspiracy to bring down the Clinton's, including criticisms of Hillary's pants suits or something."

It might just be the same right wing conspiracy trying to bring down McCain too. Sorry, I guess that is tin foil too.

Anne and robertdfeinman have it correct.

Obama will get rolled so badly by the right. remember John Kerry?

[anne]

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/seniors/index.cfm?topic=social_security

Social Security

Social Security has been our nation's most successful domestic program, protecting millions of Americans from poverty due to old age, death and disability. Since its inception in 1935, Social Security has guaranteed a life-long, inflation-protected defined benefit that families can rely on. The task before us now is to ensure the long-term health of the Social Security program.

I think it is essential that the Administration and Congress take the necessary steps to secure the solvency of this important program for current and future retirees. As we review the options for strengthening Social Security, it is important that we acknowledge the advantages that are built into the existing system. Social Security benefits are progressive, recognizing that workers with low earnings or women who take time out of the workforce, have little opportunity to save. In addition, Social Security is almost completely universal, offering workers a nearly perfect portable pension. Finally, monthly Social Security benefits are dependable and protected by law....

[anne]

Defense of the Social Security system continues, in arguing against privatizing. Social Security and Medicare will be soundly supported by Clinton whether as Sanator or should she become President.

About Obama however being backed into or out of any corner, simply look at how much support he has, look at how strong a candidate he has proven to be.

[Bruce Webb]

Actually me that same VRWC is in fact openly targetting McCain. Some of the ones that actually are sitting in seats of power may be hedging their bets a little, not being so delusional as to think their personal power or fortune would be not sustained better under a President McCain. Your basic Senator X and Congressman Y are already look down the barrel of a wave election and while it is all good for a committed Movement Conservative to suggest doing a Goldwater and spending a decade or so in the wilderness, these guys don't particularly getting any closer to the wild than say K Street. A lot of paychecks are at risk here, if that means holding their noses and publically backing McCain then so be it.

But they don't have to like it and to this point show little signs of actively calling the dogs off while they figure out what to do. You can bet the people who run the Foundations that fund the current VRWC are not happy campers these days, they are being forced into a position of sleeping with the enemy.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "I am still waiting on protecting Social Security. Waiting on explaining both a problematic health care policy and dermeaning deceiving attacks on Hillary Clinton for proposing an alternative policy. Waiting to understand why we will add 100,000 soldiers to our military if Obama becomes President. Waiting to learn of plan for leaving Iraq. Waiting to learn of plans for policy in Afghanistan and to Pakistan."

Progressive and liberals are a captive market for the Democrats, and neither Democratic candidate is going to waste time providing answers to people, whose votes can be taken for granted.

The task of politics in the Media Age is apparently to Fool Most of the People All of the Time.

Clinton does not fool nearly enough people. Obama not only fools efficiently, but makes one feel good about being fooled.

[Barkley Rosser]

Bruce W.,

That is true. However, there has been this unfortunate tendency every time one of these sorts of commissions gets going to start yapping about "fixing" social security. I do not share your optimism on this one. I hear the rumblings in Washington, and there are a lot of people trying to get this train going.

anne,

The kicker in your quoted statement is that first sentence of the second paragraph. May I ask what those "necessary steps" are? I just checked her website. I saw a lot of references to "bold decisions" necessary to guarantee its future "solvency." May I ask what those are?

The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is NOT taking the Kerry position, although she is being vague and waffly about what all those "bold decisions" and "necessary steps" are or would be. I remember all too well that it was her husband who appointed the people who first began trumpeting these off-the-wall projections that continue to be trumpeted, with Robert Rubin as Treasury Secretary. There were loud rumblings at the time about some "need" to "reform" social security. Dean Baker has long speculated that if it were not for the Monica Lewinsky scandal intervening, Bill Clinton would have done something.

Now, what he did or wanted to do does not say what she wants to do. But, she is clearly not saying "Do Nothing." We all know what Obama wants, a lifting of the income cap on FICA taxation. As far as I am concerned that in itself is not so bad, but as I have said in many venues my fear on that is that getting that through will involve negotiating with the Republicans in the Senate, which will lead to other things not so good.

I wish both of them would take the Kerry position.

[Barkley Rosser]

hari,

BTW, while it may well be true that starting from ground zero a single-payer system would be the best, it is most definitely not true that this is what one finds throughout Europe. While there is universal coverage everywhere there, there is also a wide variation in how the respective systems work. There are many potential ways to achieve a better health care system in the US.

Just to give the example of the system viewed by many as the world's best, the French one is not single payer. It is a hodge podge of various forms of private and public coverage, although with everybody required to be covered. It developed over a long period of time, with the last group being required to join in being employees of the Roman Catholic Church.

[anne]

Barkley Rosser:

"We all know what Obama wants, a lifting of the income cap on FICA taxation. As far as I am concerned that in itself is not so bad...."

Stop the nonsense; just stop already. I am tired of the continuing nonsense about Clinton. Stop.

There is no conceivable way in which Hillary Clinton would allows cuts in Social Security or Medicare; not even a chance. Clinton has in addition already said she thinks a single-payer health care plan is not politically feasible but would support such a plan passed by Congress.

[anne]

Enough policy distortion, Clinton is not the candidate who has promised to madly attack Pakistan if advised to by intelligence officers. I am not interested in attacking Pakistan; not at all. Get it?

[anne]

Barack Obama was backed into no corner at all on talking of launching an attack in Pakistan, but he darn well should have been and should be still. There are real policy problems to be settled at least for me, and I am not about to let them be forgotten. Care to attack Pakistan? Not me.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

I do not care to attack Pakistan. I also do not care to vote for a candidate who voted to support Bush in whatever he wants to do in Iran, which is a much more likely war than anything in Pakistan. Hillary Clinton did so, the only Dem prez candidate to do so. That is not a lie.

Hillary has been suitably vague about social security. But she has been open to a bipartisan commission and her rhetoric supports the idea that something needs to be done as opposed to nothing (the Kerry position). No one ever talks about "cuts in benefits." Rather what happens is that we have proposals to raise the retirement age and more junk, which amount in reality to cuts in future benefits. I do not share your belief that Hillary Clinton is beyond supporting something like that if it were to come out of a bipartisan commission proposed by her. Her husband was fully prepared to support such tripe ten years ago. After all, as she says "bold decisions" are needed!

[billyblog]

Barkley Rosser said:

"Just to give the example of the system viewed by many as the world's best, the French one is not single payer. It is a hodge podge of various forms of private and public coverage, although with everybody required to be covered. It developed over a long period of time, with the last group being required to join in being employees of the Roman Catholic Church."

Barkley,

I know your main intention in this post was to point out that "There are many potential ways to achieve a better health care system in the US.." And I agree with this. I think it is a bit misleading, however, to say that the French health care system "is not single payer."

No, the money to the providers does not come in in the form of checks with the French government's signature on them. It flows through a robust system of private, public, and mixed private-public entities. With the financing coming mainly from taxes of various sorts, including most importantly, payroll taxes. "Hodge podge" is not an inaccurate way to describe this, as long as one does not assume that a hodge podge system is necessarily overly inefficient.

But the main point is that the French government is very intimately involved in setting prices for both services and insurance rates. So to say that the French system is not monopsonistic, especially at the level of basic coverage, is arguably a distinction without much of a difference.

Here is a link to an excellent discussion of what goes on in the French health care insurance system – warts and all.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?hp

October 14, 2007

Clinton's Iran Vote: The Fallout
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON

SENATORS Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against it. Senator Barack Obama said he would have voted against it if he had voted. Former Senator John Edwards implied he would have voted against it if he could vote.

And Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? She voted in favor of the measure in question, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran's 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Such a move — more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far — would intensify America's continuing confrontation with Iran, many foreign policy experts say....

In the statement she released after the vote, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the need for "robust diplomacy" with Iran, and warned President Bush that he shouldn't think that "the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority."

Mrs. Clinton concluded: "Nothing in this resolution changes that."

[esb]

Well, if I am reading the exit polls correctly, the Obama tsunami has just arrived at the Clinton sandcastle and done exactly what a tsunami does to a sandcastle.

Nancy P., knowing full well which way the water is flowing, is already putting out the hints (O, O he's my man ... if he can't do it no one can).

The Pelosi hints are the "tell."

Again, this is a process founded in emotion, not in policy.

And a lot of people are "pissed as hell at old Rendell" for starting up the "Blazing Saddles" crap on behalf of Clinton in Pennsylvania. Didn't the Clintons learn a damned thing from the SC backlash?

Guess not.

Its time for her to go.

And go she will,

and with not a single focus-group-tested tear in her eye.

[anne]

Barkley Rosser:

"I also do not care to vote for a candidate who voted to support Bush in whatever he wants to do in Iran, which is a much more likely war than anything in Pakistan."

I understand this completely.

[anne]

Remember, what is important always important, critically important is to demean Hillary Clinton as a woman because that is what must be done by crazed vicious sexists.

[anne]

The crazed vicious prejudice of Clinton haters is truly frightening as well as shameful, but they are simply incapable of such understanding. The hatred is of Clinton of course, and has nothing to do with Clinton. But, they must hate on.

[anne]

"And go she will,

and with not a single focus-group-tested tear in her eye."

A vicious crazed prejudiced lie, because what must be done is to lie crazily and viciously when we can destroy a another person. Personal destruction is what matters.

[esb]

People are demeaning Hillary Rodham Clinton and William Jefferson Clinton and their various proxies for being non-racists who were willing to use racist tactics.

Far, far more dangerous than the simple, garden-variety racists are the non-racists who will stimulate atavistic racial and racist fears in order to (try to) win.

Fortunately, the backlash of disgust has sealed their fates.

Again, the tsunami is now onshore.

[BJ Feng]

Chelsea also said in a radio interview that her mother was more fiscally conservative than her father or George W. Bush. That's good news for America if it can be believed.

"The issue of outsourcing is a genuine and important issue; but to refer to one particular country was, I think, an error and I let all of us know that we've got to be more careful about how we communicate," he said.

Let's not forget Hillary sat on the corporate board of Walmart until forced to resign due to shame. My Walmart bike I purchased for $58 broke down after a little more than a year. Shame on you Hillary for putting your stamp of approval on inferior products. I would never have paid $58 if I knew the bike would be of such poor quality. The Schwinn bike I had as a kid lasted more than 5 years before it was stolen.

Let me also use a tried and true Democrat tactic. Shame on you Anne for being a racist. So it is OK for a white elitist to slander and attack a true civil rights advocate like Obama, but it's not OK for Obama to defend himself and speak the truth? To even suggest that Bill Clinton, a member of the Good Ol' Boys' Club was Black is a racist statement made by those who want to keep Obama on the plantation. Such viciousness and racism in America today! Notice the racism, the hatred. Barack shall not be intimated!

[2slugbaits]

billyblog,

In several posts you keep referring to Gruber's "econometric" models. I don't think I would characterize Gruber's models as "econometric" models. For example, Gruber's recent NBER paper uses microeconomic simulation models, not econometric models. And he doesn't even derive his parameter estimates from any special econometric models; he largely uses third party estimates and then just cranks those into his simulator. So I hope we're clear on that.

Next point. In that NBER paper you keep mentioning, Gruber makes a careful distinction between a "socially efficient" healthcare package and a "band-for-the-buck" healthcare package. He concludes that mandates gives more budget "bang-for-the-buck" but he also points out that there is no obvious reason why budgetary "bang-for-the-buck" should trump "social efficiency" in the absence of overwhelming externalities or "paternalistic" reasons. Put another way, mandates clearly carry some deadweight loss issues because people are compelled to buy something that they do not want. That is not a trivial issue. Since Gruber also finds underwhelming evidence for externalities, that pretty much leaves "paternalistic" reasons as the only basis for mandates.

Next point. Many of Gruber's key assumptions are just educated guesses. For example, he just assumes that somehow enforcement of mandatory insurance will be near universal. It's only when you check the footnotes that you find out that this is just an assumption completely unsupported by actual historical experience. Another example is the assumption of how much "turning away" there will be as people who were insured by their employers now turn to the new option. This is critical to the calculation, but he just makes a wild guess. I think it's a reasonable guess, but let's not pretend that there is anything scientific about it.

Next point. Gruber's main argument is not the superiority of mandated universal coverage as oppposed to universal access. These are ancillary issues. His real point is that under the current system many people have too much insurance. The point of his analysis is to show that eliminating the tax subsidies that support quality heatlh insurance is socially inefficient and should be abolished. In other words, he wants to degrade the health insurance of those with excellent programs. That's the point of the last two columns under Table 5 of his NBER paper.

Finally, Hillary Clinton has been going around promising that she wants everyone to have the same healthcare options that are available to herself as a Senator. Great soundbite. Except that Gruber's argument is that healthcare policies like the one that Sen. Clinton enjoys is something that should be abolished. Now why doesn't Krugman point that out?

[BJ Feng]

And we know the Clintons are absolutely above the tactics of personal destruction. They never suggested that Obama was a drug dealer. Notice the racism. Notice the hatred.

[esb]

This weekend, Barak Obama will speak pointedly regarding the Rendell/Clinton/Clinton race-centric strategy starting up again in Pennsylvania.

All of us should consider each and every one of his words, and then make the decision to denounce the tactic and those associated with it, both proxies AND principals.

[anne]

"People are demeaning ----- and ----- and their various proxies for being non-racists who were willing to use racist tactics."

This is a vile lie, by a vile liar; the point being to lie and destroy for the sake of lying and destruction.

[esb]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIjYa42R0UUEGs0_AyNg506-z8FgD8UP1VUG0

[esb]

Anyone who follows the AP article link in my previous post will understand exactly where this issue stands.

And anyone who reads Anne's wild comments will understand that she has backed the wrong pony, which has just been swept away.

[BJ Feng]

Esb, you are in the unfortunate position of being a Democrat. Yes Obama will win the majority of delegates before the DNC, but Hillary is assured the nomination thanks to her ties to special interests and superdelegates. Like it or not, Florida and Michigan, where Hillary was shamelessly alone on the ballot, will be counted. The party elite already has decided and your vote will not count unless it's made for Hillary. It's indeed over, for Obama.

[anne]

The point is not backing any candidate, the point is the vile prejudiced lying of vile prejudiced liars who are only after personal destruction. The point is prejudiced lying for the sake of destruction. Lie on.

[anne]

Barack Obama was of course on the ballot in Florida and Michigan.

Nonetheless, the point of trolls is to always destroy truth and the point of this troll is to lyingly destroy Barack obama and Hillary Clinton.

[esb]

Accurate reportage is not a lie, it is a fact.

The truth is like the rain ... it cares not who gets wet.

[2slugbaits]

Anne,

Actually, Edwards and Obama removed their names from the Michigan ballot, so they were not on the ballot. Hillary Clinton was the only one to keep her name on both ballots. That said, even running unopposed in Michigan she only split 50/50 with "uncommitted." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[anne]

No, I am wrong Barack Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan but was on the ballot in Florida.

[anne]

"People are demeaning ----- and ----- and their various proxies for being non-racists who were willing to use racist tactics."

A vile lie for the sake of lying, by a vile liar.

[esb]

BJ Feng ...

Wrong-o!

Dean and the other party "mandarins" have already been cautioned regarding any credentials ploys involving FL/MI.

No rational party leader wants another '68.

That is why Nancy P. is moving right now.

[anne]

Barack Obama will likely, very likely, become the Democratic nominee, and that is excellent. What is not excellent but altogether hateful and shameful is the rottenness of people who have chosen to destroy another person, to destroy a woman for being a woman.

[anne]

"People are demeaning ----- and ----- and their various proxies for being non-racists who were willing to use racist tactics."

Remember, though, what is important is to continue to demean and lie, and the more destructive the slandering lie the better.

[esb]

I can only attribute Anne's irrationality to the fact that she is emotionally manacled to a sinking anchor.

The AP article referenced above governs this issue.

[zero]

Anne dear "Enough policy distortion, Clinton is not the candidate who has promised to madly attack Pakistan if advised to by intelligence officers. I am not interested in attacking Pakistan; not at all. Get it?"

But what about Serbia, illegally attacked by Bill and Hillary? Get it?? Or are you only okay with democratic illegal wars? Get it?

And yes dear Anne, the term for Chelsea Clinton is not "pimped" but "prop." Does not young Chelsea have a life and a job to lead? How does prop - er Chelsea, get the time off work? Somehow, I doubt it will have any impact on her career though.

[anne]

"People are demeaning ----- and ----- and their various proxies for being non-racists who were willing to use racist tactics."

Lie on, the more viciously the better since vicious destruction is the point of such lying and another person must be destroyed. A family must be destroyed, because there is no stopping such a destroyer. Lie on, destroyer.

[anne]

Remember, what is important is to vilely demean a young woman as well. The crazed monsters are about, all hate all the time, I completely understand. Lie on crazed monsters. Extend the lying destruction.

[esb]

No family is going to be destroyed, but an apology is going to be demanded of and given by Mr. Rendell (if it has not already been sent over).

And this must never again be the political strategy any (non-marginal) candidate.

[anne]

"But what about Serbia, illegally attacked by Bill and Hillary?"

The President was only Bill Clinton, and it never would have dawned on me to condone attacking another nation, though defending Kosovo seems perfectly in order and was accepted as such.

Now, return to lying about and demeaning a young woman who cares for her parents.

[anne]

"People are demeaning ----- and ----- and their various proxies for being non-racists who were willing to use racist tactics."

The only strategy has been the strategy of a prejudiced demeaning liar to lie about and demean another candidate. Lie on, as evidently you must.

[esb]

Strange to watch the repetition of an irrationality which leads nowhere.

And now for the repetition of a fact which leads to a conclusion, the AP article (link posted above) governs the issue.

[anne]

Strange to watch the repetition of a crazed slanderous lie, but crazed liars simply cannot control themselves. The need is to destroy another person. Destroy on.

[esb]

If you are a delegate to the convention, we can continue this at the bar.

No slapping allowed.

[anne]

Nice, respect for a candidate is all that is necessary, at least respect when really warranted.

Barack Obama will almost surely be the nominee, and will be an excellent nominee, and I could not be happier. I would have been happy with Edwards and Richardson and Dodd and Bayh as well. Kucinich was also helpful in the race.

[anne]

What is clear is just how much people have come to trust Obama, and that will be needed as nominee since the thrust of the campaign I would expect will be foreign policy or security even though the economy has so weakened.

I am quite pleased, and there will never be slapping.

[James Killus]

I find it interesting that the mild digs that Krugman (and for that matter, the Clintons) makes at Obama is given such play, while the real venom continues to be from things like vicious chain-emails that clearly oroginate from Republican political operatives, or somewhere down in the lizard brain stems of the real right wing fringe.

I say that these are Republican-derived, because they are in the same vein as the attacks on Hillary Clinton, and the attacks on John McCain. Or hasn't anyone here heard the one about how McCain sat out the Vietnam War in comfort because he was collaborating? Or the Manchurian Candidate allusions (which are almost identical to those directed at Obama, except that McCain is a communist(!) agent, while Obama is a jihadist, while Hillary and Bill are simply murderers, right?

Circular firing squad my ass. The game is actually called "Let's you and her fight." I've seen nothing from either the Obama or Clinton campaigns that qualifies as anywhere near the sort of filth-flinging that comes routinely from the Republican Smear Machine, but dang if there aren't some folks who fall for it every time. I'd say that You Know Who You Are, but you clearly don't.

In any case, I rather hope that Krugman is right about Obama getting a little rough; it means that he might understand what the game is all about.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

Just for the record, I think that Hillary Clinton is an extremely intelligent and capable woman. Very likely she would make a better president than her husband. Unfortunately, she is weighed down by him, his unfortunate remarks in the SC primary, all kinds of sordid stuff such as walking off with White House silverware, and so much more. All of that leads to lots of people really disliking her, even if it is quite irrational.

I am in Virginia and voted today, splitting with my wife on this, as she voted for Hillary while I voted for Obama. You may not know it, anne, but back around Halloween I criticized Obama on Econospeak when he criticized Hillary for not providing a plan for social security. Of course I have since thought about it and now think that was a fair criticism, as she fairly clearly is open to messing with it, even as I would have preferred that he (and she) simply support the existing system.

Besides my foreign policy concerns, where I think Obama has the edge, even if he is not without some problems, has been the electability issue. It is not just the polls. I live in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a pretty conservative part of a state that is likely to be in serious play this fall. I have a very smart student who is writing an honors thesis with me and also a colleague, both of them women, who are Republican-leaning independents. Both of them have expressed that they are not all that keen on any of the Republican candidates. The one thing that they agree on (no, they do not know each other to my knowledge), is that they hate Hillary Clinton, and viscerally so. If she is the nominee, there is no doubt they will vote for the Republican nominee, any Republican nominee. I know that is small sample bias, but it has struck me, and I have heard this sort of thing out of the more serious Republicans I know. Regarding Obama they express either befuddlement, fear, anger, or in some cases admiration, frequently respect. About Hillary, well, their eyes light up in anticipation and they are back into their 1990s hatred, ready to go and vote against her eagerly.

Yes, now that the votes are coming in from the Potomac primary, Obama clearly has taken the national lead, but he still does not have it in the bag. Hillary came back in New Hampshire. She did much better than expected in Nevada and California and Massachusetts. The tide can still turn her way, although probably it will not.

In any case, I would say to those who have gotten vituperative with anne: cut it out. Hillary is not that bad, and anne is an intelligent person who deserves respect in this matter of strongly supporting her, even if in the end I think Obama will be the superior candidate on many grounds to her (and I do hope he comes around to supporting a more clearly universal plan for health care).

[BiJian Feng]

Barley, you are very much correct in your assessment. Yesterday, Sean Hannity temporarily suspended the "Stop Hillary Express" because he noted that Obama now has a serious chance of winning and that Hillary would be the optimal opponent for Republicans. Speaking as a Republican-leaning Independent, I think your analysis is dead on. I disagree with Obama on policy issues. Otherwise he seems like a fine fellow, and I would be proud to have him as the "face" of America. Unlike most Democrats, he is optimistic and hopeful, a person who believes the best is ahead for this country. Furthermore he is untainted by scandal and questionable moral decisions. Fair or not, Hillary is associated with the poor moral choices her husband made, as well as implicated with the WhiteWater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, and numerous other scandals of the Clinton presidency.

I believe Hillary will be easier to defeat than Obama. Obama's weakness is a lack of specifics with regard to his policy ideas. He can be attacked as just another tax and spend liberal when the time comes, but there will be more work and the plan can backfire thanks to his affable nature. Hillary is already known as a tax and spend liberal, even though she's taken pains to moderate herself with her voting record, the perception is already there and we know perceptions are hard to overcome. That being said, I still expect Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. The Clintons are legendary for making backroom deals and getting their way within the Democratic party. They own the party and I'm sure they'll be calling in all favors. I'd be surprised if Obama can win because the decision will come down to party procedures at the DNC. All Hillary has to do is keep it close. I've heard that Hillary could still win the popular vote, even if Obama wins the majority of delegates. That would be enough of a justification for her camp to persuade superdelegates to vote for her. More accurately, it would provide enough of a shield for superdelegates to give the election to her under the reasoning that they are "obeying the will of the majority". We all know that Florida and Michigan WILL be included when the time comes. Should be interesting. As for McCain, he definitely has to swallow his pride and try to make amends to Conservatives while he still can pander. As Nixon said, in the primaries you need to move right, and when the general election comes, you move towards the center. McCain must reassure Conservatives while he still can pander and move to the right.

[billyblog]

Sorry, because of a time shift, I often get to these love fests a bit late.

Anyway, just a couple of housekeeping details.

Michigan Primary Results

2slugbaits corrected Anne's mistake in saying that Obama was on the Michigan ballot. Anne immediately acknowledged her factual error. From my limited experience here, Anne seems always ready to do that.

2slugbaits also said:

"Hillary Clinton was the only one to keep her name on both ballots. That said, even running unopposed in Michigan she only split 50/50 with "uncommitted." Not exactly a ringing endorsement."

2slugbaits may want to check the semi-official scorekeeper on all of this, CNN. When he does he'll find that Clinton won over Uncommitted 55% to 40%. Let's see if he is willing to simply acknowledge his factual error and resist starting an endless spin game over whether 15 points is a ringing or just a tinkling endorsement.

Clintons Supposedly Making Off With the Silverware and Other Sordid Stuff

Barkley Rosser says...

"anne,

"Just for the record, I think that Hillary Clinton is an extremely intelligent and capable woman. Very likely she would make a better president than her husband. Unfortunately, she is weighed down by him, his unfortunate remarks in the SC primary, all kinds of sordid stuff such as walking off with White House silverware, and so much more. All of that leads to lots of people really disliking her, even if it is quite irrational."

It is really sad to see "an extremely intelligent and capable" man such as Barkley Rosser recycle "all kinds of sordid stuff such as walking off with White House silverware, and so much more" about the Clintons. Note especially the unspecified "so much more."

"Hey, my job is to spread these smearing innuendoes, not check 'em. Truthiness is its own reward."

Hmm, was it just Bill who walked off with the silverware, and Hillary who took the rap undeservedly? We'll have to wait for Barkley to fill us in.

In the meantime, others, who are less in thrall to their atavisms about the Clintons, may want to check here and here to get the low down on the great Clinton rape of the White House -- and Air Force One. It was the latter, by the way, not the former from where the silverware was supposed to have been spirited off in the Clintons' grubby clutches.

For those who don't have time to check the links, the gravamen of both pieces is that the silverware story is a hopelessly undocumented myth, and that the vandalism at the White House in the wake of the Clintons' leaving – none of it, by the way, even remotely connected to the Clintons themselves – consisted largely of sophomoric pranks [missing doorknobs, cell phones, and one presidential seal, Ws removed from computer keyboards, and other such hard core criminal acts] which resulted in a total bill of $13,000 - $14,000 – including "$1,150 for professional cleaning." All after 8 years of occupancy.

I've seen weekend frat parties rack up greater M&R expenses.

As the GAO report noted:

"The accounting office said similar pranks were reported in prior transitions, including the one from Mr. Bush's father to Mr. Clinton in 1993. 'We were unable to conclude,' it said, 'whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones.'"

And, no, two wrongs don't make a right. But this is a basis for not voting for Hillary Clinton? Perhaps because she was leading the marauders around the West Wing ripping Ws off computer keyboards?

As for Bill Clinton's "unfortunate remarks in the SC primary," Mr. Rosser has apparently read more into them than Jesse Jackson, an Obama supporter and supposed joint dissee of the remarks. Mr. Jackson was not upset by the remarks and said, on the record:

“Bill has done so much for race relations and inclusion, I would tend not to read a negative scenario into his comments.”

But Mr. Rosser knows a race baiting dog whistle when he hears one. So I guess we'll just have to take it on faith that his ear is more attuned on these matters than Jesse Jackson's.

I mean, how could we gainsay someone who has sniffed out the great silverware heist from the White House and cited it as one of his reasons for why he thinks Hillary Clinton does not merit his vote for the Democratic nomination for president?

But wait, you say the rascals actually took it from Air Force One? Or maybe that was a Fox News fantasy after all?

Stop it! Stop it! My head is spinning trying to keep all these facts straight, even if they are all Googleable!

Again, what a sad commentary on the state of the body politic when "an extremely intelligent and capable" man such as Barkley Rosser can visit the supposed sins – in many cases over read or simply fictitious -- of a husband on a wife. It is difficult to see how this isn't a matter of blaming the victim -- big time.

And then the mawkish attempt to disarm criticism by saying:

"All of that [that would be the largely unsubstantiated "sordid stuff" that Barkley "neutrally" reports] leads to lots of people really disliking her, even if it is quite irrational."

"Lots of people," indeed!

From what he says elsewhere in his post, would it be overly churlish to speculate that Mrs. Rosser, when sitting around that dinner table in Virginia, has an unflattering word that applies to Mr. Rosser's "reasoning" about Hillary Clinton being "so weighed down"?

[john c. halasz]

This comment from another blog might be very much to the point here:

"by dday

With all the sturm und drang I've brought here the last couple days, I have to at least try and change the tone and inject a little optimism. Voters in Maryland's 4th Congressional district have rejected a corporate Bush Dog Democrat, and that's a very meaningful victory:

With every precinct coming in with at least a 10% improvement for (Donna) Edwards over 2006, let me reiterate this point: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in the first progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years. This it it. This is what we have been working for and building for. This is our emerging majority. We finally have the organization, and the voters, and the whole ball of wax. The movement has thoroughly come of age.

Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and the whole gang fought hard to keep Al Wynn in power, They held fundraisers and made sure he was soaked with corporate cash. Donna Edwards had nobody but the people. And the people were enough.

This was a heavily pro-Obama district tonight, with tons of new voters. And they went for Edwards. Barack Obama's going to wake up one day soon and figure out that the movement he's inspiring is a whole lot more progressive than he is, and hopefully that will factor into his potential agenda.

Donna Edwards will not only be a Congresswoman whose vote we can count on, but a real progressive leader in the House. And Al Wynn will be just another lobbyist, with a fat salary so don't weep for him.

Don't mess with the progressive movement."

[RW]

Billyblog: As Freud once commented, where id was, ego shall be.

What I have been hearing and seeing for the most part WRT Obama v. Clinton are post-hoc rationalizations of positions people have already taken on some deeper level; not particularly well-reasoned for the most part but positions none-the-less so there it is.

[anne]

Billy, thank you so much for being such a gem.

[anne]

John Halasz:

"By DDay -

With every precinct coming in with at least a 10% improvement for (Donna) Edwards over 2006, let me reiterate this point: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in the first progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years."

I was impressed and completely pleased. Showing a Democrat, who is actually a Republican, in a safe Congressional District to be so vulnerable is exciting.

[reason]

I had a discussion about the Democratic nomination the other day. I'm sorry but I would go for Obama, despite reservation about him personally, some of his followers and his policies. Why? Because he represents a clean break and Hillary doesn't. She is DNC to her finger nails and America needs a clean break more than anything now.

If Edwards was an option, I would have gone for him. But what does it all matter, I don't have a vote.

[Barkley Rosser]

billybob,

anne may think that you are a "gem" (and thank you, anne, for thanking me for asking people not to be vituperative to you and for saying that Hillary is an intelligent and capable woman who would make a better president than her husband), but I think you have overdone it a bit.

Thank you, for clarifying that at least in the case of the "missing silverware," the Clintons were actually innocent, and it was only a bunch of staffers prankishly messing up things in the White House who did anything questionable, although according to you not wrong.

The point was not whether any accusations against them are true or not. Many are not, but some are, and many are believed, which is the point. Note that I said that much of the dislike of them is "irrational." Do you want to excoriate me for that remark? But, the hard fact is that people hate her, even if irrationally, and unfortunately for her supporters, there is nothing they or anybody else can do about it. I heard last night that 49% of the American population has "high negatives" towards her (so my small sample was not at all far off). That is not how you win an election, nominating someone with such baggage, not removable by any means short of a Huckabeeesque miracle. And, that is the point.

Regarding the specifics of the silverware case, I mentioned that because I thought of it being a sort of trivial case, and I did not wish to get into some finger-pointing listing of nastier stuff. But, since you have turned it into such a federal case, I must apologize to anne and go ahead and list some stuff that is for real and in which Hillary is deeply involved. So, try travelgate. The independent counsel said she lied about the matter, although she was not quite at the level of being legally charged. Her relationship with WalMart, while also not illegal, is nothing to brag about. And, that set of pardons just before the departure, well, OK, let us blame Bill for all of that, although that again is part of the problem, that in situations like that she gets at least partly blamed for many things that he did.

Regarding Jesse Jackson letting Bill off the hook, no dice. Jackson and Sharpton have remained on the fence because they were very friendly with the Clintons in the good old days and they are resentful of the new guy on the block from a younger generation, who threatens to displace them as leaders of African Americans. I note that there was a noticeable shift of sentiment among African American voters in SC in the wake of Bill Clinton's remarks. Maybe Jesse Jackson let him off the hook, but the people going to the voting booths did not. Heck, Hillary was actually ahead of Obama with African Americans not that long ago, but has lost it, totally lost it, at least partly due to Bill Clinton's unfortunate remarks, which I imagine he now deeply regrets. (And, as for me, I participated in civil rights marches in the 60s in which I got tear gassed, as well as having heard MLK, Jr. speak live, so I can smell this sort of crypto-racist stuff a mile away, and living in the South just reinforces my sense of smell for it.)

[anne]

"Just for the record, I think that ------- ------- is an extremely intelligent and capable woman. Very likely she would make a better president than her husband. Unfortunately, she is weighed down by him, his unfortunate remarks in the SC primary, all kinds of sordid stuff such as walking off with White House silverware, and so much more. All of that leads to lots of people really disliking her, even if it is quite irrational."

Just for the record, since I like records, though the only ones I can remember were Grandad's who liked opera, but just for the record, opera or no, I keep wondering whether there are more cryptos or sordids in Grandad's opera collection and who sang Tosca, just for the record.

Am I being crypto enough or should I try sordid?