Today, I've got a column running in The Politico on the subject of the GOP and our poor record and weak rhetoric on health care. Extract:

72 percent of those surveyed, and even 61 percent of Republicans, say they favor expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, putting them at odds with the (still) leader of the Republican Party, President Bush, who vetoed the original SCHIP expansion legislation and has threatened to veto a revised SCHIP bill passed by the House last week.

The SCHIP numbers are particularly telling, because they signal at worst a complete failure of the majority Republican position on health care to resonate with voters, and at best a complete failure of messaging on the issue, combined with obliviousness to that failure.

In the run-up to the SCHIP veto, the main arguments advanced by the White House focused on the expansion of the program being bad because it represented a move toward government-run, or “socialized,” medicine — with no further explanation.

Unsurprisingly, then, since a large swath of voters actually now like the idea of government-run health care, especially when the alternative looks like letting kids suffer, the White House message fell flat — leaving Democrats to reap the spoils of this particular health care battle.

Democrats, of course, also benefited from 45 Republicans in the House (44 on the original veto override vote) and 18 in the Senate siding with them on the original SCHIP expansion plan, and 44 also siding with them where the revised House SCHIP bill was concerned.

That suggests Democrats are the only party with solutions where health care is concerned.

> Read more & share

I've been working on a couple of columns today, so haven't been blogging too much, but I have been watching MSNBC rigorously (as I always do) and getting ready for tonight's Democratic debate.

The topic of the day seems to be, is Obama going to come out fighting tonight, and beat Hillary Clinton up for being an unspecific, imprecise, philosophically-ungrounded, pandering, rhetorician-cum-smokescreen artist. Or, is he going to play nice and do nothing much to upset anyone.

I'd love to say the former (hey, I'm not an Obama fan, but someone other than blow dry needs to make the point that she's a waffling, say-anything-substance-lacking so-and-so who has no place running the country). But, I'm going to say the latter.

Here's why. Anyone else seen this ad?



It seems to me that with this ad, Obama is better set up to be running for a Nobel Peace Prize than he is President. Why? It's all about bringing people together (lovely thought), cuddly principles-- and it's definitely not about attacking Hillary Clinton (who is, of course, the target here, even though you can't exactly tell) in any definitive terms. With the end result being, of course, that the ad achieves nothing except winning Barack the "Friendliest Guy in the Class of 2008" prize, an award I think only he and Mike Huckabee are in serious contention for, anyway.

Why won't Barack come out and attack (rhyming unintentional, I promise)? OK, well, if you listen to Hillary's folks, he is, dammi...

> Read more & share

OK, so first of all, rising health care is a problem in this country. Remember that.

And John Edwards needs to eat less sugar, because that "good evening" intro was wigged-out.

Ooh, and Hillary's a liar about Social Security (actually, I didn't realize she'd said anything much at all on the subject-- I thought she was trying to avoid talking specifics, full stop).

And I love how Hillary has been politicking for 35 years, not a) being a lawyer and b) being a famous wife. Also, apparently, the reason Social Security is going bankrupt is because Republicans overspent on contracts with Halliburton. Who knew? Sadly, it sounds plausible.

I think Hillary is also about to eat Tim Russert's privates, with that grinning while he quotes Jim Webb's to her on Iran. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

And, it's all about "vigorous diplomacy." I wonder, does she also strenuously object?

***

Chris Dodd has no flies in his hair, so it's a good night so far. And actually, I think apart from saying "Irania" (did I hear that right?) his answer sounded pretty good.

Joe Biden is also sounding relatively sensible tonight... so far.

And Obama just ducked an important question. He doesn't want to define the point at which we might have to take military action against Iran. Looks like someone has been checking out some polling numbers, and doesn't want to sound like a lily-livered pacifist who will let the mullahs take over America.

Oh, look, Hillary doesn't want to define the "red line," which once crossed, would necessitate military action against Iran. My guess is, that's because she'd put the red line rather close to where we are today, but doesn't dare say so given the Democratic base's aversion...

> Read more & share