Great post that brings some perspective to this debate that means almost nothing. In this case, I don't think the policy difference nor the debate over it sheds any light on the best choice for Democratic nominee. The fact of the matter is that the details of health care reform will be worked and tweaked by many policymakers, members of Congress, consumer groups, health care providers, health insurance industry, et cetera, et cetera. What matters it that the Administration is committed to the idea of coming to a solution that works for the majority of Americans (particularly those that can't afford it in the current system) without sacrificing overall quality of care. Both Hillary and Obama have displayed this commitment, and the details JUST DON'T MATTER.

Posted at February 26, 2008 4:45 PM in response to Oh Health Care Debate, how stupid are ye?

I do agree that the facts of the situation show that Nader impacted election outcomes. And I question his motives. Obama's comments about the Nader bid are spot on, in my opinion. I hope posts like yours will help to hold Nader accountable for his actions.

Posted at February 25, 2008 7:35 PM in response to 4 Nader Myths

Whatever the basis for so many differing opinions, conflicting perspectives and emotional responses, thank goodness that many millions of citizes--rather than a select few or even one person--make this choice! The concensus choice of many voters tempers our all-too-human emotions and reactions.

Posted at February 25, 2008 6:29 PM in response to When Cavemen Vote

PS. I think your proposed remedy is the right one: "Therefore, I urge all liberals, lefties, and progressives to be active in the causes in which they believe but not to support another Ralph Nader campaign which can do little good and much harm to these important causes."

Posted at February 25, 2008 5:36 PM in response to 4 Nader Myths

I think there's a lot of great stuff in this post. Generally speaking, your comments are thoughtful and insightful. So I hope I won't ruffle feathers too much by saying that I can't agree with the bullet analogy for myth #1. You make a huge leap by using a bullet, rather than "vitamins," for instance. I think there are a lot of negative connotations with "bullets" that I don't think carry over to Nader's bid for the presidency. Involvement and engagement of the electorate are more important than any one candidate or one election. The fact that there are Nader supporters out there show that there is a void. I hope Obama proves he's up to the task of filling this void. But taking away choices from voters isn't the way to do it.

Respectfully, knoh.

Posted at February 25, 2008 5:26 PM in response to 4 Nader Myths

This post really illustrates why you support Hillary. You share a perspective on how things work. I don't mean that as a dig. I feel a variety of perspectives is necessary and important. Hillary's approach to government is to work around the edges, to fix the things she can fix and to accomplish as much as she can under the authority she has been given.

I am a Barack supporter, and here's why I think Obama takes this approach. He wants to be a leader that can facilitate meaningful policy change and coalition and unity. I think the climate change issue is particularly illustrative. Without popular support, no one person can enact policy changes that we really need--no matter how smart the policy changes are. Enacting policy to suppress carbon emissions means a great financial threat to industries and individuals alike. But I believe that coordinated effort, shared sacrifice, focused commitment AND popular support can bring about sensible policies that will help to sustain the environment. I refuse to believe that it can't be done. And I think an inspiring, charismatic and persuasive leader is necessary to get individuals to make the decisions that may not be in their immediate best interests but will be in their long-term best interests.

Your original premise--"The strangest things about Barack Obama is the way he seems hell bent on putting the success of his Presidency -- should he be elected -- in the hands of the very people who want to see him fail"--isn't even part of Obama's thinking. He doesn't believe that all of these people are inherent enemies. He believes that different groups appear to have conflicting self-interest. He believes--and I think I believe--that he can find the common ground to get to common goals.

Posted at February 22, 2008 1:42 PM in response to The Strangest Thing About Obama

I agree completely that Senator Clinton has an accomplished legistlative career. I fully support her continued service in the Senate.

Posted at February 21, 2008 1:28 PM in response to More On Hillary's Accomplishments

I think it's shallow to assume that a candidate who is a great speaker can not have substance. It seems so clumsy, so black and white, so simple to make this leap. Take the time to learn more about Obama before you label him.

Posted at February 16, 2008 3:27 PM in response to Hillary, the Wedding is Off

Assuming the facts and the connections in this post are accurate, the Clintons are to agri-business as the Bushes are to oil ...

Posted at February 15, 2008 11:56 PM in response to AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON FROM A WELLESLEY COLLEGE ALUMNA

>Steve M dispute the notion that Obama has more
>cash on hand. Where's the evidence?

>http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/6/21152/73747

Steve M. forgets to account for the assertion that Hillary has maxed out (or has nearly maxed out) a small pool of big donors while Barack's large pool can continue to donate--if they are able.

Posted at February 6, 2008 4:46 PM in response to Hillary Loaned Her Campaign $5 Million, Spokesperson Confirms