Comments on Debate About Debates, Cont.

5% of americans left out of health care? Hillary's forces people to have health insurance and that wont pass in congress. both plans dont cover anyone until they pass, and obama's is more likely to pass.

as for h.r. 6 in 2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00006:@@@L&summ2=m&#major%20actions

Cantwell voted yes
McCain voted no
the Wisconsin Senators were split
in fact, only 26 voted nay, and only 20 were democrats. that means that 74 voted yay and 23 were democrats

ooh, cutting benefits and raising the age! that might actually help social security without having to raise taxes! oh noes.

Before Hillary champions being better for Wisconsin she needs to first ask if it is a significant state before or after she loses it.

also, i love how obama's campaign is setting the agenda for what is being discussed. was there a Wisconsin ad by hillary before obama ran his?

i guess a few months later, we finally get to the "fun" part.

Yeah, why won't they have a debate in every single state before their primary? What a chicken!!!

I think that obama should ask for a debate in Hawaii.

This ad is stupid. I like how she puts sources for Obama's stuff but not for her. There are just statements like "She won't" or "She didn't." Right, Hillary. We're supposed to trust *you* and *your* word? I don't think so. . .

MI Matt, this is why Hillary's campaign fails. it lets obama set the agenda and then they are forced to say, no we didnt, yes we did, etc etc. it makes her look like a puppet.

I'd love to see her attack ads for the general election:

"John McCain voted to go to war in Iraq. Is that really the kind of person you want leading this country?"

Is she still claiming that her plan guarantees universal health care? Is anyone else going to call her on it? Universal coverage does not equal universal care.

You know you're winning when they start throwing anything they can at you, hoping it will stick.

But it won't.

And it isn't.

@1: Actually, Obama would prefer to raise the payroll tax on Social Security (or raise it after a donut hole) than either of those options. From Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you said last year—earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, “No, no. Those aren’t off—on the table; I’m taking them off the table.”

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, that’s not—that’s not what I said. What I said was that I will convene a meeting as president where we discuss all of the options that are available. That doesn’t mean that as president I will not have strong opinions on how we should move forward. And when you look at how we should approach Social Security, I believe that cutting retire—cutting benefits is not the right answer. I meet too many seniors all across the country who are struggling with the limited Social Security benefits that they have. That raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we’ve got people who ware still in manufacturing. By the time they’re 67, their bodies, oftentimes...

MR. RUSSERT: But in May you said they would be on the table.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, when I—I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected. That is the option that I will be pushing forward. But, look, even as president I’m not going to be able to get this done by myself, and that means that I’m going to be listening to any other ideas out there. It doesn’t mean, though, that I’m not going to have a strong position on it.

OK, when I say madam, you say president! Come on! Everybody! When I say madam, you say president! Woo! Lets GO!

MADAM!

...MADAM...?

Everybody? Anybody?

I thought you like call and response. You like it when Barack does it.

ECB, did you help put this ad together? It sounds like your one sided argument style... just a thought.

@10, you are absolutely right. It isn't sticking, and at this point, just looks down right stupid. F for effort Hillary!

so obama is open to many ideas on SS

so obama is open to many ideas on SS

What I'm waiting for from the Hillary campaign:

"Barack Obama wants to eat your puppies.
Barack Obama thinks you look fat in that outfit.
Barack Obama is actually a muslim terrorist."

Oh, wait...

And while we're on who gets covered, how many people duck mandatory auto insurance? Unlicensed and uninsured drivers are involved in more than 20 percent of the fatal crashes on America's highways (Google it). Plus, that 1-in-5 are avoiding something that's only mandatory if you have a car. Hillary's mandate applies to you if you have a pulse.

When people can't afford it, or think it's not the government's business, they won't get it. Period. Obama understands that, and doesn't want to go garnish wages to force people into it. Americans - poor and rich, smart and dumb - do NOT like the government forcing them to do anything.

I think that the purpose of this ad is likely not just to attack Obama, but to draw him out. He is running, among other things, as the "positive" candidate. An attack against him that is actually based on issues (however valid or not the accusations may be) is more difficult for him to brush off or profit from, as he did with Bill's personal attacks. If he stumbles in responding to this, Hillary will pounce. And if he goes negative in response (the conventional strategy), he gets called a hypocrite.

@2: Hillary was the one who set this whole negative ad circle of doom off in the first place when she ran her "Barack Obama won't debate me in Wisconsin, so clearly Barack Obama is a coward." This argument is obviously flawed since Obama has debated her 18 times already and will debate her at least two more times. Just not in Wisconsin.