Norm,

Thanks for again posting both sides of his argument. Are you ready to let us know which side you find more compelling? Here is your chance to influence your readers who are voting tomorrow. It seems to me that you are trying to remain neutral on this debate, yet you are giving Charles a forum to attack Obama. Does that mean you've decided you want to support Hillary, but can't commit to make a public stand?

I am in a conundrum that i hope my fellow 1gmers can help with. I have a republic friend who wants to know why she shouldn't vote for mccain. being a democrat, i couldn't think of one, since mccain is pretty moderate for a repub. but it seems like other than iraq there should be somethings that jump out at me that aren't.

please help!

I'd like to second Jim's thanks for posting both sides, Norm.

As an Obama supporter, I actually did not like much of the Daily Kos article. On the one hand, after looking at Krugman's numbers--and the grafts on his blog--I was wondering what on earth Obama could be thinking. So it was helpful to see another 'expert' opinion. That said, I find talk about Krugman and Clinton "breaking apart the universal health care coalition" somewhat childish, because it ignores the tremendous pressure there is on those implementing any such plan to get it right. Whichever proposal ultimately gets backed, it will be ruthlessly attacked in an endless smear campaign of patent falsification, fear-mongering, and vituperative propaganda (Hillary is spot-on, for good reasons, about the practical realities here). If we think now is any different from the '90s, consider that when Congress tried just a few months to expand the SCHIP program to provide healthcare for more children living in poverty, the Republicans vehemently opposed as some kind of horribly slippery slope to the Stalinist gulag.

The blunt reality, it seems to me, is that whatever plan we pick, it won't be perfect--this is the first time we've tried this on a national scale, and there are going to be a host of things we won't be able to anticipate. But we need the best arguments we can, and open discussion free of political sniping, to see what the best, even if imperfect because nascently formated, plan is. And sheer political will and staying power to defend its central core whatever its initial shortcomings, because the smear campaign won't end until long after it's implemented.

Two more quick remarks: whatever our disagreements about Obama, I side with Krugman on this: We owe an enormous depth, I think, to Edwards for putting bold and detailed policy proposals on the table at the outset, which others have borrowed from. Second, speaking of smear, I found this an interesting analysis of the bizarrely irrational and apoleptic fits that sometimes attend Clinton bashing:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/?em&ex=1202274000&en=abb50b5f194fb015&ei=5087%0A

Hi Norm,

Lawrence Lessig just posted this defense of Obama on his blog that I think you might find interesting:

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20minutesorsoonwhyiam4.html

I have to vote tomorrow. And I'm still waffling too. Health care is a very important issue for me, but if John McCain beats Hillary Clinton... oh, I can hardly stand to consider the possibility! :(

Thanks for posting the Daily Kos link, Norm. I read Krugman's piece this morning, so it was good to have another point of view. I can manage to dissect editorializing of both K's, and the letter from the medical professionals means more to me anyway. It'll be something I consider as the campaigning unfolds.

Since I caucused for Edwards, I too agree with Krugman that Edwards set the stage. Will he or won't he be a part of the next administration? FEMA? Health and Human Welfare?

I've noticed that when the race was between John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (back when Hillary Clinton's poll numbers were far ahead of Obama's), most of the liberal blogs that were busy demonizing Hillary Clinton are now going after Barack Obama and they suddenly don't remember why it was that Hillary Clinton so disgusted them.

Well, I offered my naive take on Obama v/ Clinton on health care in yesterday's topic: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/02/linkswithyour_613.html#comments

Essentially, we are trying to choose between efficiency and liberty. We need an approach that renders the liberty argument moot, by taking an approach similar to K-12 education... but we're probably going to need vouchers if we're going to keep insurance companies from killing it.

Maelstrom,

Your link above didn't work.

it's here