MORE TAP DEBATE! I'll happily assume that Garance will actually respond to some of the issues I've raised in her promised next post, but in the meantime, I'll correct what I'm sure is her good-faith misrepresentation of my position on Hillary. Garance says I've "spent much of the last year suggesting that it's not her time to run yet and that she should wait her turn, while the real heroes of progressive politics (cough, John Edwards, cough) step up to the plate." I don't think it's "not her time to run yet," I just don't think she should run. I think that Hillary is uniquely incapable of sparking progressive change in this country, and she should be clear-eyed enough to understand that. Her past failures on health care render her singularly unable to achieve comprehensive reform, her reputation as a liberal forces a more ostentatious centrism than anyone else would have to project, and she's overwhelmingly polarizing at a time when the country could use a drawdown in partisan hostilities. And that doesn't even get into my ideological disagreements with her. As I argued in the op-ed Garance links to, I think Hillary would be an excellent majority leader, as she's shown a real aptitude for mastering the clubby atmosphere of the Senate, is a talented incrementalist, and commands enough media attention to be a powerfully effective messenger. I don't think she should run for president. So let me ask Garance this, because I believe it's the nub of our disagreement: Do you think Hillary is more or less liberal than the other frontrunners, and do you think the narratives from her past in any way constrain her ability to, say, reform the country's health care system? --Ezra Klein
