I’ve been sitting here entertaining adjectives like “wildly,” “vastly,” “incredibly,” “ridiculously,” and various combinations thereof. Paul Krugman’s NYT column today [adjective] overstates the role of John Edwards in putting universal health care policy on the agenda for Democrats. Given that I can’t imagine Krugman ever seriously thought Edwards was going to win the nomination, I’ve wondered whether his regular, strong implicit endorsements of him serve as a hedge to give him column fodder if the Democrats win in 2008. In other words, the column will still be mostly critical of the adminstration, and occsaionally there will be references to how we wouldn’t have Problem X if the Democrats had voted for Edwards.
Interesting contrast between Democrats and Republicans last night at the Democratic debate: the biggest cheer of the evening from the audience was at the proposal thet, regardless of who wins, the two candidates onstage run on the same ticket for the general election. If someone posed that to a Republican audience at a debate of McCain vs. Romney, would there be any applause at all?
Meanwhile: Regarding my 200-days-in-2008 exercise plan, I end January with 17 stars, which is roughly exactly on the pace I need.