What about the flyers she sent out making Obama look like he was weak on abortion rights? (Not that that would make this move okay, if Clinton is presenting it accurately.)
I don't get how he "misrepresented" her on health care. How is the claim of the mailing - that her health care mandate would "force you to buy health insurance even if you can't afford it" - actually false? What is a mandate if not a demand you buy health insurance? Unless she's going to subsidize it 100% - i.e. socialized medicine - then that's still true, regardless of whether she offers insurance subsidies or not.
My friends, this is Hillary Clinton in the death throes of her campaign. I just watch her now like the insane family member who sits in the corner screaming at the bookcase while the rest of the family carrys on stopping to make sure "Auntie Hill" hasn't messed herself again.
That Obama flyer about healthcare she's waving around has actually been out for weeks. Notice her careful wording: "...he is continuing to send false mailings..." Her sudden show of outrage now is calculated and artificial.
And later she says, "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?" Honey, you've been attacking each other on that for months.
tsm @4 the thrust of the mailer is her plan will devastate working families and that is a big fat fear mongering smear worthy of Karl Rove and Obama should be ashamed of resorting to that kind of politics.
Now Obama is parroting GOP talking points and actually trying to teach the country that....universal coverage is bad? WTF?? Gee on this Slog right here a while back Obama supporters defended his voluntary plan as a crafty stepping stone to full european style socialist health care.
Tsm you talk about "whether" she's going to offer subsidies -- when she is.
So your own post is smeary too.
Suggesting it has to be a 100% subsidy or else her plan will devastate poor families is also a false charge and pretty smeary, too.
Duh.
It could be a subsidy that reduces the cost to a very poor family to $25 a month or $5 a month. If the subsidy is a 95% subsidy for the most poor, and a 50% subsidy for the half poor, and 0% subsidy for the nonpoor, that's a pretty good approach and the whole thrust of the mailer and yoru post is false. No one is toing to be bankrupted.
A mailer like this is not change.
It's standard campaigh playbook stuff.
Take your weakness (Bush on military service) then attack your opponent on the same point through distortions and fear (Swift Boating Kerry).
Obama's voluntary health plan is a weakness. You need universal enrollment to bolster the finances. You need that poor family's $5 a month or whatever it is, and if rich single dudes stay out of the plan shit you need their $250 a month for 15 years till they get their goddamn cancer and cost all of us $500,000 and if you are a well to do family preferring private doctors all the way and conceirge medical service well fuck you you gotta enroll in oone of these broader puclib plans just like if you want to pay for private school you still pay taxes to support the public schoolds.
That's why John Edwards was very clear on this just like every Democratic President trying for national health care which goes back to FDR I believe.
Universal coverage is needed to bolster the finances.What we don't need is politicians lying to win elections by spreading fear and myths about universal coverage that will in the long run make getting national health care even harder.
that's the politics of old:
sell fear. sell GOP message. get elected. harm everyone in the process especially those poorer families that one pretends to be so fucking concerned about.
@4: This is a very, very common mistake you're making. 100% subsidized != socialized healthcare. Canada's system, which is not "socialized" is essentially that the province is the insurer, and doctors make their own practices, take on their own patients and bill the government. State insurance, as is the case in many countries that have universal healthcare, is (as many economists agree) the most efficient way to get the best quality of care to the most people.
An excellent read on the issue, which gives some weight to HRC's plan: Part 1 and Part 2
tsm @4 the thrust of the mailer is her plan will devastate working families and that is a big fat fear mongering smear worthy of Karl Rove and Obama should be ashamed of resorting to that kind of politics.
No, unPC, it says, and I quote: "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it... and you pay a penalty if you don't." And this is true. She could fairly argue that it's not the whole story, of course. So why can't she respond appropriately, and defend the plan honestly, instead of saying this is a lie?
Tsm you talk about "whether" she's going to offer subsidies -- when she is.
So your own post is smeary too.
Suggesting it has to be a 100% subsidy or else her plan will devastate poor families is also a false charge and pretty smeary, too.
Oh, bullshit. Look, if I pass a law demanding everyone have smoke detectors, then unless I give them to everyone, I'm effectively demanding they buy a smoke detector even if they can't afford it. I could respond by saying "Well, but look! I'm subsidizing them so they cost half as much, and they'll get cheaper as more people buy them, and you all should have one anyway!", and all these could be fair points. But I'm still forcing everyone to buy smoke detectors regardless of their situation. And it wouldn't be lying for others to say so.
I think it says all that we need to know that pretty much everyone is talking about why Hillary decided to go for outrage, and whether Mark Penn's latest strategy will do any better than previous ones.
This is manufactured outrage; an obvious tactic to try to sway voters. I'll be the first to say that the mailer in question is less than honest and that I am not happy that the Obama campaign sent it out. However, the obvious insincerity and calculation of Hillary's response removes whatever outrage I might have shared if she had responded genuinely when the mailers first appeared rather than waiting for some millionaire advisor to say "ok, be angry now."
@11 - ok, true. At any rate, I'm just trying to make a distinction between having the government foot the bill for health insurance and having citizens pay a share on their own. Hillary's plan still involves a dose of the latter, even if it may reduce costs.
@14: Isn't there a South American death squad (sorry "freedom fighter") somewhere that you and your blogger-in-arms could be writing a hagiography about?
The whole thing here is Obama has ran on a platform claiming that he's above all of these tactics, that "old style of politics." He's not. I'm a Hillary supporter, but it's not because I have stars in my eyes and a godly image of her... as a lot of Obama supporters are.
His mailer did use Republican points to stir up false fears. He's being exploitive and dubious. I'm also disgusted with how he manages to turn everything around... he has the most money and the most momentum, but he keeps portraying himself as the underdog. He has the support of all the big names of politics (Kennedy, Kerry, Daschel to name a few) and yet says he's going against the status quo. This guy is a fake and a joke.
I think it's a cult like movement myself. And the experience thing does matter. It's President of the United States. If it was any other position I'd be more open. But his rhetoric on change isn't enough, and his actions make me more and more skeptical.
This guarantee will be achieved through a premium affordability tax credit that ensures that health premiums never rise above a certain percentage of family income. The tax credit will be indexed over time
Well, I guess you could argue that if every family in America is considered able to afford to spend X percent of their income on health care, then everyone will be able to afford health care under her plan, and what Obama's mailer said is untrue. Of course, it isn't specified what X is, exactly, so ...
That's not even remotely Hillary's plan. Hillary and Obama's plans primarily rely on wasteful private insurance. As long as they're relying on that, costs won't drop as much as they need to and people won't get as comprehensive coverage as they need.
Additionally, under Hillary's plan, you are forced to pay for crappy coverage.
There's nothing progressive about forcing people to buy private health insurance. It's a loser on progressivism, it's a loser on policy merits and it's a loser on politics. The only thing Hillary would accomplish with her plan is setting back health care reform 15 years... AGAIN.
And if you want to talk about "Republican points", you'd do well to remember that Newt Gingrich was the one who kicked off the health care mandate bandwagon. I'll take "Republican points" over Republican policies, of which Clinton has in spades, any day.
I think she's doing the right thing. Politicians and their consultants and supporters must be held accountable for their campaign materials. Sounds like she found that wasn't merely critical, but outright lied about her NAFTA record. She shouldn't take that lying down or meekly raise her hand and ask permission to oppose the tactic. She should come out swinging.
Plus, what is she going to do, go out like a punk? No way. I think she's doing the right thing. She shouldn't just hand over the presidency with a graceful smile; she has to be strong for her team! If she didn't call this out and I was a major donor, I'd be pissed that she wasn't serious about winning.
I don't want my President to wimp out or be polite when dealing with mistruths or falsehoods, which Obama admits this was. She *should* call him on it and clearly and assertively. Why the hell not?
Posted by
Undecided Voter |
February 24, 2008 2:20 PM
Clinton supporters are like a cult. It's scary to see what they're willing to say. Who they're willing to pretend to be. The most delusional part of the Hillary cult is that they think these hissy fits help her win. If complaining like this was going to work, it would have started working some time in during the last 11 losses, or the 25 losses before that.
@22: What's untrue about the fact that Clinton wants to garnish your wages if you don't buy private health insurance? What's false about the fact that she supported NAFTA? Are you seriously trying to claim she didn't? Who the fuck are you trying to kid here?
All this whining on her (and your) part just draws attention to those very verifiable facts.
@18:
"I'm a Hillary supporter, but it's not because I have stars in my eyes and a godly image of her... as a lot of Obama supporters are."
I'm usually wont to be gracious in my replies, even if I'm a little snarky at times. But all I have to say to this is: Fuck you. Take your holier-than-thou attitude and choke on it.
Evidently her outrage is a bit delayed, albeit, she is still pissed.
My biggest issue, is that she's running her campaign as though she's running for a legislative office. As though she must have some piece of legislation that she'll create to make this happen.
The discussion is bunk on "plans" as they pertain to presidential candidacy. The constitutional obligation of the executive office is to enforce and veto legislation, and administer through the use of budgeting. Personally I think the best campaign is that which is the vaguest and allows for the most flexibility in dealing with issues, but allows some idea for understanding how someone would veto or respond to a situation.
And, conversely, the most *misleading* campaign is that which says you'll push through some kind of legislation, when in all reality, you need a sponsor on the congressional side to do so. Who is going to legislate her "amazing" healthcare plan once she's elected? How come she hasn't used her senator status to push this through already?
Perhaps I'm being my typical 22-year-old naïve self, but something smells fishy.
This is surprising because it shows not just the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign-- this time, it's Hillary herself saying this. I saw the mailer online, and I don't think there's much wrong with it, as mailers go. Clinton's mailers, on the other hand, have been criticized by the impartial "consumer advocate" site FactCheck.org for a while now. (Obama's taken the high road, himself.)
The article says she is "challenging" him to meet her in Ohio to debate this. He might as well: when Hillary attacks Obama in debates, where he can defend himself, she looks bad.
In the Univision Texas debate, she backed away from criticisms she'd made about Obama on the trail and refused to acknowledge them. This reinforces that she is willing to say different things to different groups. Obama, by contrast, will go into a church and talk about nondiscrimination against gay people. I'm still impressed.
She's jumped the shark. I know a male candidate couldn't survive acting like this, other than in Alabama, and I don't see how she will either. 100 million dollars and they end the campaign seeing if they can win by having her be a hectoring bitch. Pathetic.
Posted by
Mike in Iowa |
February 24, 2008 2:58 PM
That's beyond naïve. Ever heard of the New Deal? Or the Great Society? Or noticed that we are in the middle of two wars after getting giant tax cuts for the rich? All these things are congressional prerogative. An effective president with big plans can get congress do do just about anything, with enough skill and luck.
What about the flyers she sent out making Obama look like he was weak on abortion rights?
Yeah, Hillary's campaign is the master of misleading, distorting hit pieces. Besides that mailing in NH accusing Obama of being weak on abortion rights, how about the one her campaign sent out in Nevada accusing him of "a trillion-dollar tax hike for hard-working families" because he suggested raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax?
I always thought there was an amoral quality about Hillary, like Richard Nixon. But this latest episode goes beyond that. It's--I want to say--post-amoral, like a shark. To say there is no depth of shamelessness Hillary won't stoop to suggests that there's actually stooping involved.
She has tried to drag down sincere feminism with her Evita-style ascendancy to the throne. She and Bill have tried to destroy the Democratic Party's goodwill in the African-American community with Rovian race-baiting. To think that she won't try to finagle the narrowest of wins in Texas and Ohio into an excuse to drag the Democratic Party into a Civil War--well, you're just underestimating the Clintons. The only way to stop them is to stop them unequivocally.
Don't let up, fellow Obama supporters. Don't let up.
It would be a challenge to come across as more desperately petty than she does in this video. OTOH, I thought that 2 days ago when she was sniping about something else, so..
32--That video says it all. She's a freak and her campaign needs to end. Andrew Sullivan says it best.
"Watching senator Clinton attempt to regain some lift as she paraglides into history is almost enough to evoke pity. Almost. The Clintons come with their own boundless reserves of self-pity so further reinforcements seem unnecessary to me. And I suppose they could somehow still find a brutal, soul-grinding path to the nomination. But we've learned something important these past couple of weeks.
Clinton is a terrible manager of people. Coming into a campaign she had been planning for, what, two decades, she was so not ready on Day One, or even Day 300. Her White House, if we can glean anything from the campaign, would be a secretive nest of well-fed yes-people, an uncontrollable egomaniac spouse able and willing to bigfoot anyone if he wants to, a phalanx of flunkies who cannot tell the boss when things are wrong, and a drizzle of dreary hacks like Mark Penn. Her only genuine skill is pivoting off the Limbaugh machine (which is now as played out as its enemies). Her new weapon is apparently bursting into tears. I mean: really."
Posted by
Mike in Iowa |
February 24, 2008 4:07 PM
I love Frank Rich. (NY Times. Sunday.) I can't think of anyone who's done a better job making Bush look like the despicable disaster he is. Now Rich has turned his sights on the Clinton machine, and oh, I love that the man shows no mercy. From today's edition, The Audacity of Hopelessness:
This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.
Oh, and Frank manages to slip in a possible Clinton campaign slogan: "Abandon hope all ye who enter here." That burns.
Hollow words from a hollow, floundering candidate. This manufactured outrage is evidence of a desperate candidate willing to do anything to get back into this race. Obama's mailer raises legitimate concerns about Hillary's health care plan, which mandates that everyone, regardless of income, purchase health insurance, yet offers little insight or detail into the system of financial penalties or vague promises of subsidized insurance premiums that are necessary to achieve this. Obama has correctly highlighted health care affordability as the real issue, and that the uninsured are a symptom of this lager issue. Sorry Hillary, but forcing poor and middle class Americans to expend their meagre resources on insurance premiums that perpetuate a broken and inefficient model of health care delivery is no solution to America's health care crisis. Rather, undertaking a genuine effort to make health insurance affordable to all Americans who wish to have it is Barak Obama's stance. Reducing the ranks of the uninsured under Obama's model requires commitment to reform of the underlying inefficiencies in our health care system, just another example of how Barak chooses to embrace true change rather than perpetuate the status quo.
This is SO last-minute, and sure, the anger is real, it´s that fuck-I´m-blowing-this anger. I honestly can´t follow the insurance stuff, cuz I´m bad with math, and I didn´t have insurance when I was rich and hey! I can´t afford it now I´m poor. But if Hills had any reservations about NAFTA, damn she had 8 long years to whisper them in hubby´s ear. And I´ll tell you, in Mexico, people are eating shit thanks to NAFTA, and I´m betting it´s the same in Ohio and Texas as well. G´night, Madam First Lady.
Posted by
Grant Cogswell |
February 24, 2008 7:05 PM
@1 is right -- she lost the ability to bitch about being misrepresented when she misrepresented Obama's pro-abortion rights voting record.
Then, her complaints about his criticism of her health care plan show she's weak: First, she admits that Obama's criticism echoes the criticism of her first health care plan. Well duh, that plan didn't go anywhere. And apparently, neither will this unless she addresses the issues raised during her first attempt.
Second, she says Obama is mean and unfair, just like those bad Republican boys. Well, excuse me, but isn't she planning to run against those mean Republican boys? Obama's doing her a favor by prepping her, if anything.
So her message is: "I'm weak. Vote for me, the victim. Obama's just one of many men who have hurt and misused me in my life."
This may play on the Lifetime Network, but it's not gonna work for a President.
Maybe Obama quoted an old uncorrected version of her remarks. If she doesn't think NAFTA was a boon, let her tell the voters what she does think of it. Even if it pisses NAFTA Bill off.
Posted by
john mccain would kick hill's ass |
February 24, 2008 9:30 PM
Wow. It never ceases to amaze how logic gets turned on its head and then kicked around by either Obama or his supporters. Any attack used against them they turn it around by just repeating it about someone else (ie, Hillary supporters are cult members...riiiight..), or just come across as thugs (the threats against the guy who hosted The Black State of the Union Forum for disagreeing with Obama, the Obama supporters who keep crashing her rallies - funny how you never hear about it the other way around... and these people are uniters?? - and the crap that gets posted on blogs - #27). Wow.
I would love to see Universal Health care happen. I want soome serious solutions to the economy, the war, and many other issues. Orignally, I thought it would be great for Hillary in 2008, and then Obama in 2016. However, because of the campaign he has ran, if Obama does win the Democratic nominee, I will vote for McCain. His solutions for this country are different then what I want, however, either path followed will have both negative and positive results. That, and I can no longer stomach voting for someone like Obama. He's a marvel of marketing, rhetoric, and political games. Nothing more.
Ryan, #50, epitomizes Hillary and one segment of her supporters. Obama doesn't know his place as its her turn and Obama supporters should sit back and let Clinton spread drivel about him without fighting back.
I'm not stupid enough to follow Ryan and say I'll vote for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination. While I think Hillary could well start a war with Iran to prove she's tough, we know McCain will. Fortunately the American voters don't seem stupid enough to choose her over Obama so it doesn't look like I'll have to hold my nose while voting this year.
So here is the researched victories of both candidates. Obama's is obviously more substantive than Clinton's, who seems to love her meaningless resolutions.
Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.
Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
Posted by
Mike in Iowa |
February 25, 2008 7:29 AM
After watching Hillary this weekend I have to ask her one thing: HOW does pissing off and making fun of Obama supporters help her win the general election in November? She still needs their votes to win right? Or does she think she can tell the Obama supporters to screw themselves and still win the White House?
Politics of self destruction is what this is and does nothing but make Nader in some people's minds more viable as a choice.
Obama has the luxury of walking in and picking up where others have left off. He casts a vote and that's about it... and he doesn't even do that all that often.
Wow, what a great list there... funny... No politician has been able to step up to the plate of his experience... oh that's right, because what they're talking about is legislative experience - creating and supporting and pushing through a bill from start to finish.
I respond back because it's so important. Every time someone speaks for him on tv, with substance being the big draw against him, why don't they say any of these accomplishments you have here, Mike in Iowa. Oh, because they aren't his. He weighed in on other people's accomplishments, perhaps throwing his weight behind them, but that's about it. Otherwise, don't you think HIS CAMPAIGN would have shot back with this information????
Again, Obama supporters seem to merely play the "whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" card. We say he has no experience, you say she has no experience. It baffles the mind.
Also, if Obama truly has this amazing list, then why did he choose to use the watered down energy bill as his one example to stand on? I think you might want to look more into your list there...
I almost think she's bad for women. She seems really unhinged in this attack. Especially after her kind words the previous day. I do realize its only that her campaign is a complete disaster but she's playing into the stereotypes of hysteria.
Wow! She's pissed.
What about the flyers she sent out making Obama look like he was weak on abortion rights? (Not that that would make this move okay, if Clinton is presenting it accurately.)
I hate this fake outrage stuff. They both seemed plenty cordial at the debate. Where was her outrage then?
Mom? Is that you?
I don't get how he "misrepresented" her on health care. How is the claim of the mailing - that her health care mandate would "force you to buy health insurance even if you can't afford it" - actually false? What is a mandate if not a demand you buy health insurance? Unless she's going to subsidize it 100% - i.e. socialized medicine - then that's still true, regardless of whether she offers insurance subsidies or not.
Nice mashup video response by an Obama supporter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_mcgO3Iva0
YouTube is not the Clinton campaign's friend apparently.
My friends, this is Hillary Clinton in the death throes of her campaign. I just watch her now like the insane family member who sits in the corner screaming at the bookcase while the rest of the family carrys on stopping to make sure "Auntie Hill" hasn't messed herself again.
She loses eleven primaries in a row, and she's disappointed in someone else?
Remember, it is the politics of personal destruction if a CLINTON is the victim not the other way around.
That Obama flyer about healthcare she's waving around has actually been out for weeks. Notice her careful wording: "...he is continuing to send false mailings..." Her sudden show of outrage now is calculated and artificial.
And later she says, "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?" Honey, you've been attacking each other on that for months.
tsm @4 the thrust of the mailer is her plan will devastate working families and that is a big fat fear mongering smear worthy of Karl Rove and Obama should be ashamed of resorting to that kind of politics.
Now Obama is parroting GOP talking points and actually trying to teach the country that....universal coverage is bad? WTF?? Gee on this Slog right here a while back Obama supporters defended his voluntary plan as a crafty stepping stone to full european style socialist health care.
Tsm you talk about "whether" she's going to offer subsidies -- when she is.
So your own post is smeary too.
Suggesting it has to be a 100% subsidy or else her plan will devastate poor families is also a false charge and pretty smeary, too.
Duh.
It could be a subsidy that reduces the cost to a very poor family to $25 a month or $5 a month. If the subsidy is a 95% subsidy for the most poor, and a 50% subsidy for the half poor, and 0% subsidy for the nonpoor, that's a pretty good approach and the whole thrust of the mailer and yoru post is false. No one is toing to be bankrupted.
A mailer like this is not change.
It's standard campaigh playbook stuff.
Take your weakness (Bush on military service) then attack your opponent on the same point through distortions and fear (Swift Boating Kerry).
Obama's voluntary health plan is a weakness. You need universal enrollment to bolster the finances. You need that poor family's $5 a month or whatever it is, and if rich single dudes stay out of the plan shit you need their $250 a month for 15 years till they get their goddamn cancer and cost all of us $500,000 and if you are a well to do family preferring private doctors all the way and conceirge medical service well fuck you you gotta enroll in oone of these broader puclib plans just like if you want to pay for private school you still pay taxes to support the public schoolds.
That's why John Edwards was very clear on this just like every Democratic President trying for national health care which goes back to FDR I believe.
Universal coverage is needed to bolster the finances.What we don't need is politicians lying to win elections by spreading fear and myths about universal coverage that will in the long run make getting national health care even harder.
that's the politics of old:
sell fear. sell GOP message. get elected. harm everyone in the process especially those poorer families that one pretends to be so fucking concerned about.
@4: This is a very, very common mistake you're making. 100% subsidized != socialized healthcare. Canada's system, which is not "socialized" is essentially that the province is the insurer, and doctors make their own practices, take on their own patients and bill the government. State insurance, as is the case in many countries that have universal healthcare, is (as many economists agree) the most efficient way to get the best quality of care to the most people.
An excellent read on the issue, which gives some weight to HRC's plan:
Part 1 and Part 2
Wendy @ 3:
Sister? Have I found you at last?
Ah, unPC, of course.
No, unPC, it says, and I quote: "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it... and you pay a penalty if you don't." And this is true. She could fairly argue that it's not the whole story, of course. So why can't she respond appropriately, and defend the plan honestly, instead of saying this is a lie?
Oh, bullshit. Look, if I pass a law demanding everyone have smoke detectors, then unless I give them to everyone, I'm effectively demanding they buy a smoke detector even if they can't afford it. I could respond by saying "Well, but look! I'm subsidizing them so they cost half as much, and they'll get cheaper as more people buy them, and you all should have one anyway!", and all these could be fair points. But I'm still forcing everyone to buy smoke detectors regardless of their situation. And it wouldn't be lying for others to say so.
I always thought she was a bit of a bitch.
I think it says all that we need to know that pretty much everyone is talking about why Hillary decided to go for outrage, and whether Mark Penn's latest strategy will do any better than previous ones.
This is manufactured outrage; an obvious tactic to try to sway voters. I'll be the first to say that the mailer in question is less than honest and that I am not happy that the Obama campaign sent it out. However, the obvious insincerity and calculation of Hillary's response removes whatever outrage I might have shared if she had responded genuinely when the mailers first appeared rather than waiting for some millionaire advisor to say "ok, be angry now."
@11 - ok, true. At any rate, I'm just trying to make a distinction between having the government foot the bill for health insurance and having citizens pay a share on their own. Hillary's plan still involves a dose of the latter, even if it may reduce costs.
@14: Isn't there a South American death squad (sorry "freedom fighter") somewhere that you and your blogger-in-arms could be writing a hagiography about?
The whole thing here is Obama has ran on a platform claiming that he's above all of these tactics, that "old style of politics." He's not. I'm a Hillary supporter, but it's not because I have stars in my eyes and a godly image of her... as a lot of Obama supporters are.
His mailer did use Republican points to stir up false fears. He's being exploitive and dubious. I'm also disgusted with how he manages to turn everything around... he has the most money and the most momentum, but he keeps portraying himself as the underdog. He has the support of all the big names of politics (Kennedy, Kerry, Daschel to name a few) and yet says he's going against the status quo. This guy is a fake and a joke.
I think it's a cult like movement myself. And the experience thing does matter. It's President of the United States. If it was any other position I'd be more open. But his rhetoric on change isn't enough, and his actions make me more and more skeptical.
OK, so I found this in Clinton's plan:
Well, I guess you could argue that if every family in America is considered able to afford to spend X percent of their income on health care, then everyone will be able to afford health care under her plan, and what Obama's mailer said is untrue. Of course, it isn't specified what X is, exactly, so ...
@11,
That's not even remotely Hillary's plan. Hillary and Obama's plans primarily rely on wasteful private insurance. As long as they're relying on that, costs won't drop as much as they need to and people won't get as comprehensive coverage as they need.
Additionally, under Hillary's plan, you are forced to pay for crappy coverage.
There's nothing progressive about forcing people to buy private health insurance. It's a loser on progressivism, it's a loser on policy merits and it's a loser on politics. The only thing Hillary would accomplish with her plan is setting back health care reform 15 years... AGAIN.
And if you want to talk about "Republican points", you'd do well to remember that Newt Gingrich was the one who kicked off the health care mandate bandwagon. I'll take "Republican points" over Republican policies, of which Clinton has in spades, any day.
I think she's doing the right thing. Politicians and their consultants and supporters must be held accountable for their campaign materials. Sounds like she found that wasn't merely critical, but outright lied about her NAFTA record. She shouldn't take that lying down or meekly raise her hand and ask permission to oppose the tactic. She should come out swinging.
Plus, what is she going to do, go out like a punk? No way. I think she's doing the right thing. She shouldn't just hand over the presidency with a graceful smile; she has to be strong for her team! If she didn't call this out and I was a major donor, I'd be pissed that she wasn't serious about winning.
I don't want my President to wimp out or be polite when dealing with mistruths or falsehoods, which Obama admits this was. She *should* call him on it and clearly and assertively. Why the hell not?
Ryan & Undecided Voter, join my fellow Independents and me, and vote for McCain.
@22:
"I don't want my President to wimp out or be polite when dealing with mistruths or falsehoods, which Obama admits this was."
Source?
Clinton supporters are like a cult. It's scary to see what they're willing to say. Who they're willing to pretend to be. The most delusional part of the Hillary cult is that they think these hissy fits help her win. If complaining like this was going to work, it would have started working some time in during the last 11 losses, or the 25 losses before that.
Look for her numbers to keep dropping after this.
@22: What's untrue about the fact that Clinton wants to garnish your wages if you don't buy private health insurance? What's false about the fact that she supported NAFTA? Are you seriously trying to claim she didn't? Who the fuck are you trying to kid here?
All this whining on her (and your) part just draws attention to those very verifiable facts.
@18:
"I'm a Hillary supporter, but it's not because I have stars in my eyes and a godly image of her... as a lot of Obama supporters are."
I'm usually wont to be gracious in my replies, even if I'm a little snarky at times. But all I have to say to this is: Fuck you. Take your holier-than-thou attitude and choke on it.
Evidently her outrage is a bit delayed, albeit, she is still pissed.
My biggest issue, is that she's running her campaign as though she's running for a legislative office. As though she must have some piece of legislation that she'll create to make this happen.
The discussion is bunk on "plans" as they pertain to presidential candidacy. The constitutional obligation of the executive office is to enforce and veto legislation, and administer through the use of budgeting. Personally I think the best campaign is that which is the vaguest and allows for the most flexibility in dealing with issues, but allows some idea for understanding how someone would veto or respond to a situation.
And, conversely, the most *misleading* campaign is that which says you'll push through some kind of legislation, when in all reality, you need a sponsor on the congressional side to do so. Who is going to legislate her "amazing" healthcare plan once she's elected? How come she hasn't used her senator status to push this through already?
Perhaps I'm being my typical 22-year-old naïve self, but something smells fishy.
Just dug this up. Obama's response to the rant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maDf9MYVKGo
This is surprising because it shows not just the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign-- this time, it's Hillary herself saying this. I saw the mailer online, and I don't think there's much wrong with it, as mailers go. Clinton's mailers, on the other hand, have been criticized by the impartial "consumer advocate" site FactCheck.org for a while now. (Obama's taken the high road, himself.)
The article says she is "challenging" him to meet her in Ohio to debate this. He might as well: when Hillary attacks Obama in debates, where he can defend himself, she looks bad.
In the Univision Texas debate, she backed away from criticisms she'd made about Obama on the trail and refused to acknowledge them. This reinforces that she is willing to say different things to different groups. Obama, by contrast, will go into a church and talk about nondiscrimination against gay people. I'm still impressed.
She's jumped the shark. I know a male candidate couldn't survive acting like this, other than in Alabama, and I don't see how she will either. 100 million dollars and they end the campaign seeing if they can win by having her be a hectoring bitch. Pathetic.
Well, that was yesterday, today she gets even MORE desperate...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html
@28
That's beyond naïve. Ever heard of the New Deal? Or the Great Society? Or noticed that we are in the middle of two wars after getting giant tax cuts for the rich? All these things are congressional prerogative. An effective president with big plans can get congress do do just about anything, with enough skill and luck.
I hope Hils continues the shrill histrionics. That should hasten her exit from the race.
@Newt Gingrich's Momma
Didn't you know, now Bitch is the new black. *sigh*
@32, I just have to say "Oh my God, oh my god, that is ugliness.... and for a primary?"
Question: If she DOES get the nomination who would vote for her? Bitter middle aged women who blame their failures on young black men?
I may just have to give Nader another look...... (kidding, I think)
M @1:
Yeah, Hillary's campaign is the master of misleading, distorting hit pieces. Besides that mailing in NH accusing Obama of being weak on abortion rights, how about the one her campaign sent out in Nevada accusing him of "a trillion-dollar tax hike for hard-working families" because he suggested raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax?
I always thought there was an amoral quality about Hillary, like Richard Nixon. But this latest episode goes beyond that. It's--I want to say--post-amoral, like a shark. To say there is no depth of shamelessness Hillary won't stoop to suggests that there's actually stooping involved.
She has tried to drag down sincere feminism with her Evita-style ascendancy to the throne. She and Bill have tried to destroy the Democratic Party's goodwill in the African-American community with Rovian race-baiting. To think that she won't try to finagle the narrowest of wins in Texas and Ohio into an excuse to drag the Democratic Party into a Civil War--well, you're just underestimating the Clintons. The only way to stop them is to stop them unequivocally.
Don't let up, fellow Obama supporters. Don't let up.
@32: "Hope" is Rhode Island's state motto. Not smart.
It would be a challenge to come across as more desperately petty than she does in this video. OTOH, I thought that 2 days ago when she was sniping about something else, so..
32--That video says it all. She's a freak and her campaign needs to end. Andrew Sullivan says it best.
"Watching senator Clinton attempt to regain some lift as she paraglides into history is almost enough to evoke pity. Almost. The Clintons come with their own boundless reserves of self-pity so further reinforcements seem unnecessary to me. And I suppose they could somehow still find a brutal, soul-grinding path to the nomination. But we've learned something important these past couple of weeks.
Clinton is a terrible manager of people. Coming into a campaign she had been planning for, what, two decades, she was so not ready on Day One, or even Day 300. Her White House, if we can glean anything from the campaign, would be a secretive nest of well-fed yes-people, an uncontrollable egomaniac spouse able and willing to bigfoot anyone if he wants to, a phalanx of flunkies who cannot tell the boss when things are wrong, and a drizzle of dreary hacks like Mark Penn. Her only genuine skill is pivoting off the Limbaugh machine (which is now as played out as its enemies). Her new weapon is apparently bursting into tears. I mean: really."
Hillary, don't talk no shit, won't be no shit.
I love Frank Rich. (NY Times. Sunday.) I can't think of anyone who's done a better job making Bush look like the despicable disaster he is. Now Rich has turned his sights on the Clinton machine, and oh, I love that the man shows no mercy. From today's edition, The Audacity of Hopelessness:
Oh, and Frank manages to slip in a possible Clinton campaign slogan: "Abandon hope all ye who enter here." That burns.
Hollow words from a hollow, floundering candidate. This manufactured outrage is evidence of a desperate candidate willing to do anything to get back into this race. Obama's mailer raises legitimate concerns about Hillary's health care plan, which mandates that everyone, regardless of income, purchase health insurance, yet offers little insight or detail into the system of financial penalties or vague promises of subsidized insurance premiums that are necessary to achieve this. Obama has correctly highlighted health care affordability as the real issue, and that the uninsured are a symptom of this lager issue. Sorry Hillary, but forcing poor and middle class Americans to expend their meagre resources on insurance premiums that perpetuate a broken and inefficient model of health care delivery is no solution to America's health care crisis. Rather, undertaking a genuine effort to make health insurance affordable to all Americans who wish to have it is Barak Obama's stance. Reducing the ranks of the uninsured under Obama's model requires commitment to reform of the underlying inefficiencies in our health care system, just another example of how Barak chooses to embrace true change rather than perpetuate the status quo.
This is SO last-minute, and sure, the anger is real, it´s that fuck-I´m-blowing-this anger. I honestly can´t follow the insurance stuff, cuz I´m bad with math, and I didn´t have insurance when I was rich and hey! I can´t afford it now I´m poor. But if Hills had any reservations about NAFTA, damn she had 8 long years to whisper them in hubby´s ear. And I´ll tell you, in Mexico, people are eating shit thanks to NAFTA, and I´m betting it´s the same in Ohio and Texas as well. G´night, Madam First Lady.
grant cogswell for president!
Yo!
Hillary may be a bitch, but she's my bitch!
There goes her chance for VP.
@1 is right -- she lost the ability to bitch about being misrepresented when she misrepresented Obama's pro-abortion rights voting record.
Then, her complaints about his criticism of her health care plan show she's weak: First, she admits that Obama's criticism echoes the criticism of her first health care plan. Well duh, that plan didn't go anywhere. And apparently, neither will this unless she addresses the issues raised during her first attempt.
Second, she says Obama is mean and unfair, just like those bad Republican boys. Well, excuse me, but isn't she planning to run against those mean Republican boys? Obama's doing her a favor by prepping her, if anything.
So her message is: "I'm weak. Vote for me, the victim. Obama's just one of many men who have hurt and misused me in my life."
This may play on the Lifetime Network, but it's not gonna work for a President.
Maybe Obama quoted an old uncorrected version of her remarks. If she doesn't think NAFTA was a boon, let her tell the voters what she does think of it. Even if it pisses NAFTA Bill off.
@47: yup
Wow. It never ceases to amaze how logic gets turned on its head and then kicked around by either Obama or his supporters. Any attack used against them they turn it around by just repeating it about someone else (ie, Hillary supporters are cult members...riiiight..), or just come across as thugs (the threats against the guy who hosted The Black State of the Union Forum for disagreeing with Obama, the Obama supporters who keep crashing her rallies - funny how you never hear about it the other way around... and these people are uniters?? - and the crap that gets posted on blogs - #27). Wow.
I would love to see Universal Health care happen. I want soome serious solutions to the economy, the war, and many other issues. Orignally, I thought it would be great for Hillary in 2008, and then Obama in 2016. However, because of the campaign he has ran, if Obama does win the Democratic nominee, I will vote for McCain. His solutions for this country are different then what I want, however, either path followed will have both negative and positive results. That, and I can no longer stomach voting for someone like Obama. He's a marvel of marketing, rhetoric, and political games. Nothing more.
So Hillary or McCain in 2008.
Ryan, #50, epitomizes Hillary and one segment of her supporters. Obama doesn't know his place as its her turn and Obama supporters should sit back and let Clinton spread drivel about him without fighting back.
I'm not stupid enough to follow Ryan and say I'll vote for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination. While I think Hillary could well start a war with Iran to prove she's tough, we know McCain will. Fortunately the American voters don't seem stupid enough to choose her over Obama so it doesn't look like I'll have to hold my nose while voting this year.
So here is the researched victories of both candidates. Obama's is obviously more substantive than Clinton's, who seems to love her meaningless resolutions.
Clinton's Successes:
S.694 : A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes. (This is currently in conference committee to reconcile difference with the House bill)
Passed in the Senate:
S.CON.RES.27 : A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Purple Heart Recognition Day".
S.RES.21 : A resolution recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York
S.RES.92 : A resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of soldiers of Israel held captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.
S.RES.141 : A resolution urging all member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service who have yet to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords to expedite the ratification process to allow for open access to the Holocaust archives located at Bad Arolsen, Germany.
S.RES.222 : A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
S.AMDT.666 to H.R.1591 To link award fees under Department of Homeland Security contracts to successful acquisition outcomes under such contracts.
S.AMDT.2047 to H.R.1585 To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation for survivors of deceased members of the Armed Forces to attend their burial ceremonies.
S.AMDT.2108 to H.R.1585 To require a report on the planning and implementation of the policy of the United States toward Darfur.
S.AMDT.2390 to H.R.2638 To require that all contracts of the Department of Homeland Security that provide award fees link such fees to successful acquisition outcomes.
S.AMDT.2474 to H.R.2638 To ensure that the Federal Protective Service has adequate personnel.
S.AMDT.2823 to H.R.3074 To require a report on plans to alleviate congestion and flight delays in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace.
S.AMDT.2917 to H.R.1585 To extend and enhance the authority for temporary lodging expenses for members of the Armed Forces in areas subject to a major disaster declaration or for installations experiencing a sudden increase in personnel levels.
Obama's Success:
S.AMDT.1041 to S.1082 To improve the safety and efficacy of genetic tests.
S.AMDT.3073 to H.R.1585 To provide for transparency and accountability in military and security contracting.
S.AMDT.3078 to H.R.1585 Relating to administrative separations of members of the Armed Forces for personality disorder.
S.AMDT.41 to S.1 To require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged.
S.AMDT.524 to S.CON.RES.21 To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the early grades to lessen summer learning losses that contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from their middle-class peers.
S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy.
S.AMDT.905 to S.761 To require the Director of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education to establish a program to recruit and provide mentors for women and underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in mathematics, science, and engineering.
S.AMDT.923 to S.761 To expand the pipeline of individuals entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields to support United States innovation and competitiveness.
S.AMDT.924 to S.761 To establish summer term education programs.
S.AMDT.2519 to H.R.2638 To provide that one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5 million or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the contract or grant that the contractor or grantee owes no past due Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.976 To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty.
S.AMDT.2658 to H.R.2642 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.2692 to H.R.2764 To require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction and security plan.
S.AMDT.2799 to H.R.3074 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3137 to H.R.3222 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3234 to H.R.3093 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
S.AMDT.3331 to H.R.3043 To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain certifications regarding Federal tax liability.
Senate Resolutions Passed:
S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
After watching Hillary this weekend I have to ask her one thing: HOW does pissing off and making fun of Obama supporters help her win the general election in November? She still needs their votes to win right? Or does she think she can tell the Obama supporters to screw themselves and still win the White House?
Politics of self destruction is what this is and does nothing but make Nader in some people's minds more viable as a choice.
Obama has the luxury of walking in and picking up where others have left off. He casts a vote and that's about it... and he doesn't even do that all that often.
Wow, what a great list there... funny... No politician has been able to step up to the plate of his experience... oh that's right, because what they're talking about is legislative experience - creating and supporting and pushing through a bill from start to finish.
I respond back because it's so important. Every time someone speaks for him on tv, with substance being the big draw against him, why don't they say any of these accomplishments you have here, Mike in Iowa. Oh, because they aren't his. He weighed in on other people's accomplishments, perhaps throwing his weight behind them, but that's about it. Otherwise, don't you think HIS CAMPAIGN would have shot back with this information????
Again, Obama supporters seem to merely play the "whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" card. We say he has no experience, you say she has no experience. It baffles the mind.
Also, if Obama truly has this amazing list, then why did he choose to use the watered down energy bill as his one example to stand on? I think you might want to look more into your list there...
Wow, this thread is getting way off track. Are you, or are you not, entertained by Hillary's rage? I am!
@55:
Entertained? I dunno... In a sad, morbid kind of way I guess. Hills just seems so desparate at this point.
I almost think she's bad for women. She seems really unhinged in this attack. Especially after her kind words the previous day. I do realize its only that her campaign is a complete disaster but she's playing into the stereotypes of hysteria.
She's on the same level as Chris Crocker "Leave Brittney alone!"
"I'm sick of the speeches and big rallies..."
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).