I totally support Ian that Edwards NEEDS to stay in the game. Either to win or remain a power in the Convention.

This 'STOP HILLARY' meme, or maybe it is a screed, is interesting in light of the fact that Edward supporters when they do leave Edwards migrate to Hillary NOT Obama. Hmmmm, why would that be??

Maybe because Obama is actually positioned further to the right of Hillary. It makes no sense to me, from a policy standpoint, IF you actually are a supporter of Edward's policy to shift to Obama and give up a greater proportion of Edward's policies.

There is also the not insignificant fact that both Clinton and Edwards are focused on policy while Obama is focused on hope. There is the sense that they, for better or worse, will work at making things the way they want them while Obama, Bush-like, will set things in motion and hope that they will just work out. I, for one, do not trust this approach.

mild progressive tax stuff in Obama's plan. There is no extention of EI benefits at all and no heating credit, that I can see. There is some help for people with mortgage problems. There's no money for alternative energy, what there is is a decision to mandate standards for alternative energy and a tax credit for it. Obama's plan appears to have no money for state and local governments, either, and tha's necessary otherwise you get cutbacks in social services.

No, I'd say that Clinton's plan gets more money into the hands of people who need it most, fast - those who have just lost their jobs, and those who can't afford heating fuel as well as making sure that states don't cut back on social services.

As usual, Krugman is correct. He isn't always, but he is a lot more often than not.

Before we get to the line be line...I think you are mostly looking at the details and not the whole thing, or how it pulls together...

Also, keep in mind that I'm for Edwards, and this is just me being contrarian with Krugman.

Now,first of all, the majority of a very large fiscal plan goes to people making under $70K. If you wish to talk about which plans gets the most money to the people with the largest marginal propensity to spend it, then Obama's plan is it.

Secondly, (and I'm not saying I support this, just trying to push against the whole center-right meme), what the Clinton and Edwards provide are mostly palliatives. A winter fuel program is great and all, and so is the extension of uemployment benefits, but they *both* depend on adequte supplies of fuels and an adequate supply of jobs to truly benefit people. For example, if heating oil doubles in price, not only does the price of the plan go up by the amount of oil, but demand for the service also goes up, along with that, the managerial demands increases as well. If unemployment goes up, and the time period between jobs lengthens, then the same will happen to EI system. These sort of benefits accrue *best* in non-crisis situations. It's not that they won't do any good, but that they won't do as much good as you might think they do on paper.

Next, most of the plan offered by Edwards and especially Clinton talk in terms of pools of money, but it is my policy wonk experience that slush funds are usually a terrible way to fund objectives. There are way too many people ready and rarin' to dive into pools of cash, and way too many people who will rent-seek their access to a slush fund. Slush funds also typically have huge regulatory and marketing issues, mostly because they contradict each other, to an extent. Slush funds have to be establish exactly what it is supposed to fund, and if it isn't especially narrow, it will be oversubscribed for all kinds of unrelated expenses. However, in order to keep it narrow, much of the time that means that the people it was meant for do not know that the fund can help. A classic example is the Tobacco fund from the lawsuit, as compared to sin taxes. Clinton's fund for local and state revenue preserval is spectacularly inadequate anyways. I know from the *start* that California can easily absorb *every* drop of that $30B, and conservatively speaking, loss in property tax revenue and increase costs of seedy/abandoned neighborhoods will amount to *well* over a hundred billion, probably somewheres in the area of $150-$200B. Edwards at least seems to be funneling money through established plans like Medicaid, which don't get enough cash as it is. It's also a drop in the bucket.

In contrast, what Obama seems to be doing is taking the best of Bill Clinton's poverty relief plans, expand them alittle more, *and changing the philosophy/trend in gathering taxes*. He also does about a third of the value in Sen Clinton's state/local help, and a third of the value of Edwards' EI ideas. http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
There seems to be slightly different plans running around, so there's the link. Anyways, what Obama seems to be doing first and formost is trying to directly leverage the federal government's managerial expertise and streamline processing. After all, most people want to go to single payer health care by massively expanding Medicare, right? He also seems to be much more tightly focused, as I said before, on the marginal consumption rate and on pushing a more progressive philosophy on tax rates. In the long run, that matters a heckuva lot more. I am very impressed by the emphasis on senior aid. The issues of elderly poverty tends to not be addressed at all, and Social Security has been of less and less help these days. $250 or $500 won't help alot, but it will certainly be more than the whole of the tax cuts from Bush that the average American got. Also, I loved the parts about making the tax plan more accesible to more Americans, not just the whole not having to itemize to get the housing deduction.

I do not blame Obama's plan for the lack of true glitz. However, practically, and even on the intellectual level, your contention that Obama's plan gets fewer dollars to "the people who need it most" than Clinton's plan is idiotic. His plan is bigger than hers in dollar terms. His plan also has vastly simplified distribution (and nobody has to fill out forms, there's no delays for coordination, and lower possibility of low information awareness preventing use) than Clinton's plan. Moreover, there is just fewer ways that the plan can fail, in getting passed with a minimum of lard and in execution. The primary barrier is going to be the progressive taxation aspect that will stir all of the armed forces of the Club for Growth folks. Here, Obama is trying to underpromise and overdeliver, something I approve of.

As far as alternative energy is concerned...look, when you read what Jerome A Paris writes, and what AlanfromBigEasy writes, true alternative energy plan will be massively expensive. Jerome and Alan do not think so, because they think the payoff for wind and trams/trains will be large. In any event, 5 billion bucks is absolutely nothing, really. 200k green homes? Whaaa? We need to build an entire industry here, and that is much more than $5B. Both Edwards and Clinton merely want to *sound* green rather than *be* green, as of now. We shouldn't start with little baby steps. We should start it with a seperate plan altogether. So the lack of the funded features is not at all "center rightish".

Krugman isn't right. Yes, usually he is, but he isn't right in this case.

This is kind of the main reason I don't support Obama. Being a crypto-leftist isn't my idea of a good thing. Being a *black* crypto-leftist is simply going to get him shot. I most definitly have a problem with him running a center-right campaign and have a back-end liberal side. I feel like maybe the campaign is where he is, and he's like Nagin or Cory Booker, or he is an honest black dude trying to sneak in, which smacks of a certain sort of corruption.

I'm going with the white dude as a result, even though Edwards is not as progressive personally as either Clinton or Obama, and Edwards is the least substantial of the canidates, but I like his policy plank and he supports his policy plank in his speeches and debates. Call me a parlimentarian but it is, what it is...

Provides a smaller healthcare solution, one that does NOT cover everyone.

Obama's education policies are weaker than either Edwards or Hillary

Obama's support of unions is much weaker. He also has the fewest by far in terms of union support. Unions support Edwards and Hillary.

Obama has the most regressive tax.

So personality aside I am baffled by this NEED for Obama to be more liberal when he in fact is not.

You have to be clueless not to realize that voting for a piece of legislation cannot reliably be extrapolated to determine a more complete and sophisticated position. It doesn't necessarily give the breadth of views, it represents how each feels given no other choice other than yea or nay on a particular, specific law.

Nuance matters.

This may be a detail. But it bugs me. I understand that this was made for non-specialists, but that 98% claim is bogus. No question that there are plenty of unconscious processes going on in our brains. But claiming that exactly 98% of them are unconscious is ridiculous and meaningless, given that we have no way of counting them. Does he say how he came up with that figure? I work in the field, and no serious practitioner would say that.

who says we have no way of measuring brain activity? what we may have no way of measuring to precise detail is our actual consciousness of it, but i'd surmise that 2 digit percentages are well within capability.
if we can use MRI to measure conscious lying, surely we can measure other boundaries of consciousness in activities of thought outside of vocalization, no?

i believe we have levels of consciousness separated from each other, making consciousness itself needing be scrutunized for precise definition, or redefinition rather. i believe we are far from answering the ultimate questions predicated upon such redefinition, but within the scope of the current definition, i.e.; externally confirmable 'consciousness', i believe that figure is accepted as confirmed. you dispute that and suggest you do so informedly. awesome. i'd be interested in the evidence. i understand you're likely way too busy (seriously -i say this earnestly and respectfully) to go back and give confirming references but it would mean a lot to me.

currently, my interest in such matters stems from my interest in power intoxication and what it has wrought throughout our history.

http://agonist.org/zuma/20080112/power_intoxication

thank you. i was seriously glad to learn of your relation to such fields.

47.2 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. - Steven Wright.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist. Carry on.)

he didn't include his own. a minor detail, i'll admit, but accuracy and precision in all things is a good habit to follow. i myself prefer going quite far beyond just to the fourth place but my engineer buddy tells me it then becomes "rather statistically inconsequential" and i'm hardly one to argue.

...Krugman is absolutly barkin' mad when he said that Obama's plan is to the right of the other two.

...you got some analysis to go with your ad hominem?

oh that's right Obambots are better than everybody else.

If Obama loses, he can look to his supporters as being a prime cause.

I just can't stand people who insult and degrade without *any* attempt to make their case. If insults are all you have, STFU.

Since you such a big supporter of Edwards,

Please show me your posts supporting him?

[links here]

And while your at it, why as an Edwards Supporter did you support this comment:

""the most important point, and what got me to write this response...

...Krugman is absolutly barkin' mad when he said that Obama's plan is to the right of the other two.

[Obama's plan is] In its way, it is ten times more class warfarish than the Edwards fiscal proposal."

Let's see if you can support your trash talk with actual posts or just more BS...

We're waiting

Shah8 expressed an opinion and backed it up with some facts/analysis. Maybe not rigorous, but at least there was something there. You responded by calling shah8 an "Obamabot." Gordon responded to you asking for you to stop the ad hominem attacks and instead present an argument. Now you're asking Gordon to support a statement he didn't make with some sort of links/proof... when you're the one who committed the original offense that started this whole chain.

Congratulations on completing an amateur troll run! But I'm afraid you won't catch any big ones around here. :P

Bolo, according to you, Shah8 expressed an opinion and backed it up with some facts/analysis

He said:

"Krugman is absolutely barkin' mad when he said that Obama's plan is to the right of the other two."

And backed it with these "facts/analysis":

"The major theme of his plans lies in reversing the regressiveness of the American tax system. In its way, it is ten times more class warfarish than the Edwards fiscal proposal."

Which you idiotically called:

"Maybe not rigorous, but at least there was something there."

Bolo, you say:

"Gordon responded to you to stop the ad hominem attacks and instead present an argument" by saying:

"You got some analysis to go with your ad hominem?"

I asked the same of him since I was critical of the ad hominem attack on Krugman which amounted to nothing more than attacking anybody who would question Barack Obama.

Bolo if you think Barak Obama is above criticism fine, he is the establishment Candidate. If you think that Krugman is "barking mad" because he doesn't like Barak...fine. If you don't think calling a man you disagree with "barking mad" because he does not share you view is not "ad hominem attack" fine.

You are full of shit. Period.

I think Obama supporters have become a "cult of personality".

All of my friends, who do not share the greatness of Obama have been insulted by Barak's supporters in the past few days, the result is Barak will be the first Democrat I would consider not voting for in the General. I'm from Chicago, I know a lot more about his background than I have time for here. You'll find out about him as soon as he has wrapped the nomination.

I would say two Republicans I know who work for Pharma & Health insurance are doing everything can to make sure Barak is the nominee, they take great joy in folks like yourself. If Barak wins, they'll be okay, he's bought and paid for, but they think he'll lose to McCain.

Are lightyears better than anything the Repubs have put up. All of them any of them. Obama in my view is to the right of Edwards and Hillary. Hillary is to the right of Edwards. But in terms of a comparison of any of these candidates and ANOTHER repub in the white house for one day beyond January 20, 2009 would be a nightmare.

Can we keep our eye on the ball. I'd like these three individuals to be President, Vice President and Head of the Senate working together to undo the disaster this country has become. I think it is possible.

Imagine an Edwards Presidency, an Obama Vice President, and Hillary at the Head of the Senate.

I can.

still beats any R

but that's not what the polls say.

...is a trifle different but the point's the same:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/15/6381/

of what Barack Obama has to say and none of it fits my definition of "right wing" talking points. His positions on most issues are similar to those of Clinton and Edwards. He scares the ideologues because he is not as purely "progressive" as Edwards and seems to have a much larger following so they have invented this malarkey that he's a conservative.

Obama did not put Social Security "in play" in Iowa, he has consistently been against privatization and has a plan to raise or eliminate the cap on contributions. How that puts SS "in play" is beyond me.

My suspicion is that he wants to remove the cap, and turn it from a strongly regressive tax into a flat one, and there's no better piece of Ju-Jitsu than to use the "privatize" arguments to accomplish that.

But I only let my lizard-brain out to watch sports, and that seems to put one at a disadvantage in some of these discussions.

Sounds like the phonebooth theory to me. The beauty of vacuous rhetoric is that anything at all can be project onto it.

...is there's no reason to listen closely.

privatization. Obama's right, Social Security will eventually run into trouble and his fix makes a lot of sense. It will be no hardship to people making more than $97,500 to pay the full load the whole year like everybdy else.

The right wing talking point on the subject is that only private accounts will save SS. Obama has gone on record that this is too risky and he's right. Anyone who has a 401K need only to compare the 4Q 2007 to the 1Q 2008 statement, when it comes out, to prove him right.

While I'm an Edwards supporter, I'm not going to cast Obama (or even Hillary) into the "denizen of Hell" category. Really, I agree with you on this, and my disagreement was with the comment you were replying to. There are a couple people here who make me feel embarassed to be an Edwards supporter.

My bad for misconstruing your response.

Total lack of perspective by some on this site.

The anti-corporate ideologues are the ones who Rove used to put Bush in the White House. They can be 'played' every election. It's the Naderites and Deaniacs who gave us the mess we are in, and now they rant about

'right wing' Obama.

Very Sad.

It's as if the Republicans give them their 'stay home and don't vote' talking points. I mean, whats the point when we can have Huckabee? Aren't his views EXACTLTY the same as Obamas and Hillarys??

Nader and Dean had nothing to do with it - they're just convenient scapegoats. Think it through. Anyone can be played if they don't.

Anybody who confuses the Naderites and the Deaniacs... Well, the charitable explanation would be that they didn't have any direct experience with election 2000. Perhaps out of the country, or something.

Unless you believe that the Nader voters would have voted for Bush, had they voted for Gore in either Florida or New Hampshire, Gore wins.

...by exactly 5 to 4 against Gore. He got 100% of the African-American vote, and his name is Clarence Thomas. Nader had absolutely nothing to do with it. Quit picking on easy targets and learn to recognize the real enemy. Gore won. Period.

Listing the reasons I'd say that Gore lost, in order of priority which also turns out to be more or less chronological:

1. The press hated Gore and literally made up lies about him, which they repeated endlessly (see The Daily Howler);

2. Jebbie outsourced "cleaning" the voter rolls and "accidentally" purged many thousands of likely Democratic (mostly black) voters

3. Nader peeled off a few votes

4. Voting problems on the day itself (the butterfly ballot) peeled off a few more votes

5. Bourgeois riot staged by Republican staffers halts Miami recount

6. Scalia and Thomas award the win to Bush in "good for one time only" decision in Bush v. Gore, arguing that counting all the votes in Florida would cause Bush irreperable harm (IIRC).

So, I don't think that its correct to say that Nader had nothing to do with the outcome; but without the press and flagrant election theft by Jebbie, it never would have come to the point where Nader, or Florida election law about chads, or Scalia and Thomas would have been able to affect matters. It's a "straw that broke the camel's back" thing.

And we also forget that if the over-votes for Gore had been counted (the votes where Gore was both checked off and his name written in) he would have won decisively. As it was, the people clearly wanted Gore, voted for him, and were thwarted by the concerted efforts of Republicans. And people wonder why we think that fighting is needed...