"The Obama proposal is optional under the theory that virtually all Americans want health insurance -- and the obstacle is cost, which now would be subsidized."

And that theory is wrong. Both programs would regulate the health insurance industry so that they couldn't reject anyone for "previous conditions." That's necessary. The percent of the 47 million uninsured that would not pay in unless or until they had an accident or other serious condition is unknown, but it is estimated by serious health economists -- not partisans -- as around 15 million. I know that when my company's plan gets opened up once a year, there are a lot of younger workers who debate whether they want to pay their $50 or so a month. Their experience with health care is that once or twice a year they buy some cold medicine. The problem is, if the very wealthy abstain, and the young abstain from paying into the system, relying on the fact that they can't be turned down if a serious expense looms, they are gaming the system, and that will mean the price the rest of us pay will go up. Is there any more simple economic observation than this?

If the health insurance companies find themselves hemmed in by regulations but competing against "no health insurance," they will also be in a good position to argue for their rates to go up, or to impose some kind of entry tax on those who don't insure themselves as soon as they are economically independent.

It's not a HUGE issue, but it's like Mercutio says in Romeo and Juliet, "No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve." A hole this size in the program will raise costs for the rest of us, and encourage "voluntary" measures from the health industry. It makes it look as though Obama doesn't really mean it. Is he just listening to the wrong advice? Why did he make this choice to start with?

Look, the rules are the rules. At the moment, by the way, they seem not to matter, especially if Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio by crushing margins. But the people who support Obama as "the popular will" are making a bunch of assumptions: that by the end, at the convention, that Obama will be the absolute winner of the minimum number of delegates; that he will also win "the popular vote," though since so many of his wins come in caucus states, there's no way to tell that; and at one and the same time, they seem to think that the DNC's punishment of the state parties in Michigan and Florida is completely Democratic, that the millions who voted in those states are justifiedly being rendered meaningless by the DNC (not by the constitution or any such law, but the party bureaucracy), but if Hillary argues for the inclusion of delegates from Florida at least, this is "Soviet". On the other hand, these "Soviet" delegates are perfectly wonderful if they declare for Obama. I'd advise you to calm down somewhat. The momentum is all on Obama's side, and his outright victory is probably inevitable. But what if it doesn't happen? What if Hillary DOES have a late surge? What if she takes the popular vote? What if a new caucus is held in Michigan, which Obama presumably wins, but the Florida primary, since it represents far more actual votes than any caucus we could pull off now, is accepted? What if Obama falls short of the necessary number of delegates? What if?

The Jacobins of our party have chosen a strange figure as their Robespierre: a Democrat who is actually more Republican Lite than the centrist they're rejecting. A Revolutionary who lures in McCain voters in the name of that fiendish reform, Bipartisanship!

Are the Obamaites desperate enough to believe Drudge now? How low can THEY sink? Odd that this happens right after Hillary hits Obama squarely in the nads over his cowardly health care proposal and his lying circular... developing...

Oh, and there's another one. Koppelman believes Drudge over Clinton? The Obama campaign once again cries race when it has zero proof, and zero reason to believe that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with this. (May I remind you: Maggie Williams is black. Bill Clinton is nowhere near the scene here. When Maggie Williams took over, lots of Obamaites spread the rumor that it was a slight against Ms. Solis, a Puerto Rican.)

And as Salon says, where did you get this photo? Why, from the AP. Never would occur to GOP oppo research to find a photo, hmm? Hey, Salon: how long did it take you?

You should do some serious reading: Donald Segretti. Remember? What was his basic deal? Spreading rumors and falsehoods and blaming it on the other guys. Remember? It's called "ratfucking." And you're falling for it. God, you're such rubes.

They decide what gets said.

But Democrats should look carefully at how the New York Times and much of the rest of the "liberal" media did their best to sink Hillary, just like Dean and Gore before her. I know that Obama supporters are dismissive and unsympathetic. Now. Just wait for your time in the barrel.