Did Huckabee commit political suicide tonight?

[Ramo]

yeah, but Im guessing that anyone who takes their union membership seriously enough to care is voting on the dem side anyway, despite Hucks populism.

Huck previously expressed support for the writers' strike. Crossing the picket line by itself may not hurt him very much, but looking like he's clueless probably will...

Incidents like this (i.e. the press conference where he said that he decided to take down a negative ad - which he subsequently showed to the entire IA press corps) ultimately demonstrates that light weights are running his campaign, and that he probably wouldn't be able to follow through on an Iowa win.

[lord of the mark]

Hi Ramo.

I hear Obama has now decided that health insurance mandates arent just something that should wait till we know what costs are, he thinks theyre a bad thing in themselves, and hes attacking teh eevil commie Hilary (and Edwards) for proposing to take away our FREEDOM, or something to that effect.

[Ramo]

It's true that he mailed out literature to that effect. Stupid move on the part of his campaign. But more recently, he explicitly embraced mandates (on a recent Meet the Press interview). Krugman, who has been pressing the issue, recently pointed that out.

Looks like he's going to win IA.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's true that he mailed out literature to that effect. Stupid move on the part of his campaign. But more recently, he explicitly embraced mandates (on a recent Meet the Press interview). Krugman, who has been pressing the issue, recently pointed that out.

Looks like he's going to win IA.

I havent heard about the flip flop, but I look on krugman. thanks

As for winning Iowa, we'll see.

Then its on to New Hampshire, where you can vote even if you work evenings, are sick, etc, etc.

Really good news though, is that the GOP may actually give us a good alternative too. McCain just led a national poll, and is gaining "mo"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
But more recently, he explicitly embraced mandates (on a recent Meet the Press interview). Krugman, who has been pressing the issue, recently pointed that out.

oh you mean this?

"I didn’t watch Russert — I almost never do — but apparently Barack Obama has just floated the idea of imposing some penalty on people who fail to sign up for health insurance.
If he’s serious, and the penalty is sufficient to deter free riding, great. I don’t care what you call the measure that makes universal health care work, as long as it gets the job done. "

[Ramo]

Yep, that's what I mean.

As for NH, Obama and Clinton are close enough for IA to be decisive. And hopefully, an Obama win in IA would reduce Independent participation in the Republican primary in NH, allowing Romney to slip through.

I'd actually prefer Romney to McCain. Leaving aside the fact that McCain's a lot more electable, I'd take the soulless technocrat who'll do anything it takes to win his particular constituency over a bellicose conservative...

[lord of the mark]

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, here's the philosophical debate that's going on. First of all, every objective observer says Edwards, Clinton, myself, we basically have the same plan. We do have a philosophical difference. [b]They both believe the problem is the government is not forcing adults to get healthcare. My belief is that the real problem is people can't afford healthcare, and that if we could make it affordable, they will purchase it. Now, they assert that there're going to be all these people left out who are avoiding buying healthcare. My attitude is, we are going to make sure that we reduce costs for families who don't have health care, but also people who do have healthcare and are desperately needing some price relief. And we are going to reduce costs by about $2500 per family.

If it turns out that there are still people left over who are not purchasing healthcare, one way of avoiding them waiting till they get sick is to charge a penalty if they try to sign up later so that they have an incentive to sign up immediately.

MR. RUSSERT: Which is a quasi-mandate.

SEN. OBAMA: But--well, no, it's not a quasi-mandate because what happens then is we are not going around trying to fine people who can't afford healthcare, and that's what's happening in Massachusetts right now. They've already had to exempt 20 percent of the uninsured, and you're reading stories about people who didn't have healthcare, still can't afford the premiums on the subsidized healthcare, but now are also paying a fine. That I don't think is providing a relief to the American people. We need to make health care affordable. That's what my plan does. And The Washington Post itself said, for the Clinton campaign to try to find an individual who wanted healthcare and could not get it under the Obama administration would be very difficult because that person probably does not exist. If you want healthcare under my plan, you will be able to get it, it will be affordable, and it will be of the high quality.

Well then. Obama is still defending us from the eevil Hilary and Edwards, who are gonna make the poor folks buy health insurance whether they can afford it or not. Whereas Obama will leave them free to remain uninsured, but when they get sick, and try to buy it, then hes gonna hit them with a penalty. Which is either SMALL compared to what Clintwards would have charged them, in which case its no deterrent to free riding, or its LARGE, in which case those poor folks who couldnt even afford the premium certainly cant afford it, and they wont pay it, theyll just go to the ER instead, like they do now.

A different politics, a CHANGE from the old system. Right.

[Ramo]

Whereas Obama will leave them free to remain uninsured, but when they get sick, and try to buy it, then hes gonna hit them with a penalty.

Which is substantively different from what the others propose, how?

I don't care about the rhetoric. Obama's trying to sell mandates in what sounds like a politically more preferable way by placing the penalty on the back end instead of the front end. But it amounts to the same thing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yep, that's what I mean.

As for NH, Obama and Clinton are close enough for IA to be decisive. And hopefully, an Obama win in IA would reduce Independent participation in the Republican primary in NH, allowing Romney to slip through.

I'd actually prefer Romney to McCain. Leaving aside the fact that McCain's a lot more electable, I'd take the soulless technocrat who'll do anything it takes to win his particular constituency over a bellicose conservative...

I'll agree to disagree on the GOP.

As for bounce, I dont know how big it will be IF Obama wins - he would need like 10 points plus, and that doesnt always happen. And everyone in NH knows (or will soon be reminded) that Hillary almost didnt run in Iowa, than the Clintons never ran there before, etc.

Its not like Obama is an unknown being discovered in Iowa.

[Ramo]

As for bounce, I dont know how big it will be IF Obama wins - he would need like 10 points plus, and that doesnt always happen.

10 points plus? Where do you get that figure from? The pollster.com trend shows her NH lead at 3%.

The Clintons ran two general elections, I seem to recall. I doubt that they didn't campaign in IA. Hillary might have almost not run in IA, but she did (which was a mistake), and she can't use that spin.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Whereas Obama will leave them free to remain uninsured, but when they get sick, and try to buy it, then hes gonna hit them with a penalty.

Which is substantively different from what the others propose, how?

Read my whole post. The penalty is either high enough to serve as a deterrrent or it isnt. If the latter, it IS substantively different. If the former, its just as unaffordable. And some folks wont buy insurance anyway, and will face this huge cost right when they are sick, not the best time. The Clinton-Edwards solution is preferable. Its NOT a coincidence that its the choice of BOTH Clinton, and Edwards, and generally of people favoring universal care. Whereas Obamas seems to be the brainchild of his odd ball economic advisors from UC (not that Im agin UC, but on this one I think theyre wrong)

Anyway, for arguments sake, lets call it a draw on policy. The point is, hes STILL on the rhetorical offensive on this. As somebody (Yglesias?) pointed out, Obama may be in a position someday where HE, as Prez, has to support mandates - the direct kind. The GOP will throw his rhetoric back in his face.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


10 points plus? Where do you get that figure from?



The Clintons ran two general elections, I seem to recall. I doubt that they didn't campaign in IA. Hillary might have almost not run in IA, but she did (which was a mistake), and she can't use that spin.

Running in the general, where you got maybe 5 months to cover 50 states (or at least dozen swing states, to look at differently) isnt quite the same as the Iowa caucuses. Im not sure about Obama, but Edwards has been working Iowa hard since 2004 or so (after spending months there in 2003) and has been practically living there the last year.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its not like Obama is an unknown being discovered in Iowa.

What record does he have to run on?

[Zkribbler]

A longer record that Governor George W. Bush.

Ye gods, look at whom I'm comparing him too!

[DinoDoc]

Governors have a more substantive record with which to propel them to national office or spot light that state senators (Obama's previous position).