Edwards is a vote for Terry McCauliffe!

I don't know who thereisnospoon is supporting (Obama or Edwards), and I don't think there was anything in this diary to suggest that his conclusion was to support Obama.

The point seemed to be "if you want the DLC establishment back in power, and you want Howard Dean out as DNC chair, vote Hillary."

There was nothing in this diary to marginalize Edwards or suggest he can't won't win. Your slam of Obama out of the blue is peculiar.

I support Obama, but I also love Edwards.  Before Dodd dropped out, I was a full-on supporter of his as well.

Any one of them would keep Howard Dean.  But I sure as hell know who definitely wouldn't.

Not that it is likely to matter to you.

Obama does support universal healthcare.  Therefore, what you said is false.  It is as plain as day in Obama's plan that it is a plan to cover everyone.  Imposing as a mandate the requirement that people purchase private insurance backed up with some kind of penalty system is not synonymous with universal health care.  As you well know, Robert Reich believes that Obama's plan will insure more, not fewer, people than Clinton's.  More to the point, the only support for your (repeatedly demonstrated to be false) contention that Obama "does not support universal healthcare" is Paul Krugman.  He says that based solely on the fact that Obama's plan opts NOT to put mandates into play as an initial matter.  As you well know, Obama has said he is open to mandates if needed in the future, but he will not impose them until costs are driven down.  To put it another way, HRC believes that in order to drive costs down, you have to force healthy people to buy into the insurance pool.  Obama's strategy is to put the full onus to drive down costs on the insurers first and foremost.  By the way, can you figure out by now who is most benefitted by mandates in a privately0based system?  Yeah, it's the insurers.  I have long believed that Obama's reasons for leaving out mandates are a combination of feeling that it is not right to penalize people for not being able to afford private insurance and the good negotiating sense to realize that insurers are going to push for mandates in their own interest in the end anyway.  But in any event, there is clearly room for disagreement about whether putting mandates first is the better or the worse policy.  (And I like Edwards' plan, by the way.  I think he has put together the best one, from what I know of them.)  To state, as you just did, that Obama "does not support universal healthcare" is an out and out falsehood.  I have no idea why you can't scare up some legitimate and honest criticisms of Obama.

Obama's stimulus package is NOT to the right of the others'.  The reason it is less expansive in appearance is that Obama limited himself to only short-term stimulus measures.  The other infrastructure and clean energy investment items have long been part of his broader economic and energy platform.  Liberal economics professor (U.C. Berkeley) and blogger Brad DeLong discusses why Obama got it right.  In a word, Obama chose to do the intellectually honest thing and just propose short-term stimulus measures that could be enacted quickly (which is the whole point of such a package in the first place).  He left the political gamesmanship and point-scoring out.  For that, you once again slam him.

I realize that you are aided and abetted in this by Paul Krugman.  That is sad, because Krugman (a little like Bill Clinton)  built up a lot of credibility and trust among many progressives.  Sadly, he has lost all perspective with respect to Obama.

When there are legitimate criticisms of Obama and his positions, you will find that I am the first one to acknowledge these and say that I hope he comes around or wish he would do better.  But this kind of B.S. that you and others keep repeating ad nauseum that Obama is "to the right," doesn't support universal care, and now (this one is new!) is using "scare tactics" (??) I will not be silent for.

I've said it before to you (after you used totally uncalled for foul language when I called you out more briefly for being dishonest):  you do your candidate (who I think is a truly decent guy) little to no credit with your over-the-top advocacy and mean-spirited perpetuation of falsehoods regarding other candidates.

You read this interview with David Cutler, Obama's health care adviser where he very clearly spells out the distinctions Obama's policy staff is making with those advocating "mandates" and claiming universal coverage.

In a nutshell, Obama is for making insurance affordable as the prime mover of his policy and Cutler thinks they can get to 98% coverage w/o mandates. If they don't get to 100% they are willing to look at mandates at that point. But they won't "mandate" something that is not affordable. They don't think that's good policy. And Cutler rightly points out that most "mandate first" policies AREN'T universal because they build in waivers for really large numbers of people...because they haven't got the costs down.

Second, Brad de Long would specifically disagree with your Krugman-esque critique of Obama's plan.

Claiming that Obama can't debate things on the merits with Cutler and de Long both taking his side significantly weakens, if not eviscerates, your entire argument.

If you want to debate policy, let's do it!

But don't pretend that there's not substance to Barack Obama when there are a ton of smart people out there showing that there is...with links.

...bifurcation to construct his false dilemma, you still wouldn't be more sympathetic. Right?

If the Clintons are in Dean is out. Period.

"The inability of Barack Obama to obtain support on his merits necessitates the use of various scare tactics."

... says the man whose candidate has lost to Obama in two elections and counting

I didn't read anything frightening in that diary.  I didn't even read an attempt to frighten anyone.   Nor did I read anyone trying to drive anybody to Obama.  

In fact, when I read the anti-establishment tenor I first thought of reasons to vote for Edwards.

I think it's just pragmatism; the whole thing about Dean.

but I have to say, all your vitriol gives me serious pause where your rationale for supporting Edwards is concerned.

I'm not sure that's the way to win support.