Flint

I heart Charles Pierce, and good on HRC.

The ghost of health care past

Ezra Klein looks back at the Clinton health care plan of 1994 and comes to an interesting conclusion: Just as Republicans may be making a mistake by assuming that what worked for them back then will work again. But Democrats are taking too much the lesson of 1994, too.

There are important ways, however, in which the bills currently working their way through Congress do not go as far as Clinton's plan did 15 years ago. In attempting to ensure that Americans can keep the coverage they like, they do not always ensure that people can leave insurers they do not like. The insurance exchanges, in particular, are limited to the self-employed, the uninsured and small businesses. Someone who works for a larger employer would not have any more choice under these proposals. Indeed, the problem with trying to make sure that everyone can keep what they have is that you can't change very much. This makes it hard for advocates to explain exactly how health-care reform will improve conditions for the insured, at least in the short term.

Many in the White House say this is not a bug in the proposed system; it's a deliberate feature. The lesson of Clintoncare was that even if the American people want reform, they do not necessarily want change. And so Obama's health-care strategy involves a delicate effort to answer the question that doomed Clinton: How do you reform the health-care system without substantially changing it?

But this is not the early 1990s. The indemnity insurance that most Americans enjoyed then is virtually nonexistent today. The mergers and takeovers and consolidations in the insurance market have given people less choice and thus less power. Today, the cost issue is more acute, the president is more popular, the Democrats have more seats in Congress, and the Republicans are more fractured. Obama, in other words, was right to dismiss those who would "dust off that old playbook."

But the ghosts still hover. Republicans are fixated on what worked for them in the last health-care battle, and Democrats are overly concerned with what contributed to their failure. Just as Clinton's plan was weighed down by the impression that it would change too much, history may leave Obama's effort vulnerable to the charge that it is changing too little.

According to Ezra's history of managed care, Clinton's plan would have gone a long way in anticipating the explosion of health care costs. The cost to the country by its defeat must be astronomical.

Sect'y of State Clinton

I would never have expected it, but it appears it might happen. Says Joe Klein,

The Clinton selection is historically luscious: it directly mirrors Abraham Lincoln's choice of William H. Seward as his Secretary of State. Seward was a U.S. Senator from New York and the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination in 1860. There was a great deal of skepticism when the inexperienced and little known legislator from Illinois beat Seward for the nomination and then invited him into the Cabinet, but Seward soon came to appreciate, and later adore, Lincoln's skills as President. I expect something similar to happen with Hillary Clinton, the ultimate good soldier and team player in the Senate--and a potentially powerful voice overseas (although I do hope that the assorted Clintonian carnival acts--from the former President's skeevy friends to court jesters like Lanny Davis--will be either muzzled or sent packing entirely).

Amen to that.

And I have to say that this surely puts the lie to those who think HRC is driven by pure, unbridled ambition. She's going from being a leader in the Senate to a much more subservient role, albeit one that is highly visible and powerful.

The times just keep getting more and more interesting.

UPDATE: A'course Matthews just can't stop reviling HRC. That confirms it for me, that this isn't about her political ambitions because Matthews is a dope.

The roll call

Don't ever recall being moved by the roll call vote.

That's some good healing

"That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick."

Well said, Sen. Clinton. Well said.

UPDATE: Oops, that was Bob Casey.

That doesn't take anything away from Hillary's speech, which was all about what it meant to be a Democrat, not a Hillaryite.

"Now, let's go kick some ass"

Well, Sen. Clinton didn't say that in so many words...but a great speech.

There are some (though definitely a minority, it seems) who thought it was too much about her, but I think she said what needed to be said. She strongly and repeatedly endorsed Obama, but she also needed to let her supporters know that this long primary battle wasn't for nothing. It was historic.

With the speech she positioned herself, rightly, as a leader of the party. Behind Sen. Obama, to be sure, but right there at his side.

Whether you supported Obama or Clinton, whether you're cautiously confident or just a little sad, you have reason to be proud to be a Democrat.

Wha' happened?

Sorry for the paucity and insipidness of recent posts (and how many times have I started a post with, "Sorry for the paucity and insipidness of recent posts"?). I've been, by turns, inundated by office work and on vacation, inundated by yard work.

Last night, though, I was returning from the Stadium and the Yankees' tough loss to the Native Americans listening to Clinton's odd speech -- we didn't know the outcome of NC and Indiana at the time, and could divine nothing about the results from her speech, other than she didn't sound too victorious. I think Ezra sums it up best.

What surprised me about the speech, though, is that she didn't do more to elevate her own prestige before the party. Whether she's accepted a likely loss or is still hoping for an unexpected win, warm feelings from Obama's sections of the party would help her path to the nomination or her reintegration into everyday politics. She's got good speechwriters -- Bill Clinton included -- who could write her an elevating, healing address. But as of yet, they've not tried that approach. The thinking may be that she can give that speech at the convention, but I'm surprised that they're not even trying that strategy. She's too far behind, with too little time on the clock, to grind this victory out. Whether the strategy is to save face or actually change the math, it requires a speech considerably different than this one.

At one point, I thought she was declaring victory, the next conceding defeat. And I also thought, God, if she does manage to win, the level of oratory in the Fall could be deadly.

I don't think she -- or William Jefferson Clinton -- have come to terms with the fact that they now depend on Obama winning the general election to maintain any kind of leadership status in the party. If he loses, she will be seen as having been a major contributor to his lack of stature in the Fall by doing McCain's oppo-research in advance. The bitter taste will not long disappear, and she'll pay for it if she decides to run again in 2012.

Elitist views

With a gas tax holiday polling well, no doubt, Clinton now has a contempt for economists, environmentalists, budget specialists, policy wonks, etc., that rivals only the current president and the presumed Republican nominee. Inspiring.

While focusing mostly on Americans’ frustration with gas prices, Mrs. Clinton also indirectly revived her charge — made in the approach to the Pennsylvania primary — that Mr. Obama was an elitist and unsympathetic to the economic worries of average voters. Appearing on the ABC program “This Week,” she cast opposition to her plan to suspend the federal gas tax this summer as an “elite” view; while she was referring explicitly to economists’ criticism of the suspension, Clinton advisers said she was also seeking to include Mr. Obama in that group because of his opposition to her plan.

Obama's rise in the early caucuses and primaries -- in fact the entire Democratic slate in the early days -- seemed to be ushering in a new kind of political campaign. One that would stay ever so slightly above the bullshit. Instead, the bullshit is pulling Obama back to the ground. How depressing.

There should be a gas tax -- on the candidates

Dean Baker calls the Times to task for not identifying McCain's and Clinton's pandering for what it is.

Senator Clinton joined Senator McCain in calling for the temporary elimination of the 18.4 cent a gallon gas tax over the summer. While the article notes that, "environmentalists and many independent energy analysts" share Senator Obama's view that the elimination of the tax would save consumers little, it still asserts that, "his position allowed Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast with her opponent in appealing to the hard-hit middle-class families and older Americans who have proven to be the bedrock of her support."

Actually, almost all economists would agree that the tax cut proposed by Senators Clinton and McCain would save consumers nothing. With the supply of gas largely fixed by the capacity of the oil industry (they claim to be running their refineries at full capacity), the price will not change in response to the elimination of the tax. The only difference will be that money that used to go to the government in tax revenues will instead go to the oil industry as higher profits.

If Senator Clinton is able to use this proposal to draw a contrast with Senator Obama in expressing concern for middle-class families it could only be attributable to the extraordinary incompetence of the reporters who are covering the campaign. While typical middle-class families may not have the time and background to realize that Senator Clinton's proposal would not save them any money, reporters do.

The fact that Senator Clinton, like Senator McCain, sought to deceive them with a bogus tax cut should have been the main theme of today's election reporting.

The Post explains further.

The moratorium proved politically popular in Illinois, but economically questionable. The Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission estimated that the state lost $175 million in revenue during the six-month period. A subsequent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that gas prices fell by an average of 3 percent while the moratorium was in effect, meaning that only 60 percent of the savings from reduced taxes was passed on to consumers.

"It turned out to have a pretty small effect," said Joseph Doyle, an assistant professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Consumers were slightly better off, but the benefits were spread very thinly, and the government was a lot worse off."

A Chicago Tribune poll showed that only 28 percent of motorists believed that they were actually paying less for gas as a result of the suspension of the tax.

Some economists say that a nationwide "gas tax holiday" would have even less impact on gas prices than a moratorium like the one passed by Illinois in 2000. "It's basic economics," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank. "Gas is always in very short supply during the summer, which is why prices go up. In order to reduce the price, you would have to increase supply, but that is difficult over the short term, because the refineries cannot add capacity."

Infamy. Indeed.

Anti-FDR conspiracy theorists take heart. If Sen. Clinton had been president...nay, alive, in 1941, who knows?

As she spoke Monday in her father’s hometown, Scranton, Mrs. Clinton reinforced the message of her advertisement, arguing that Mr. Obama was untested. “I don’t want you to take a leap of faith or have any guesswork” about the next president, she said. “We’ve had enough of that,” she added.

Her commercial was the first in which a Democratic candidate had used Osama bin Laden in the presidential race, although Republicans, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, have done so. In her commercial, Mr. bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is featured along with grainy images of the stock market crash of 1929, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the fall of the Berlin Wall and Hurricane Katrina.

In an interview Monday with Larry King on CNN , Mrs. Clinton said the advertisement addressed the reality “that the new president will inherit some of the most dangerous and difficult decisions that any president has had to make in a very long time.”

“I want people to think seriously about leadership, because that’s what I’m offering in this campaign,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Straight Talk jalopy staggers on.

A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as “The Donald,” Arizona’s answer to Donald Trump — an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.

The enemy of her enemy is her friend?

Hillary Clinton reignites the Wright controversy...while meeting with the bankroller of the "vast rightwing conspiracy"?

The Hero stumbles

Steve Benen:

Now, I should note that I’ve seen some Obama supporters use this to rationalize major losses yesterday. As the refrain goes, “You won, but only because you took the campaign in an ugly direction.”

That, frankly, sounds a little petty, and it’s not the point I’m trying to emphasize. Rather, Clinton’s kitchen-sink strategy is a clear explanation of what worked and changed the campaign dynamic over the last week. It’s not even a mystery — one can look at the Ohio polls before the attacks began and after. And in Texas, before and after. Obama had narrowed the gap, and Clinton had seen her double-digit leads disappear. Then she launched the no-holds-barred attacks, and for the first time in the entire campaign, Obama’s numbers slipped. It’s hard to call this a coincidence.

This isn’t a value judgment. If you’re an Obama fan, the argument is, “Clinton couldn’t make an affirmative case for her nomination, so she had to tear Obama down. She’ll do anything to win, even if it hurts the party and helps Republicans.” If you’re a Clinton, the argument is, “We played rough, and it worked. This proves that Clinton is a fighter. Besides, if Obama can’t withstand relentless attacks now, he won’t be able to withstand relentless attacks later.”

Who’s right? In all likelihood, both are.

On "On the Media" last week, Brooke Gladstone spoke with Bill Powers, media critic for National Journal, to revisit Powell's theory of the "seven stages" of the media's focus on a candidate. Powers admitted that up until that interview, Obama hadn't reached "stage six" with the media -- "the flop." Powers was amazed it hadn't happened and explained that Obama just seemed to elude, "gazelle-like," a flopping performance because of his style -- a combination of logic and calm in the face of attacks. Was the past week -- Benen's "kitchen sink" of Razko, NAFTA/Canada, SNL, and momentum-stalling (though not delegate-changing) Ohio and Texas results last night -- a prelude to the flop? And, if so, will Barack reach stage seven: ultimate redemption?

Dire wolves

In the timbers of Fennario
the wolves are running round
The winter was so hard and cold
froze ten feet neath the ground

Don't murder me
I beg of you don't murder me
Please
don't murder me

It's 3am, do you know where the wolves are? Or the bears?

Obama's foreign policy experience

On the other hand, we need to keep reiterating this over and over. And, relating to another post fromYglesias, he's right that Clinton's hammering away at Obama's supposed inexperience, while failing to get traction now, has the potential to have a negative effect in the general election. But it's been obvious for months that McCain's only play is to repeat that he's the only guy with a grim enough worldview to keep us safe from the horrors that besiege us. It makes sense for Obama to start hitting back at that sooner rather than later.

That said, I would like to see this thing ended. Unless Clinton can pull off something improbable in Texas and Ohio, her reputation is not going to be improved if she appears to be staying in the race only to batter the likely Democratic candidate.

John Lewis

Bad news for Hillary Clinton, to be sure.

MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate he could “never, ever do anything to reverse the action” of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

Interesting choice of wording. He's not saying he no longer supports her, but rather that as a superdelegate, he would cast his vote according to the will of voters in his district. Josh Marshall writes,

But the most immediate and significant import is Lewis's signal that whatever the basis of his original endorsement he is unwilling to join Clinton in carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party. The tell in Lewis's announcement is that he is not technically withdrawing his endorsement from Hillary, at least not yet. He is saying that as a super delegate (which is by virtue of being a member of Congress) he plans to vote for Obama at the convention. On Wednesday the Clinton camp started pushing hard on the idea that a delegate is a delegate and if they need to pack on super delegates to overwhelm Obama's edge with elected delegates then so be it. A win is a win is a win. I take this as Lewis saying he just won't sign on for that.

Indeed, the whole thing is worth a read. The spin and pronouncements from the Clinton proxies this past week -- Penn, Ickes, et. al. -- that they'll win the nomination even if they lose the popular vote; that they'll attempt to seat the Fla. and MI delegates; that the superdelegates are not bound by the voters in their districts; that delegates from "significant" states should count more than those from "insignificant" ones -- may seriously backfire for their candidate. Not only does it underscore impressions that she's as unscrupulous as she's regularly depicted, but, worse, that the Clinton campaign is losing touch with reality.

If those trial balloons explode, then even superdelegates supporting her may start running away. Nothing terribly significant has happened since Obama won Georgia, and yet Lewis makes his announcement several weeks later. Hmmm.

In fact, we're hearing more and more distressing stories that Clinton has surrounded herself with loyalists prized more for their fealty to her than for their competence sounds a lot like the current occupant of the White House.

Incendiary

On February 2, I wrote,

But most of all, it does feel like it is a time of the over-used word, "change." Obama represents generational change, as Matt Bai will write in tomorrow's NYT Magazine. His youth, his appeal to youth gives the impression that we're witnessing a movement. Hillary Clinton's pragmatism certainly has much to argue for it, given just how broken our country is, but it's going to take more than a technocrat. If she wins on Tuesday, I'll support her whole-heartedly, proud that a smart, confident woman is our nominee. But in the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the moment and see if this is a wave we can ride right over the floating debris of the culture wars and the Bush and Rove Republican party.

That was before I read this:

With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.

Mrs. Clinton won more votes than Mr. Obama in both states, though both candidates technically abided by pledges not to campaign actively there.

Mr. Obama’s aides reiterated their opposition to allowing Mrs. Clinton to claim a proportional share of the delegates from the voting in those states. The prospect of a fight over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations has already exposed deep divisions within the party.

Julian Bond, the head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called for the delegates to be seated, saying failure to do so would amount to disenfranchising minority voters in those states. But on Wednesday, such a move was denounced by the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who said many people in those states did not go the polls because they assumed their votes would not count.

[...]

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they would also argue to superdelegates that they should give less deference to a lead from Mr. Obama because much of that had been built up in states where there were caucuses, which tend to attract far fewer voters than primaries, where Mrs. Clinton has tended to do better than she has done in caucuses.

“I think for superdelegates, the quality of where the win comes from should matter in terms of making a judgment about who might be the best general election candidate,” said Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign adviser.

I don't know if that's a promise or a threat.

I hope they think long and hard before they put their own interests ahead of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

Then there's something really egregious.

Barack Obama

I can't recall a primary in which it was more difficult to choose the candidate to support. Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are enormously appealing and both have proved they are smart campaigners who, in their runs for Senate, can win in the Red as well as the Blue counties of their states.

But it's time to choose and while it's tempting to sit atop the Olympian Heights equivalent of the blogosphere and merely comment on the race and defend Democratic candidates against the stupidity of Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews, I'm not Digby. What I have to say doesn't amount to a hill 'o beans and my readership is so small elite that it doesn't really make any sense for me to sit it out. After all, I'm a member of the Democratic Party, I'm voting in the primary on Tuesday, I might as well as try to type out my reasoning as I try to figure it out myself.

First, though, if you'd like to read intelligent analysis, go here.

You could tell watching the other night's debate that this is an exciting race. The atmosphere at the debate was electric...imagine that. Both candidates were engaging and likable, and the debate was substantive, often despite the ministrations of Wolf Blitzer. Going in to it, I though Clinton would be vulnerable against an avuncular McCain, but watching her, I realized she can beat the old man. And I believe her when she claims that she's ready on day one to start getting things done.

But I like Tom Brady Barack Obama. And I'm not alone. It's unfair, but Hillary Clinton's "unfavorables" are so high, she's got a huge hill to climb. McCain's unfavorables are among hard core Republicans. Hillary's are among those same people. I think Obama's recent line that he unites the Democrats, Hillary unites the Republicans is convincing. And for the undecided, I don't think she inspires them to decide any more-- and probably less -- than John McCain (and, yeah, despite the hail Mary, I think Bush's last BFF is gonna be all but the Republican nominee coming this Wednesday).

Electability is something I don't -- can't -- predict. I evaluate candidates based on whom I want to win, not whom I think will win. But...Hillary Clinton started this thing with enormous advantages -- experienced campaign staffers, name recognition, support of the party establishment, tons of money -- and yet the longer the race has gone on, the more Obama has closed the distance.

And then there's the Clinton thing. I voted for Bill Clinton. Hell, eight years ago I would have voted for a third term. But it could be tough love at times. No, Hillary isn't Bill, but they are soul mates, of that I'm sure. And Bill's behavior on the trail recently gave us frequent reminders of Sister Souljah, flying back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of a self-lobotomized man, don't ask don't tell -- moments when even an ardent supporter had to hold his nose and say, well, anything to get a Democrat elected. Obama's gonna do and say things that annoy me -- he's not perfect -- but I don't expect as much cringing.

Judgment matters. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two on most issues. But on the most important issue of the last decade -- Tonkin Gulf II -- Obama simply exhibited good judgment. Clinton simply did not. If that were the only instance it would be one thing -- I've supported and sympathized with her on this as Bush put Congress in the untenable position of either supporting his messianic insanity or cutting the commander-in-chief off at the knees. But it wasn't the only thing. She's since shown she supports anything that expands Executive authority and her vote for the Lieberman-Kyle amendment was simply egregious, given its context. I've often felt that she's had an eye more on the authority she would have as president than on restraining the current president's.

Furthermore, I'm incredibly impressed with the people Obama has surrounded himself with in terms of foreign policy, particularly Samantha Power.

But most of all, it does feel like it is a time of the over-used word, "change." Obama represents generational change, as Matt Bai will write in tomorrow's NYT Magazine. His youth, his appeal to youth gives the impression that we're witnessing a movement. Hillary Clinton's pragmatism certainly has much to argue for it, given just how broken our country is, but it's going to take more than a technocrat. If she wins on Tuesday, I'll support her whole-heartedly, proud that a smart, confident woman is our nominee. But in the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the moment and see if this is a wave we can ride right over the floating debris of the culture wars and the Bush and Rove Republican party.

All that said, what's this all about.

Oh, and Patriots 42, Giants 17.

UPDATE: I guess I rest my case.

Debatable

I don't recall ever being energized by a televised political debate before. They're both very good though I give Clinton the edge on policy detail. Of course, then there's Iraq; she doesn't really have a good answer for that one though she and her team have spent months trying to craft one.

Jumping the shark?

I listened to Bill Clinton's comments referencing Jesse Jackson's wins in South Carolina in '84 and '88, and I guess I'm just not that incensed by them, specifically. However, I do think the "Bill gambit" the Clinton campaign employed there, though, has hurt them as, at best, it only had the effect of placing Hillary Clinton ahead of Dead Man Walking Edwards. A lot was riding on Bill bringing out the African-American vote for his wife, and it just wasn't very effective. It did succeed in having the effect of giving the appearance that they see themselves in a knife fight with a fellow Democrat. How much of that is real and not media driven is hard to say, but they (particularly Bill) were made to look as though they took this very, very personally. Not the happy warrior, either husband or wife. I understand. I empathize. But not attractive.

The CT primary is in a week. I still haven't decided whom I'll pull the lever for (this is the first primary I'll have voted in in which CT matters at all). But if the Clintons are really trying to paint Obama as "the black candidate," then I'm going to be a hell of a lot angrier about that then I am about any admiring comments Obama may make about a dead Ronald Reagan.

And, meanwhile, the fact that establishment Dems are endorsing Obama says a lot about the guy who isn't currently the front runner.

Electability

I'm with Ezra on this one. Trying to guess which candidate Republicans will most viciously and effectively lie about is a fool's game.

Is that argument right? I'm not sure. But it seems equally plausible to me. Which largely underlines my belief that trying to game out who is the most electable -- rather than, say, the best proven campaigner -- is a tough game. I can confidently predict that if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton lose to John McCain, lots of Democrats will bemoan the obviously idiotic decision to nominate a hated, polarizing harpy/inexperienced, urbane black man during a time of anxiety and unrest. Democrats, they'll say, can blow anything.

And to assume, as Hilzoy seems to, that Americans have grown more savvy and insightful when it comes to the attacks from the Right, well...I've got a Madrasa to sell her.

That said, Hilzoy's other point, about Obama's vs. Clinton's actual voting records, is interesting.