Forget the issues, the voters will love the baby pic.

I really think Hillary's constant use of the term "moral obligation" in relation to healthcare is going to turn off voters, specifically in the Midwest. Yes, we all want more access to better coverage. But don't guilt people into it - people tend to, uh, not like that. Also, to a lot of liberals, the term "moral obligation" brings to mind the "moral obligation" of banning abortion, or the "moral obligation" of denying gays the right to marry, or the "moral obligation" to invade, occupy, and democratize an Arab country. Leave morality out of it. Affordable health care for everyone will improve the economy and help working class and middle class Americans.

That's a pretty simplistic critique of Krugman, wwjb, but of course he "strongly" criticized Obama's plan. Right or wrong, the man's never "mildly" criticized anything in his whole career.

What I am finding disconcerting from him lately is his descent into Joe Klein style defensiveness and peevish, yet condescending, annoyance at anyone who has the temerity to be annoyed by him when his rhetoric is disproportionate to the problem he's critisizing.

What's really galling to me is that the guy's gone all over the top rightous fury over a technical point about which reasonable minds can differ and, in the process, he's doing a lot of damage because he really does have that much cred.

I guess all that was always there, it just didn't bother me when it was Republicans on the receiving end of it. Which, come to think of it, is a phenomonon we're seeing a lot of this primary.

This a bit of an aside, but can come some please explain to me why everyone and their grandmother have become convinced of the idea that if HC wins OH, TX, and PA, she will win the nomination? If you project 10 point wins in those states for HC (as well as in RI, IN, WV, KY and WI), and give 10-15 pt wins for BO in the remaining states, BO still has the pledged delegate lead. That does not seem like much of a firewall to me, but yet people take about OH-TX-PA like they hold more pertinence than the numbers suggest - like, as the Huckster might suggest, a miracle.

I think it borders on the absurd that Hillary is putting up a TV ad in Wisconsin featuring the words of a New York Times opinion columnist. Talk about out-of-touch, inside baseball wonkishness.

Maybe she should start quoting Jerome Armstrong, too. I'm sure that will motivate the primary electorate.

Did you all sign up for Hillary's 1993 Universal Health Care Coverage. It has not cost anyone a penny for the past fifteen years. Of course, no plan is perfect, and Hillary's 1993 Universal Health Care Plan has also not treated anyone for anything anywhere to date. Patience is required; these plans take time to implement, but it is going to be great once our Warrior Princess gets through slaying all the Republican dragons. I sure hope that too many do not get maimed in her War, before she has even put some health care in place for them.

Cgwillis, in my opinion, the OH, TX, PA triangle is important for one very important reason. Obama has been making an electability argument, and I think he's on point with it. But in order for a Democrat to win a general Presidential election, all the accepted math says that you need two of the big three swing states. The big swings in this case being OH, PA, and FL of course, and Texas just becomes a rich source of delegates that Hillary hopes to exploit to solidify her argument if she's able to execute her Big State strategy.

IMO, I honestly think that the Democratic party as a whole is ready to back Obama right now. But first, they need to see concrete proof that he can tailor his message to win a state like Ohio. The big states that Hillary is currently bragging about winning are not actually in play. Obama will not magically lose Massachusetts or California. And although I love the fact that he's spoken directly to voters in red states during the primaries, states like North Dakota or Idaho are not going to turn blue overnight (although this would be a very nice start).

I honestly think that given Hillary Clinton's huge institutional advantages, if Barack can either win or come within a couple points of her in the state of Ohio, this thing is over. Finito. Party officials will step in and consolidate around Obama. However, if he loses Ohio by a significant margin then the red flags go up, and they start to really examine Obama's general election viability. Nothing would make Clinton happier.

If the Clinton big state/big win scenario plays out, they then move onto PA where Hillary can probably seal up the nomination, delegate count not withstanding, with another substantial win in a needed large swing state.

The good news is basically, Obama has movement and traction while Clinton has been forced to dig herself in defensively, so I think it's advantage Obama. However, she's crafty, and she's willing to do whatever it takes to win, including fight dirty. She will be well fortifited when March rolls around.

OH becomes Obama's ultimate litmus test. Win or draw, and I think the party will rally around a candidate with little baggage and newer ideas and the ability to communicate those ideas who also happens to bring in new and highly motivated faces.

Just my 2-cents.

Richard, I understand many European countries have universal health care. What they don't have are mandates.

I very much agree with Obama about his health care plan, and that the focus should be on lowered costs to families, not mandates to force coverage. The very idea of mandates is unsellable to large portions of this country, when you start talking about how to enforce these mandates, you enter some very murky and unpopular areas. Imagine the field day Republicans will have replaying Hillary Clinton's admission that she'd be willing to garnish people's wages. She'll lose the whole mid and south-west right there.

How did the Human Race survive and flourish for the past 100,000 years without Blue Cross and Walgreens.

Health Care is the modern religion of immortality for secular humanists who are too intelligent for the Lourdes con job, but still desperate enough about wishing to live for ever, that they turn their selves in state coddled health care neurotics. It is a great money racket for the Medical Bishops.

Talk of mandates gave the American people video footage of our President coyly kissing a sheik on the cheek then strolling up the path to a cottage hand-in-hand.

This is about survival. The single largest reason healthcare is so farging expensive is the 30% profit margin insurance company on every tongue depressor.

Obama's failure on this one is as large as him declaring that his vote was worthless and his voice was mute cuz he'd rather campaign than stop the Mukasey nomination from going through.

If only Clinton weren't such a fear-mongering rightwing tool . . .

Hm, I feel largely ambivalent about this Krugman bashing. I am an entheusiastic supporter of Sen Obama, so I wish that Dr Krugman were not quite so overtly hostile to my candidate, but I still respect Dr Krugman's commitment and intellect and enjoy his columns in the NYT. I happen to think that Dr Krugman is right about the necessity of mandates in order to achieve universal coverage. Where I think that Krugman goes wrong is that he is thinking only of economics and not of electoral realities, while Obama is keeping his eye on both balls. That is to say, I think that Obama is right and Krugman is also right, so it is not really necessary to excorciate Dr Krugman for making a perfectly sound point.

That said, I rather wonder that Sen Clinton imagines that Paul Krugman's opinion cuts much ice with Wisconsin voters. I think that this country would be a much better place if more folks read and appreciated Paul Krugman. The fact that it is not a much better place than it is now suggests to me, as such, that most folks do not read Dr Krugman or esteem his opinion that highly. As such, I rather wonder whom she imagines that she is impressing by tossing his name around? If she thinks that this will swing Madison intellectuals around to her, she simply is not acquainted with the enormous entheusiasm her rival is generating in the Big Ten college towns.

davidv,

just because the clintons tried and failed to reform healthcare once doesn't mean that they will fail again. in fact, i think it makes it more likely that Hillary will succeed this time. if at first you don't succeed...

also, the country is in a very different place than we were in 1993. the healthcare crisis is now full-blown and people aren't as satisfied with what they've got anymore... not to mention how the cost of private insurance has become nearly unaffordable and eating into our disposable income... although i don't agree with Michael A very often, i do agree that the cost of providing healthcare is hurting our corporations' competitiveness. i disagree with Michael A in that Hillary's solution is the first step toward a single-payer system (there is a substantive difference in Hillary's plan and Obama's plan.)

i don't think that the american public is going to fall for another "harry and louise" campaign by the insurance industry. nor do i think that people can afford to wait for the republicans' free market solutions to take hold (as if they ever would!)

Hillary knows more about the healthcare issue and the range of possible solutions. she has crafted a plan that will avoid the pitfalls of 1993 and circumvent much of the criticism. her plan isn't something that was slapped together in 5 min so that she could run for prez. this is really the centerpiece of her domestic policy and it has taken a long, long time to craft. i hope that if obama gets the nomination that he will adopt hillary's healthcare plan... that will really test his words and promises if he can see that she has the superior plan and he won't let pride get in the way of the best solution for the american public... now, that would truly be a new kind of politics.