E Pluribus Unum

When you go for an interview, it's often best to bring your portfolio.

Going into this thing, Hillary was considered the lady who would lead the way on health care. (And for those of us who keep score, her husband claimed that mantle for two elections and gave us squat.)

You know Edwards has the most comprehensive, detailed and substantial health care plan which will phase out the profit-based insurance/medical/drugs alliance that Kucinich rails about -- simply because they won't be able to compete with a government run system. It softens the blow to the corporatists who lose the scare-monger arguments they rely on to stop "medicate for all."

Obama's plan do no such thing, and sets up no rival single-payor plan to compete with the current regime.

Krugman, behind the wall:

"Although Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't--a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate...I asked David Culter, a Harvard ecomonist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Obama was reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes--based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr, Cutler and others--that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope."

The best studies out there--by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies--and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic--and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.

In other words, the "mop-up" job at the end would quite likely be more than a mop-up. It'd be a substantial task, maybe even a huge one. That's why most health care experts believe you can't get that close to universal coverage without some sort of a mandate.

So if it's going to take a mandate to really cover everybody, why not include it up front?

This isn't like hiring an employee, rather retaining a professional like an architech. You look over the plans, decide if you can work with the person on a personal level, and can keep your hands off his wife. Kucinich has the job on paper, but loses me on the second two considerations. After that, I'm left with the guy who gives me the best blueprint on my pet issue, health care.

No brainer. And wouldn't it just kill Cheney to see Edwards get the job Dick always wanted?

Bottom line? These are not really debates but rather candidate interviews. And based on last night, I'd hire Hillary Clinton for the job. Luckily for the other top-tier candidates there's time for them to improve their presentations.

True, but poor interviews at that when you consider that so much of the candidates responses were reduced to "a show of hands."

She didn't "present" anything. What she attempted was to blur any real distinctions between her and the other guys.

Seriously, to paraphrase Ara, if you feel safer now than before 9/11 and Iraq, vote GOP, if not, vote Dem -- UNLESS YOU ARE HILLARY who said she feels safer now, but we should still vote for her cuz there's more safer stuff she will do. What Liebermanesque bullcrap!

How many more Patriot Acts, Hillary, how much more shredding of the Constitution must be done to make us as safe as you'd like?

I don't know how anyone who wasn't already a Hillary supporter could have been impressed enough by her "interview" to jump on her bandwagon after that. She lost ground with me.

1. I still don't see the mandate in Edwards' plan.

2. I don't recall Hillary being the presumptive favorite to present a health care plan. If anything, she'd been very careful NOT to present a specific plan (yet?). She did lay down some benchmarks, though, and univerality was the most important one.

3. Employee, architect, whatever: you interview them both. And I have to say Hillary was, again, the only one who I felt had the experience and toughness to deal with whatever might come her way -- including the expected slime attacks from the Republicans. Because they ARE coming. She's been there and dealt with that. And, believe me, I say this as an Obama supporter first. Is she divisive? Look, the Republicans will try to drive a wedge between the Democrat nominee and the electorate. It's what they do. The Dem nominee -- whoever it is -- has to be ready for that and ready to fight.

4. What she attempted was to blur any real distinctions between her and the other guys.
   Pretty crafty, eh? If the others can't deal with that, how are they going to deal with the Republicans?

5. HILLARY who said she feels safer now, but we should still vote for her cuz there's more safer stuff she will do. What Liebermanesque bullcrap!
   Hillary unfortunately does not have the luxury of nuance -- not as long as she is a woman playing a man's game. She has to be twice as tough as the others. Luckily for her, it won't be hard.

6. How many more Patriot Acts, Hillary, how much more shredding of the Constitution must be done to make us as safe as you'd like?
   I don't recall Hillary having a record of shredding the Constitution. In fact, I don't recall that being a pre-requisite for being tough on defense. When did that happen anyway? When did Democrats cede that?

7. I don't know how anyone who wasn't already a Hillary supporter could have been impressed enough by her "interview" to jump on her bandwagon after that.
   Funny you should bring that up. My 19 year old son (who was for Howard Dean back in '03) was very impressed with her performance -- and he has been turned off by here forever. "She's the only one on stage that I could see walking into the Situation Room and being in total control."

Well, if no liberal Democrat comes along, I'm sure that HillaryEdwardsObama would do just fine. Relative to the alternative, i mean.

Well, if no liberal Democrat comes along, I'm sure that HillaryEdwardsObama would do just fine. Relative to the alternative, I mean.

She looked great and sounded strong and very presidential.