Here and There

I brushed off your endorsement when I got wind of it early in the day. But damn you, you made me watch your speech.

And now I copy the embed code with wet eyes. Yes we can!

Do not give a misbehaving child what (s)he wants.

And with that implicit analogy, this blog now turns its full attention toward taking down John McCain. Reader submissions are accepted.

The aim will be to expose John McCain for what he is — an old-school politician, beholden to special interests with deep pockets who play by their own rules. The arguments about approach to government are tired, but must be hashed out. The real question is who these candidates are, what they represent, and how they will lead and represent the United States of America at home and to the world.

Given these tenets, the choice should be pretty clear, methinks.

… since I remembered what a colossal douche Michael Savage is.

These trifecta was too good to resist link-rec’ing:

• Obama pulling close in superdelegates
• Clinton’s role in children’s health care disputed
• (Former Senator and presidential candidate) Bob Graham: Iraq war vote was commander-in-chief test

Have I mentioned how awesome it would be if you sold your copy of My Life and gave the money to a candidate you believe in? It would be, like, so awesome …

I’ve admired Paul Krugman since about the first time I came across him, in the (actual) pages of The New York Times so many years ago. I appreciate his work not only concerning politics, but also economics, as this is still an area I have some trouble with. Krugman has some of the best metaphors to help me understand economics, and he delivers in an often entertaining way.

That’s why it’s been particularly difficult this election cycle for me to read him. From way back, Krugman seems to have made up his mind on which candidate not to support, based mostly (from what I can tell) on policy differences over health care. Krugman slammed the Obama plan for its lack of a mandate, which at first took me by surprise. Then, the more I looked into the candidates, the more Obama’s plan seemed tenable to me. But this post is not about my view of health care policy.

Krugman’s column in today’s paper went too far, referring to Obama supporters as the ones who “started it,” so to speak. He denegrates and devalues the passion on the other side, much like a child would tell another one, “you’re ugly and dumb.”

I hope other Krugman fans are noticing his cheap shots, and doing something to bring about a fairer sense of journalism. Slate.com’s XX Factor sure has noticed.

I’m reading and hearing more and more that Barack Obama lacks substance, that people don’t know what he stands for, other than the played-out cliché, “change.” Funny, but no one seemed to question this until it appeared he was a contender. I guess that’s to be expected, now that people are taking a closer look at him. But that’s what I can’t understand. Are people taking a closer look, or are they latching on to a desperate tactic employed by the ever apparently vulnerable Clintons?

Anyone watching any debate that wasn’t simply a petty rehash of candidates’ past sins would have been keeping score. Obama’s controversial (in that it doesn’t mandate, and therefore cannot guarantee universal coverage) health care plan has been pored over perhaps more than any other of his policies. His stance on the troops in Iraq is simple enough. His energy and education and tax policies have been laid forth for the electorate time and again. He weaves some policy into his stand-alone speeches, and definitely covers it well in debates.

I certainly didn’t come to support him by letting myself get carried by his so-called poetry. I admit the man can speak, but to me, he’s even more of a policy wonk. Funny, but I remember the exact same thing being said about a certain former president whose wife is running for the nomination now.

So, really people, what’s the problem? Or are you already grasping at straws?

It’s a great source, not unlike David Brock’s Media Matters, and today, they’re going after Clinton’s baked facts on health care costs.

From The New York Times op-ed page.

From The Caucus.

From the NY Times op-ed page.

A compelling article on the health plans presented, respectively, by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Had a conversation at a party over the weekend regarding presidential candidates. I let my interlocutor know that, as soon as I read that Rudy Giuliani decried universal health care as socialized medicine, he was out as far as I was concerned. And so, my logic goes, I will, with 100 percent certainty, be voting for a Democrat in the next presidential election (unless a viable, ahem, Bloomberg, third-party candidate emerges).

I told my friend of my hope that, by the time February 5, 2008 rolls around and it’s time to vote in California’s primary, Barack Obama would still be in the running, because so far, with less than six months to go, he’s my frontrunner. I reminded my friend of an aversion to voting for HIllary Clinton, at least until she’s nominated.

But on to why I’m writing today …

My friend made a few points that may have knocked a few more bricks out of my Hillary-defense wall.

First of all, he equated Obama with Kerry in the sense that, no matter how much people like us appreciate the ideas, energy, and articulation of the candidate, they are both too intellectual to play well in a general election. It was refreshing to hear anything besides Obama’s supposed inexperience and/or ethnicity as a strike against him. And the more I thought of it, the more I agree with my friend. I can’t go choosing the candidate who’s right for me. Sadly, I have to choose the person who’s right for the nation.

Now, whether that person is Clinton is another story, and one we may have to wait 14 months to determine.

The second point my friend made was his response to a question I asked. “Can Hillary Clinton beat any of the Republicans?”

“She can,” he said. “Americans want a dynasty. Also, they’re tired of Republicans, and Giuliani’s views of abortion and gun control, his supposed blaspheming of the church, will be enough to turn Republican voters away.”

“They would never vote for a Democrat, though,” I said.

“Right. They just won’t vote.”

So, presuming Bloomberg (or Al Gore, for that matter) doesn’t get involved, and Clinton wins the nomination, I hereby announce that I am beginning to think she may not be so bad. Hell, I might even feel good voting for her.

And today, she unveiled her plan for universal, individual mandate health care. Nice.

Bill Richardson has guts. I’m liking him more and more.

The New Mexico governor has said he will sign legislation making his the 12th state to legalize marijuana to be used as medicine. Nice.

I can’t do it anymore because of my schedule, but I’ve always been a proponent of napping. Same rule applies as “hungry, eat” here. Tired, nap.

Now there’s some proof of the benefits of brief slumber.