Bill Clinton Explains Falsities in Obama' s Newest Ad

Bill Clinton on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania today succinctly explains why Obama's ad attacking Hillary's health care plan is not only wrong, but shows that Obama is clueless. Elizabeth Edwards made the same points about the need for everyone to be covered and how it will result in lower costs.

Shorter version: Obama: Not everyone can afford it. The truth: Yes they can.

"Hillary's being subject to a television ad that has been roundly criticized in the form of mass mailings all across this country saying she's trying to make you buy insurance you can't afford and you're gonna be fined and all that. It isn't true. It is not true," he said. "Every expert who has looked at this says if you provide the subsidies and you cap somebody's income, everybody'll be able to afford it, it'll be cheaper than anything you're buying now if you buying it. But I'm just telling you, we won't get control of cost unless we cover everybody. Doing the morally right thing is the economically essential thing. If you agree with that, if you agree with that, you have only one choice left with the three candidates for president. You got to vote for Hillary for president, she'll fix this problem."

Obama is digging himself into a hole here, just like he did with his Bitter-Gate statements. He really doensn't get it. Like he doesn't get social security and has bought into the crisis meme. He should have corrected his health care plan months ago. Better yet, he should work on it for another eight years and then come back and try again.

On the job training is not what most of us have in mind for the Presidency -- at least not while there's a better Democratic choice.

< Bob Casey: Obama Would Probably Find DC Handgun Bill Constitutional | Tiny Tent Dems: Hope and Change, Forget the Unity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is why John and Elizabeth (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    Edwards have not endorsed Obama. This issue is too important.  President Clinton's message is very clear.  I hope voters can hear it through all the crap out there.  We will not get universal health care, unless we get Hillary.

    On the job training is right (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by angie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:58:34 PM EST
    Didn't we learned our lesson with W? I am constantly amazed that so many people are falling for it again.

    Actually I recommend on the job (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:04:29 PM EST
    training for Obama---in the Senate.

    He Definitely Needs OTJT On How To Hold (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:19:48 PM EST
    meetings in his committee.

    To be perfectly honest (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:18:50 AM EST
    I am so tired of Obama that I would welcome his departure from the national political scene. Let him go back to Chicago and teach.

    I was for Obama until the mandate thing (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by catfish on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM EST
    came up in Krugman's columns. But before Krugman, I thought mandates mirrored the structure of Social Security, which you notice has been supported for a long time by Dems and even many Repubs.

    People complain about Social Security until they're a few years into the workforce. At that point, they don't want it dissolved because they've paid into it.

    I found it odd around December and January the way Obama dug himself in further and further regarding mandates. Made me wonder what he'd do to Social Security.

    I think you already know the answer... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:12:03 PM EST
    he'll fix Social Security of course, because as he said, it's broken.

    Of course it's broken, it's got mandates for everyone.

    Perhaps he should let the poor opt out because they really can't afford the payroll deductions.

    Sometimes I wonder if they actually ever get to the point where they say these things enough, that they get to believe them to be true.


    In the debate the other night (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:20:21 PM EST
    Obama said the payroll tax is the most regressive tax we have. I guess he's never heard of the sales tax.

    And that is by design! (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:30:50 PM EST
    Making the payroll tax progressive is rather like means testing---it reduces the  political base of support.

    One Of His Chief Financial Advisors, Lieber (sp?) (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:23:35 PM EST
    is for partial privatization of Social Security. That with his statement that Social Security is in crisis makes me very, very concerned about what his intentions regarding Social Security really are.

    privatization...right (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    and that's worked so well for all the city/county/state governments that invested their money hasn't it?

    The crisis on Wall Street has proven that privatization of Social Security is a non-starter.

    I got an idea, people can privatize their social security savings by buying foreclosed homes.


    Social Security (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:45:04 PM EST
    becomes even more understandable as we age.  The blunt truth is that people get screwed out of pensions. Pension plans that seemed adequate turn out to be far less than adequate and many 401K plans are simply a dodge that gets employers off the hook and are often inadequate for the long haul.

    Social Security has been the saving grace of millions and is essential in any industrial society.

    Many, many younger people just don't get it and  neither does Obama.



    Stocks for retirement are foolhardy (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:25:52 AM EST
    I'm not sure if it was Krugman who said that Social Security is not in trouble because the government is backing it up and it cannot go under. The Enron employees who invested their savings in the company plan lost all their savings because the money had gone to buy Enron stock.  We've learned from experience that stockholders who thought to have purchased the safest stocks (blue chips) turned out to be junk (Worldcom, Lucent, etc).  Most recently we've seen the failure of Bear Stearns, but other financial institutions like Citicorp, Merril Lynch, Wachovia are teetering from the subprime meltdown. Companies can cook the books and there is nothing an investor can do.  Saving money for interest only is another joke because inflation eats into the value of the money.  The only institution that does not go belly up is the government.  

    My next door neighbor (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Dave B on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:54:07 AM EST
    He still works for Enron's pipeline operations.  He is in charge of operating a gas pipeline that goes from Canada, through Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa.  Before Enron crashed and burned he had what he thought was $2 million in their retirement plan.  It turned out, he had nothing.  He was going to retire a few years ago, but he'll be working for a few more...

    Read his book (none / 0) (#24)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST
    "The Return of Depression Economics."  You'll find he get's a lot of predictions wrong: it's an older book so you can see how things didn't happen as he expected.

    Regarding WJC:
    How could "every expert who has looked at this [say] if you provide the subsidies and you cap somebody's income, everybody'll be able to afford it?"  HRC hasn't specified who will pay what.  So, obviously no expert has looked at these unknown particulars.  It has been vaguely suggested that a tax as high as 10% may be required, but they've been careful to not talk about who would pay the 10%.  How does WJC know that people (who make too much for the subsidies that both BO and HRC have; their subsidies are essentially interchangeable when you compare them side by side) can afford a 10% tax?  Or, is he suggesting that HRC's subsidy will magically cover everyone (i.e. nobody will pay the 10% tax, everyone, except the ultra rich, will have free health care), but BO's won't even though their subsidy plans are nearly identical.

    The problem people ignore about mandates is that a lot of folks who don't currently have health care won't be able to afford the 10% penalty (not to mention that there's no guarantee that 10% will actually cover the costs of insurance for a family, where does the rest come from?)  Why don't all of you mandate fans ever talk about adopting the underlying systems in the foriegn countries you sometimes refer to?  Have you ever asked yourself why HRC's plan doesn't replace the underlying structure of our system so it matches the foriegn mandate plans?  If you like those foriegn plans why don't you support implementing them in the States?  Why do you think it's a good idea to throw mandates on top of our broken system?  How has that worked in MA?  Some talk about the opened up government plan (as both BO and HRC require) as something that could be the key to making MA work, but this opened up plan will look like Medicare, so we already know how that works, and it isn't some great solution, it's one more government program that private companies use to generate income directly or indirectly.  And, the government already spends 21% of the entire federal budget on Medicare/Medicaid, covering mostly the elderly and disabled.  The point is that there is no miracle that's going to make things work out: this kind of thinking reminds me of Rs when they feel in their bones that lowering the capital gains rate will solve all (or at least a lot) of the world's problems.

    And as I've noted, this is not as easy as some suggest, just look at how MA didn't work as planned if there is any doubt.

    Please read the link above (and the link in that comment) I have addressed a lot of mandate issues as responses and I won't be writing any more comments, I'm cutting myself off tonight, I've commented too much today.

    PS: please don't forget that we're not suppose to troll rate because we don't like someone's POV.  I know a lot about health care, and I think it is peevish when I'm troll rated by those who I suspect know less.  


    I"m not sure your comment makes much sense (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:53:59 PM EST
    Hillary's plan puts a  cap at 10% of income. That is far from saying that everyone will pay a 10% tax.
    What is your basis for even discussing that possibility? None, that I can see.
    I know a lot about numbers---in fact, I'm sure I know far more than you.
    I guess I am an expert!!! woohoo.

    I suggest you get a clue (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    "Medicare/Medicaid, covering mostly the elderly and disabled"

    Medicare is for people over 65.  Medicaid is for people with very low incomes.

    And single-payer aka Medicare for everyone is THE solution. I don't think you understand the cost controls that Medicare uses or the fact that it costs government far less than private insurers to administer medical payments.

    Implementing medical plans used in foreign countries from single-payer to full fledged socialized medicine would probably be politically difficult to say the least at this point in time.  An incremental approach is better than no approach at all. Clinton's plan (as did Edwards') includes a government insurance option that may ultimately open the door to single-payer.

    The concept of mandates lowers the overall bill because risk is spread across the entire  population.  If you are the health care expert you claim to be then you should be able to understand that, but apparently that's passed you by.


    x (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:52:14 AM EST
    An incremental approach is better than no approach at all. Clinton's plan (as did Edwards') includes a government insurance option that may ultimately open the door to single-payer.

    I noticed this the first time I looked over her plan. And the more I've thought about it, the more I think this is a sneaky way to take us to single payer in the long run. Most progressives prefer single payer, simply because the insurance companies are just middlemen adding another layer of costs. Without them, it's cheaper. So by offering an option that is basically medicare for everyone, there would be an option cheaper than the insurance company options. What do you want to bet that an awful lot of people will choose that option? I will. My mother is on medicare and she gets much better health care than I do. I would jump at the chance of a similar plan at less than I currently pay for Blue Cross.

    Basically, I think this part of her plan is the Trojan Horse that eventually gets us to Single Payer. (But don't tell the wingnuts).


    Don't tell the wingnuts? How about the insurance (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:34:38 AM EST
    companies? Who do you think are behind BO?  Those insurance companies know that if HRC gets in, she won't repeat the 1993 mistakes (experience, you know).  BO came out of nowhere to challenge HRC and Edwards.  He is the best Trojan Horse to derail the health care Americans are demanding.  He offers what appears to be a solution, but it's not, just like the prescription drug that Congress passed under Bush was for the benefit of the pharmaceuticals.

    trojan horse health care (4.66 / 3) (#60)
    by tnjen on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:20:16 AM EST
    I am terrified that you're right. I'm almost of the mind that it's better to vote for McCain than Obama should he be the nominee because his failed and half-thought-out reforms would be used by opponents to say, "Look! It doesn't work in America! UHC is a fraud!" Obama's plan, even more gutted than it already is, would serve as a broken stop-gap measure full of junk insurances milking the taxpayers and providing little care at too high a cost for decades. Democrats wouldn't be as likely to fight hard to fix a democratically implemented plan and the GOP would tie reform to GOP preferred policies. At least with McCain's plan, democrats and progressives would be chomping at the bit to dismantle it in 4 years time and implement an Edwards/Clinton style plan. Also with McCain, the failures that are inherent in Obama's conservative leaning health care plan would be firmly blamed on conservative ideology rather than democratic ineptitude or any problem with UHC.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM EST
    This option was in both Edwards' and Clinton's plan for exactly that reason. I think it was described as  the camel with his nose under the tent.

    Ok this is my last comment, but (none / 0) (#43)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:09:17 AM EST
    I think I deserve some latitude because you were not particularly polite.

    It is absolutely 100% true that most of the Medicare/Medicaid funds do go to pay for services to the elderly and the disabled.  Check your facts.

    And you're over simplifying Medicare.  It can be fee for service (aka original w or w/o sup) or it can be HMO/PPO/PFFS.  I think it's telling that you don't know that Medicare has programs that pay for private insurers.  Do you know that some health care providers count on the government's fee for service payments to help them offset the loss of income as a result of the deals they cut with private insurers?

    We've already seen how mandates work (or not) in MA, it's not theoretical anymore.  The mandate supporters are going to need to reassess.  The link in my first comment goes into the structural problems, and how foreign plans have structural advantages.  The reason it's hard to change the structure for our system, is the reason our system is broken: the special interests won't give up the gravy train, and the gravy train is too costly, with too many uninsured.  We need to stop the gravy train, we don't need to add more gravy, and then hope for a different result.


    The MA mandates were put in place (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    by a Republican. Listen to them talk about health care coverage and then listen to Clinton or Edwards.

    Mandates on National vs. state level (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:20:24 AM EST
    The comparison is ridiculous.  State based mandates are not the same.  Hillary's plan offers three options for the buyer of insurance:
    1.  Your current insurance.
    2.  The Options available to Contress.
    3.  Public Plan Option
    Similar To MedicareCare Options ( the government option).  

    A state cannot offer this array.   So, the comparison is not legitimate.


    You're not debating honestly if MA (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:29:39 AM EST
    is the only example you consider.

    damn, a while ago i thought you (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kangeroo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:39:26 AM EST
    were just another obama supporter.  but now that i've seen several of your comments and seen just how worked up you're getting over this, i'm starting to think you're a health insurance lobbyist.

    Latitude? (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST
    What's this about expecting latitude?

    Are you asking that you be granted a wide margin of error.

    By the way, your argument appears to be somewhat circular.  You finish by implying there are no possible solutions.  


    Since you've made the (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by badger on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:19:25 AM EST
    "Krugman made wrong predictions" argument a number of times, we should probably consider it. First, let's assume you're making an honest, rational argument.

    If you were, you would know, for example, that people who predict the future rarely get it right, so to fault Krugman's predictions, you must know that Krugman's record is much worse than someone else's.

    So quantitatively, what is Krugman's error rate? Next, which economists have better error rates than Krugman? What is the error rate of the economists who advised Obama on his health plan? Is it better or worse than Krugman's?

    If you're making an honest, rational argument, you'll have answers to each of those questions. If you're just blowing smoke, you won't. Because simply saying Krugman made errors isn't saying much of anything at all.

    You could sum up Bret Favre's career by saying he holds records for number of interceptions thrown, or sum up Babe Ruth's record by saying he struck out more times than anyone. Neither statement would be a fair summary of Favre's or Ruth's abilities and accomplishments, and just claiming Krugman made errors says nothing about his overall record or abilities.

    And having read a number of your posts, I'd seriously doubt that you're capable of even judging what Krugman said and whether it's wrong or right.


    MA cannot be used for comparison or HI (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:34:55 AM EST
    These two states are part of the whole and must work within a failed system.  One must use Europe or Canada to make a reasonable comparison, and every study shows that dollar for dollar, those countries get better care for less money.

    The Swiss have (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:24:11 AM EST
    no complaints and their system was similar to ours, insurance through employers. Now they have a new system with universal coverage and negotiated Rx prices nationally and they have cut costs by 40%. Go see the Frontline programme from this week.

    If the Swiss can do it, why can't we? If every other major industrialized nation has free and universal health care why can't we?


    Experts actually do agree. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    Top economist on NPR explained this the other day in an extremely detailed manner.  Mandates are better simply because they cover everyone and WJC explains it correctly.  And Hillary has very specifically said she'd roll back the $60B BUsh tax cuts to pay for it.    If you actually DO look at the two plans, her's makes sense, covers most Americans and makes economic sense.   Not to mention that Bill isn't exactly a fool with the economy.   And Obama?? He continues to use right-wing talking points about mandates and fees to attack Clinton.

    I should have left this (3.00 / 1) (#29)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:03:01 AM EST
    link:  The Social Security problem will be affecting the budget fairly soon.

    No more comments from me, today.


    I used to be anxious (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by shoephone on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:18:30 PM EST
    about the "mandates" policy until I learned more and realized there is simply no way to get universality unless we create the biggest risk pool possible in order to bring costs down. Even Jim McDermott, an ultra-liberal who was diametrically opposed to HRC's vote for the AUMF, said in a newspaper interview two days before our caucuses that he prefers her health care plan to Obama's. Believe me, the Obama supporters at my caucus did not enjoy hearing that.

    The point is, that any universal system will have to subsidize some individuals and families. There are poor and working poor who will not be able to afford it on their own. And guess what? A lot of those people are already being subsidized by state health care plans (like WA's Basic Health Plan does). So the care offered under a mandated, universal access plan will not necessarily give you everything an employer-based plan might, but do you really need elective cosmetic surgery to be covered by others? I can tell you, as a self-employed business owner, the individual rates for even basic, no frills coverage are sky-high and out of reach! Sure, I can afford the $162
    month plan, but it comes with a $2000-$2500 deductable.

    My beef with HRC is that she plans on keeping the insurance companies and Big Pharma in on the negotiations. I think that's unfortunate and will slow down the biggest cost-cutting savings. (For-profit health insurers shouldn't even be allowed to do business, in my view.) That is where her plan  differed with Edwards' plan. But Obama's plan is simply untenable, and will get us no closer to universal coverage than any Republican plan.

    Sadly, neither plan is based on single-payer, but that is probably unattainable any time soon. Things would have to get much, much worse before conservatives would even consider such a policy, and I shudder at the notion that any of us would want to see the devastation and suffering required for conservatives to get a clue about the reasonableness of single-payer.

    What Hillary's Does Have Is An Option For (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:29:31 PM EST
    a non-insurance company based plan. Both Edwards and Hillary believed that this could be the nose of the camel under the tent leading eventually to a single-payer system. Her website describes that option better than I can if you have further interest in the subject.

    Like it or not (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:37:06 PM EST
    Ins co's and big pharm employ thousands of Americans.  The process to change over has to be gradual or we would be looking at mass unemployment.  I mean, more mass than we are now.

    Actually, I think it shows that she's learned something from the last time, and that's that you can't do an "us against them" and expect to get big things done.  You have to have...what's the word I'm looking for?  Oh, yeah--unity.


    $20 billion in administrative savings just in CA (none / 0) (#42)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:02:34 AM EST
    $20 billion in admin savings was the analysis from the lewin group on the Universal Care plan for CA.  I'm too lazy to find the details, but you're right that there are a lot of transition and fairness issues due to massive unemployment (not to mention the social costs, retraining issues, etc).  The incremental approach removes a lot of those issues and is more politically feasible (as Clinton and others have learned).  

    I believe the LG analysis was fairly simple (only 100 or so pages and much of it on various tax structures).  Net savings of 8 billion in the first year alone...included dental/eye as well.

    More info here: LGA


    The people who now work for (none / 0) (#71)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    the insurance companies can work for the new government department that deals with health insurance. There will be a need for processing in the health plan. The only people who will have to worry about their jobs are the executives who make the most money and get the bonuses paid for by premiums. The bureaucracy will still be there, and the people working it will be there, but the top layer will be gone. So the job loss will be much less than you think it will be. The paperwork will still have to be done, but the people raking in the profits will be gone.

    This is one of the "little" details (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:26:20 PM EST
    that ends up making an enormous policy difference between the candidates.  

    The articles and posts that claimed only minor, insignificant differences were always crap.

    Even more telling is the response to developing economic problems.  Clinton's proposals were extraordinarily bold, Obama's tepid and ineffectual.

    Still more telling is Obama putting Social Security at risk.


    Unlike Bush etc, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:27:54 AM EST
    she is planning to negotiate the price she will pay for Meds and other services.  That is how the other countries do it.  Right now all of the world negotiates and the Pharmas offset their losses on our back.  Hillary's plan is very sophisticated, she is talking of getting major saving in Medicare through negotiations.  This is what they are afraid of, this is why she is being attacked, she is getting them in where it matters.  And he starts with giving away half the house.

    This is what pushed me to Clinton (5.00 / 11) (#18)
    by tnjen on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:56:05 PM EST
    I was originally an Edwards supporter and this very issue is what pushed me to Clinton when Edwards dropped out. When Obama ran the Harry and Louise Ads the first go around he became unforgivable to me. We need UHC and Obama's actions poison the well. This is the first time we have a majority support among Americans for UHC and any attack on realizing UHC is absolutely antithetical to democratic core values. How can a man who promises change deride and attacj the implementation of the single greatest domestic change in modern history? I mean really, UHC is the biggest change ANY politician can bring to fruition.

    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST
    Promising change is not the same as delivering change.

    Amen to that (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by tnjen on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:54:36 PM EST
    geesh, when are people gonna wake up? I don't see how anyone can call themselves a change agent when they are consistently to the right (by definition closer to the GOP and W.) on almost every domestic and economic issue.

    Excellent dude - I will repeat your statement (none / 0) (#50)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 01:39:11 AM EST
    UHC and Obama's rhetoric (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ExpatElaine on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:19:38 AM EST
    It was the Obama ads in New Hampshire that pushed me firmly into the Clinton camp. I was a very 'early' but wobbly Obama supporter, was impressed with the rhetoric, comfortable with the idea of passing the torch to a new generation, etc. However, having been an early supporter, I 'got' the attacks on Bill Clinton, recognized the very negative framing of the campaign against Hillary; I was not happy with this, but bracketed that for awhile, because I was waiting to see how the new politics, the struggle against special interests,etc would play out in practice.  
    I, too, thought there was no better example than UHC that could translate  the rhetoric into concrete action:  drawing upon different states' programs (bi-partisan), uniting us all to share risk, combating the power of special interests, etc.
    If the rhetoric meant anything, healthcare was a touchstone issue.  And he made his choice, not only to abandon universality, but also to give away a potential noegotiating point; he chose to attack Hillary from the right quite explicitly --why else replicate the ad?  
    As to 'new politics' of not running a negative campaign - it was prettty clear it was a sham from the beginning; I just waited to see from what angle/politics it would be framed.  
    (BTW I live in London UK, but was from small town southwestern PA, so still a rube really)

    Me too Elaine (none / 0) (#66)
    by Rainsong on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:54:58 AM EST
    Though I may well be back stateside by November, probably with my folks in rural Maine.

    To me, playing the race card around SC, and the health care issue with his first run of Harry & Louise ads, were my first alarm bells. But I bracketed it at first, thinking either the GOP or his inexperience shrug.

    but then, deal-breaker after deal-breaker, for example the drama over MI & FL, and I thought it "fit" then, why the MSM were so deep in the tank for him.

    Like others have said, I can't vote for him either, because he is not for Democratic Party principles at all. If he wins the nomination, (and Presidency) it will be because he has the numbers inside the Party heirarchy to rig it for him, and that means the wrong side (for me & my support) of the Party will have won the internal power struggle.


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:37:31 PM EST
    The presidency is NOT an internship...especially not NOW.

    Why do you think he was given... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by lambert on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:38:54 PM EST
    ... all that money? It takes more money to propagate lies than simple truths. For starters, you've got to keep your stories straight. I notice Barry's not very good at that.

    Admit it.. you're just bitter. (none / 0) (#28)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:59:23 PM EST
    What gets me is that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by WillBFair on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:49:16 AM EST
    talks constantly about new politics, but all his policy positions are dated liberal cliches: campaign finance reform, dictator parties, etc...
    The Clintons have always specialized in solutions expertly crafted for specific problems. They fixed the national economy once, and brilliantly. And they vastly improved every stat in the book.
    None of that means a thing to the Obama Nation. They get by on MSNBCs shallow insults, the deep voice and sing song delivery, and the endless rhetorical tricks. Meanwhile, the media assures them they're the educated side in this fight. What a joke.

    "tv or not tv" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:28:13 AM EST
    a play in three acts, two of them unnatural.

    ok, sorry, couldn't help myself there, been a long, long time since anyone's mentioned procter & bergman (firesign theatre).

    1. social security is not, i repeat, IS NOT in a "crisis" mode. i thought we'd blown that farce out of the water 8 years ago. it needs some tweaking, but will survive.

    it was never intended to be anyone's primary means of support on retirement, merely supplemental "insurance" to your personal savings and investments. that's why it's FICA, not Pension.

    2. the only way to truly cover everyone with health care most economically is "single-payor", along the lines of the british or canadian model. it will require a minor increase in tax rates, offset by the premiums you're no longer paying to the private insurance company.

    realistically, that won't happen for a while, for a variety of reasons. sen. clinton's plan is the better transition model; it covers more people more cost effectively than sen. obama's does. to argue otherwise is to publicly display a complete ignorance of the issue.

    This issue can't be ignored (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by plumberboy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:36:40 AM EST
    I live in Michigan and for 17 years worked for a family owned plumbing company.My brother-in-law is the owner and there has been a recent turn down in residental building well a turn down in everything here.The thing is he had to lay off all his employees and go to working alone and taking on just enough for himself because of this econnomic crisis.The two biggest expenses he had where health insurance blue cross/blue shield medical only no optical or dental the cost was was over 1100.00 per month for a family and 975.00 for a married couple.The other major cost was payroll tax federal and state both just outrageous.The thing is if these cost where less two or three out of 8 or 10 guys might still have a job.This being said I think the left better stop bickering and get there man picked and out there Mccain is gaining momentum the polls show it and if he wins I don't see any hope for our economy or our health crisis.I would like to add my kids get state and federal funded health insurance and the coverage is great and the cost is cheap.

    We've been so lucky all the way around (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:21 AM EST
    with healthcare and our son.  Our son developed a gene mutation at conception that becomes Freeman Sheldon Syndrome.  He has no cognitive difficulties and probably due to having to request many things in many situations starting when he was so little he tests way up there for his age.  So my job concerning his health I always say is to not allow his body to betray him.  He is a Titanium Rib kid or his scoliosis would have killed him.  That was a big fight with Tricare though, which I won.  His top curve was 90 degrees when they did his first procedure.  His feet are constantly attempting to club again as he grows.......always a situation there right now.  Tricare is constantly pulling something attempting to not pay his providers, that after they have slashed what they will pay for procedures down to bare bones.  If healthcare professionals can't get paid how are they going to stay in business and care for everyone else?  They aren't........and they are going to charge the ever loving blankety blank to those who dare walk through the door making up for the swindling of the insurers. It is almost a fulltime job also fighting with an insurance company when you have a special needs child.  Something MUST change and it MUST do so SOON because this is currently total insanity while children are dying due to infections from rotten teeth and other obscene disgusting betrayals.  

    THE GAME IS FOR NOVEMBER (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:28:05 AM EST
    and name calling between clintonistas and obamaniacs is not the way to do it. More the voters of each group demonize the other group, more you hurl insults at each other, more you antigonize the said other camp and if the other camp candidate is not the nominee, more the risk is high that voter will not vote for your candidate in november. Do you all want to make R Limbaugh happy ?
    Carry on like that and once again the Dems are going to lose an election considred "inevitable".
    Accept Hillary may not be perfect, accept Obama could be a bit more punchy,. yes he did not do great at last debate and yes, Hillary did only McCain and her are patriotic. Yes both are wrong and must improve , but please stop playing into the Republicans hand. I do know the vote that counts is in November, but carry on like that and maybe of us will not turn in November at all. After all, we all know how the US will be in 2012. Worse, with more dead soldiers, an economy down the drain and homeless workless people. That is what the US will look, hopefully by this time the DNC, Florida and Michigan will have learn to follow the common rules which is to obey them for some and have guts for others. While hopefully bigmouths like Wright and Bill Clinton will have learn to SHUT UP.

    that last line... (none / 0) (#5)
    by nic danger on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:05:11 PM EST
    in the post says it all as far as i'm concerned.

    Don't Crush That Dwarf... (none / 0) (#7)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:13:54 PM EST
    Hand Me The Pliers

    Love the handle there Nic


    thanx,been using it... (none / 0) (#13)
    by nic danger on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:22:40 PM EST
    a long while,just hardly ever comment anywhere.ok,no more off topic... :>

    Off topic? (none / 0) (#31)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:07:25 AM EST
    surely you're kidding

    What could be more relevant about Obama's mailer on Hillary's health care plan than Firesign Theater?

    I think you have captured the essence of his campaign.


    "Stand him on his head! Stand him (none / 0) (#65)
    by magisterludi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:54:13 AM EST
    his head!- Aw-ww, he's no fun- he fell right over!" .

    I love FST.


    obama the imposter (none / 0) (#37)
    by drewohio1 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:40:49 AM EST
    he is an imposter , so obvious that the media has propped this guy up... what a light weight...
    Hillary is the man !!! Hillary is going to win it baby !!

    Bitter poster among us? (none / 0) (#38)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:45:16 AM EST
    Wow, they are on the offense since the ABC debate.  I love how when a REAL issue is debated, like healthcare, substance and reality are based in Clinton's plans.  

    And as for on the job training, maybe BHO can go cut his teeth back in the state senate halls of Illinois.  Maybe if he voted on anything of substance he would understand the need for it now, not just rhetoric.

    You cannot run the country on platitudes

    I like how Obama is robo calling people in PA, (none / 0) (#41)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 12:57:59 AM EST
    mentioned on another thread, saying, she's lies or something like that.

    Where are the SDs that were outraged with Hillary's so called negative ads?  That robo calling is just horrible.

    I think the Ocamp has thrown so much money to the media, and the SDs that they giving him a nice return on their money.

    And I also like all of a sudden, Obama doesn't get his picture taken with any AAs leaders like Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, who else, notice that? Weird. Its like I'm black but then I'm not hanging out or photo ops with any AAs, except of course Oprah.

    Obama, just not ready for prime time.

    BO was a big user of drugs (none / 0) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:42:05 AM EST
    Did he start the rumor?

    On the Job Training (none / 0) (#61)
    by bob h on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:27:36 AM EST
    "On the job training is not what most of us have in mind for the Presidency -- at least not while there's a better Democratic choice."

    On the job training in the Vice Presidency for eight years will be ok, however.

    dude, you are hilarious. (none / 0) (#64)
    by kangeroo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:49:42 AM EST
    do you even realize what kind of blog you're at?  it's almost like you're cheerleading for hillary--which i'm guessing is not your intent.

    You are on the wrong site... (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    Here is where you want to go...DailyKos. I am sure they will appreciate your drivel. We don't.