Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Democratic Primary is Tighter than Willie Nelson's Headband
It's not as dramatic as the Huckasurge (Huckaboom? Huckacaust?) but Barack Obama is steadily eating away at Hillary Clinton's once-stratospheric poll leads. In Iowa Obama's cut from Clinton's and John Edwards' numbers and risen to a narrow one-point lead. In New Hampshire, Clinton's so-called firewall state (where she could resist an Obama Iowa win with her own win 5 days later), Clinton's lead is down to 5.2 points from a high of 25. In South Carolina, home of the "Clinton gets more black votes than Obama" storyline, Clinton's lead is 0.7 percent, and the latest poll (PDF) shows Obama winning the black vote by 56 to 21.
Clinton's media pushback consists of, among other things, this howler of a press release.
The new CBS/NYT poll released yesterday reveals that voters -- by wide margins -- think Hillary Clinton is the Democrat with the best chance of winning the general election. Nearly two-thirds of voters (63 percent), more than four times the number chose Obama (14 percent), believe Hillary is the best bet for taking back the White House. The poll comes on the heels of others showing very similar findings: a CNN poll from last week shows Hillary more than doubling Obama (53-25) on who has the best chance to beat the Republican nominee, LA Times/Bloomberg has Hillary leading 54-17 on the same question, and a Time poll from mid-November shows Hillary is by far the most likely to win the general election (76-23 versus 61-38 for Obama).
Funny thing about these polls is that they reflect not Clinton strength but voter ignorance. Obama actually polls as well or better than Clinton against the top five GOP candidates. Sure, some Democratic voters know Clinton is polarizing and think she can overcome that by outsmarting the GOP—no floundering and blowing questions about swift boats or the macabre fate of Kitty Dukakis. And... what happens to that feeling if Clinton hands Iowa to Obama?
Headline explained here.
|12.12.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Exactly the right question, Dave. For most Democrats, Hillary is
much more repsected for her effectiveness and strength than loved.
She's the "strong horse." Up until recently, she ran a
pitch-perfect campaign and was firing on all cylinders. If a crack
appears in the armor, it could turn into a rout.
Not that it necessarily will turn into a rout, like Dean's slide in
04. Hillary has the institutional backing and workmanlike capacity
for plugging along to recover from a slide, keep going, and grind
her way back to the top, if it comes to that.
Abdul|12.12.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Hillary has the institutional backing and workmanlike
capacity for plugging along to recover from a slide, keep going,
and grind her way back to the top, if it comes to that.
If Barack can't get her, then our only hope is for Sara Connor
could crush her in a giant drill press.
.|12.12.07 @ 11:36AM|#
If Barack can't get her, then our only hope is for Sara
Connor could crush her in a giant drill press.
Does that mean that Obama is secretly a time traveler from the
future, and that one of his children is actually the savior of the
future of the human race?
Abdul|12.12.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Does that mean that Obama is secretly a time traveler from
the future, and that one of his children is actually the savior of
the future of the human race?
Yes. Al Gore invented the internet. Hillary? Skynet.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Does that mean that Obama is secretly a time traveler from
the future, and that one of his children is actually the savior of
the future of the human race?
Well, he has heard of and has a passing acquaintance with
computers (and their magnificent powers) unlike every
other candidate out there, so far.
Must be from the future. Obviously.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 11:46AM|#
I don't know how much more ground Obama can pick up. He's been
the big beneficiary of the Edwards anti-HRC attack ads. They
reminded people how much they didn't like Hillary, and let others
know that Edwards is fine with playing dirty.
Obama has been playing up the positivity, almost like a Democratic
Reagan. However, I'm not sure that the message will continue to
gain adherents. For one thing, he'll eventually have to start
talking specifics, and for another, he may have to respond to
Hillary's attack ads if the races remain close or he gets the
lead.
.|12.12.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Unfortunately for him, people don't respond to "I'm not going spout bullshit about Hilary Clinton" the same way they respond to "John Kerry hates America"
|12.12.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Well, [Obama] has heard of and has a passing acquaintance
with computers
Really? I could have sworn he was a lawyer.
"Margaret, could you please come in here and put this e-letter in
the mail for me?"
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 11:59AM|#
joe,
I mean, in his policy proposals, he gives a great deal of attention
to tech applications to (in his opinion) reduce cost overheads in
large paper-intensive bureaucratic programs and increase
transparency in government.
For example, he of all the candidates suggested that perhaps making
the prescription system electronic would cut down on the number of
patients who die from a misread prescription. Nice thought; being a
doctor, R. Paul might be able to speak to that...then again, he
might just be one of those few doctors whose handwriting is
legible. Ditto filing Medicare/Medicaid papers online to reduce the
massive work-hours overhead and long turnaround times.
He also suggested things like legislation pending in session be
available online, departments and authorities posting all minutes
of policy meetings online, paperwork filings being encouraged in
e-file rather than hard copy, etc.. And blogs for cabinet-level
officials. And a comprehensive online searchable database for
government rulings and documents.
So far as I know, he's the only candidate who is talking about
pragmatic, technical solutions to government bloat. Me, I prefer
Paul's slash and burn approach to the federal government...but if
it becomes about pragmatism and they are gonna tax the crap out of
me anyway, I'll take the candidate who has an idea bout how to
reduce waste and streamline bureaucracy in a heartbeat to put those
dollars to some effective use.
BakedPenguin|12.12.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Elemenope - thanks (even if you were talking to joe). I hadn't realized he'd gotten so specific about his policy proposals.
umbler|12.12.07 @ 12:05PM|#
"Let's review: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush,
Bush....Clinton?"
For any cadidate not named Rudy(R-911), That alone is enough to
beat Hillary. If Rudy wins the GOP nomination, it would be a "pick
the less odious New Yorker to lead you" exercise...and Clinton
would win.
|12.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Elemenope,
Electronic medical records to reduce medical mistakes is something
all the candidates are proposing.
But IIRC, he was one of the sponsors of the bill to put earmarks
online for the public to peruse.
|12.12.07 @ 12:15PM|#
joe's right. I might be crazy but I think the other Senator to propose the earmark online bill was John McCain.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 12:15PM|#
joe,
Yeah, the other candidates (fairly late, although Edwards slacked
the least) included it in their Medicare proposal after Obama did.
However, it was somewhat "by the way" and I never got the sense
they were ever serious about it. And nobody else is talking about
dragging the Fed into the 21st century in general
terms.
re:earmarks, yeah. He partnered with someone across the aisle on
that one. Anyone remember who? (I'm feeling a tad lazy. ;)
|12.12.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Elemenope,
That's the right track to be thinking on. Using technology to
streamline government was the one thing Al Gore was really,
legitimately good at, but honestly I like Obama's emphasis on
transparency even more.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Thanks, sage. LOL, McCain. An idiot on foreign policy, but at least he cares about the "little things".
|12.12.07 @ 12:19PM|#
"Let's review: Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush,
Bush....Clinton?"
I heard Jenna Bush and Chelsea Clinton were going to be civilly
unionized, thus creating the Bush-Clinton Dynasty will reign for
1,000 years.
That's what I heard anyway...
|12.12.07 @ 12:21PM|#
it would be a "pick the less odious New Yorker to lead you"
exercise
I think I speak for many when I say that Hilary is not a "New
Yorker."
|12.12.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Abdul | December 12, 2007, 11:33am | #
Hillary has the institutional backing and workmanlike capacity for
plugging along to recover from a slide, keep going, and grind her
way back to the top, if it comes to that.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE refrain from using the words Hillary and grind
in the same paragraph!
The mental image shot past the spam filter in my brain and I may
never be the same.
|12.12.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Wake me up when it's over. Let's see - we've had presidents who took us to war, fought depressions and economic collapses, ended wars, undertook manifest destinies, launched a space program, re-energized economies with tax cuts, preserved the Union, faced down the commies, etc. etc. (I'm not saying all those things were good, just that they were complex and historically important)and now we have a presidential candidate who is going to make prescriptions legible!
|12.12.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Hillary has the institutional backing and workmanlike
capacity for plugging along to recover from a slide, keep going,
and grind her way back to the top sling mud
and other brownish substances in a bareknuckled race to the
gutter, if it comes to that.
Fixed, joe.
|12.12.07 @ 12:47PM|#
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE refrain from using the words Hillary
and grind in the same paragraph!
Unless you mean "grind" in the pidgin Hawaiian sense of "eat", as
in, "Ho, brah, look at dat cannibal grind on the Hillary
pupus!"
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Just think of 'grinding' in the entirely unsatisfying but
thankfully unsexual World of Warcraft sense. It helps with the
disturbing mental images.
Then again, the other day I saw TV ads for WoW featuring, first,
William Shatner, and then...Mr. T. So, thinking of WoW gives me bad
mental images all on its own.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 12:56PM|#
creech --
Clearly you've never been on the bad end of a poorly written
prescription. ;)
|12.12.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Electronic medical records to reduce medical mistakes is
something all the candidates are proposing.
Because migrating to EMR is something (a) only the government can
do and (b) something hospitals and doctors are too stupid to manage
on their own.
|12.12.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Someone tell me how many sacred hecatombs I need to sacrifice so
we can have a Paul vs. Obama election.
I hope it's not too many, those hecatombs are expensive.
src|12.12.07 @ 1:31PM|#
elemenope: the technology and transparency issue is one thing I
like about Obama. Also his business about legalizing foreign
prescription drugs. It seems that (at least compared to other
candidates) he has a lot of pragmatic solutions.
Also, a Hawaiian president? In a crazy moment it occurred to me
that we might be better governed if Congress and everybody in the
White House had to walk around in leis.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 1:37PM|#
src --
LOL. Leis. Seriously, though, he's my number two candidate (albeit
far behind R. Paul). If I can't get government to die
screaming, I want it to at least work right, goddammit! For
me, principle yields to pragmatism before it yields to
despair.
There are not many things I'd give my right eye for, but a Paul v.
Obama race would be...well, no, it wouldn't be on that list. But it
would be mighty fine, nonetheless.
|12.12.07 @ 1:49PM|#
Good for you, prolefeed! You made the incredibly-insightful
observation that political campaigns can be dirty.
Good job "fixing that for" me. Incredibly helpful and relevant to
the discussion.
ed|12.12.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Obama is steadily eating away at Hillary Clinton
A generation ago that would have gotten him lynched.
|12.12.07 @ 1:51PM|#
R C Dean,
Because migrating to EMR is something (a) only the government
can do and (b) something hospitals and doctors are too stupid to
manage on their own.
Then why hasn't it been done? It's 2007 and doctors are stilling
scribbling on little pieces of paper which never get entered into a
database.
There can't possibly be a ten dollar bill on the sidewalk.
|12.12.07 @ 1:51PM|#
And why, exactly, RC, did you decide to address that comment to me, rather than the person who brought up the subject?
|12.12.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Then why hasn't it been done? It's 2007 and doctors are
stilling scribbling on little pieces of paper which never get
entered into a database.
Eh, not entirely true. Virginia Mason in Seattle has been doing
medical transcription electronically for some time. The big job is
putting all the handwritten stuff into electronic form. All that
"old stuff" is still pretty relevant.
Anyway, it's something that must be scanned in manually as the
records are pulled. And no amount of government mandates is going
to speed that up.
Most of the "old school" doctors could really care less about
electronic records. When they see a patient they want a chart to
look at. When they are done they want to add to that by dictating
into a microphone. They don't really comprehend how it gets from
the microphone to the chart, and they shouldn't. They'd rather
concentrate on medicine.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Then why hasn't it been done? It's 2007 and doctors are
stilling scribbling on little pieces of paper which never get
entered into a database.
Joe's right. You can't not go to a doctor if you need prescription
meds, so the "market pressure" that would be normally caused by
tens of thousands of people dying from the way the product is
delivered is at best distorted.
Large capital investments for small businesses like doctor's
offices, like computers, software, and training so staff knows how
to use them, are things that sometimes need a little external shove
when the cost (through lost business) of any given patient dying is
less than the equipment needed to make sure it doesn't
happen.
Since hospitals can absorb large infrastructure costs better, they
tend to get on the tech bandwagon a little earlier, and like sage
points out, it isn't a silver bullet fix by any means.
|12.12.07 @ 2:20PM|#
sage,
Most of the "old school" doctors could really care less about
electronic records. When they see a patient they want a chart to
look at. When they are done they want to add to that by dictating
into a microphone.
And that's where the government comes in.
They don't really comprehend how it gets from the microphone to
the chart, and they shouldn't. They'd rather concentrate on
medicine.
OK. We've now seen Objection 1: We Don't Need The Government, The
Private Sector Will Do It Itself.
Once that's been swatted away, we get Objection 2: It Is A Terrible
Idea To Do This Thing That The Private Sector Will Do Itself.
They'd rather concentrate on medicine. Just like, once
upon a time, every other professional job was held by people who'd
rather concentrate on their core actions than learn how a computer
works. Nonetheless, despite the whining, the use of IT has
increased the efficiency and accuracy of every sector it's been
introduced.
But not medicine, because it's such a terrible idea to require
electronic records. Why do I suspect that, if hospitals actually
were requiring this by themselves, without a government mandate, it
would be lauded as a great step forward and held up as evidence of
the uselessness of government mandates?
|12.12.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Good for you, prolefeed! You made the incredibly-insightful
observation that political campaigns can be dirty.
Good job "fixing that for" me. Incredibly helpful and relevant to
the discussion.
Ummm, the point I was trying to make was that one specific
politician -- Hillary -- was in my opinion prepared to play way
dirtier than most people on the campaign trail, and certainly more
than Obama -- though he may acquire a newfound appreciation for mud
if taking the high road seems to not be working.
Now, if I had in fact just said "politics can get dirty" without
commenting on any one specific politician, then, sure, that
wouldn't have been helpful.
If you are willing to stipulate that everyone here without
exception, including you, agrees HRC is ready to be appallingly
nasty even by the unusually low standards of politics, then I'll
stipulate that my comment was unnecessary.
|12.12.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Maybe you should actually make your points instead of trying to
get in overly-cute digs.
appallingly nasty even by the unusually low standards of
politics
Let's see: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Willie Horton ads. Jesse
Helms Black Hands ads. John McCain's Inter-racial Baby phone
calls.
No, I don't think there is any reason whatsoever to believe that
Hillary Clinton would sink into that territory. Bill's campaign
wasn't particularly nasty. I haven't seen any evidence that she'd
be a particularly nasty campaigner.
Is this one of those "Hillary is bad, X is bad, so Hillary must do
X" things?
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Joe, that may be true, but Hillary is not Bill. Time and again
during his first term, they together proved that political deftness
is not transitive through marriage.
Besides, dirty politics these days is sanitized away from the
candidates' hands. Hillary won't bring up Obama's cocaine, but
*somebody* will.
|12.12.07 @ 2:40PM|#
But the question wasn't about her political deftness. It was
about her propensity to get appallingly nasty even by the
unusually low standards of politics.
I'd certainly agree that she doesn't rise to Bill's level of pure
political talent - who does? - but that doesn't translate into
"especially nasty mudslinging."
I suspect she'll engage in a pretty ordinary level of
mudslinging.
|12.12.07 @ 2:44PM|#
OK. We've now seen Objection 1: We Don't Need The
Government, The Private Sector Will Do It Itself.
And that's what happening. Not due to, but in spite of regulations
like HIIPA.
Once that's been swatted away, we get Objection 2: It Is A
Terrible Idea To Do This Thing That The Private Sector Will Do
Itself.
I must have missed when that was swatted away. And the reason the
mandate is what you call a "terrible idea" is because it will
simply increase burdensome reporting requirements and other such
nonsense.
"How much progress are you making in complying with our
such-and-such act? Fill out this form, and this one, or risk fines
and other penalites."
Making something a requirement that's already happening is little
more than a redundant feel-good measure. Probably why it's popular
with some.
Nonetheless, despite the whining, the use of IT has increased
the efficiency and accuracy of every sector it's been
introduced.
Which of those were done because "there ought to be a law?"
Why do I suspect that, if hospitals actually were requiring
this by themselves, without a government mandate, it would be
lauded as a great step forward and held up as evidence of the
uselessness of government mandates?
Have you ever heard of Dictaphone?
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 2:44PM|#
I hope you are right. However, Iowans and their sensitive constitutions aside, Americans tend to respond to Jock-douchebag strutting and "shows of toughness"; you don't think, purely from a practical perspective, that Hillary would benefit overall from Hulking out a bit? Since most people think of her as the second coming of the Iron Lady (sans the obvious English nationalism), playing into the part might give her some combat credibility.
|12.12.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Let's see: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Willie Horton ads.
Jesse Helms Black Hands ads. John McCain's Inter-racial Baby phone
calls.
No, I don't think there is any reason whatsoever to believe that
Hillary Clinton would sink into that territory.
joe, you make a valid, nuanced point about some of the prior
nastiness in politics, then IMO destroy this sense of nuance by
making what appears to me a wildly exaggerated claim ("any reason
whatsoever") about HRC's unwillingness to sink to those levels.
OTOH, if you actually believe that there is a 0.000% chance that
HRC won't sink to that despicable level sometime in this campaign
-- that no matter how tight the race may get, even Florida 2000
tight -- and that statement isn't just hyperbole thrown out in the
heat of the moment, then fine, we have a difference of opinion
about HRC's ethical levels that subsequent events may clarify.
|12.12.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Hillary Clinton is the Godfather of the DP. She will win the nomination. It's just a matter of who she has to make an offer they can't refuse.
|12.12.07 @ 3:14PM|#
OK, sage. So the use of electronic medical records is both
sweeping the nation and a terrible idea. We can see how effectively
and completely it is taking over the medical industry by how many
doctors think it is an absolutely terrible idea that cuts into
their effectiveness.
It is both an immense burden, and such a massive boon that no
prodding by the government is needed.
|12.12.07 @ 3:15PM|#
prolefeed, wank away on your semantic absolutism all you
want.
Just leave me out of it.
|12.12.07 @ 3:40PM|#
OK, sage. So the use of electronic medical records is both
sweeping the nation and a terrible idea.
That's not what I said, joe. Dictaphone has had their claws in
medical records since perhaps the early 80s. It's a good idea, but
not exactly sweeping the nation. But again, the technology will not
evolve any faster with beaurocrats in the way.
From your earlier post: despite the whining, the use of IT has
increased the efficiency and accuracy of every sector it's been
introduced.
How many of those sectors had IT introduced by law?
|12.12.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Then why hasn't it been done? It's 2007 and doctors are
stilling scribbling on little pieces of paper which never get
entered into a database.
As someone who has been working in this area for years, joe, I can
assure you that the less you know about it, the easier it looks.
You have massively diverse data sources and huge numbers of people
to train, just for starters. Billions are being invested in this
migration every year.
Nobody, but nobody, is less likely to leave a $10 bill on the
sidewalk than a physician. Trust me, EMR is not low hanging fruit.
Only someone who has zero experience with it would think so.
|12.12.07 @ 3:51PM|#
But again, the technology will not evolve any faster with
beaurocrats in the way.
But again, the problem isn't the level of technology - which is
already widely available and used in other industries throughout
the nation - it's the adoption, and as we've seen for 100 years,
the medical profession does, as a matter of historical fact, adopt
the practices required of it by federal law.
I'm not sure what phantasmal "bureaucrats" or "reporting
requirements" you're talking about.
How many of those sectors had IT introduced by law? I
don't know. Who cares?
|12.12.07 @ 3:52PM|#
RC Dean,
I acknowledge there is a hump to get over in terms of adopting the
technology. That's where the government comes in - in providing the
motivation to get over that hump.
|12.12.07 @ 4:24PM|#
But again, the problem isn't the level of technology - which
is already widely available and used in other industries throughout
the nation - it's the adoption
And here again, all those paper records - which need to be scanned
page by page - are not going to suddenly be digital because of some
law.
I'm not sure what phantasmal "bureaucrats" or "reporting
requirements" you're talking about.
Of course you don't. That's obvious from your previous posts on
this thread.
I don't know. Who cares?
Apparently you do. The rest of us feel that the technology will
continue to be adopted without further interference.
|12.12.07 @ 4:27PM|#
And here again, all those paper records - which need to be
scanned page by page - are not going to suddenly be digital because
of some law
That doesn't mean new records can't be electronic going forward. I
worked in a city planning office. Old paper records, new electronic
records, cross references - every industry has had the transition
problem. We deal with it.
|12.12.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Anyhoo, sage, it's not exactly an issue I stay up nights
studying.
I was just pointing out that the position is not, in fact,
something unique to the Obamanator.
|12.12.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Well, I think the medical record problem could be, nay, should be solved with cuneiform clay tablets. Fire resistant and pest resistant, can your paper and computer records make that clain? HELL NO! My proposed CCT records will last thousands of years according to the latest research. Call your congresscritter today and tell them to support the CCT Records act of 2007.
|12.12.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Getting back on topic, I think Obama has a very good chance of beating Hillary. The visceral dislike that she receives is not something to be discounted. Edwards is just running for VP again. Is there anybody else in the field?
|12.12.07 @ 4:43PM|#
OK, joe, I'll give you that.
As for the philosophical differences - we'll have to agree to
disagree. Peace.
J sub, the Sumerians are long gone. So I guess I can't accuse you
of being a shill for big...Sumeria.
On that topic, the word cuneiform is from latin or greek (can't
remmeber which) for "wedge."
Not to be vulgar, but could that be where the word "cunt" came
from?
|12.12.07 @ 4:47PM|#
If Edwards was running for VP, he wouldn't be whacking at
Hillary, and he wouldn't be staking out positions so different from
hers.
He's in this to win, and he is not out of the race by a long
shot.
|12.12.07 @ 6:23PM|#
Not to be vulgar, but could that be where the word "cunt"
came from?
That's not vulgar. That's speculative etymology.
|12.12.07 @ 6:27PM|#
J sub, the Sumerians are long gone. So I guess I can't
accuse you of being a shill for big...Sumeria.
I like to come up with ridiculous ideas and justify them with real
advantages, ignoring the downsides. Let me tell you about my
hydraulic digital computer. Its impervious to EMP.
DoD, are you listening?
|12.12.07 @ 7:23PM|#
Does it have an abacus as its math co-processor?
No, the abacus is the output device. It's so obvious.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245