No, Q, you again have the American terminology wrong. There are no "electoral votes" at the convention. That is specific to the Electoral College--and to the fall election.

I'm glad to hear the NYT article is very recent. At least you have not pulled a favorite trick of some Mudcatters--to post an article about a supposedly significant development or quote--which turns out to be seriously out of date.

But it does not change the fact that "broadly resembling the Obama plan" won't cut it--much as you like to denigrate Obama, for whatever reason--who knows why.

Just as you've just denigrated the Maine results--again who knows why.

At any rate, Obama's plan will be adjusted to include far more people than you and Mr Krugman seem to think--he is not about to leave 20 million without coverage. I wonder if Mr Krugman has endorsed Hillary--or what the connection there might be. I may check into that.

And I note with interest that you have no counter to my explanation of why Hillary's plan is DOA--and she probably knows it.

Of course your dislike for Obama may have something to do with your evident conviction that the US should not "cut and run" from Iraq--and Obama, in contrast to Hillary, says he will withdraw all combat troops within 18 months of taking office. But it would be good to know from you just why we should stay--except in "Kurdistan" where they want us. We are constantly threatened by McCain etc. (and you?) that if we leave Iraq, al-Qaeda will take over in Iraq. However the Iraqi Shiites hate al-Qaeda, the Iraqi Sunnis hate al-Qaeda (having been thoroughly alienated by al-Qaeda's conduct), and the Kurds hate al-Qaeda. So exactly how, with very few sympathizers in Iraq, is al-Qaeda going to take over in Iraq?


And if the danger of this is virtually non-existent, the threat that McCain etc. hold over our heads is hollow. And Obama is perfectly justified in removing US troops--to let the Iraqis sort out their secular problems themselves--and stop the steady drain of troops and funds to Iraq. In fact, Afghanistan is a far more reasonable place for US involvement--except as I said, in "Kurdistan", where we are wanted.