I haven't settled on Pres candidate and find myself unenthused with almost all of them.  However, I really enjoyed Taegan Goddard's revelation that Obama smokes and that he seems to think it will hurt his chances.  I don't smoke and don't really like it but there is something amusing that this could be a problem for him.  It makes me ask - what is the world coming to when a legal vice could be a political liability?

Find fault with the current US healthcare system is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Enacting single-payer healthcare (the only genuine UHC, so far as I'm aware) in the US will be closer to bringing those dead fish back to life.

Time, I think, for the lefty sphere to transfer its effort from the former activity to the latter.

Yeah, Ford was a loser. And don't forger a member of the Warren Commission. These old Republicans have dark pasts.

Matt, having lived through the period (I was in my twenties), I wouldn't call Ford a loser or elitist. I think he was a honest man, even a people's man, and a moderate Republican in the Eisenhower tradition.

Now, on the critical side, though I consider Ford to have been of good character and benign politics, I would judge him as a naive team player to have absolved Nixon - a dupe - particularly as Haig played him for the pardon without insisting on Nixon's confession. Haig's loyalties were first to Nixon, then to Ford. I think Ford came to understand that, but could never admit to himself that in pardoning Nixon, he probably made a bad mistake.

About two blocks down from me is Progressive Shoe Repair.  This delights me everytime I go past and I actually sometimes take a different route specifically for that reason.  Also, over the past 6 months, discontent with the current governmental state of affairs has been skipping the papers and going straight to the walls around town.  This is also encouraging, particularly since this is San Diego.  There's a real, lasting movement to be had.

Everyone needs to pick that up. Make McCain pay for his cynical ploy.

The idea about Medicare for Kids as a wedge issue is a great one. The Republicans used them to great effect to try and stereotype the Democrats, so repaying the favour is a good way to try and strengthen the new majority. This isn't just tit-for-tat, however, as whereas they liked to use social issues, which can't go away and which they wouldn't deal with, as it'd take away their stick to beat the left, the Democrats can concentrate on economic matters, showing the Republicans to be corporate America's hired goons, and thus build support to actually try and fix the inequalities.

We need a dozen of wedge issues like this that just can't be opposed without acting like a heel.

Gerald Ford was an "honorary Director" at Citigroup not subject to votes by shareholders.  I suppose he couldn't get elected to anything.   And no, I'm not a fan.  Ford was a coward, an elitist, and a loser.

I usually agree with a lot of what you write, but this time you're wrong. I really don't understand why so many in the progressive blogosphere are bashing Gerald Ford.

I don't agree with many of the stances he took, nor do I like the people he had in his administration. I don't like some of the things he said, and there's certainly a case to be made that the negatives in his presidency far outweighed the positives.

But Gerald Ford was a genuinely decent man, from a long tradition of good public servants in Michigan that happened to be Republicans (the Englers and DeVos's came later). I might not have voted for a Ford or a Miliken, but I can respect them because they've earned it.

Gerald Ford did what he felt was right for the people of west Michigan (and was, by the way, elected to Congress 12 times, defeating an incumbent the first time-- apparently he could get elected to something).

Coward, elitist, and loser? No. He was just a public servant doing the best job he could, with all his faults and all his virtues.

I just realized that Barrack Obama didn't do any events for Ned Lamont.

The emphasis on bipartisanship is fascinating.

It's because it's the only way the fascists can get to play. Plus, it's a wholly new and different concept for them, like a caveman finding a flashlight.

-GFO

"Edwards dubs the escalation in Iraq the 'McCain doctrine'."

Actually it was dubbed escalation by others before Edwards. He's looking a bit "me too" on language.

More importantly it's Bush Jr policy, not a "McCain Doctrine".

McCain can make Edwards look foolish in a debate by pointing out that the decision to increase troops in Iraq is a policy issue and there is no "doctrine" involved, McCain's or anyone else's. It will make Edward's look ill informed.

Also, by failing to confront Bush Jr and current policy, Edwards is failing to have an impact on policy right now.

Better to oppose policy of more troops in Iraq now and prevent the new president in 2008 from having to deal with the results of the escalation.

It's kind of like Edwards New Orleans misplay a few weeks ago.

1. He's misses the real point of the issue.

2. He doesn't address the problem now.

Edwards is looking more and more like a candidate who says what he thinks people want to hear vs. presenting a coherent solution that shows he understands the issues.

Brion wrote:
1. He's misses the real point of the issue.

Boomerang--No, McCain is the biggest problem on the presidential campaign horizon for 2008. Nailing McCain to his own direly unpopular position is perfect.
Perhaps if McCain sees his polls dropping like a rock from being identified with the escalation, he will change his position. That will be far more likely to effect the policy now than anything else Edwards could say or do, since McCain is the last major political figure in America (besides Bush) still calling for escalation.
(Lieberman and the neo-cons are too damaged to be considered major anymore)

Matt,

Thanks for flattering the Hell outta me again.