The Dish

[Patrick Appel]

It’s getting closer. The basis for each candidate’s support:

In Texas, Clinton’s being kept competitive by support from Hispanics; she needs them to turn out in more-than-usual numbers, as they did in California, which she won Feb. 5. In Ohio she’s benefiting from a greater number of Democratic Party regulars than in Texas, fewer college-educated or higher-income voters, and support from union households. In both states, senior citizens are crucial to Clinton’s side; independents and younger voters, to Obama’s. And he’s taken a lead over Clinton on electability, a point he may try to drive home, along with his mantle of “change,” in the days ahead.

Bellingham, Washington, 2.15 pm.

[Patrick Appel]

Marc makes an interesting point:

This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination.

[Patrick Appel]

To my eyes, there wasn’t much new tonight. They debated health care mandates for the nth time, there was a more detailed discussion of immigration, and there was some talk about current affairs.

Clinton getting booed for saying, “that’s change we can Xerox,” trying to zing Obama on the alleged plagiarism charge, shows just how little that line of attack resonates with voters. She was good tonight. He was better. Her response to the final question was the most emotional I have seen her give in a debate (it was a good moment for her), but I didn’t see anything sufficient to stop Obama’s momentum. We’ll see what the voters of Texas in Ohio thought soon enough.

[Patrick Appel]

They’re being civil. Color me surprised. I guess Mandy Grunwald won her argument with Mark Penn.

They have been fairly candid about immigration (at least compared to the drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants flap). My bet is they know McCain can’t come after them on immigration since he supported immigration reform himself (not to mention the points they can score on this issue in a place like Texas).

[Jim Manzi]

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) has introduced a bill to provide government prizes to anyone who can demonstrate practical technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  I have written extensively in support of such a program as one component of a research-based policy to address the risk of global warming, and obviously think it’s a great idea.  Here’s why, in a nutshell:

I have written a lot about the fact that if (and it’s a big if) our climate and economics models are correct, then rapid, aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions are not a good idea.  The big question, of course, is what would happen if our models turn out to underestimate the impacts of emissions by a huge margin.

Consider such a case in which we learn 40 years from now that our predictions were wrong – and not just by a little, but so wrong that they are outside the probability distribution of model forecasts in a so-called “black swan” event.  Suppose further that we had implemented the often-proposed ideal policy of a perfectly-implemented, globally-harmonized carbon tax on February 21, 2008 that ramps up over time to reflect the estimated external costs of carbon.  Under a typical implementation of this policy the optimal tax burden would be relatively low for the next several decades and then ramp up over time. In everyday terms, the gasoline tax, for example, would be about 9 cents per gallon through 2010, and would then ramp up to about 25 cents per gallon by 2050. To put this in perspective, the typical US state already has about a 40 – 50 cent per gallon gas tax, and a typical Western European country has gas taxes of several dollars per gallon. We are not going to transform our economy with such a tax; major changes really start in the latter half of the upcoming century.

In the disaster scenario I have described, which would you rather have: the lowered emissions and associated technological change created by a 10 – 20 cent per gallon increase in fuel prices, or decades of directed research to build technological options?  Investing in technology is lower-cost, and actually provides greater protection in a disaster than emissions reductions.

[Patrick Appel] The Office’s Rainn Wilson auditions for the part of Paulie Bleeker in Juno:

[Peter Suderman] Here’s James Pethokoukis on the general shape of Obamanomics:

What is the economic philosophy of Democratic front-runner Barack Obama? I will elaborate on this later, but for now, think of it this way: He’s Robert Rubin on trade (pretty much keep it open but help workers), Warren Buffett on taxes (higher rates really don’t affect what rich folks do, so crank ’em up! ), and Robert Reich on spending (balance the budget later, "invest" now in education and science).

I’ve noticed a minor trend of Obama-support amongst libertarians (Dan Koffler, for one, and there appear to be several Facebook groups as well), and if you’re looking primarily at foreign policy, as Tyler Cowen advises, that’s certainly reasonable. On the other hand, as far as domestic policy goes, I think anyone with small-government instincts ought to take a moment to consider the above.

[Patrick Appel]

Joshua Hammer’s new article reflects on how the elections in Pakistan might change the Pakistani-American relationship:

Nobody knows what the new political dynamic in Pakistan is going to look like, but it surely won’t offer the one-stop-shopping that the U.S. government has found so convenient. The relationship between an independent Parliament, led by the Pakistan People’s Party, and the military, commanded by Musharraf’s handpicked protégé, General Ashfaq Kayani,  is likely to be messy and confrontational, with constant debates over military strategy in the tribal areas. Kayani, one of many Pakistani generals and brigadiers who studied in the United States, is said to be even more hawkish than Musharraf. By contrast, PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s widower and the possible next Prime Minister, favors more negotiation, and, presumably, more cease-fire arrangements such as the controversial one that Musharraf approved in north Waziristan in late 2006. "We will have a dialogue with those who are up in the mountains and those who are not in Parliament," Zardari was quoted in the New York Times as saying. "We want to take all those along who are against Pakistan and working against Pakistan."

So there’s a good chance that Pakistan’s approach to the war on terror will remain as disjointed and ineffectual as it’s been for the last five years. Musharraf was forced to tack back and forth between the demands of his U.S. patrons and a restive populace that accused him of fighting “Washington’s war.” (And of course he may have been sabotaged by pro-extremist elements of the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence).  With Musharraf out of the picture, there’s little indication that much is going to change. Several factors—pressure from the religious parties (a shrinking force, as last week’s election results starkly indicated), Pashtuns in the Northwest Frontier Province and autonomous tribal areas, and the many rank-and-file troops and lower-ranking officers who are demoralized by the rising casualty count—will point toward a cautious approach to the war. On the other hand, millions have turned sharply against the extremists in the wake of repeated suicide attacks and Bhutto’s assassination. With the North Waziristan pact and other deals seen as failures that gave militants a free hand, the appetitite among Pakistan’s secular majority for less talk and more action is growing.

Under Musharraf, of course, nobody cared what the civilians had to say: the army ran the show, and Parliament served as a rubber stamp. The new era in Pakistan promises to be dramatically different, with the military and civilian leaderships working together to form a consensus over an issue that has divided both institutions. The process may not change the facts on the ground—at least for the short term—but it is sure to invigorate Pakistani society and strengthen the country’s stunted democratic institutions. In the end, that may be the best way to defuse the country’s Islamic extremist threat.