Obama Hits Hillary In New Hampshire Mailer
In yet another sign that the Dem Primary has become a war over who can portray his or her opponent as the most negative of the bunch, Barack Obama has dropped a new health care mailer in New Hampshire decrying the fact that Hillary "attacked" him:
Adding to the hall of mirrors effect, the Hillary campaign sent this mailer out to reporters, claiming that it showed that Obama's mailer -- which claimed Hillary had attacked him -- was actually an attack on her. Got that?
The Hillary campaign also posted a fact-check of the mailer right here on The Fact Hub.
Comments (73)
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 10:49 AM:Ohh, no me gusta the scan job on that.
Anyway, I agree that forcing insurance coverage isn't a good idea. Hillary keeps asserting that since in her plan coverage is mandated that she will somehow achieve universal coverage, which is laughable, all you have to do is look at mandated auto insurance to see that mandates...don't...work. Not to mention the fact that people won't have to worry about having to show proof of health insurance at a traffic stop or risk penalty, so it is likely to be far less effective than auto insurance mandates.
The point is, and he does a good job here of making this clear, that it doesn't make sense to force people who are already having financial problems (and who we are supposedly trying to help) to get health insurance when they are certainly more worried about immediate problems like paying rent and buying food. Basically her plan is naive, and it is disingenuous for her campaign to be attacking Obama's health care plan because it DOESN'T burden impoverished families with mandates.
Still, both health care plans aren't what we really need which is a single-payer not-for-profit health care system. But at least they should be honest about what "universal" means and what they can and can't promise and deliver.
BluePuppy wrote on December 18, 2007 10:49 AM:What a joke. Mr. Hope misrepresents his health care plan and attacks Mrs. Clinton, the one with the real universal plan. Pathetic. He knows he's going down.
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 10:50 AM:Hillary is going to lose even more credibility if she tries to pretend that she hasn't been attacking Obama. Keep digging. Saying that your plan is "universal" in virtue of a mandate with no enforcement mechanism just makes you sound stupid. I think Obama's right that the first step is to put together a public plan that is more affordable. Robert Reich has blogged this issue.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/democrats-should-stop-battling-over.html
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/krugman-times-oped-page-and-obama.html
I find Reich very credible. Of course, he does have a bone to pick with the Clintons. When he was Labor Secretary they ignored him and let union-busting lobbyists like Mark Penn make policy based off of triangulation and polling.
DRinOH wrote on December 18, 2007 10:58 AM:Hillary keeps harping on the 15 million that Obama won't cover, but, as Hillary's own "facthub" quotes, those people are "a combination of relatively well-off people who choose not to purchase health insurance and people who qualify for public programs like Medicaid who don't sign up."
More to the point, as other commenters have pointed out, Hillary doesn't "mandate" anything either so it's not like her plan is any more universal than Obama's. As a poor kid living on student loans, I'd much rather have the choice of foregoing health insurance for a couple semesters than having to pay for Hillary's shitty plan (again, not that I'd have to pay for it since there's no mandate), so I'd take Obama's anyday.
As an aside, Kucinich is the only one with a true universal single-payer system. Here's hoping we can get there in the next decade.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 11:02 AM:Geezus Greg,
How about some reasonable quality photos of the mailers? Or alternatively, how about you don't run the damn story if you don't have reasonable photos you can run? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the photos are a shady b&w, which not only obscures Obama's face and much of the content/context, but also gives the false impression of a darker-themed, more prototypical "negative" ad. Sure, a coincidence.
And thanks *so* much for the tremendously useful link at the end. Does Clinton pay you by the hit?
Seriously, your campaign reporting has been so terrible for so long. And Kleefeld's too. As long as you both continue in your unabashed Hillary-shilling, we will continue to post comments about your utter lack of journalistic integrity. I'd say that it's an effort to keep you honest, but it's become clear that that ship has sailed.
It's become a not so well-kept secret is that, the sludge from DC-what's-his-name and a few other kool-aid drinkers aside, the only thing left worth a damn about TPM-EC is the comments section.
You and Eric are hacks. Yeah, I said it. A great many of us are thinking it.
Frog Leg wrote on December 18, 2007 11:02 AM:Nice shadowy effect on the scanning. I wonder why?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 18, 2007 11:03 AM:Check out the Paul Krugman NYT op-ed from yesterday. Paul nails it. This is a swing and a miss for Obama . . . I can still feel the air wiffing by.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 11:05 AM:There you go again, Greg. Nice photos. Real fair portrayal of Obama. Didn't this used to be a news site? Christ.
Wow, those ads look so dark and scary.
BluePuppy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:07 AM:It's the smallnes of our politics, it's the smallness of his ideas. Obama is Romney-lite.
tarheel74 wrote on December 18, 2007 11:08 AM:Richard, don't you know Paul Krugman is a race-baiting SOB for criticizing St. Obama?
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:10 AM:Adlof. I think we're all looking forward to getting Krugman the economist back. Krugman the hyperbolic pro-Edwards pundit just isn't the same. To his credit, Krugman hasn't really hid behind the NYT's no endorsement policy. He's made his preference for Edwards known so that we can read him as a pundit.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 11:12 AM:Watch for it everyone. Within the hour, you're going to see a "Late Update" from Greg trying to explain that he's sorry about the picture quality, it's the best he could do.
(A), that's bullsh*t. And (B), like someone already said, that's why you don't run the story. Maybe if you've got some real news, a bad photo to accompany it is no big deal. But here, the news IS the mailer (well, it's not news, but it's what's passing for news on TPM-EC these days). So without an accurate and legible reprint of them, you have NOTHING. The fact that you ran this anyway shows that the whole point of your story was to link to Hillary's website, to provide wider circulation for the Clinton attack machine, which is at full tilt right now.
Greg, you are so part of the problem it's laughable. Well, it would be laughable, except that with the future of the country at stake, I'm just finding it all that funny.
Michael A wrote on December 18, 2007 11:13 AM:It's that vaunted clinton II attack machine. They can't even get a good copy of the mailer so that it's legible. Gee, I wonder why?
But, wait, they have repeatedly posted clear, warm and fuzzy clinton II mailers.
I can't wait until the primaries are over. Talk about clinton fatigue. I wonder what clinton II talking points will do then.
Oh, by the way, nice piece on the clinton II campaign "changing" their message. Good job guys.
M wrote on December 18, 2007 11:16 AM:Guys, if there is one reason I don't like Hillary Clinton, (and trust me, at this point there is much more than one), it is because of their nasty supporters. Why don't we just discuss the issue of healthcare, which a number of people above were trying to do.
Are we THAT partisan? We're all going to vote for the democratic nominee in November, and no one is going to change votes because of name calling.
Or is it that name calling is just so much simpler than discussing the issues?
In this case, I think Edwards and Clinton (not to mention Romney) are all wrong about mandating coverage. For starters:
1. I would like to see how that system is actually enforced.
2. I would like to see if MA health costs have actually declined due to a higher supply of insureds (which is the theory behind it = market-based solution).
3. I would want to ensure that companies cannot just drop coverage for their employees, thus forcing their employees to foot their own bills.
Clinton/Edwards supporters: Any comments?
I confess I am not updated on what Obama actually wants to do, but I must assume that it includes a massive expansion of SCHIP along the lines of what Congress tried to do earlier this year before their nuts were sacrificed to the Gods of Republican Expediency.
3.
Anonymous,
Election Central used to be an opinion site attached to TPM Cafe.
TPM Muckraker was/is a news site.
I want more focus on the positions and platforms of the candidates and less on the polls and back-biting and sniping and cat calls and flame throwing . . .(I know. I know . . . sez da guy holdin' the biggest flame-thrower on the block) BUT I fear that ain't gonna happen. Sigh.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 11:22 AM:BluePuppy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:07 AM:
It's the smallnes of our politics, it's the smallness of his ideas. Obama is Romney-lite.
I think this is one of those "kool-aid drinkers" that Anonymous mentioned above. Seriously, Obama is Romney-lite? WOW. The quality of analysis from the Hillary supporters is a little lacking to say the least. I think now that the worry is sinking in they are just lashing out with any mucky character attack they can think of. Romney-lite, right, haha. Can we start a top ten list of ridiculous Hillary supporter quotes??
On the scanning job, yeah, it could be overreacting, but maybe not...it is true and the thought immediately crossed my mind too that the Hillary mailers have been crisp and clean...
Kefa wrote on December 18, 2007 11:22 AM:As time goes one all will see BHO as the light weight he is and the need for a tenure as VP under HRC for 8 years to get a grip on the position to be POTUS. Take your place in the rotation. Learn the craft to be able to deal with the VRWC.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 11:25 AM:If I read the mailer correctly it basically says: “Boo-hoo Hillary said I was right wing. Boo-hoo, I want my mommy.”
This probably gives a glimpse as to what kind of General Election candidate Obama would be: cute, weak and inexperienced.
BluePuppy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:28 AM:bridoc: Obama's health care is a shambles, closer to Romeny's MA plan than something a Dem would propose. By Romney-lite, I was mocking Barry Hussien Obama's attack on Mrs. Clinton.
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:29 AM:Kefa. The problem with your argument is that Obama is the one closing strong. We're supposed to settle for a more hawkish and corporate candidate because she's supposed to have the more experienced campaign, but it's been blunder after blunder for her these past few weeks. Hillary's brain Mark Penn is a joke and has repeatedly proven incompetent. The fact is that if we want to beat the Reps we need an inspiring candidate that is frank with the American people not a "safe" candidate with a bunker mentality.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 11:30 AM:bridoc,
Obama is to the right of Edwards and Clinton in many things that matter most to working Americans – social security and health care come to mind. Obama’s political wet dream however is to get in bed with the Republicans and have everyone, in a very non-combative and very bi-partisan fashion, worship in consensus at his feet.
Edwards and Clinton are a striking contrast to Obama; they’re both progressives, they’re ready to fight for us and they’re battle tested candidates. Clinton by far has the greatest experience, she’s the only one who has taken on the Rethugs and come out on top and the she’s the best combination of heart and mind, of leadership ability and feel for the problems of other people.
M wrote on December 18, 2007 11:31 AM:Forget "waiting your turn."
That's a Republican argument. Like I said above, the arrogance of HRC supporters (and, probably, HRC's candidacy itself) is enough to turn me off of her.
You see, one of the major reasons why I (and most Americans) can be turned off by politics is this whole "I'm smarter than you" mentality.
In essence, the political landscape these days is nothing more than the playgrounds of my youth. Ickth.
Of course, that is how its always been (see: Adams' attacks against Jefferson and vice versa).
JRE wrote on December 18, 2007 11:32 AM:John Edwards enforces his mandate with a Medicare style program. If an American citizen walks into an emergency room with no coverage, he/she is automatically enrolled into the government program. Paul Krugman supports Edwards' plan, because it is a single-payer plan disguised as a choice plan.
John McCutchen wrote on December 18, 2007 11:32 AM:EXCELLENT
At least one democratic candidate has learned the 20 second rule
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 11:35 AM:@Kefa
Oh yeah, take your turn in line because Hillary deserves it sooo much. Give me a break. Obama has come a long way and done great things ON HIS OWN. Hillary, wouldn't even be a Senator is she hadn't been married to Bill, to say nothing of her presidential bid, which is obviously kept afloat by Bill (look at the polls, it is all about him, more people support her because of Bill than her "experience"). Obama also has more legislative experience than her (his life didn't start in the Senate, not to mention over ten years of teaching constitutional law. All great experience. So we are supposed to believe that Hillary knows what it takes because of all her First Lady experience in the White House? C'mon...the GOP isn't about to run Laura Bush for president anytime soon. Why should I value her "experience" so much more than Obama's? Why do Hillary and her supporters seem to be convinced that she has some divine right to inherit the White House and that it is inevitable as the sunrise. It is ridiculous. The Clinton's already had their turn in line, quit cutting, Obama's time is now and he is hands down the best choice, he has the experience (oh yeah, JFK was elected after 1 term in the Senate as well, for perspective), he has the electability, and he has the character and drive for the job, and he isn't going to have Papa Bush run around the world promoting US "goodwill".
The word is CHANGE.
along wrote on December 18, 2007 11:37 AM:This is a train wreck of a news report. What is going on?
These scans were made by whom? TPM? The Clinton campaign? Or some third party?
Any way you slice it, your presentation is just ridiculously wrong.
blatherskite wrote on December 18, 2007 11:43 AM:When did TPM ELection Central become "Pro-Hillary Central?" It's been reeking of that for weeks now.
Did the people who contributed to TPM know they were contributing to Hillary's primary campaign?
Clayton wrote on December 18, 2007 11:43 AM:>Anyway, I agree that forcing insurance coverage isn't a good idea.
Then how do you expect us to pay for it? Paul Krugman noted that if we simply allow people to opt-in when they get sick, the whole system will become financially unworkable. The whole paradigm of insurance is that MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT USE IT. If we want a national system that guarantees coverage you have to force everyone to get it, otherwise people won't pay for it until they need it, and it won't work.
Obama ignores this fact because hes naive and pandering, he is unwilling to face the ACTUAL TRUTH that people are not magically hopeful, they will try to scam the system anytime they can. Obama is afraid to admit the hard truths of political reality, which means sure he could get elected, but he would never be able to implement policy since people are not going to give up their power or money unless you MAKE THEM.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 11:45 AM:@DemAC
Clinton is not a progressive, don’t be ridiculous. And Hillary is “battle tested”? She has “come out on top”? That’s funny, her whopping 50% unfavorable rating in general election polls would suggest otherwise. If you actually look at the history and the facts you’d know that Hillary didn’t repel GOP attacks, she got her ass kicked by them and she has long lasting scars to prove it. She is a lame deer to the GOP, and they are just salivating at the prospect of Dems nominating her so they can move in for the kill. Really, these assertions from her campaign fly contrary to reason and reality.
Also, maybe you should actually compare and contrast health care plans and social security policies, because I don’t think you understand how to candidates stack up. You should also look at some of Hillary’s foreign policy positions because that is where she really separates from the progressive pack. Here, start with this: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803
People who say Obama is weak are only going off his campaign message of hope and it is naïve to think that he is going to fold over to the Republicans when in office. Oh, speaking of being in bed with Republicans, last time I checked Hillary was the one who considers HW Bush and Reagan to be some of her favorite past presidents, and even wants to have HW Bush be part of the “new” (what??) face of America to the world. Yeah, I can see who is all over being in bed with Republicans, and it isn’t Obama (or Edwards, to be fair).
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:47 AM:Will one of Hillary's haters please explain what difference and unenforced mandate makes?
Enrolling people that go to the emergency room is not an enforcement mechanism. It's a good idea, but it does nothing about people who don't go to the emergency room. As far as Edwards, I have a hard time understanding how forcing people to buy their product constitutes "taking on the insurance companies". Here is what Edwards actually says about how he'll enforce his mandate:
"For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment."
That's all well and good, but as a matter of political strategy I think that it is wiser to get an expanded public plan in place first. Here is Obama:
"Individuals who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan."
I point again to the blog posts by Reich, which argue that Clinton and Edwards are elevating a marginal issue to score political points. I think that is right. Obama's plan is focussed on lowering costs immediately and i believe that he is right that the vast majority of people that are uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford it not because they choose to be.
Keith wrote on December 18, 2007 11:51 AM:As initial matter, I think Clinton's framing of this issue is really at the heart of the matter. She claims that Obama's plan won't cover or leaves 15 million people uncovered. As constructed this is a lie. His plan covers everyone, it just doesn't require people to buy insurance. Her plan forces or requires people to buy insurance. That's what he means about the petty divisiveness
Both plans leave at least 7 million people uncovered, all of whom are estimated to be undocumented workers. How many people of the remaining 8 million will either resist signing up for HRC/Edward's plan or who will opt-into Obama's plan is unknown. That's it.
I worry about progressives arguing over these plans as if they will be dropped into place without alteration. The reality is all of these plans (which, short of the mandate/non-mandate distinction are substantially the same) will have to earn at least a majority in both houses of congress, which happen to have a number of Republicans who are opposed to universal health care. Or so I'm told.
bvd wrote on December 18, 2007 11:55 AM:Everyone's quibbling over health care plans that are going to change dramatically and perhaps entirely before they're written up as legislation. And that's assuming either Obama or Hillary are elected.
Having said that, it doesn't take much thought to realize that Obama - or anyone else - would have a far easier time than Hillary getting ANYTHING done on this particular issue. Hillary's first attempt at dealing with health care was a political disaster. She's the LAST person to put in charge of this issue, if only from a purely practical standpoint.
For all the talk about her VAST experience this was the only major policy issue that she was in charge of during the 8 years of the Clinton Admin. And it flopped. Big time. Hillary Health Care II is not a war I'd hawking if I were one of her supporters.
Barbara Marshall wrote on December 18, 2007 11:56 AM:We all already know that Greg Sargent is suporting Hillary Clinton. At least Josh is stil being a news reporter. Sorry Greg, Hillary is toast.
savvy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:56 AM:Krugman needs to STFU!
and what is with the TPM Obama revealed Veracifier video?
Is this now the STopBarackNOW site or what?
If you want balance and analysis look elsewhere.
Here's a well thought out analysis on Barack , especially for all thsoe who claim Obama is a 'wusss' and kumbaya...as opposed to the bellicose, belligerent brawling modus operandi of Hillary:
"Obama recognizes that power ultimately resides in the people themselves. No Senator or Representative who wishes to remain in office will knowingly buck the will of the people when that will is resolute and firm. Obama knows that any legislation that results from a clear mandate from the people will not be easily thwarted. He knows that you don’t get a clear mandate by fighting against a near majority of your “opponents.” You get a clear mandate by proposing ideas that make sense to the overwhelming majority of the people and by taking the time to explain why they are needed in clear terms that everyone can understand. This is a task for which Obama is uniquely qualified.
So Obama is not trying to win over the politicians of the far right so much as the people of left, right and middle who care about social issues like poverty, healthcare, and education. He is not triangulating for compromise’s sake when he talks about the need for all sides to pitch in to fight complex issues like urban poverty. He’s not trying to win conservative votes by telling inner-city leaders that part of the problem is teenage pregnancy and fathers who don’t support their children. He is not trying to win environmentalists by telling Detroit that they need to dramatically improve fuel efficiency. He is simply telling the truth.
Obama knows that the American people are ready for the truth, they are ready to pitch in and help, they are only looking for leaders who can show a way. After decades of stalemate and ever more sophisticated lies and bullshit, Obama knows that the simple truth will stand out and be recognized."
Read more:
http://www.thestatewerein.com/2007/12/18/why-are-matt-stoller-and-the-netroots-wrong-about-obama/
I don't often agree with Brooks but he has an excellent write up here:
"he has a worldview that precedes political positions. Some Americans (Republican or Democrat) believe that the country’s future can only be shaped through a remorseless civil war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Though Tom DeLay couldn’t deliver much for Republicans and Nancy Pelosi, so far, hasn’t been able to deliver much for Democrats, these warriors believe that what’s needed is more partisanship, more toughness and eventual conquest for their side.
But Obama does not ratchet up hostilities; he restrains them. He does not lash out at perceived enemies, but is aloof from them. In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html
The Hillary campaign seems to have pushed the "darker" button a couple times on their scanner. "Through a scanner darkly" indeed. Yet all my reptile brain sees is how DARK-SKINNED Barack Hussein Obama is.
Oh Hillary campaign. You are so clever! No wonder you are so good at beating Republicans, all those African-American Republicans with Swahili-Arabic names. Remind me, how many of those are there?
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 11:59 AM:Amen Keith.
Jeremy wrote on December 18, 2007 12:01 PM:savvy nails it. It's shortsighted to start a fight before you've gotten as many people on your side as you can.
de wrote on December 18, 2007 12:02 PM:bridoc,
Hillary Clinton has voted on legislation in the US Senate for seven years now, and her lifetime voting on all issues is rated the 11th most progressive in the Senate by the ADA. For example, her voting record shows that especially on labor issues that are most vital to corporations, she votes 100% for workers and union issues, directly opposing corporate interests. Her voting record in the Senate on progressive issues gets a score of over 95% according to ADA.
She has high negatives? Sure, she’s battle scarred. Hillary Clinton is battle tested and wise and as good a candidate as they come. She has taken on the Rethugs and she knows how to beat them. There is nothing negative the Rethugs can say about Hillary Clinton that hasn’t been said before ad nauseam. There will always be the nuts, left and right, who just passionately hate her. This hate mongering does not play well with the mainstream voters however.
Of course Hillary Clinton has higher negatives than does, for example, Obama. He is virtually unknown to many voters, especially outside the early primary states. If they were to get to know him by presentation of the Rethugs, I can assure you his negatives would spike, and anybody’s guess is good as to where it would end.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 12:03 PM:And that signature above should be "DemAC" not "de"...
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 12:04 PM:bridoc:
"Hillary, wouldn't even be a Senator is she hadn't been married to Bill."
This is so obviously sexist it's breathtaking. Hillary had an office in the West Wing. She has always been President Clinton's top advisor, much like Ted Sorensen was to JFK. She didn't have to go through senate confirmation, but she was tops.
"Hillary and her supporters seem to be convinced that she has some divine right to inherit the White House."
No one I know who supports Hillar ybelieves this. She wouldn't be working so hard if she thought she had a divine right to the job.
"JFK was elected after 1 term in the Senate as well, for perspective."
I have two things to say about this. First off, Obama is no JFK, having studied the man's life in detail. Second, you're facts are wrong. JFK was serving his second term in office. Kennedy had been in service to his country for 17 years before running for president: as a Lt. in the navy (1942-1946), a congressman (1947-1953) and a senator (1953-1961). Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.
JRE wrote on December 18, 2007 12:10 PM:John Edwards' plan covers everyone. Right now, 40% of healthcare dollars go to the insurance industry. John Edwards' plan is a slow rollout of single-payer insurance. John Edwards' plan lowers cost by creating competition. If the insurance companies don't lower their rates they will go out of business. He doesn't give insurance companies an excuse to raise their rates by way of supply and demand. Businesses in America can't compete because the middle men (insurance companies) have to get their cut before we even receive proper care.
How does Obama enforce his mandate for children?
phidda wrote on December 18, 2007 12:24 PM:Is anyone else going to find it hard to support Hillary if she wins the nomination. Her attack style in the primary is very off-putting. And watching Bill on Charlie Rose doing the hatchet job on Obama made me wince.
I used to think of the Clintons favorably, but this primary season has made me think differently.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 12:24 PM:Good post, savvy, except that I do think you're missing the point of the Obama Revealed video Josh posted. It's obviously a humorous swipe at Hillary and her inevitability campaign gone haywire. And I took it -- as well as Kleefeld's post on the new Gallup poll, which (like the previous Gallup poll, incidentally) shows Obama running stronger than Hillary against every Republican candidate -- as an attempt to address the (entirely valid) criticisms of Hillary bias in many of the above posts.
But you know, I just don't think that's good enough. Josh's post was an olive branch, for sure, but we all know Josh is not the problem. His integrity is, in my view, unimpeachable. But we don't need "make up" posts from Kleefeld and Sargent. Dudes just need their walking papers.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 12:30 PM:savvy wrote: Krugman needs to STFU!Oh yes. Anyone who dare question the anointed One must be silenced. The right wing Politics of “Hope” and “Change” cannot hold in the face of Krugman’s scrutiny and so he must be quieted. bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 12:32 PM:
Anonymous: Don't give me lectures on feminism here. Look at her campaign messages, look at the surveys that show large portions of her support coming from her being Bill Clinton's wife, look at her history and reality, it is NO controversy that she owes all of this to Bill, she didn't do it on her own like Obama did, she rode on his coattails, that is obvious to anyone not biased by their blind support for Hillary. I'm not saying it because I'm sexist, I'm saying it because I'm a feminist and I don't want the first woman president to get their because of who she married. Seriously, think outside the box. Secondly, I greatly respect Obama for getting where he is today and doing many amazing things in his career all on his own, so I use this to draw a distinction. I don't respect Hillary for how she got here, it isn't the same.
As for the divine right argument, I was directly addressing a Hillary supporter who said Obama needs to wait his turn. This is my point, Hillary has been running as a de facto incumbent, her whole campaign has been based on inevitability and that this is "her time", which is why now that that is being seriously challenged her campaign is freaking out. So don't be naive (or disingenuous) and pretend that she hasn't acted like this is her time and that Obama needs to sit on the side lines and wait his turn.
On JFK, I never said they had the same careers or the same kind of experience, my point is that JFK had similar legislative experience. Obama wasn't in the navy, okay, fine, Kennedy didn't teach constitutional law for over ten years. Kennedy wasn't an organizer in impoverish communities either. My point is not that Kennedy and Obama are the same, my point is that his opponents doubted Kennedy in much the same ways, and yet he is remembered as one of the greats. What to take away from all of this is that Hillary's "experience" and "leading from day one" arguments are bogus, all the frontrunners have enough experience and all of them can lead from day one. I'm just sick of the BS.
DemAC,
On unfavorability, yes, Obama is less known that Hillary, but it seems that knowing Obama leads to supporting Obama, which is why his support is so much stronger in places he has been, Hillary's, not so much. Also, I believe people miss the mark when they say that the Republicans are all out of attacks for her, they aren't. They hate her and their supporters hate her and they can ignite that fire on a moment's notice. And don't think they can't dig up new dirt, or make old dirt look fresh. They obviously aren't even trying now, they are waiting and hoping that she is our nominee. No, it will not be pretty if she wins the nomination..
I'd also ask that you look at her record, especially in terms of foreign policy, which is where she is the most conservative, and also where we need the most CHANGE if we ever want to fix our national image. Also, her secrecy around her time as First Lady is scary, because we don't need any more shady secrecy in our next administration, we need a transparent government that people can TRUST. These are just a few things that really worry me about Clinton and how she would be as president. I believe in Obama's character, and that is what makes him shine. I truly believe he is what we need, now more than ever.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 12:38 PM:phidda, I will find it very hard to as well. I would never vote for a Republican, but between her foreign policy, her embracing of the Republicans, her character in general and especially her dirty smear attacks against Obama, I don't think I could vote for her in good conscience. So no, you aren't alone.
Keith wrote on December 18, 2007 12:44 PM:Krugman should stick to economics, he speaks with greater authority in that genre. The fallacy of Krugman's piece is that he buys into the notion that "fighting 'em" is all that is required to advance a progressive platform, in particular healthcare reform. In the real world, you have to have buy-in from all of the interested parties. Anyone who's ever negotiated ANYTHING knows that you don't get the win-win by brinksmanship--all you get is a sour taste in everyone's mouth.
I think Edwards' is great, but his rhetoric matches who is and where he has come from--he's a trial lawyer. He's talking like there will be a winner/loser, that the jury of public opinion will award him the verdict he desires. Maybe. But at the end of the day, he's going to have to sit down at a table and lay out his program and negotiate with the other interested parties, or he's not going to get anything done. It's as simple as that.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 12:45 PM:bridoc,
Feel free to delude yourself. The more the Rethugs attack Hillary Clinton the better for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Nobody is going to believe anything they say about Clinton anymore. In that respect she is insulated.
Obama is another matter completely. Never once in his entire life has he had to stand up against the Big Red Slime Machine. Perhaps because of this the Obama supporters confuses his inexperience with innocence, as in there can’t be anything there to make anything of. The logic of the Obama supporters is in many ways flawed. Apparently sincere they profess to believe that Obama can’t be harmed because all the dirt the Big Red Slime Machine will dig up will be either old (as in being once mentioned in a book) or untrue (as all things usually are with the Big Red Slime Machine).
You Obama supporters probably sincerely believe that the press likes him too much to let anything evil happen to him. And they, probably equally sincerely, believe that the Republicans will play nicer this election as compared to 2004. Not gonna happen. We need a fighter. We need Hillary Clinton.
NCSteve wrote on December 18, 2007 12:46 PM:People, people, people.
Everyone here knows I'm as avid a partisan brawler as anyone, but joining in on the campaigns' fighting over who's healthcare plan is the best a level of Kool-Aid drinking blind loyalty that even I can't get do.
Regardless of who wins, none of these plans will be presented "as is" to Congress because all three of them will be OBE (overcome by events) by January 20, 2009. Regardless of who wins, the actual plan presented to Congress will probably be combining elements of all three of these, but right now, none of the three can admit that the others may be right about some things and others may be wrong. For that matter, in another year, the whole country, including Big Bidness other than big Pharma, may even be in a place that will allow the new president to chuck all three plans and give us something closer to a true single payer plan.
Finally, enough with the Krugman vs. Reich fight, already. They're both very smart men who've been right about most things for a very long time now. It is distressing to see them battle now. One of them is likely wrong about the health plans, and both may be wrong. Can anyone here seriously claim to be smart enough, well-informed enough, and precognitive enough, to know which? I certainly can't and, in the end, it doesn't matter.
What does matter, and where I do differ with Krugman, is on his apparent belief that that the country is irreversibly and intractably divided between sane people and crazy people, that we are doomed to live in a political version of World War I with each side entrenched behind its barbed wire, fighting endlessly over the three or four percent in No Man's Land. I can certainly see how, having been one of the few lonely voices for sanity for so long, Krugman would perceive the world that way. And, having fought for so long, I can even see how we would think reaching out to the people on the other side of the wire is dangerous and irresponsible. He may even be right.
However, Obama is not talking about reaching an accommodation with the forces of insanity. He is, instead, saying that he perceives that a significant fraction of troops over on Crazyland's side of the wire are on the verge of mutiny and might be persuaded to come back into the light if we will just get a grip on our own anger and refrain from shooting them as they come across the lines to our side. If he succeeds, the remaining forces of Craziness will, for all practical purposes, collapse and the world is opened to a much wider range of possibilities than we have now.
Risky? Absolutely. Naive? Only if it doesn't work. I, for one, believe it is a risk worth taking because the alternative is either the ceaseless, fruitless, indefinite continuation of the war with the promise of a few incremental gains offered by Hillary or the even riskier prospect of a complete, but potentially pyrrhic, victory offered by Edwards.
But, hey, if I can't get the win by encouraging the mutiny, I'd rather risk the pyrrhic victory under Edwards rather than the indefinite continuation of the war under Hillary. We just cannot go on this way any longer.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 12:48 PM:bridoc wrote: So no, you aren't alone.Congratulations! You are now two self professed traitors to the Democratic Party. You must be very proud of your hate mongering selves. savvy wrote on December 18, 2007 12:55 PM:
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 12:24 PM:
Good post, savvy, except that I do think you're missing the point of the Obama Revealed video Josh posted. It's obviously a humorous swipe at Hillary and her inevitability campaign gone haywire
Thanks Anon. Yeah, maybe I did miss the 'satire" but it is pretty hard to get some of this humor when you have so much paralipsis lately from Kerrey and WJClinton...and not to mention the outright slander.
UGH!!...
BTW I agree about Kleefeld he has a long track record of misconstruing though Sargent puts forth a more consistent effort to be balanced even though his bias shines through as well.
Krugman understands that healthcare is an economic issue. Krugman also understands that the only solution that let's America compete economically is a single-payer system.
bridoc wrote on December 18, 2007 1:00 PM:DemAC, you are assuming that not only will Obama get nailed so much by the Republicans that he will reach Hillary's 50% unfavorable rating, but they will push him even beyond that mark, and much farther past 50% than they would push Hillary. The facts are, Obama has a long ways to go before the average American detests him as much as they detest Hillary, and there is no proof one way or another that they will be able to make him slide that much. Most presidential candidates are relatively (relative to HRC at least) new to the GOP slime machine, that doesn't mean it will work on them like it has on HRC. The honest truth is, we don't know, but we know who already has one foot in the GOP muck grave, and that is Hillary. So you can pretend to predict that future and assume that Obama will get creamed, but you'll be doing that based on nothing realistic at all, and really that kind of pessimism is what limits any hope in achieving any progress in politics.
As for me and phidda being traitors, no. I can't speak directly for phidda, but I for one am a principled supporter of real Democrats, which include people who don't suck up money from lobbyists and then say they see nothing wrong with it, people who don't list HW Bush and Reagan as some of their favorite past presidents, people who aren't going to send HW Bush around the world as a representative of change and someone who doesn't run a disgustingly filthy and disingenuous campaign. And I stated right from the beginning that I'd never vote for a Republican, and if it came down to it I would vote for Hillary before voting for a Republican, but that is as far as I can go and still feel decent about my principles. So I don't want to vote for her, and "luckily" I'm in a state where my vote doesn't matter, so I'm not a traitor, I'm a conscientious objector to what I see as a grave threat to progressive politics. Don't try to compare me to Nader supporters in Iowa or any idiots like that...I would never turn my back on my party and hand an election to the Republicans, but I have to vote my conscience on this one.
pacc wrote on December 18, 2007 1:10 PM:Frog Leg wrote:Nice shadowy effect on the scanning. I wonder why?
and
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 11:05 AM:There you go again, Greg. Nice photos. Real fair portrayal of Obama. Didn't this used to be a news site? Christ.
and
Dave wrote:
Wow, those ads look so dark and scary.
and probably more...
You people are really fucked up. You're paranoia belongs in a psychotherapy office and not a political blog.
DemAC wrote on December 18, 2007 1:29 PM:bridoc,
Your own assumptions are scripted in la-la-land. (Or perhaps camp Obama.) The average Americans do certainly not “detest” Hillary Clinton. During Election ‘08 the Hillary haters will be confronted with the (disappointing?) reality that the vast majority of voters are gentle, normal people that don’t much “detest” anyone.
As to Obama, it’s not so much a factor of pure negatives as a matter of trust. He has not earned their trust and so will be weak in the face of the inevitable Rethug attacks. It’s not necessary for the Rethugs to drive Obama’s pure negatives through the roof to bury him in the election – it’s quite enough to make the voters doubt him. And that is rather easy. John Kerry is a compelling example, he was certainly not “detested” by many voters, but sure enough they didn’t trust him. With Obama we’ll be down that same old slippery slope again.
Anonymous wrote on December 18, 2007 1:31 PM:"What to take away from all of this is that Hillary's "experience" and "leading from day one" arguments are bogus, all the frontrunners have enough experience and all of them can lead from day one. I'm just sick of the BS."
Obama PROMISED to meet with Castro, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il in his first year in office. This was unbelievable pandering to the fringe-left of the party and frighteningly naive. The Repugs would rip him a new one for this statement, and rightly so. This man should NOT be president, period. But after the election, he and Ramsey Clark and Jesse Jackson can go to Cuba and drink mojitos with Castro & Raul.
@Anonymous
Obama didn't promise he would meet with every rogue world leader in his first year, he said he'd be willing to, that he was open to it. He, unlike Hillary, understands that the stubborn isolationism promoted by Bush has only hurt us, and he is open to changing that policy. If you actually listened to his response to Hillary's attacks on this you would realize it was a very intelligent and thoughtful position. Hillary attacked on this, and when people who know foreign policy gravitated towards Obama's approach she quickly dropped it. I love that HRC supporters are so slimy and disingenuous that they take a reasonable comment by Obama and totally distort it to seem like he is going to go play tennis with terrorists or make them his drinking buddies. No, if he met with these leaders he made it clear that he would take a strong stance and make clear where the US stood on the issues. Quit acting like Rove and friends and actually talk honestly about the issues, and quit being a coward by posting anonymously.
All issues aside, this mailer is brilliant marketing and political strategy: Obama camp knows that if they attack HRC for being Negative, it reinforces her image as a ruthless mainstream politician that'll do anything to get elected. When she cries foul it reinforces her alter image as a weak and brittle female politician who can't take the heat. Obama's going to win with this strategy. It's really tough running in presidential politics as a woman. Let's see if Hillary can thread the needle.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 2:14 PM:Keith Smith,
It seems to me that you can take the fact that Clinton is female out of your analysis and still arrive at the same result. In fact, I think what you are pointing out is that it is difficult to run a successful campaign without a more credible and more compelling argument in favor of your candidacy than the one your opponent has offered.
AnonyMoose wrote on December 18, 2007 2:59 PM:If I read DemAC's voluminous comments right, it says: "I can't wait for my Schedule C appointment in the Clinton Administration."
Nahgunnahappen.
Pembleton wrote on December 18, 2007 3:28 PM:Fix the damn scan job... or just take it down and report on the mailer. I've NEVER seen something posted in this fashion. I'm suprised Greg or Eric haven't even responded to the comments regarding this post. I don't think (and don't want to think) this is intentional bias by Greg and Eric but the longer there isn't even an explanation of why the posting is in this fashion, I'm not as sure
Southpaw wrote on December 18, 2007 4:13 PM:I agree with you Pembleton, this is in some ways a new low for the site. Remember what GWB did once the mounting criticism of his administration reached such a level that he knew it would be impossible to turn the tide of public opinion back in his favor? He pulled a Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory: threw his hands up, said "screw it," and let it pile on up.
If I were Greg and Eric, I would feel similarly at this point. Having passed the point of no return such that they will not be taken seriously as journalists (at least not w/o a name change or a relo), they are no longer even *trying* to behave like ones. Luckily, however, TPM readers are, on balance, well-educated and informed, and we continue to shine light on the distortion/spin/bias/superficiality each and every time we see it, providing useful substantive information to combat it. (See, e.g., DRinOH's and NCSteve's informative posts earlier in this thread regarding how truly manufactured the debate on the universal healthcare issue is. To which I add only this: let's not forget that it is the Hillary camp which has done all of the manufacturing, desperate as they are to find a fault -- *any* fault -- with Obama's very measured and (though perhaps to the chagrin of far left wingers) decidedly mainstream policy positions.) And luckily, we can trust that probably a solid 95% of TPM readers will, in reading these comments (and not merely the headlines), at least be exposed to this substantive information, and thereby hopefully see the truth.
In short, I guess I'm saying that yes, Greg and Eric's reporting is about what one would expect from the NY Post. However, the good thing is, there just aren't a lot of NY Post reader types on TPM. 'Round here we've got our eyes on the ball, we read the fine print, and we don't get distracted by shiny objects or flagrantly misleading headlines. We want news, *real* news, and if you don't give it to us, we'll link to the good stuff in our comments, your spin be damned. Ain't democracy grand?
It's like that line from "An American President," where Michael Douglas cynically comments that the people don't drink the sand because they're thirsty, they drink it because they don't know the difference. Well, reading these comments gives me hope that some of us still do.
Anyone need a refill?
Jeremy,
Placed as a pundit or not, Krugman is accurate in his assessment of the situation.
M.,
If you are looking for how mandated healthcare is effective and efficient look to the Medicare and VA of the PRE-Bush43 era. With overhead of less than 4% . . . Government programs kick the backside of the shorts on the present insurance industry driven situation that carries up to a thirty percent overwrite before bonuses.
I thnk that two of the most henious words can be found in the Medicare laws . . . They are "over sixty-five".
The net savings in healthcare from taking the word deferred outta the equation and adding productivity of the American worker . . . Single-payer is the way to go.
votenic wrote on December 18, 2007 4:57 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
The problem is that mandates are not the same thing as a single-payer system. With mandates, the insurance companies are still taking a profit, and the collection method is inherently inefficient and regressive.
JRE wrote on December 18, 2007 10:39 PM:John Edwards' plan is a slow rollout of single payer healthcare. It is designed to put the insurance companies at a financial disadvantage. That is why Paul Krugman likes his plan.
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:13 PM:JRE,
OK, but Obama also favors a single-payer solution as the end goal.
So this is actually a political argument--are mandates likely to be a viable compromise step toward a single-payer solution, or are they more likely to be an unviable obstruction to taking any meaningful steps toward a single-payer solution?
Krugman does indeed think that as a political matter, mandates are a good compromise step. But Krugman is an economist, and on political subjects he has no special expertise.
Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 7:38 AM:Is that true DTM? Does obama favor a single-payer solution as the end goal?
DTM wrote on December 19, 2007 9:49 AM:Michael A,
Well, that is my sense, but perhaps you should judge for yourself. See here for some relevant information:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070405-1118-obama-healthcare.html
Evadt wrote on December 19, 2007 10:04 AM:JRE: I need that stat for a piece I'm working on - that 40% of heathcare costs are going to the insurance companies... Please post the link/source. Thx.
Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 11:00 AM:Thanks DTM. I appreciate the link. I always thought that out of all the dem candidates, the one that would be most likely to push single payer would be obama. The funny thing is single payer would make big corporations extremely happy. It is the most efficient and least costly. He could easily get business and people on board with a single payer system.
The mandate thing will not work and is like a third rail for clinton and edwards as far as I am concerned. A little irony, the dem plans, other than obama, are very similar to what nixon was trying to do in the early 70's. Among other things is giving the insurance industry a huge windfall with a mandate. Nixon started up the hmo bs, because he didn't think he could get a mandate requirement through congress. Is that funny or what? Talk about irony.
Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 10:02 PM:If our Ivy League elitists really wanted a single-payer system, they would propose it, campaign for it, and get a national mandate to enact it.
THEY DON'T WANT IT.
