Paul Waldman

Paul Waldman is the Prospect's daily blogger and senior writer. He also blogs for the Plum Line at the Washington Post, and is the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Recent Articles

We'll Always Have Wasilla

Love her or hate her, Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska means political coverage is about to get a lot less interesting.

I have a confession: I just can't get enough of Sarah Palin. I say this as an aficionado of both the culture war – in which Palin was rapidly promoted last year to four-star general – and spectacular political flame-outs. When she gave her impossibly weird statement announcing that she would be leaving the governorship of Alaska, it was like your favorite band's farewell tour. You got to hear the old hits (Man, I hope she does "I'm Being Oppressed by the Liberal Media Elite"!), but the whole thing was touched with the melancholy that comes from knowing that there probably won't be any new albums. Before she fades into a life of motivational speaking and writing bad memoirs, it's worth taking at least one more look at this unique political phenomenon. All but the most inane commentators (I'm looking at you, Bill Kristol ) agree that her decision to resign all but put an end to Palin's presidential aspirations, presuming she has them. Anything is possible, of course, but chances are we...

Health Care's True Price

The real reason we need a public option in health-care reform isn't cost control. It's security.

Health-care wonks worth their salt will tell you that the big issue in the current effort to reform our abysmal health-care system is cost control. They say if we don't do something to rein in the spiraling cost of health-care, it will eventually bankrupt us all. This is also a key argument made by advocates of what has become the ideological fulcrum of the health-care reform debate: the public option. Those who want to give Americans the choice of a government insurance plan have talked a lot about the public option's potential to save money over private coverage. And it would -- not only because the government could negotiate lower reimbursement rates but because it wouldn't have to spend money on the things that private insurers do, like underwriting (figuring out whom to avoid covering), marketing, multimillion-dollar executive salaries, and of course, profits. Competition from a less expensive public plan would also force private insurers to become more efficient. That's all true...

The Fretting Over Health Care Reform

Is health-care history just repeating itself? Not quite.

Reps. Henry Waxman, George Miller, and Charles Rangel take part in health care news conference on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo)
Talk to progressives on the subject of health care, and you will find they've gotten more and more nervous in the last couple of weeks. They are acutely aware that momentum for health-care reform seems to gain sufficient speed to make real change a possibility only every 15 or 20 years. Screw it up now, and it'll be a long time before there's another chance at it. Why the gathering gloom? In part because the legislative process is so complex, anyone looking for reasons to be pessimistic as the reform effort wends its way through Congress need not look far. A Congressional Budget Office score here, a newly unified Republican message there, and it begins to seem as though the stars will never align for reform to succeed. On the House side, the three relevant committee chairs -- Henry Waxman, George Miller, and Charlie Rangel -- came together to produce a plan that would give progressives reason to cheer if it passed. Although it was a substantial achievement that these three did so...

Health Care Reform Villains

It's time for Obama to start naming the bad guys in the battle over health care reform.

In December 2007, with the first contest of the 2008 primaries approaching, Prospect Executive Editor Mark Schmitt wrote what would become one of the most influential articles of the campaign. In the piece , Schmitt contended that voters were witnessing a "theory of change" primary, in which Democratic voters were making a choice between three competing theories about how you get things done in Washington. Hillary Clinton argued that it was about being prepared and working hard; John Edwards argued that it was about confrontation; and Barack Obama contended that he could bring all parties to the table and achieve reform by treating everyone as though they were operating in good faith. What will probably turn out to be the most contentious debate of the Obama presidency -- health care reform -- is now moving into its most intense phase, and the Obama theory of change is about to be put to the test. Despite how it has sometimes been characterized, Obama's impulse to treat everyone...

The Left and the Living Dead

In the event of a zombie apocalypse, will progressive ideals win out?

The popularity of each resident in our cultural stable of monsters rises and falls as the years pass. Presently, vampires are at the top of the heap, with HBO's True Blood and Stephanie Meyer's unbelievably successful Twilight book series (22 million copies sold in 2008 alone) leading the way. The last few years saw a glut of ghost stories, many adapted from Japanese horror films. Werewolves are in a bit of a rut right now, but perhaps they'll make a comeback sometime soon. All of these menaces can be presented in the context of campy fun, genuinely frightening horror, or even highbrow (or at least upper-middlebrow) entertainment. But then there's the zombie. There are no highbrow zombie movies or novels, and admitting you love them amounts to a declaration that your tastes are unrefined. In truth, zombies should be boring. There are only so many things you can do with them, narratively speaking. They can't charm you, like vampires, or make you pity them as they relate their torment...