Blagdaross

Fantastically ugly word. This I suppose conclusively proves the term progressive has arrived.

Like Neil at Ezra Klein’s place, I think 2008 represents a golden opportunity for progressive change, and I’m afraid the Democrats will piss it away. I also, like Neil, think the likelihood of Edwards pissing it away is considerably smaller than Clinton (obviously), but also Obama.

Edwards has gone way to the left since the last primaries, probably out of conviction, esp. since lots of people have, but presumbably also to some extent because he, correctly I think, believes the political situation has changed. Most other candidates, including Obama, doesn’t. Obama is no populist, and hasn’t endorsed any bold or risky policies. The way you run your campaign will shape your presidency, but more importantly, what a candidate’s think is a winning political strategy will influence their presidencies as much as their idea good policy if they become president.

There are reasons to strongly prefer Edwards, even though Obama isn’t obviously less progressive in his beliefs. (I think he at least is more of a esablishmentarian.)
Clinton, meanwhile, I suspect of being a bit of a DLC ideologue, who won’t be too leftist even if she thinks it’s good politics. More clearly, she’ll be very inflexible in her beliefs of what’s a winning formula, even in the face of mounting evedence the 90s are in fact over.

Alex is distraught that we’re losing to some racist nutcases in the 2006 Weblog Awards. Weirdly, Haloscan thought my comment was spam, so I’m putting it here instead.

Dude, these are the wingnut awards. Unlike the liberal Koufaxes, they aspire or pretend to be non-partisan; they have a bunch of non-wingnut nominees, and non-political categories. This works out fine for them, because the liberals don’t link to them, so the wingnuts always win against the more popular liberwal blogs, and not too overwhelmingly. They never get to win in the Bloggies, since progressives are more popular.

It’s so wonderfully illustrative of the the wingnutosphere in general, and their whole modus operandi.

No need to feel bad about losing them. No one takes these awards seriously, anyway.

Matt Yglesias thinks universal healthcare for kids wouldl grow the contituency for more systemic reform in the long term. I’ve thought of a similar idea. Instead of just covering kids, devise a plan where everyone under 25, and everyone over 60 is covered.

The cutoff point shouldn’t be 18, because it will feel less real and painful, because 18-year olds are like that, and a lot of them will be covered by their parents for a while, and also it will be wrapped up with becoming responsible for yourself in general, and not seem unfair.
If it runs out when you’re 25, you’ll be more concerned and aware of it. If you cover some adults the pressure to expand coverage will be stronger.

The fact that it’s more arbitrary will make it harder to get passed, but also make it more likely it will get expanded. (The youngest and oldest workers do need UHC more the most, so it’s not completely arbitrary.) After all, the US already have UHC for seniors, and it hasn’t created much pressure to get everyone UHC. It seems non-arbitrary, and like a different thing even though it’s not, and the same may be true of UHC for kids too.

(Adapted from a comment on Yglesias blog.)

Ross Douthat: Liberalism has science and progress to pursue—and ultimately immortality, the real goal but also the one that rarely dares to speak its name—whereas conservatives have … well, a host of goals, most of them in tension with one another.

In the answer to one of the letters here.

(adapted from my comments on Matt’s site.)