MyDD :: On Shame

by carloseljefe on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two major things:

First, the concept of choice is certainly not anathema to liberalism. Most liberals that I know (myself included) do not want the government to impose mandates on most aspects of their lives. In fact, when the government begins to intrude on their lives in ways that they do not like, liberals often call the government fascistic.

Second, there are two major groups (that are incredibly different in pretty much every way imaginable) that tend to be uninsured. The first are poor people who cannot afford health insurance. These are the people who are the target of universal health insurance, and it is highly unlikely that they would not partake in this insurance (although if UHI is instituted, either the government or nonprofits need to ensure that adequate outreach is done to enroll everyone).

The second major group is composed of the young and healthy. Many of these people can afford health insurance, but choose to remain uninsured because they feel that they are not at significant risk (statistics bear them out, although catastrophic coverage is not a bad idea for them). As I understand it, under Obama's plan, those who opt out would, if they became sick, be required to pay what are essentially back premiums in order to receive benefits; this would essentially nullify the free ridership problem of a non-mandated plan.

Call me a libertarian, but I don't see how there is or should be much liberal hand-wringing if the second group opts out so long as the first group gets covered. I understand that this is a point on which Clinton supporters can call Obama names, but I would much rather have a president whose default attitude isn't to invade my privacy.

Re: On Shame (2.00 / 3)

Who said "liberal" principles? I said DEMOCRATIC principles.

Democrats see universal health care as part of social responsibility. You take care of the ederly, the sick, the poor when you are young, healthy and rich. Then the society will take care of you when you are old, sick and poor. If you can not agree with this principle, I have to say I do not know why you would support the democratic party.

Hillary's plan will cover the poor who can not afford buying health insurance offering/expanding governmental subsidies (which will be a NO-NO word for you, I assume?). The young who do not want to buy health insurance will need to learn that they, too, are going to be old and sick sometime in their life. As I said, it is a matter of principle and philosophy. It is why so many democrats fought hard to achieve universal health care for decades and became outraged by Obama's attack on the principle.

It is a really rare moment in our history to see doctors, nurses, patients, employers and employees agree on the need for universal health care. We, democrats, can not waste this precious moment acting like a republican or libertarian. Sorry, just can't.

by praxis1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not planning to do ANYTHING (none / 0)

John McCain or Newt Gingrich couldn't have said that any better.

by KainIIIC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:44:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not planning to do ANYTHING (none / 0)

John McCain or Newt Gingrich couldn't have said that any better.

by KainIIIC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not planning to do ANYTHING (none / 0)

whoops.

by KainIIIC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is not planning to do A (none / 0)

John McCain or Newt Gingrich couldn't have said that any better.

by KainIIIC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:52:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://democrats.org/a/national/affordab le_health_care/

Funny, somebody should tell the Democrats that they believe in mandated universal healthcare. According to their website, they are committed to:

"...[M]aking sure everyone HAS ACCESS to affordable health care, starting by fixing the prescription drug program and investing in stem cell and other medical research." [Emphasis added.]

(Don't ya' just hate it when somebody bothers to check the facts?)

As any good cowboy could tell you, there's a major difference between leading your horse to water and making him drink. In this case, I think that both policy proposals would satisfy the healthcare plank of the Democratic platform. From everything that I have read, I suspect that they would not be hugely different in practice, but in truth I just don't know; of course, I suspect that many people who say that there would be a huge difference don't really know either.

Furthermore, I would be very much surprised if someone who came up through the South side of Chicago made selling out the poor a high priority in his presidency. In any event, Obama is a Democrat, and he has the endorsement of moveon.org to boot; moveon.org is either a liberal organization or the best conservative front that I have ever seen.

To answer your question about why I support the Democratic Party: they are the party that is most in line with my beliefs, which, since you asked, do include taking care of the poor, the elderly, and the infirm as a society.

That said, I am not a socialist, and I do not believe that most Democrats are socialists either. In fact, there is a party that is specifically for people who have socialist ideals. In a weird twist of fate, it is called the Socialist Party.

http://sp-usa.org/

by carloseljefe on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Shame (1.50 / 2)

Obama did not come up through the South side of Chicago. He grew up in Hawaii and went to one of the most expensive and exclusive private schools in Hawaii, Punahou. Last year, tuition at Punahou was just under $16,000 a year. If your family can afford that for HIGH SCHOOL, I doubt you have first hand experience of what it's like to really be poor in America.

by cloudy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id =3082803&page=1

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Obama began his political career as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago.

And it is true that Obama went to Punahou, which is indeed a prestigious private school in Hawai'i (though Iolani grads might disagree). But what is also true is that Obama attended Punahou on a scholarship. Yes, private schools do occasionally offer scholarships, and Senator Obama was the lucky recipient of one. So in other words, his family COULD NOT AFFORD IT.

(The Fact Checker strikes again!!!)

Now it is true that Clinton went to a public high school, but she grew up as a member of an affluent family in an affluent neighborhood. This is totally a random guess, but going to a public school in Park Ridge probably had more in common with Punahou than a school in South L.A.; I would however bet all of my money that Obama comes closer to having firsthand experience of being poor than Clinton.

Bottom line: guess how much where either candidate went to high school matters in this election. Please, humor me and guess. The answer is not at all. Both candidates have law degress from top three law schools; in the law school world, that is like winning the lottery, because for the rest of your life, you will receive the benefit of every doubt. So I would argue that neither of them, at this point in their respective lives, have one damn thing in common with a poor person, so questioning Obama's bone fides is as useless as questioning Clinton's.

Next!

by carloseljefe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by upper left on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama got in on a scholarship. His family could not afford to send him to private school. His grandparents lived in a rented apartment. Obviously you have not read his book or done your homework.

by magnoliagirl on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:58:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on, I teach in a private school whose tuition approaches $20,000 per year. Many of our students receive significant financial aid, if not full scholarships. Most private schools rely on endowments, scholarship funds, and gifts specifically for financial aid, just like colleges.

Many parents make extreme sacrifices to send their children to private schools for many reasons, including a desire to give them a promising future. You don't have any idea that Obama's family wrote checks for $16,000 a year for him to go to high school.

by Pericles on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay!

I'd like to keep my share of my social security contributions that would go to take care of you in your old age.

Thanks, I'm off to Vegas to spend the dough I would have sent to the gummint fer to take care of you on hookers and coke. Enjoy yer dog-food when you're 62 or....

....even earlier if you get disabled.

by zyx on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Call me a libertarian, but I don't see how there is or should be much liberal hand-wringing if the second group opts out so long as the first group gets covered."

I have two sons who are in their early twenties who might benefit very nicely from this plan.

I'll tell you why liberals and everyone else should wring their hands. Because those in that group--the healthy who choose not to buy insurance, but could--and who don't get sick--are free riders.

THAT is what's wrong with that idea. EVERYONE should pay for insurance who can.

Amen to that -- and I am in that group with your sons, but we all need to pay into the system.

by Iphie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by dmc2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all, Obama's plan allows people in the early 20's to stay on their parent's plans, so your kids would be covered regardless. Otherwise, I really don't like your attitude that you know better than other people what type of insurance they should or should not buy, especially given how much of screwing WE ARE ALL GETTING from the insurance companies. I'm for a progressive tax on everyone to pay for the health care of everyone. But this insurance b.s. doesn't have anything to do with that in my book.

by bruh21 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:20:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain must be laughing.

Well, for half of the people in their 20's anyway (only people 25 and younger can stay on their parents plans). What about the people under 25 who can't stay on their parent's plans? I put my own self through college, and had no connection to my parents whatsoever. What about other people like me -- and before you discount that group of people, keep in mind who those people are -- kids formerly in the foster care system, LGBT kids whose parents wouldn't support them even if they could, people between 18 and 25 who are estranged from their families for any number of reasons -- so what about those people? Are these just some of the people we as a society are comfortable telling to cross their fingers and hope they don't get sick?

by Iphie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by bruh21 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have to realize that many of the people you talk to here are of a certain economic class. In other words, wrong audience.

by bruh21 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:35:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Incidentally, I worked my way through college, etc and come from a very poor background. It;s often very i nteresting to read those who have no talk about these issues who don't. I am not referring to you, just to the fact that you very correctly point out that these discussions don't reflect everyone

I appreciate both of your comments, but I guess I would hope that the people I may talk to here (and anywhere, really) are able to see beyond their own personal circumstance and consider how the policies they advocate might affect others. Especially given that a large number of people here consider themselves to be Democrats, and part of the reason why I'm a Democrat is that I believe on a fundamental level that we are our brother's keepers, and that we have a shared responsibility to ensure that the basic needs of the populace are met. The GOP is the party for the people who only care about themselves and people like them -- so I would certainly hope this isn't the wrong audience -- I would hope that if people here haven't considered those who won't be covered by Obama's plan will actually stop to think about them when the subject comes up.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:37:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by bruh21 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think Americans think beyond themselves anymore no matter what party they belong to. You can see it in the responses there and in the general process. There is no sense of shared sacrifice.

by kjblair2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And there's nothing in Obama's plan that would prevent you (or anyone else) from getting health insurance. The difference comes in for those people who don't want to or can't afford to (even with the subsidies).

Universal Health does not support half measures! (2.00 / 1)

As mentioned earlier by another comment; those who do not pay for insurance will take advantage of the system as free riders, when they become sick they will just to the emergency room. These actions by free riders will increase an estimated cost health care an amount of $900 per person. Universal health care is health care for everyone. Universal care will inherently lower costs making insurance affordable for everyone with subsidies for those individuals and businesses who can not provide initially during the transitional years of converting to Universal Care. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are the only plans that will cover everyone, allowing for lower cost, continued quality of care, accessibility, and the implementation of enhanced information systems developed of time. Hillary along with her advisors know the costs and understand the only viable solution lies in coverage for everyone without a system of free riders that will continue to drive up costs unnecessarily.

by Toddsly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Insurance means shared risk. (2.00 / 2)

I think that this is the essential point and one that those who are arguing for Obama's plan continually ignore. The point of insurance is that it creates shared risk -- the entire community pays into it, even those who are healthy, so that when someone does get sick they are not overburdened by the cost. The system doesn't work if the only people willing to pay into are those who will have the greatest likelihood of needing it.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I have health insurance, I'm not worried about me at this juncture in my life. But my point in the previous post was to get people to consider those who would be left out in Obama's plan. When one brings up people who are young and just starting out in their adult life, who may have a difficulty affording insurance and who believe that it's something they can let slide because they're healthy and they never get sick -- when you bring up those people, the stock response is that Obama's plan will allow these people to retain coverage under their parent's plan until they are 25.

My question is, yes, and what about those people for whom that is not a solution? We're not talking about some statistical blip -- there are a lot of them, and if we don't make health insurance mandatory, who's going to pay the emergency room bill when they're in a car accident, or take a tumble down a flight of stairs? We'll be in the exact same position that we're in today -- an unworkable one. But hey, the insurance companies will be happy!

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:47:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by dmc2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:30:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, the insurance companies will only be happy if we are all forced to buy health insurance. People need to take a look at the bigger picture here. Just because somebody has health insurance does not mean that they are not going to get into the car accident or tumble down those stairs. "We" will still be paying for those costs. The only difference will be whether or not "they" will have contributed as well.

Now, as to that question, I'll group these deadbeats into three basic categories.

1. Those who cannot afford health insurance. This is the vast majority of the 47 million. So even with a mandate, we will still be paying the cost of their accident or stairs tumble, but now we will also be paying the cost of their health insurance. Given that 30+% of health insurance industry dollars go toward administrative overhead and profit, we will be paying 30+% more in total health care costs for them then we do now.

2. Those who can afford health insurance, and who can also afford to pay cash for their health care bills. If you have no insurance and "we" pay for your care, you do receive a bill. If you are part of the group in "1" above, obviously that bill will not be collected. For others, however, that bill is collected, so "we" don't end up paying for their care. They just took a risk, and lost and they're paying for it.

3. Those who can afford health insurance, but who cannot afford to pay cash for all but the most minor of health care bills. This is the group that the mandates are really all about. Obama has proposed that they be discouraged from trying to "game" the system by having to pay back premiums if they only sign up after something happens for which they need insurance. Seems fair enough.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

But isn't it kind of a straw man? The straw man is those unknown and unnamed people who will decide to opt out of affordable, available health insurance (supposedly there are 15 million of them but who knows where that number came from).

I'm now self-employed and I wouldn't opt out if I could get affordable, available health insurance. But what about others?

I worked in corporate america for 35 years where a health care plan was always available through my employer. In all those years I never worked with anyone who chose not to take the health insurance plan unless they were otherwise covered. In fact, I knew people who worked at jobs just to have an opportunity to buy into a group health insurance plan. I even knew someone who was a perpetual student just so she could get student health insurance.

So unless a flood of people respond to tell me that at their jobs lots of people choose not to buy into the company plan, I think it is a straw man.

by GFORD on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:04:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There would be no reason to opt out of healthcare if it is part of your compensation package at work. It is a very different ball of wax when people are paying for their health insurance out of their own pockets -- it makes it much easier to reject.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by cloudy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:11:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some parts you are missing in regards to Obama's plan.

First, his plan calls for Health Insurers to ensure everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions (both plans do). If, however, you allow people to opt out of the system, you end up with a system flooded disproportionately with the sick. This will RAISE the cost of insurance. There is no effective way to control cost without mandates. This has been written extensively about by many on the web.

Secondly, he also has mandates for children. So by attacking Hillary's plan he is also attacking his own. This doesn't exactly lend me confidence in his ability to fight for Health Care reform when he has already pissed in the pool, so to speak.

by cloudy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some parts you are missing in regards to Obama's plan.

by cloudy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:17:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some parts you are missing in regards to Obama's plan.

Well it shares a small "d" democratic (none / 0)

principle since it's about freedom of choice. Don't know if Democrats are about freedom of choice or not on the whole...

by illlaw1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by TL on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Surely, you're joking.

Yes, Obama doesn't have mandates for adults (it does for kids) but otherwise his plan is very similar to Clinton's.

Even Krugman, a pretty strong critic of Obama's plan, says it's much better than McCain's.

Seriously - do you have any idea what's in McCain's plan? Obama's? Mandates matter, but so do subsidies and cost-containment issues. A lot.

Because (2.00 / 5)

his plan is NOT UHC. It is not an attack on Universal Health Care, it is an attack on the fact that his is NOT Universal Health Care.

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (none / 0)

his plan is NOT UHC. It is not an attack on Universal Health Care, it is an attack on the fact that his is NOT Universal Health Care.

Neither is Clinton's.

Both of their plans are stopgaps, at best.

by jonweasel on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (2.00 / 3)

The Clinton health care plan is far more progressive and will cover far more people. It is not just a stop gap, it is a brilliantly designed plan to achieve real universal health care, and, if people choose it, very close to a single payer national health insurance program, like Medicare for All.

In Massachusetts, where there is a mandate almost 100% of low income people are now covered by either Medicaid or the state subsidized insurance. That figure is down around 47% in ALL other states. The mandate is really a mandate on government to cover low income people who most need the help. It is a STRONGLY PROGRESSIVE plan. Obama's weak kneed plan is completely illogical and betrays low income people. No voluntary program has ever achieved covering much more than 50% of low income people who are eligible. It is considered to be impossible to achieve even 90% enrollment, that is why the Bush administration specified that states had to achieve a 90% rate of enrollment of low income people eligible for SCHIP before expanding the program to marginally higher income families. They knew it was an utterly impossible goal to achieve.

Progressives should keep in mind that SINGLE PAYER is intrinsically a mandated insurance program - "everyone in, nobody out" in Quentin Young's words. That is the progressive holy grail on health care. Everyone pays into the program through progressive taxes, and everyone is covered for all necessary health care services. It's egalitarian. It's automatic enrollment - you are born, so you are in.

Clinton's plan does not require everyone to buy private insurance, it specifically creates a nonprofit public program (like Medicare with it's low administrative costs) that everyone could enter, which has the potential to become a single payer national health insurance program if Americans like it and choose to participate. Now that's progressive.

Also, insurance premiums will be capped at a low percentage of a families' income, and subsidized for lower income people, so costs will not be an onerous burden.

It won't be easy to fight the insurance and drug companies, but Clinton is up for the fight. Obama has already given up, even before the first punch is thrown. That's my definition of LOSER.

He's attacking Clinton for her strength, and sleazily parading his weakness on health care, a life and death issue for so many people, in a deceptive and pandering attempt to get votes, while really selling people down the river. He's a sellout on health care, and if he wins through weakness, countless more Americans will die from the lack of real health care reform in this country.

If he wins, we all lose.

(Sorry, some of this entry is also posted on another thread, I feel very strongly about this issue as a first responder who watches people die daily as a result of not having access to health care, and I just don't like seeing these misconceptions about the Clinton plan go unanswered. It's not an academic debate point to me, it's real life, and an ongoing tragedy)

by 07rescue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (2.00 / 0)

You lost me when you said Massachusetts...

People there are forced to pay $600 for junk insurance that covers almost nothing... all profit for insurers and forcibly mandated by the state...

Yeah, Clinton's plan has some nice provisions that will probably be stripped by committee or filibustered out of the final plan, making it look like Romneycare in the end...

Does she have a plan B for when that happens? She didn't have a plan B in 1993 when she refused to negotiate with congress... she didn't have a plan b for her campaign when super tuesday failed on her... What's her backup plan?

My guess would be Barack-o-care... 'cos that's what's going to come out of the senate anyways, even if we have 60 votes.

Thanks,

Mike

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (2.00 / 1)

"You lost me when you said Massachusetts... People there are forced to pay $600 for junk insurance that covers almost nothing... all profit for insurers and forcibly mandated by the state..."

You haven't done your homework. Massachusetts as a state cannot offer a nonprofit Medicare type public health insurance program (as the Clinton plan does) that will be low cost and comprehensive. This is the key point in health care reform. That is why state level health care reform that includes the private health insurance industry cannot work, because for profit insurers cannot offer anything but junk insurance at an inflated rate.

Americans will have the choice of enrolling in the public plan, which has the potential to be our first real single payer national health insurance program - an egalitarian, comprehensive, and progressively priced plan with full subsidies for those who are low income, so no one will pay more than a low capped percentage of family income for health insurance. The Clinton plan is far superior to the Massachusetts plan.

When middle class Americans are all involved in the system, as we all are in Social Security and (eventually) Medicare we will all fight to have the best quality and efficiency of health care access, the same way we all fight for our universal programs now. It won't be a poverty program like Medicaid that is perpetually at risk of cuts at every swing of the political pendulum. We need a universal program that we will universally fight for.

For low income people even the Massachusetts plan has been a life saving boon. Almost every low income person in Massachusetts now has health insurance, and it is a matter of sustaining the political will to keep up funding for the subsidized program to keep this dream alive.

In fact, the Clinton mandated health insurance plan comes closer to establishing a "right to health care" for the poor than we have ever had in this country. While this does not directly aid the middle class, the way health care costs are spiraling upward in this country threatens middle class status for many people. It would provide a safety net for those who fall out of the middle class due to medical bills, or disability due to illness or injury.

We won't get any health care reform unless we fight hard for it. There are too many in the insurance and drug industry literally "making a killing" off the most sick and vulnerable among us who will throw millions at saving their cash cow, the status quo. Clinton will fight, the same way she is now. Barack Obama has already acquiesced before the battle starts.

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (none / 0)

You are banking way too much on the "public health care plan" that Hillary is promising, but probably can't deliver. Expanding any sort of public health will be met with extreme opposition from both sides of the aisle. Since Hillary has stated that she's willing to "compromise", eliminating this provision would be the easiest thing to give up for a plan to pass.

Even if it did manage to pass, the details are exceedingly slim. I've heard everything from being able to enroll in congressional Blue Cross to joining Medicare, but no one really knows for sure. The chances that such a plan would be underfunded and underperform are great...

The basis of Hillary's plan is not public, but, private insurance... The talk of public health plan is meant to throw us a bone, but, will be a serious disappointment if it even gets out of congressional committee...

So many Hillary health care supporters are basing their decision on this side proposal of hers that is fools gold. Don't be fooled... the "public plan" is not the fundamental basis of the program and, as such, will never live up to your expectations.

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:42:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because (none / 0)

"You are banking way too much on the "public health care plan" that Hillary is promising, but probably can't deliver. Expanding any sort of public health will be met with extreme opposition from both sides of the aisle."

That is exactly where trust in the candidate enters the equation.

Just yesterday Hillary Clinton presented single payer as one of very few ways to get to universal health care in her address to the Black Union in New Orleans. And she explained how the Republicans' plans are hopeless, and how since single payer is not yet politically feasible she and John Edwards designed hybrid plans to offer people the choice of either public or private insurance. Her plan is the only politically feasible way to get to universal health care. If people choose the public option, it will turn out to be the winner in the process, and people will get the most economically sustainable health care system available.

I believe single payer national health insurance is the very best option available, and no alternate system will be economically sustainable considering the escalation of health care costs. I will accept a hybrid plan as the best possible we can attempt now, and I believe that it might be politically attainable if Democrats are united behind it.

Obama is ending that dream by using right wing scare tactics to turn people against the idea before they even understand it.

Hillary Clinton understands how incredibly difficult it will be to attain universal health care. She is ready to fight for it, and the public option will need the vocal and intense support of progressive people all over the country to sustain the political will for it. It will disproportionately attract the sickest, most expensive patients, driving costs up, in what is called the "insurance death spiral" that strikes any insurer who does a good job of actually covering people well, and giving them what they need. It would require every one of us who believes that health care is a human right, and a moral obligation, to support it and fight for it. As Hillary says, "Who would we choose to leave out?" The pressure will be enormous to do just that. It will be up to all of us to support it and support the regulation of the health care insurance industry to make it viable.

If people really want change and to have a just and egalitarian society, we will have to fight for it. We need a leader who will fight for it as well, and Obama has already sold out the cause. He understands and used to support single payer, but has ducked out. Now he turns on it, and is using the concept to attack Clinton. That is so offensive to me.

Single payer is essentially a mandate plan, but using taxes instead of premiums as the vehicle to pay for it, along with automatic enrollment.

I prefer to risk failure in this attempt, than to give up without trying. That is the choice. No one other than Hillary is willing to try. I respect her deeply for the risk she is taking.

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Artiste on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mimi, honey...

Just like the flyer referenced by Senator Clinton, in which Senator Obama quotes a publication, you are riding the same bandwagon.... taking the characterizations of your Corporate Media Friends and using them as fact.

OhBoy...

Y'all don't EVEN do any critical thinking, do you?

Well...I supose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Hope you didn't spend a lot of time researching that. Seems to be the common thread of Rovian politics.

by memstrong1 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:19:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well - and this is coming from an Obama supporter who nevertheless thinks Edwards and Clinton are better on this issue - this is not an attack on Obama's universal health care plan, they are attacks on the Lack of universality in his health care plan. mandates on individuals is a disappointing leap away from single payer health insurance, but it is far more likely to pull Americans into treating universal coverage as an issue of public welfare and not just something we feel pretty anxious about but is really a poor people problem. The degree to which people are overlooking Obama's appeal to conservatives on this issue is really troubling and has long-range policy considerations. It will particularly damage our capacity to strengthen the social solidarity necessary to provide real opportunities to every person, no matter the social circumstances. I heartily recommend that we allow Clinton and Obama to really debate on this issue and not treat her criticism of him to be seen as just 'negative campaigning.' Better to elect a candidate and know what differences you have with him than being all gooey-eyed about someone who (like Bill Clinton with the Welfare Reform Act of 96) might sacrifice solid long-term social welfare aims in the name of bipartanship.

Because (2.00 / 5)

He is not promoting UHC. Universal means ALL, not almost all.

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

she's been attacking him... (2.00 / 2)

...for using rightwing talking points to attack universal health care. that was obama's "harry and louise"-type mailer she had in her hand... the same argument the republicans used to kill the 1994 bill. but this time, it's coming from a democrat. this is what paul krugman was talking about- obama is attacking universal health care from the right.

by campskunk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you got it backwards (none / 0)

he's attacking her on non-universal health care with Harry and Louise ads, and she's correcting him, explaining how his plan isn't universal after all and he's starting back track saying he'll do it her way if his happens to not work (today's NYT) and he's still using it, cause he doesn't always listen to what he's saying and he hasn't quite caught up with himself, but he's given a free pass as usual because he's a nice enough bloke and someone needs to show the uppity girl no one wants her to play with all of us cool people.

just say it: Medicare for All

by anna shane on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Scotch on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's plan isn't universal, so how could she have been doing that?

I guess when she attacks it doesn't count (2.00 / 1)

Sorta of like red states, states with caucuses, small states, etc.

Saxby Chambliss

by bosdcla14 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Shame (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is lying about her 1993 health care effort. She was no better than Cheney and his secret energy tastk force - with her secret task force made of corporate health industry lobbyists. I was there.

Shame on Billary!

by katmandu on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:16:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes Shame On Hillary (1.75 / 8)

Clinton sends out a flier in Wisconsin FALSELY attacking Obama on health care.

Then she says Dems shouldn't attack on healthcare.

Now she falsely claims that she is being falsely attacked.

Her campaign ends in 10 days.

by bigdavefromqueens on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:20:15 PM EST

Re: Yes Shame On Hillary (2.00 / 5)

Do tell us how it is false, instead of just asserting that without proof.

And do tell us about the FALSE radio ads that Obama put up in Iowa that attacked Edwards' and Clinton's health plans.

by susanhu on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Shame On Hillary (2.00 / 4)

And I can dig up links for my assertion.

by susanhu on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right Here.... (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/2/23/1 91616/645/4#4

Seriously don't play stupid. This is fair game. All the candidates have done it making this campaign season pretty mild on attacks.

Just admit that she was wrong and say so. She decided to take the low road. Were all gonna support Obama in November anyway.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right Here.... (none / 0)

And here is the actual negative mailer Clinton sent around to attack Obama on health care

http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/080217Cl intonMailer.pdf

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is false because (2.00 / 2)

his plan would cover the people being referred to.

You may disagree with how he gets there but he gets there.

The bottom line is both have plans with many good details. If I spent 10 wonkish hours reading both plans, I'd probably like to mix and match a bit.

But I don't need to lie about HIllary's health care plan for political purposes.

by bigdavefromqueens on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Shame On Hillary (2.00 / 5)

"Do tell us how it is false, instead of just asserting that without proof."

The claim that Obama leave 15M uninsured has support, but is far from being a consensus view. Obama frequently cites Clinton's own former labor secretary for a contrary view. But the point is, Obama has every bit as many (and some would argue more) price controls on healthcare than Hillary, and the fundamental difference in their plans (and personally I wouldn't even call it 'fundamental') is on the mandate for adults.

If Hillary is going to spend the last several weeks slamming Obama for the lack of a mandate, Obama is certainly entitled to point out the consequences of a mandate. And yes, Obama's mailers do look like the Harry and Louise mailers from the early 1990's. And the reason why is, in the 15 years since Hillary's first failed effort at healthcare reform, she still can't answer the question about the consequences of a mandate. Instead of dismissing it as a "right wing talking point," perhaps she should consider, finally, actually answering the question.

by davey jones on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Shame On Hillary (none / 0)

Very well said.

by mimi42 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong! (2.00 / 1)

Once again, it is the consesus view--it is only Robert Reich and David Cutler who hold the minority view:

2. Reich's assertion that Senator Clinton "has no grounds for alleging that [Senator Obama's plan] would leave out 15 million people" is simply wrong.

For Bob to suggest that it is a cheap shot to make this highly supported point is puzzling. A recent study in the Journal of Inquiry found that in a voluntary system like the one Senator Obama advocates, "Even if the . . . subsidies were designed to be as effective as possible at covering the uninsured, at most half of the uninsured would gain coverage." Assuming that Senator Obama's child mandate would cover all children, his plan would still leave half of the adult uninsured population without healthcare. That's well over 15 million. Indeed, a number of independent analysts have confirmed that Senator Obama's plan would leave at least 15 million uninsured, including the Washington Post [6/9/07, "[T]he Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage."], the Wall Street Journal [12/04/07, "Mrs. Clinton charges that Mr. Obama's plan would leave 15 million people without insurance. Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark."], Jonathan Gruber of MIT [12/05/07, "The 15 million estimate that [Senator Clinton] used was validated by myself and other experts."] Jonathan Holohan of the Urban Institute [New Republic, 12/03/07, "Obama would still leave about 22 million, 23 million, but he has a mandate for children, about 9 million uninsured kids, so assuming you get most of them, you get pretty close to 15 million."], Len Nichols of the New America Foundation [New Republic, 12/03/07, "Every reasonable model out there . . . will show you that the kind of subsidies that we could do, 50 percent or so, are going to get you half [the uninsured] . . . The way you go from half to 15 [million] is the kid mandate."], and George Miller and Charles Roehrig of the Altarum research institute [New Republic, 12/03/07, "We've done some very crude hand calculations that suggest that the estimate of 15 million uninsured under an Obama-like plan (no individual mandate, coverage of all children, incentives) is in the right ball park."].

Bob is certainly free to disagree with these experts, but where is the validity in launching the steep charge that "HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people"? (emphasis added).

Link

Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings

by Inky on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong! (none / 0)

"Once again, it is the consesus view--it is only Robert Reich and David Cutler who hold the minority view:"

It depends on which "expert" views you rely upon (many of those you cite conveniently happen to be advisors to the Clinton campaign who have a vested interest in defending plans they helped formulate).

According to factcheck.org, "Other studies also find only a small discrepancy between the types of plans that Obama and Clinton are proposing. For instance, a 2003 Commonwealth Fund study found that a plan with mixed private-public options (as the leading Democratic candidates have put forth) that also included an individual mandate would reach near universal coverage, leaving just 1 percent of people uninsured. Not including a mandate would still reach most of the uninsured, leaving about 3 percent without coverage."

http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obam a.html

But the fact is, Obama may disagree with Clinton's assessments of his plan, but he has never accused her of somehow being "unfair" by raising the criticism. Obama welcomes the debate. Clinton is afraid of a real debate. That's the difference.

by davey jones on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong! (none / 0)

That Anenberg fact-checking piece was weird--the estimates were all over the board, with one analyst admitting the number could be as high as 20 million left uninsured under Obama's plan. And it should be pointed out that this analysis came out before either Sperling or "The Fact Hub" came out with their analyses--the Anenberg study doesn't mention several of the studies mentioned by these analyses. Also the Ananberg study makes some rather dubious assumptions--for instance, it compares Hillary's plan to Romney's Massachusetts plan for purposes of ascertaining coverage rates, but of course his plan included neither a single-payer option nor sufficient subsidies for those who can't afford the insurance.

In any case, I don't understand how you can say this:

Why on earth would you say that Clinton is afraid of a real debate? The last time I looked, she wasn't the one trying to duck out of debates.

Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings

by Inky on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"mandates" (2.00 / 3)

All government programs rely on "mandates." In fact, all laws are mandates. It is only right wingers who endlessly, but selectively, harp on this aspect of universal health care as a way to discredit it. Social Security has a mandate. So does Medicare. So does Unemployment Insurance. So do "street legal" minimum automobile insurance requirements. So does OSHA. So do fire safety standards, building codes, minimum wages laws, workmen's compensation, the National Labor Relations Act, zoning laws, planning laws, equal employment opportunity laws, and on and on and on and on.

Every advanced democracy in the western world has some kind of universal health care system, and all of them rely on "mandates" to one degree or another. As far as I know, this has not caused the sky to fall in France or in Germany or Canada or Denmark or anywhere else.

What, exactly, are the dire "consequeneces" of mandates associated with universal health care that you, and your allegedly "progressive" candidate, so afraid of? Or are you just afraid that the dirtbag, couldn't care less if someone dropped dead because they couldn't pay the doctor, Republicans who you are so desperate to "reach out" to and "unite" with won't like it?

by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "mandates" (none / 0)

"All government programs rely on "mandates."

Fair enough. And a reasonable response to Obama's points, as John Edwards made fairly well in one of the debates. But Clinton never makes these arguments. Instead, she tries to claim that the arguments of Obama are somehow "unfair" and tantamount to republican attacks simply because he has the audacity to point out the practical consequences of her positions -- forcing people to buy healthcare through fining them, garnishing their wages (like social security), or some other means. If you think these approaches are good, then defend them. Don't stand around crying about unfairness simply because Obama points them out.

by davey jones on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Audacity" (none / 0)

Obama has the "audacity" to repeat right wing, scare tactic, talking points. That's what Hillary is objecting to. And, of course, as has been shown ad nauseum, Obama's own plan has "mandates" too. His focus on them in dismissing Hillary's plan is disingenuous. And everyone knows it.

by freemansfarm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:09:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What you state is false (2.00 / 4)

O has attcked Hillary and Edwards on their plans. Thier plans are the closest to UHC so far. Obama's plan is not even trying to get Universal Health Care... except for children.

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:27:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Shame On Hillary (none / 0)

Correction, Her campaign ends when Senator Obama has the number of delegates to win the nomination, or when she chooses to end it. See you in Denver.

by Artiste on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes Shame On Hillary (none / 0)

www.myspace.com/barackobamafalsehope

by Texas Latino 2008 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:29:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Shame (1.62 / 8)

Shame is right.

Snark: Obama should follow his mentor Joe Lieberman's lead and switch parties. (It's not really snark. He is imbibing his to-the-right economic advisers' views, and he would cede critical territory to the Republicans on Social Security, Medicare, any health care plan that he's already paved a wide road for the Republican to drive right through.)

by susanhu on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST

Susanhu (1.50 / 2)

Would you have been upset with Obama if he had said "Shame on you Hillary" for one of her mailers?

If Obama had said "Shame on you Hillary", you all would have said he is disrespectful to women.

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by BlueinColorado on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's mentor? You mean the guy Bill Clinton saved from a humiliating defeat?

by Artiste on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Susanhu...agreed! In fact, he is simply channeling his puppetmaster, Howard Dean, and author of the bigest Gerrymandering scheme in the history of the American Electorate!

"I ask all Americans, regardless of party, to meet with me across the nation to come together in common cause to forge a new American century"

Hmmmmm...New American Century. Now where did we hear THAT before?!?!

by mikelow1885 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voters don't like to be forced into something. Obama may have tapped into a real fear--though I do think he's giving up too much in the health care debate.

How the hell (2.00 / 4)

does Hillary get to "shame" someone when her campaign consistently pumped out (and continues to pump out) mistruths and outright lies about Obama?

this is a move of desperation now.

by fightinfilipino on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:22:25 PM EST

Re: How the hell (2.00 / 3)

What mistruths? What lies? Give me some links.YOU are the one spreading mistruths without any evidence here.

by praxis1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:26:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened to lone Filipino (1.75 / 4)

well, one of the reasons i'm with the Obama camp is that i don't get labeled as a race traitor.

also, while i'm glad Filipinos are helping out in politics, Filipinos also have a particularly bad history supporting odd causes, including Ronald Reagan and Ferdinand Marcos.

call me an "optimistic young Filipino" going for the future.

by fightinfilipino on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All I can say is if (2.00 / 3)

Obama had said "Shame on you Hillary" for her mailer in which Hillary had sent in New Hampshire which questioned him whether he was pro-choice, I know ALL of you would be up in arms. Obama would have been BASHED mercilessly by the media.

The Democratic candidates should NOT be saying stuff like "Shame on you". It is not presidential.

I was very disapointed in Hillary today. Those mailers have been out for weeks and it is now that she has to go in front of a camera and say "shame on you".

I think it was her worst moment.

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:23:16 PM EST

Funniest quote of the day. (2.00 / 2)

"Obama had said "Shame on you Hillary" for her mailer in which Hillary had sent in New Hampshire which questioned him whether he was pro-choice, I know ALL of you would be up in arms. Obama would have been BASHED mercilessly by the media."

Please. The press corps would've passed out in ecstasy if he'd done that.

by KevinCinNYC on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is BULLSHIT and you know it (none / 0)

Obama got bad media blowback from the supposed "snub". Can you imagine him saying "Shame on you Hillary". The media would have been on him like a pile of sharks.

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:21:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Funniest quote of the day. (none / 0)

Since when has "shame" been a dirty word in campaigns? This seems to be the meme of the day among Obama people, but it is a weird notion--candidates say "shame on you" all the time in campaigns. Obama's people seem to think a campaign is supposed to be all hearts and flowers.

by Alice in Florida on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/2008/02/clin ton-scolds-obama-aims-to-rescue.html

WASHINGTON (AFP) - White House hopeful Hillary Clinton launched a scathing attack on Democratic rival Barack Obama Saturday in a bid to restore her front-runner status ahead of key nominating contests next month.

by ccokz on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:25:22 PM EST

Re: On Shame (1.50 / 6)

It doesn't matter how much of it is true: She sounds panicked and frustrated. And off the debate closing, a little schizofrenic, no?

by demfromnj on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:25:49 PM EST

by praxis1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No.

by mimi42 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes

by alex100 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes. she sounds erratic.

but i do like her h.c. plan better (even though it still sucks).

the good thing is, when she's back in the senate, she can try passing it. show her "experience" there by passing a landmark health care in this country.

Re: Aside from the bad spelling-- Hillary's (none / 0)

Why she's fighting and for who she's fighting?
Quote: "I am honored, honored, to be on this stage with Barack Obama." Translation: "I'm going to try in Ohio and Texas because I said I would, but, you win. Let's be friends. VP are two of my favorite letters."

She has good points, as always, on this issue. Yelling angrily into the mic won't work. Hasn't worked since Reagan.

by demfromnj on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:38:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by 07rescue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton is right on, she should be pissed at this sellout BO using right wing tactics to undermine the best chance we have ever had to get universal health care. His loser strategy on health care is a betrayal of core Democratic values. We all should be outraged at his underhanded attacks on progressive values.

I'm completely delighted that she is telling it like it is. At least if she does go down, it will be with integrity, telling the truth, and fighting for what she believes in. I deeply respect what she has done today. The debate is finally getting real, and It does my heart good to see it.

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Man I don't know which Clinton scandal to back me up"

This simply proves how you have bought the right wing trash talk spin against Clinton, by your own testimony.

After the right destroys Obama with endless scandal accusations then perhaps we can talk civilly about refraining from cannibalizing our best friends using the tactics of the Right against them.

How horrifically self destructive your attacks are.

Sorry (1.66 / 3)

But Clinton is finished. She is acting erratically. One day waxing poetic, and the next day spitting flames over a flier that has apparently been in circulation for weeks. It sounds like she was listening to Grunwald and Wolfson on Thursday, then the spirit of Mark Penn this morning.

by highgrade on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:27:47 PM EST

Your not pissing me off... (none / 0)

it just speaks of your own character that you continue to call Obama a brother.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your not pissing me off... (none / 0)

Yeah... I've seen that here from time to time. Not sure what that's supposed accomplish, other than to make a slang race comment in the middle of a topic unrelated to race.

By the way, this whole "SHAME" thing smells like a basketball flop performed by a player who really lack basic acting skills. The folks here are the fans who boo the ref for not calling the so-called 'foul.' You think, "it's just a fun part of the game," but inside makes you just a bit nervous of how easily a mob can become mobilized to take leave of their senses.

Ya'll call Obama's supporters a cult. I'd say a big test of blind following is if you act in a way contrary to your own common sense, sanity or safety but do so because it's supposedly the best thing for the cult.

I would imagine generally non-racist and non-sexist people going to forums and making racist and sexist comments to gain points in a faceless debate between the only other few hundred people on Earth equally into the campaign as you would fall into that catagory, as would run-on sentences. And non sequitors.

You see it more here, frankly, but I imagine if the poll data were turned, it would be the other way. Human nature.

Sucks though.

by Lettuce on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't WANT Clinton (none / 0)

To do anything but think about the party and the nation before her own political interests.

by highgrade on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

don't make me say the "h" word (1.25 / 4)

if she keeps this up, I am going to have to say that she sounds hysterical, and she doesn't want that.

by shlenny on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:28:05 PM EST

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (1.75 / 4)

How dare you inject sexism here. At least try to defend Obama's health care plan if you know anything about it. How sickening.

by praxis1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are fucking serious? (2.00 / 0)

hysterical=sexism? But you got Hillary supporters calling Obama, brother. Don't be a fool.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are fucking serious? (2.00 / 2)

Women who are outraged are women who are outraged, how dare you call that "hysterical." That is a grossly sexist slander of women, a creepy and all too typical method of undermining women's point of view.

People do not dare call angry men "hysterical", they know it is dangerous to try to undermine a man that way.

by 07rescue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mimi42 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:37:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it's sexist that you assume that - because the comment is above is about someone being hysterical - it's about her being a woman. Men can be hysterical too, you know.

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (1.66 / 3)

Incredibly sensitive toward racism but numb on sexism. I have seen all. You don't need to reemphasize.

by praxis1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hysterical=sexism? (2.00 / 1)

do you really believe this? Because I don't see it. But calling Obama, a brother from chitown, can be construed that way.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're a former elected official... (none / 0)

keep digging yourself into that hole. You see where it got Hillary after SC. Why did you change your wording from brother to rookie then? Perception is everything. If someone was black and just happened to read that comment from a Hillary supporter how do you think that would go over? You can't really be a politician in the Democratic Party.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (2.00 / 1)

Explain why the word hysterical = sexism please... if you have a valid argument I will be thrilled to listen but I just don't see it.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (2.00 / 2)

Um, seriously? The words hysterical, or hysteria are historically extremely loaded terms. Hysteria was actually a medical diagnosis (widely accepted by the medical community) made only in women. Wait, let me repeat that -- a diagnosis made only in women -- it wasn't possible for a man to be diagnosed with hysteria -- it was an exclusively "female" disease. A situation that didn't change until more women were allowed to practice medicine and had the power to make diagnoses themselves.

I guess the sexism -- oh, let's call it what it is -- misogyny, won't end until more women assume more power in our society.

by Iphie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (2.00 / 0)

Yes, hysterical has a gender componant, but other than historical significance, it is now a non-gendered word, used for, say, Obama's crowd reactions. A reasonable series of google searches finds the word used as often for "Obama's cult" articles as for describing hillary.

I usually put "hysterical" in the "loaded term" catagory, over a "sexist" term. Can't compare its usage with non-sequitor outbursts of calling Obama "brother" but it just goes to show how the 2008 primary is officially the most intellectual game of "I know you are but what am I" of all time.

by Lettuce on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (2.00 / 1)

So do you also put the term "lynching" in the loaded term category and not the racist category? If we discount historical significance, as you do with hysteria, then by your logic, the uproar over the Bill O'Reilly lynching comment was misplaced.

by Iphie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (2.00 / 0)

Lynching still occurs, as lynching.

The subjugation of women still occurs, and the medical community is involved. But the term "hysteria" -- as proven by, the Def Leppard album, for example -- has taken on a more generalized meaning.

When people say lynch, even as a loaded term, it still reflects a violent destruction, even only metaphorically. In time, it may lose its oomph, (certainly some quarters are trying harder than others to do so) but there is still oomph. There's no version of "lynch" that doesn't have that connotation.

When people say hysterical, 9 times out of 10 they mean "very funny," and sometimes "overly emotional" but rarely "lobotomize a smart woman and keep her locked up" -- even metaphorically. There are other connotations and, even if it may have a subconcious effect on some attuned readers, very few make that connection, rightly or wrongly.

Both are best avoided in this election. Still, it's all a matter of nuance and context, a luxury alien to these high-stakes times...

by Lettuce on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (2.00 / 1)

Oh, I agree that context is important, but the context here is the orginal statement by shlenny that "if she keeps this up, I am going to have to say that she sounds hysterical, and she doesn't want that." The she being Clinton who was responding to Obama fliers in a manner that shlenny finds objectionable. A statement made after a number of responses speculating about whether or not she had gone off the deep end -- demfromnj said that she sounded "panicked," "frustrated" and "schizophrenic"

And in that context, yes, I think we can apply some of the historical baggage attached to the word as directed to women. Clinton is a woman who is accused of being over-emotional, irrational and well, crazy. Followed by a threat (and yes it is a threat, shlenny says that if she keeps it up s/he will do something that Clinton doesn't want) to call her hysterical. In that context, I think that the historical connotations do apply.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not to belabor this... but I don't think the rap on clinton has been that she's too emotional... I think it's the opposite.

Certainly I, and others, find this thing so funny because she's too smart to believe her plagerism or "negative mailer" arguments. She has to know that they're not winners, that no campaign has won on the platform of "that's not fair..." That's what's funny and various synonyms of funny about it...

by Lettuce on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:36:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you're right, that the criticism for so long has been that she isn't emotional enough, and the point is becoming labored, but I'm talking more now about the language that is used to try to discredit her. Those terms don't apply, she is neither over-emotional nor irrational, so when these terms are used against her, it's hard to see how gender issues don't come into play, especially hysterical -- it is just not used against male politicians. John McCain seems to me to be a little off his rocker -- we know that he is over-emotional, people talk about his temper all the time -- crazy, emotional -- why don't people call him hysterical? When the word is used to describe a man it means that he's hilarious, never that he's unstable.

I just did a one person test -- I texted a friend of mine who's a psychologist and told him that I thought McCain was hysterical -- he wanted to know what I thought was so funny about a crazy old man with his finger on the button. Then he told me that if I were old enough, I'd remember what that was like and that there was nothing funny about the Reagan years. Which...made me laugh.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

For the record, I WOULD call McCain hysterical during one of his tirades. He is beside himself and irrational when he does that.

Also, I posted over at KOS a few days ago after someone called her a bitch (now that's sexism):

I'm a big Obama fan and a dude, but... (11+ / 0-)
I think that there is something unfair about women in politics. If she attacks she's a bitch. If she doesn't show emotion she's an Ice Queen. If she shows emotion... well chics are too emotional. They can't be our leaders.

It's not right. It disqualifies half of the people who could be great leaders for our country.

Still... Go Obama! YES WE CAN!!

by lockewasright on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:14:59 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

My resistance to the response here on the word hysterical isn't out of sexism. It is that one can truly disagree about whether the word was intended as it was received and whether the point of the conversation is being avoided by those who found a convenient subject changer.

On a different subject: How can I post a copy and paste like the one above and have it show up in a box?

by lockewasright on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:31:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by alex100 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is crazy talk. Clinton supporters are made of tin.

silly season indeed.

The next time someone attacks the Obamas in a way that is clearly racist, I suppose you'll have the same reaction? You probably said the same when Bill O'Reilly made the lynching comment in reference to Michelle Obama, right? Was it just crazy talk to point out the obvious racial history of that word? Silly season, indeed.

by Iphie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by alex100 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

let's dig into this terminology game shall we?

lynching a white man.
that man is hysterical.

i got to tell you Iphie, only one of these phrases forces the listener to shuffle around the meaning to put it in context. That context is the southern black overcoming a nation of fear and hate. It is clear cut.

but if you see the word hysterical as a sexist remark, then I'm sure you're sensitive to the racist remarks that came out of Bill Clinton's mouth. Obama's victory in S.C. didn't have to be downplayed through the simple, illogical conclusion of race did it?

by alex100 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

err, the context is not the southern black overcoming a nation of fear and hate. I should have said that the context is the southern black being the victim of a nation of irrational fear and hate.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

I'm not sure that hysterical is "clearly" sexist. I have never heard of that connotation of the word. Even if it is mildly (and that's a BIG stretch) sexist, I am not sure that the most productive response to it is for a bunch of ladies to go absolutely apeshit at the mention of the word.

Fine... change the word. Hilary is obviously going to lose unless some video surfaces of Obama engaged in bestiality with an underaged endangered species while praising Karl Rove in writing with a notarized copy sent out to the press before the voting happens on the fourth. She has decided to damage the party's chances in November with an irrational parting shot that will not gain her the huge margins she will need to even get back in the game. It is irrational and it is shrill. That IS hysterical by definition. Lest you should accuse me of being a sexist for using words that accurately describe such behavior in a person of either gender, I have accused my two and a half year old son of ALL three adjectives: Shrill, hysterical, and irrational.

by lockewasright on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't make me say the "h" word (2.00 / 2)

I don't mean to get all pedantic on you, lockewasright, but seriously, read up on the subject. Just because you have not heard of something does not mean that the thing doesn't exist. All you'd have to do to hear about the basic etymology of the word would be to take a psych 101 class, barring that, google it. But don't add sexist insult to injury

"Even if it is mildly (and that's a BIG stretch) sexist, I am not sure that the most productive response to it is for a bunch of ladies to go absolutely apeshit at the mention of the word."

You're not sure what is most productive for a 'bunch of ladies' to go 'apeshit' over? If you seriously don't understand what is sexist about your statement, do this simple little trick: pick another group of your choosing -- black people, Jews, gays, Mexicans -- whatever you want, and then take your statement, insert a term that that group finds offensive, and ask if that group should go apeshit at the mention of the word. Do you think it would be wise for you to question if those groups should go 'apeshit' over 'nappy-headed', 'hook-nosed', 'faggot' or 'wet-back'? Do you really think that you are a qualified arbiter of what is sexist? You are well-versed enough on the subject to decide what is and is not a 'stretch' to fall into that category? Are you as willing to dismiss the concerns of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism?

Would you condescend to lecture those other groups about what is or isn't 'productive' to discuss? What makes you the expert on sexist language (other than a practitioner, I mean)?

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

I am a jew by birth and an atheist by belief. I said what I said on purpose because that is one of the things that I have learned as a double minority. If my response to someone else's intolerance is one that reinforces the stereotypes... well... it's not very effective. In fact, it moves my cause backwards.

Have you ever noticed that you find a greater amount of sexism in discussions surrounding the Hilary Clinton campaign than in conversations surrounding other subjects? Has it ever occurred to you that while some of that is a result of the speaker and the subject, some of it can also can honestly be attributed to the listener and the subject? If Hilary were a jew instead of a woman I am sure that I would find lots of legitimate anti-semitism in the debate. I would also have to resist finding it where it either wasn't or where it was small enough as to not be the point if I wanted the conversation to ever get anywhere.

I will agree that the effect the word had in the conversation is unfortunate, and that the next time somebody wants to indicate that Hilary is not behaving sensibly perhaps another wording would better suit the discussion, but that doesn't mean that those folks who are offended need to:

A) reinforce the stereotype by, yes, going apeshit instead of shooting down the stereotype by calmly rejecting the term and doing so politely because not everybody sees the same intent that you do. (Note: This point is about strategy, not right or wrong)

B) change the subject because they didn't like one of the words. The original point of the statement still has not been addressed. Because a bunch of folks didn't like the word hysterical. They were able to use objections to sidetrack the implication of the comment. That was that Hilary Clinton's current attack is irrational because it places her ambition above the well being of the party, is of questionable veracity, and cannot have an effect of the magnitude needed to save her campaign anyway. In fact, any attack that could provide a change of such magnitude at this point would be describable in this way.

Besides, not all disagreement with Hilary is sexist, even if you can dig through history and etymology to find a way to justify saying it is.

Lastly, any point by point description of a person's thoughts could be called lecturing. Perhaps your responses fit the same mold. That's what a conversation with opposing viewpoints is.

by lockewasright on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ahh, just because you are what you call a "double minority" does not give you some sort of universal understanding of the concerns of other minority groups. It definitely does not give you any sort of inoculation against charges of offensive language or intent against any minority group. Given that I am also Jewish and an atheist, as well as a woman, does that mean that I have "triple" minority status and that it somehow trumps your measly "double" minority status? Of course not -- a person's minority status does not excuse nor exclude them from being biased or bigoted toward another group.

"Have you ever noticed that you find a greater amount of sexism in discussions surrounding the Hilary Clinton campaign than in conversations surrounding other subjects?"

In a word -- no. But thanks for implying that you think that I do. It's quite a leap for you to make about a person you've never met, and about whom you have very little information. But if it's easier for you to dismiss my criticism by positing that I am too sensitive on the issue, well, knock yourself out.

"If Hilary were a jew instead of a woman I am sure that I would find lots of legitimate anti-semitism in the debate."

I don't know you, but if that statement is really true, may I suggest that your facility with critical thought might be more finely honed? The ability to discern the differences between attacks on a person that stem from personal animus, substantive views or bigotry would seem to be to be a given in any sort of discussion like this -- but if you are saying that you would not be able to parse the differences yourself, then it's no wonder that you would project a similar failing onto me.

Again, the use of the term "apeshit"; I've re-read the comments here and am at a loss as to how they could be described as "apeshit." The Cambridge Dictionary definition of "to go apeshit" is to become extremely angry. Now, maybe I'm paying too much attention to the actual use and meaning of the English language, but given that it is the subject that we're discussing, shouldn't we all actually mean what we write? Perhaps you have a much more casual relationship to meaning and nuance than I do, but I don't see anybody going apeshit here. As the Obamamaniacs like to point out -- Words Matter.

"That was that Hilary Clinton's current attack is irrational because it places her ambition above the well being of the party, is of questionable veracity, and cannot have an effect of the magnitude needed to save her campaign anyway. In fact, any attack that could provide a change of such magnitude at this point would be describable in this way."

You present your subjective arguments as if they were objective truth. All of the above is your opinion, not fact as you assert. You may believe that it is a fact that the situation must be describable this way, but I do not come to the same conclusion. It is a fact that the sun came up this morning. It is not a fact that your conjecture about the Clinton campaign is a foregone conclusion. Asserting an opinion to be fact does not make your argument any stronger, it just makes you seem a little confused about the definition of yet another word.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

I mentioned my minority status to draw from my personal experience. I didn't indicate that being of two minorities makes my experience trump anyone else's. Wow, maybe you weren't using the sexism thing as a convenient way to get off topic. Maybe you just make a habit of missing the point.

MLK's strategy of pacifism and sit-ins was designed to keep maddening incitement by racists from getting black people to reinforce the stereotypes. Through each others strength people were able to disarm a technique used by racists.

The conversation, or portion of it that I am concerned with, started when somebody said 'don't make me use the h word' or something like that. I am not even saying that I endorse the comment. I was simply pointing out that, if you and others perceived a sexist generalization that women are hysterical and the the response is a whole bunch of "How dare you" and accusations of sexism and general huffiness that could be construed to reinforce the idiotic stereotype.

Perhaps a calm inquiry into whether this person knew that this word choice had hurtful connotations followed by educating or repudiating, calmly, depending on the person's reply would have served the purpose. In fact, it would have had me joining in on your side of the conversation. You see, it's about how and when to have the fight in order to be most effective.

As far as you belief that the campaign is not now a forgone conclusion... well... think what you will.

by lockewasright on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

Gonna ignore this part of my previous statement are we?

"Lest you should accuse me of being a sexist for using words that accurately describe such behavior in a person of either gender, I have accused my two and a half year old son of ALL three adjectives: Shrill, hysterical, and irrational. "

Take particular note of the "using words that accurately describe such behavior in a person of either gender" part.

by lockewasright on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now you're going to infantalize Clinton by comparing her to a toddler? Perhaps the mother of your son might be better able to explain to you what is offensive about your toddler/grown woman comparisons.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

No, I am giving an example of using those same words in reference to a male. Again, you see what you chose to see. Shocked. Really.

by lockewasright on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, a male child. Again, ignoring what you don't want to see. Shocked, really.

by Iphie on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

I see. So you get to decide my intent. Man... I gotta get another minority status so I can stop getting trump. Maybe some day I could even be lifted up to that place of honor where I get to decide what I meant. On that day... if you decide that it means soemthing else.... on that very special day.... It will mean you're seeing what you want to see. But just that day right.

by lockewasright on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Shame (2.00 / 3)

what's your point? Mandates for adults are a terrible idea.

Either give us single-payer, or do your best to lower costs any way possible.

Do NOT give us RomneyCare. What's so difficult about that? And what's wrong with saying that?

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:28:44 PM EST

by Alice in Florida on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not Romneycare if there is a public insurer option. The whole problem with the Massachusetts system is that Romney got his poison pill provision in there that says no one can choose public insurance instead of private.

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

Do you honestly believe that a public health care plan option would make it past a filibuster?

It wouldn't... The republicans would have an apoplexy over expanding public health care, and the public probably would be suspicious as well. Hillary already said she would compromise, and that would be the big one... It's the easiest to get rid of.

Everyone is hanging their hat on this public health provision, when there is a 99% chance that it won't happen... We don't even know what she means by this. I've read that it means that people can join the federal workforce group plans... yeah, it's for "public" employees, but you still pick from private plans! The folk here say it will be Medicare... Will it be more like medicare or more like crappy medicaid?

No one really knows the answer....

And there is nothing to say that, if a Clintonian health care plan were to pass the senate, that Barack would veto it...

All these "plans" are worthless, 'cos what's going to go into congress certainly won't be what's coming out!

Thanks,

Mike

by LordMike on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"All these "plans" are worthless, 'cos what's going to go into congress certainly won't be what's coming out!"

Mike,

So your suggestion is for us to give up and do what? Your position is so defeatist I cannot imagine why you want to even participate in the discussion.

We support candidates who give specifics on proposals because if they get elected they have a leg to stand on and can approach Congress with the proof they have a mandate from the electorate to pursue those proposals.

For many of us this is exactly why we remain involved in politics, to elect and support public servants who will push for what we believe in. Support Hillary and she will have run her campaign on getting health care reform passed, and she and all Democrats will have a huge incentive to MAKE IT WORK FOR PEOPLE!

The facts are straightforward - the private health insurance industry cannot provide affordable health insurance that is actually adequate for people's needs, and will protect them from bankruptcy and destitution. No health care reform can work that is based only on private health insurance. This has been proven over and over by every attempt to privatize Medicare and Medicaid. Their costs skyrocket and benefits are slashed whenever the private health insurance industry gets pulled into those programs. The programs lose efficacy and popularity. You need to understand this. People will be attracted to the public option as their only affordable recourse.

If Democrats successfully achieved universal health care it would be their greatest feat in 40 years, and would give us a majority for generations. The Republicans know this, that is why they fight it so strongly.

Give up without trying, because it would be difficult? Not me, not in this lifetime.

video of Hillary (2.00 / 2)

The Field also has the video of her talking about the mailers. She's gone for anger to counteract people thinking she was conceding at the end of the debate. But I think it makes her look like she's swinging a bit wildly from one thing to another to find what works. These mailers came out a while ago, so the outrage in the video seems scripted to me, and unfortunately reeks of Penn.

by mimi42 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:28:59 PM EST

Re: video of Hillary (none / 0)

Where people came up with this theme of "concession" because a candidate knows how to be gracious, I'll never know. Oh...excuse me, maybe that's what Axelrod said, and others repeated? I've seen lots of presidential campaigns; she did a gracious close to the debate. Perhaps, people who are not used to an act of generosity and goodness have trouble understanding that. As a lawyer, I certainly know how to lose...and, how to win. Just because people are nice to each other in a formal setting does not take away their ability to respond to an offense--when needed--in a very powerful and straightforward way. And, if the brochures state a deception--which Newsday indicates about the NAFTA piece and which Krugman indicates about the healthcare piece--her tone was pitchperfect. (You know: McCain responding in anger to the insinuations of the NY Times fascinating piece. He looked like a man standing up for himself. While I'm a big-time Democrat, I did respect his response--the statement of anger, insult, and purpose. Oh--and, no one suggested that the MAN was hysterical.) I'm guessing this will sort out a bit more in the coming days, as we see more about Senator Obama outside the speech circuit.

by christinep on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: video of Hillary (none / 0)

I'm so glad she is finally getting angry at his sellout politics. Those mailers should be condemned. They are new, and Mr Dreamboat BO is going the Rovian route, and using lies to destroy Democratic and Progressive ideals.

This campaign should be about our dreams and principles, and it's about time Dreamboat should be woken up from his drugged state. There are real lives at stake, this is not a game, it's not just a horserace, it's about whether we will have an egalitarian society where there is a basic right to health care, and we will no longer allow people to die helplessly when they get sick or injured and cannot afford care.

And anyone who still thinks this doesn't happen is in dreamland, people die every day from lack of access to health care, many, many times the number that died in 9-11 (and I am a first responder who was there), and it is a much greater threat to American lives than terrorism. Shame on BO for caving in on universal health care, shame on him for lying about Clinton's brave plan, shame on him for trying to put lipstick on a pig and pass it off as anything but the piggery it is.

Thanks to Clinton for telling it like it is.

by 07rescue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: video of Hillary (none / 0)

those mailers are not brand new as you assert. they've been around for quite a while, don't try fooling people here, we aren't falling for your historical revisionism.

by soros on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:37:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by MKyleM on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:29:07 PM EST

How can Hillary attack Obama on Univeral Healthcare when he does not have a Universal Healthcare plan??

If Obama is against Universal care, he should BE A MAN and simply stay that; instead, he hides behind vague, lofty words and false advertising, claiming that he does have a universal plan.

Shame On You, Obama!

you bigots can leave the party (1.33 / 3)

In case you haven't checked on the right hand side of this website, you will notice that Obama is ahead of McCain by 15 points in New Mexico, a state Bush won in 2004.

Obama will draw tens of millions of people to the Democratic Party from all races. We don't need to be divided by racial "brother" comments.

You and your small percentage of disgusting sour graphe ilk can leave the Democratic Party. We'll be a supermajority without you.

by bigdavefromqueens on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:29:39 PM EST

"Shame on you Hillary" (2.00 / 1)

Would all of you been fine with Obama saying that in a news conference?

Hell no!

You all would be ATTACKING Obama as we speak.

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:29:46 PM EST

Re: "Shame on you Hillary" (2.00 / 2)

No, I can honestly tell you that if Obama did that, and had flyers in hand and Hillary was guilty....I'd be all "Ohhhhh shit. What do we do now?"

"Core. Democratic. Principles."

He's stepped in it now.

by Scan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did Obama say the words (none / 0)

"Shame on You Hillary"? He has NEVER said that.

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by lilly15 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:01 PM EST

Someone please post the link to the video...it's posted on CNN. But Hillary looks great here, slamming Obama. We need that Hillary in the next debate.

lily15

You looked so presidential (none / 0)

do that too!

Can you imagine Obama doing that?

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by lilly15 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:30:35 PM EST

lily15

What is this redstate.... (none / 0)

Brother?

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:34:33 PM EST

Re: On Shame (1.60 / 10)

She just exposed him. The anger was real. Win or lose, she needed to say it was WRONG for a democrat to attack another democrat with Rovian "Harry and Louise" ads AGAINST universal health care. It is wrong and goes against core democratic principles dating back to Truman.

RIGHT. ON. This was her Jimmy Stewart righteous anger moment....just in time. Powerful.

by Scan on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:34:41 PM EST

Can you imagine Obama saying (none / 0)

"Shame on you Hillary"?

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by demfromnj on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One correction: It's NOT in time. Like someone said earlier, this mailer has been out there for weeks. What about Wisconsin? What about Virginia? She didn't care enough about those states to do this before it was too late. And now it is. And that's unfortunate.

It was contrived... (2.00 / 1)

he said it to her face at the other debate and she didn't do a thing. If she thinks acting like she did when she made the Xerox comment is going to win her points she will seriously ruin her reputation if she acts that way in the next debate.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by davey jones on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"This was her Jimmy Stewart righteous anger moment....just in time. Powerful."

LOL. Maybe. And maybe it was her Howard Beale, "I'm mad as hell" moment. We'll see.

by soros on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope that you know that those "establishment demagogue" posters were made by republicans. they had a few other posters of similiar quality disguised before going into the crowd. i read them gloating about it on a financial/stock market forum.

To all you Obama supporters (1.75 / 4)

that have now taken up the cause of the right wing in slamming true Universal Health Care.

Please take a look at this diary and see what you think.

From Jerome a Paris at Dkos.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1 2/22/153152/64

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:35:30 PM EST

Hey mimi (2.00 / 1)

Why did you TR this comment?

DID you go and read that diary?

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey mimi (2.00 / 1)

Because I hardly think that supporting mandated health care for children (which would greatly have helped the family in that diary had they been in the states) makes me someone who has "taken up the cause of the right wing". I'm a vegan tree-hugging pacifist, and I don't take to being told I'm right wing.

I have doubts about Hillary's health care plan and going after the wages of adults who can't afford it - as she has said on record she would do.

I lost both my parents to cancer. I'm sorry for the trouble that family has had, and I deeply hope their son continues to do well. Their situation does not, however, change my views on the best way to handle health care in the US.

by mimi42 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On wages (2.00 / 2)

Obama will make the adults pay back-premiums if the children aren't covered. What is the difference?

by Coldblue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On wages (none / 0)

His argument is that the structure for every children having coverage (including public/subsidized/free coverage) already exists (because of programs that, to be fair, Clinton helped create when she was First Lady) and therefore nobody would be forced to pay for coverage for children they cannot afford (SCHIP etc ...). Adults would be forced to look for coverage and most people don't qualify for public help (unlike children) and therefore could be forced into purchasing HMO/private insurance plans of which the healthcare companies could/would/have hiked up the prices.

And it is also good policy coz healthy children have better chance of being healthy adults so that should save some money over the long run.

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the point in question (2.00 / 1)

Obama would penalize adults that can't afford to buy health insurance for their children. Clinton would penalize adults that can't afford to buy insurance for themselves or for their children.

In either plan, adults are penalized (and should be, imo)

by Coldblue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not the point in question (none / 0)

But the difference is he doesn't see a situation where adults would have to be penalized for not insuring their children because the structure is already there for all types of income earners. Public programs for children health care is widely available and very generous in terms of who qualify

There would be a lot of garnished wages if you forced "adults" to buy insurance they can't afford because adult health care is expansive and there is not much of a public option.

I am not an expert in all of this but the point is ... both cases can be made fairly and people can agree to disagree. the fact they disagree on how to achieve universal health care does not giv EITHER of them license to accuse the other of not wanting to do it.

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not the point in question (2.00 / 2)

Obviously, there will be some form of subsidization for those who cannot afford it. She has said as much. Isn't the real issue the size of the universe and the concern that unmandated care really leads to no coverage (ala the Social Security argument?) If,for example, people have an option or an out, then you have to assume a percentage will opt out(whether because they think they never could get sick or that they play the odds, etc.) and that opting-out will increase the costs for those who remain, which--because of such increased costs--will lead to more opting out. A vicious circle; possibly a killer for growing health care in this country. (Again, think through the Social Security analogy. And, for those of you still reading TPM, recall the strong argument about Social Security and that same destructive opting-out process that would have undermined Social Security if G. Bush's approach had been followed.) A key to any economically successful operation has to be its universality. Think it through...please.

by christinep on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not the point in question (none / 0)

The irony of that all debate is that never ever ever ever will a plan pass Congress that includes mandates.
Guaranteed.

As I said, I would be Ok with both plans because there are intelligent people on both sides of the debate. I trust Obama's judgement better than hers for a long list of reasons so I follow him but I personally understand her point

And as I said, they both are wrong in the way they are framing the debate. But both have good very similar health care plans with a single difference that can be defended from both angles.

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0)

In a debate, he said people would have to pay back-premiums if they brought their children to an emergency room and had no insurance.

He sees the situation, but has not been vocal for political reasons, imho.

by Coldblue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On wages (none / 0)

Please read.
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/2/23/1 91616/645/232#232

Public and Private plans.

mandates are like a tax.

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you believe (2.00 / 1)

in the commons? Social Security? Medicare?

Do you believe in taxes that are used for the commons and the greater good?

Read my comment here:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/2/23/1 91616/645/232#232

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you not get it? (2.00 / 0)

Mandating health care is like a mandated tax for health care.

Hillary has plenty of ways that people with lower incomes will be able to get the insurance they need.

Make sure and check all the links, etc.

The "going after wages" piece, is a bogus claim. If someone choses not to get the now affordable insurance with many many choices, they will be "taxed". You can chose a government plan or a private plan.

In Obama's plan if you do not get insuarnce for a child you will be forced to get one. How will they do that? Maybe by "going after wages"? Yes that is called a garnishment but it is also like a tax.

Now If I chose not to get insurance for myself for whatever reason and I get hurt or sick, who will pay for my care under the Obama plan? Is it you and I or will this person be forced to pay "fines" and back "premiums" that they should have paid? How would they do this? Maybe by garnishing wages which is like a tax?

Difference is...

if I do not get a plan under Hillary's plan, I will be forced to get a plan and I will be "taxed" for the monthly premiums. This cost would not be to high and maybe no cost at all (depending on your income).

Under Obama's plan I will not be hit by a tax or garnishment if I do not buy in, UNLESS I am sick or hurt. Now I am going to be hit HARD with a big FINE and BACK Premiums.

Under these two plans, who would be helped more and hurt the least?

PLEASE be factual and fair.
..

Also, I lost my dad and one of my sisters to cancer (both had insurance.. expensive .. and they had to fight the companies).
I lost my mom to cancer and old age, she had Medicare only. The care she was given was pretty good but could have been better but there were NO hassles with Medicare.
I lost my step mom to old age, she had the financial ability to be cared for if needed.

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:17:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Shame (1.75 / 4)

Barack: "Washington is where good ideas go to die."
With that statement he attacks Democrats, too.
Good Demicratic ideas that "lived" to benefit us:
Social Security
Right to organize/unions
Civil Rights laws
Medicare
Minimum wage laws
Please add to this list..........

by CLK on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:38:55 PM EST

Noooooo.... (none / 0)

he meant that good ideas have gone to die because Republicans have killed them. The country is behind progressive values on every major issue of the day. The country trusts Democrats over Republicans. But nothing has moved forward because republicans won't allow it. Your way off.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Scotch on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder why he wants to go to Washington so badly, then.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/23 hillary-clinton-throws-down-the-gauntle t

lily15 -

CrooksAndLiars has the video up on their website.

Here is the link:

I've never been more proud of Hillary than I was watching her taking a stand and not putting up with Obama's underhanded tactics.

"For 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger." ~Hillary Clinton

by EightMoreYears on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:41:52 PM EST

http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/080217Cl intonMailer.pdf

LOL Yeah "HE" is sending misleading underhanded mailers about health care. She is not doing that. So not.
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/080217Cl intonMailer.pdf

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by PositiveFreedom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:42:55 PM EST

HRC has lost it. I mean the campaign. Well, I think I mean just the campaign. That press conference meltdown was unreal. As has been said by others, this is her Dean scream moment. I think the game is over soon.

Re: On Shame (2.00 / 3)

IS this spinning point? "Hillary moment"="Dean Moment"? Poor Dean. After all the support for Obama, this is what he gets.

by praxis1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by PositiveFreedom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:55:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You and I both know what the media did with the scream, prax...No offense to Howard, he's a good guy. But once this shit is out there, you can't stop it. In a video selection of "great political screw-ups caught on film", this one follows the scream. You know I'm right...

by praxis1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you think at the point any Hillary supporters would mind "MSM" BS? Solid 50% of democrats nationwide did not give her up despite all BS produced by MSM AND Obama camp. This will only fire up her base and it will be the defining moment at least to show Obama is NOT for democratic principles. I can not be proud of her more.

by christinep on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The only problem with the meme you guys are pushing so hard for is that if any real, obnoxious,strident, offensive element had been spotted by the media from the Clinton rejoinder today, it would have been out there hours ago. Sorry...by the time the pundits settle on a criticism tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Ohio will have seen it on local news coverage more than once. Telling them tomorrow what they heard today (a justifiably strong, assertive reaction to a deceptive advertising practice) won't change viewers' first and second impressions. Actually, a lot of people in Texas and Rhode Island probably saw it too without the "benefit" of an MSNBC "interpretation." (To refresh you recollection about the infamous scream: The media and their listeners made the determination within minutes, if not hours, from the occurrence.) Sorry again. I guess that those Obama-does-no-wrong types will have to find another theme to repeat here. And, do us a favor. Forget the hysterical/erratic/schizoid woman theme. That really doesn't work anymore.

Re: On Shame (2.00 / 4)

You can hope it's over soon. It won't be. Obama and his surrogates calling Hillary desperate, claiming she'll drop out and all the rest of it. Means nothing. She's fighting for this nomination. I never thought I'd see the day when I saw self-proclaimed Progressives and Liberals arguing AGAINST universal healthcare using the same GOP talking points we've heard for years. It's sad really. I am so proud of Hillary!

by atomic garden on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Shame (1.50 / 2)

I know your proud, and I think it's adorable. The feigned shock at "progressives selling out universal healthcare", less adorable. Same Clintonesque fraudulence we see more of every day.

by PositiveFreedom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:56:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by atomic garden on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Less adorable because it's true? Progressives have sold out on universal healthcare, the economy and all the rest that Obama's selling. Great thing is that he's so all over the place, he really does stand for everyone: Indies, Repubs, even some Democrats. But I never thought I'd see the day when Democrats would try and rationalize away how exactly universal healthcare is bad. Not exactly adorable. More like pathetic.

by atomic garden on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You and me both!

Obama Is a Republican (1.00 / 4)

See above.

by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:47:35 PM EST

oh shut up (none / 0)

no one cares.

by omar little on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:55:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh shut up (none / 0)

This is the silly season of politics where Barack Obama has declared a war on politics itself for the purpose of generating cynicism among the voter ranks, thereby burnishing his own appeal and sublimating real issues like health care, mortgage relief and middle class tax cuts, which are entirely more important than "hoping for change." Senator Obama's ethereal candidacy is colliding with reality and no amount of hope can save his own hopes now.

by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

3/4 (none / 0)

its over.

by omar little on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3/4 (none / 0)

I'm scared!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sigh (none / 0)

by omar little on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You forgot your snark tag n/t (none / 0)

by parahammer on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

manufactured controversy (2.00 / 2)

i wonder if penn saw a microtrend in people hating mailers

by omar little on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:53:47 PM EST

I thought Obama couldn't take the heat (2.00 / 2)

and Clinton could?

Regardless of who you happen to support, their comportment today would suggest otherwise.

by orexpat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:58:46 PM EST

you are insane (none / 0)

all campaigns send out mailers just like these all the time, its not a big deal, they have been going out since before super tuesday.

wtf does this have to do with latinos?

by omar little on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:02:40 PM EST

Oh the (feigned) outrage. If only (none / 0)

she could have mustered that much fire against George Bush.

Going ballistic about some mailers isn't a sign of stability. Obama didn't go ballistic with her BS mailers. In fact, nothing she's done has caused him to lose his cool...

by illlaw1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST

Re: Oh the (feigned) outrage. If only (2.00 / 1)

Ah, but you fail to appreciate that "universal health care" is a very, very central issue for many of us. Take a look at why, sometime. Or, talk with anyone who has had a family member or knows closely someone with health problems....Talk with those individuals; walk through some hospital visits with them; look at the bills with them; hold their hand when they worry about providing for themselves and/or their family. Empathy.

by christinep on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh the (feigned) outrage. If only (none / 0)

Oh bullshit she was perfectly willing to lie about choice.

by Socraticsilence on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is losing support quickly (2.00 / 1)

While you seem to have appointed yourself as a spokeswoman for Latinos the good news is that you are not. You're welcome to your own race-based view of the United States but plenty of us are ready to move.

by orexpat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:06:11 PM EST

Re: Obama is losing support quickly (none / 0)

make that "move on"

by orexpat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:06:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LiberalFL on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:06:40 PM EST

Demlady...have you personally spoken with all these hundreds of thousands of Latino's who would rather vote for a man representing a party that hates Latinos than Obama?

Please

Hillary Clinton "the progressive" is such a myth. She's a centrist, at best. Voting for the war, voting for the Lieberman resolution...all because she had the arrogance to assume the Democratic party would roll out the red carpet for her in Denver.

Add that to Mark Penn's allegations that black people don't matter, white collar workers don't matter, caucus states don't matter and, as she said the other day IN TEXAS, Texas doesn't matter because it isn't usually in the mix for Dems in a general election.

That sounds more Republican than Democratic to me.

Clinton ran a campaign using the same playbook that keeps losing the Democrats elections. Win CA, NY, IL, the Northeast, and hope against hope you can win Ohio, Penn, or Florida. That hasnt worked.

Obama makes McCain spend money is states Republicans take for granted. How do you think "garnishing wages" to pay for a mandate looks in a campaign ad? Hillary's proposal may be more "universal" (though she still won't call for single payer health care), its DOA in DC. Her mandate wouldn't hold up going through Congress.

Obama is more progressive than Clinton. That might piss you off, but its true.

Re:Obama & Affirmative Action (none / 0)

Obama needs Hillary supporters much more than we need him! And that's a fact!

what does that even mean?

by Ultrajamzilla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sad (none / 0)

by omar little on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Obama & Affirmative Action (none / 0)

"Latinos & Asians are tired of Race Base Affirmative Action."
I think Obama has made it clear that he does not think his kids who are plenty privileged since both their parents are Harvard graduates should ever benefit from affirmative action.
He thinks affirmative action should be class based. The facts remain that affirmative action has overwhelming helped white women rather than latinos and AAs.

I don't think Obama needs your vote based on your racist rants. He's decent enough and would rather not be president than have people like you vote for him.

by joachim on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Obama &amp; Affirmative Action (none / 0)

thats the MO of some (not all) Clinton supporters: people can come out and say they speak for all African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, etc...call Obama "brother" and "boy"...

But don't you dare say something that could only be construed as sexist by the gymnasts of Cirque du Soliel, then your a mindless drone!

don't take it personal...its ludicrous

by LiberalFL on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:24:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Latinos? (none / 0)

What does this have to do with Latinos specifically? Now her positions on removal of due process from immigrants who commit a crime and her position against allowing the undocumented to have DLs might be more relevant to the Latino community specifically...

by illlaw1 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST

Open Thread comment (none / 0)

Shaq will help the Phoenix Suns.

by Coldblue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:09:50 PM EST

Re: Open Thread comment (none / 0)

But they won't beat the celtics.

by Erik on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They did last night (none / 0)

but the Celtics will be in the NBA championship final, that's almost certain. Great team.

by Coldblue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They did last night (none / 0)

Celtics in the finals against my team.

by LakersFan on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:44:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by mady on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM EST

No wonder this party can't win a presdential election. We seem to be a bunch of sanctimonious brats.

truth (none / 0)

by omar little on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/23/1724 36/607

Jerome,

Please delete the above linked diary, it is a disgrace and does not belong on any site other than the freerepublic, which is where i believe the diarist is from.

I am so upset I can barely type. it is beyond contemptible

Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016

by Its Like Herding Cats on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM EST

by mady on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe there is a way for the cooler heads who support each campaign, the people who do not want to do scorched earth, to communicate without the one-upmanship, yelling, grind you into the ground stuff that is going on. Maybe, realizing these two candidates have a huge amount more in common than they do separating them, we can just agree to support who we want to and not hash over every misstep, every dumb move, etc., and gear up for November regardless of who wins at this point. No candidate is worth what is going on at this point.

Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016

Did you actually look at the link I posted? If so, i don't know how you could possibly tolerate a Republican smear merchant on this board claiming to be a Hillary supporter, while doing nothing but post disgusting, libelous, slanders of a Democrat, ANY Democrat.

by Its Like Herding Cats on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mady on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you were referring to my post, yes, and it was not at all directed at you. I know there are trolls around. I also know that proving a point seems to have taken over from getting the GOP out. First I was not very happy with any candidate but leaned mostly to Edwards. When he left I supported Obama because of some stuff that seems relatively unimportant now, related to Hilalry. Then I realized either is so much better than what we have now. Now, I'm thinking that Gore's way to go to change the world, out of the political process makes a hell of a lot of sense. We are the party that eats its young, you know. This feels like we are reenacting Chicago 68 with words. It is painful and stupid.

Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016

No, I am referring to my initial post and the link I posted in that comment. It will take you directly to a diary on MyDD written by someone purporting to be a Democrat, but any reasonable person who reads the diary and clicks on the links in that diary could come to no other conclusion than the author was a Freeper sent here to peddle filth about Democrats. It is a disgusting, slanderous diary. talk about personal attacks!

I am asking the moderators to take the diary down as it is an obvious Freeper meme and does not belong anywhere on a Democratic blog.

by Its Like Herding Cats on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by christinep on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My husband and I mentioned Chicago 1968 today. Yep. Even then--tho I was in the streets against Vietnam--I never questioned voting for Humphrey. Of course, we have always voted for the Democrat. But...these days, when I walk with my dog in the morning, I talk to her and myself about my hurt and my anger. First, I really resented the Clintons being portrayed (first by Chicago's Rep. Jackson Jr) as racists--and, by implication, many others of their supporters. Second, the level of misogyny engage in not just by MSNBC but also those who call themselves "progressives" has astounded me and my friends. "Kiss & make up" requires more than just saying its-getting-nasty-out-there-and-now-I-do n't-feel-so-good. I wish that there were words that I could offer you who want to find that way back. For me: Arguing forthrightly about any issue is more than acceptable. Treating Hillary Clinton as the personification of evil--ala Kos--was juvenile, futile, divisive (in the name of unity ha ha.) The level of personal destruction in the words of the Kossacks and, even Josh Marshall, surprised me. And, if you knew my previous political encounters, thats a lot of surprise. (Frankly, the only nonsurprise was that Arianna Huffington reverted to her onetime Republican form as the former wife of the erstwhile Republican California U.S. Senate candidate. She's certainly fooled a lot of "progressives.") Where to go from here? Well, lets have the primaries and see what happens. Lets stop trying to use the old tactic of driving out the opposition when they are unusually close in the total process. Yet--it is sad. The are going to be irrevocably split for some time. There are scratches in skirmishes, and there are deep wounds. Lets take it a step at a time.

by mady on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is it impossible to write a post without mentoning how someone bashed your candidate? I somehow thought it was possible to talk about getting together after the nomination without rehashing old slights. There have been slights against both candidates, why bring them up over and over and over.

Sanctimony is not going to work on either side anymore, it seems to be just a way to smile as you lay more and more grievances out on the table. Enough. It goes both ways. Equally.

by Monkadee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:31:33 PM EST

Every time Obama says "She's going after your wages!" he's spouting such an obvious right wing talking point that I could easily imagine Bush saying the exact same thing. It disgusts me so much that I don't think I can vote for him. But if Clinton said it, you can bet these same Obama fanatics would be brutally attacking her(justifiably).

If he wins, he will set back the progressive movement 20 years.

Seth

PS--by the way, flamethrowers, I was an Edwards supporter. I'm just not swayed by irrational hatred and blind faith.

by poserM on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question for you: if Hillary DOES go after your wages, is it a right wing talking point if says so or are we all supposed to keep our mouths shut or risked being labeled right-wing/republicans?

by Monkadee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:51:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And keep telling yourself that you'll have any kind of health care plan out of an Obama administration.

by krj47 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST

And the government forces us to "buy" Social Security, and the government forces us to "buy" Medicare and Medicaid... Do you believe this imbecile? Of course, it has to be a mandate, Barry, that's the way we get everyone covered, you righteous self-serving a-hole!

Just got back from intensive care where a 25-year veteran of a tool and die company told me he'd rather die than take some of the courses of action I recommended to prolong and possibly save his life (he could be a kidney recipient, for example) BECAUSE HE OWES A HOSPITAL $92,000 FOR PAST WORK AND HE DOESN'T WANT HIS KIDS SADDLED WITH THE DEBT.

WAKE UP AND THROW OBAMA AND MCCAIN OUT. VOTE for the only real universal health plan...HILLARY'S.

Shame on you, Barry!

by fightinfilipino on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is precisely the problem: HEALTHCARE IS UNAFFORDABLE.

and you want people to go out there and FORCE people to pay for something THEY CAN'T AFFORD?! that is LUNACY.

Throughout this entire thread, you have been using many terms and arguments that are straight out of the repub playbook. The argument that paying for a health care system would require that wages be "garnished" and that it is "socialistic" (sic) in nature are such well-worn winger phrases, I'm guessing that if I could actually see you I would realize that you can't actually say those things with a straight face.

Do you also refer to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, the public school systems etc., as "socialistic?"

by Iphie on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm with Duncan Black (2.00 / 3)

Duncan Black (a.k.a. Atrios) has often wondered about the political wisdom of health insurance mandates. His argument, in a nutshell: if you're going to force people to buy health insurance, why not just give it to them (out of taxes)?

We already pay a Medicare payroll tax. No, the real reason for a mandate is to keep health insurance companies in business, and to keep their campaign contributions flowing into the treasuries of corrupted politicians. They really don't want to compete with a low-overhead government plan, because the dirty little secret is that a government plan works.

Look, these Democratic healthcare plans are about the same. Obama's plan has some better features than Clinton's. And vice versa, although mandates -- which will be politically impossible to pass anyway -- isn't one of them. I actually preferred the Edwards plan because I could see how it would naturally evolve toward single-payer, while the others are going to take a little longer to get there. But, in a perfect world, instead of a "mandate" there ought to be a "choice": pay an expanded Medicare payroll tax and get the government program, or pay for corporate health insurance and avoid the (extra) tax. That would be very much like the Japanese system, for example. Neither candidate is proposing that, and Senator Clinton has been deliberately vague about how to enforce mandates which means she'll have political problems getting her plan passed.

by BBCWatcher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:40:17 PM EST

To Expand a Bit (none / 0)

Why put the burden for compliance on individuals? (Or, in political terms, why piss off lots of Americans?) In that respect I think Senator Clinton is politically naive about mandates.

Just add a Medicare surcharge (of the progressive kind) to everybody's taxes. If you're below a certain income level, you can avoid the surcharge if your company or private health insurer, meeting some minimum insurance quality, tells the IRS you're already covered. (And that's most Americans.) Why have some new, complex, separate, more politically unpopular mandate enforcement mechanism?

by BBCWatcher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm with Duncan Black (2.00 / 1)

"if you're going to force people to buy health insurance, why not just give it to them (out of taxes)?"

Because that is single payer (of which I am a supporter), and the American public has not yet been sold on single payer as the best way to provide health insurance. Too many Americans are content with the health insurance they have today, and do not want it to change, but need it to be more affordable.

The Clinton plan offers Americans the choice of a Medicare like nonprofit public health insurance program, with subsidies for all who cannot afford to pay that could turn into single payer if it takes off, and American recognize it for the best deal available.

Without a mandate, we cannot guarantee that any health insurance, be it public, nonprofit, or private health insurance will be available to people with pre-existing conditions, a major flaw in our current system that denies health care to exactly the people who need it. Everyone who can afford to must be contributing to the system. If we want insurance to cover us when we are sick, we have to pay in when we are well. Without a mandate we would have people waiting until they are sick or injured, with huge medical costs, to sign up for insurance. That is economically impossible to sustain. It's like allowing homeowners to wait until their house is burning down to buy homeowner's insurance. It cannot work.

Mandates to have health insurance work all over the world, and represent the mutual responsibility that must characterize any sustainable health care system.

I believe progressive values regard mandates as part of the communal responsibility we all should share, to take part in a society that cares for the sick and needy, and participates in civic responsibility. As individuals we would gain the security of knowing we and our families will receive the health care we need no matter what befalls us, a tremendous life advantage. As a society we would gain the contentment that we are consistent in caring for others the way we would like them to care for us.

Those are my values, and that is why I am voting for Hillary Clinton.

by 07rescue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm with Duncan Black (none / 0)

Don't confuse a mandate to purchase health insurance with a mandate for the insurance company to write a policy. Both plans are very similar in preventing insurance companies from not insuring people with pre-existing conditions.

There is only one significant difference between the two plans. Obama makes health insurance available available to all while Clinton makes health insurance manditory for all. Both have subsidies for those people who can't afford to purchase health insurance at the present.

Let's be clear, however, that no matter what the subsidy is, there are people who will still have difficulty in coming up with the money. Clinton has clearly stated that there will be fines or other mechanisms (such as garnishing wages) for people who don't voluntarily purchase health insurance. And believe me, there is a big psychological difference between paying taxes and getting your wages garnished. As a result, I think that health insurance mandates with any sort of effective enforcement mechanism will almost be impossible to get passed Congress. As a result, for practical purposes the one significant difference between their plans isn't really significant.

by kjblair2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm with Duncan Black (none / 0)

"Obama makes health insurance available available to all while Clinton makes health insurance manditory for all."

You completely misunderstand the significance of the mandate. Obama's plan cannot work, because none of the mechanisms that he would employ to bring down insurance costs will actually achieve that goal. Prices will not come down, or be any more affordable than they are now, and will almost certainly get worse.

There is no way to try to force the insurance companies to offer affordable policies to everyone, including those who have pre-existing conditions. Without a mandate (Obama's plan) to have insurance everyone could wait until they go sick or injured and then purchase insurance, and take a huge toll on the health care system they have not paid into. Obama claims he would then force people to pay all their back premiums. How is a sick or injured person going to pay huge amounts to cover the accumulated premium costs? How is that not a huge punitive and coercive mandate? This plan cannot work.

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:07:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting Argument (none / 0)

I disagree with your argument, but at least it's an interesting one.

So why isn't Senator Clinton making it?

by BBCWatcher on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting Argument (none / 0)

"I disagree with your argument, but at least it's an interesting one. So why isn't Senator Clinton making it?"

My comment is based on the facts of health care economy, so what do you disagree with? I can explain in much, much greater depth, but most people's eyes glaze over with boredom when you get into the details about the perverse incentives and contradictions in our chaotic health care non-system and what it will require to reform it.

Which is exactly why Clinton doesn't get into all the details, that is exactly where she loses her audience. People go to sleep when she starts talking about health care.

Only those of us who have either lost loved ones, are losing our own health or life, or are health care providers ourselves and are torn apart by witnessing the tragedies unfolding that we are powerless to prevent are willing to listen to these arguments.

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Shame (1.33 / 3)

I hope she comes out at the next debate and attacks him.....tries using those smart ass lines she ised in the past....what happened....they bombed all of them....her rezko comments....her xerox comments. Why becuase it further reveals her true nature......a cold, nasty, lying bitch. That is exactly how she is perceived and she simply solidifies that belief when she goes on the attack.......bring it on Hillary......the more she attacks the further she sinks...she comes off as unhinged...and unglued while Obama appears confident and respectful.....she is done.........down in flames....gotta love it.....her and her husband...two of the most corrupt politicians in modern history.

by adbct on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST

Re: On Shame (1.00 / 3)

I say on Nov 4th vote for Nader or stay home. BO is a backstabing, empty suit, and a phony.

david

by giusd on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:47:31 PM EST

by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:20:15 PM EST

This isn't about garnishing specific people's wages. That's a lowball tactic. The reality is treating UHC like a mandate much like Medicare and Social Security which are separate deductions apart from federal, state and/or local payroll taxes....

by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Medicare and Social Security are keeping our parents and grandparents alive and you want to trash it.

I find it ironic (2.00 / 2)

that the Clinton campaign, after arguing that Obama wouldn't be tough enough to take on the GOP, is now calling Obama's tactics "Rovian."

by bigdcdem on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM EST

Re: On Shame (1.20 / 5)

Clinton on Obama: "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal healthcare."

The logic in that statement is flawed because it's based on the assumption that Obama is a Democrat.

by KimPossible on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST

by 07rescue on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Way to go and prove the republican talking point that we are just a bunch of nanny state leftists."

Spoken like a true BO supporter. Rovian attacks on universal health care. The truth comes out.
BO used to support single payer. My how times change. Now he attacks the best way to get to single payer that Clinton has brilliantly designed, that gives Americans the choice they desire.

I'm blown away by the deceit of his manipulation and betrayal. Totally untrustworthy candidate.

by tysonpublic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:47:25 PM EST

What this is all about is simply hypocrisy. Clinton, as late as last tuesday's debate, attacked Obama about his healthcare proposal. You can split hairs all day along about this being Universal vs that, but it doesn't matter. Most people, or at least those that don't spend all their time typing comments into political websites (guilty as charged) understand that it is hypocritical to criticize on a topic one night, then turn around and claim it is unfair when you get criticized on the same topic later (plus these mailers were from 2 weeks ago!)

Get a grip, people...

Why Now? (none / 0)

Her campaign nows about all the flyers that go out from the Obama camp, so what happened that this is now an issue. If I'm not mistaken, these have been out awhile and the one was already previously addressed by her camp. I don't think it's b/c a supporter came up to her outraged about them, I have to think something else is going? Very odd.

This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!

by venavena on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:50:43 PM EST

by mainelib on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:51:21 PM EST

I reject the idea that Obama can't criticize individual mandates because these equal universal health care.

There is NO other time that a Democratic nominee has promoted a health care plan with individual mandates. It is not a core Democratic idea.

As Obama pointed out, the government isn't mandated to provide health care, individuals are mandated to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies.

Additionally, (none / 0)

one of the problems with showing "outrage" about a particular issue is that you draw more attention to it. Thousands of Ohioans got to hear more today about the charge that Hillary supported NAFTA. If I was Obama, I'd double the numbers of each flyer being sent out.

by bigdcdem on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:51:51 PM EST

Re: Additionally, (none / 0)

one of the problems with showing "outrage" about a particular issue is that you draw more attention to it. Thousands of Ohioans got to hear more today about the charge that Hillary supported NAFTA.

This is probably the sanest and most insightful comment on this entire post ;-)

by tysonpublic on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by EvilCornbread on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:54:28 PM EST

Can someone actually point out, specifically, what's so "blatantly false" about the Obama mailers? On first glance, they look pretty accurate to me, and nothing to get particularly upset about.

So -- anyone have the specific issues?

http://thepage.time.com/saturday-obama-c ampaign-release/#

Here's the Obama campaign's response to the Clinton campaign's criticisms, both on health care and NAFTA. And, yes, if you disagree with these, let's hear some rational arguments.

Saturday Obama Campaign Release

Everything in those mailers is completely accurate, unlike the discredited attacks from Hillary Clinton's negative campaign that have been rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and across America. We look forward to having a debate this Tuesday on the facts, and the facts are that Senator Clinton was a supporter of NAFTA and the China permanent trade treaties until this campaign began. And she herself has said that under the Clinton health care plan, she would consider "going after the wages" of Americans who don't purchase health insurance, whether they can afford it or not," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

HILLARY CLINTON ON ENFORCING HER MANDATE: "And the reason why I think there are a number of mechanisms, going after people's wages, automatic enrollment, when you are at the place of employment, you will be automatically enrolled, whatever the mechanism is." [ABC's This Week, 2/3/08]

CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN ON COMPARING A DEMOCRAT TO BUSH: "If you want to talk about tactical political maneuvering, it's about one Democrat comparing another Democrat to George Bush. That's the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering." Clinton Spokesman Howard Wolfson [AP, 12/20/07]

CLINTON ON TRADE WITH CHINA:

2000: Hillary Clinton Claimed China's Entry Into The World Trade Organization Would Be Good For American Workers Despite The Already Massive Trade Deficit With China. "I know many people, here in Western New York in particularly and Erie Country, are concerned about this vote, and I share the concerns that many of my supporters in organized labor have expressed to me, because I do think we have to make sure that we improve labor rights, we improve environmental standards in our bilateral and our multilateral trade agreements. But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it, I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO." [CNN, 4/26/2000]

2000: Hillary Clinton Supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) For China, Claimed It Would Create Leverage. "Senate candidate Hillary Clinton said Thursday she supported permanent normal trade relations for China, but slammed Beijing's restrictive birthrate policies." [AFP, 5/25/00]

SOME FACTS ON CLINTON'S SUPPORT FOR NAFTA:

2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton's Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." Newsday wrote in 2008, the word "boon" was their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]

2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America--the largest free trade zone in the world--would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances." [Living History, 182]

2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]

1996: Clinton Said "I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth." A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said. [AP, 3/6/96]

1996: Clinton "Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement." AP wrote, "Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border." [AP, 11/2/96]

1996: Hillary Clinton "Touted" President Clinton's Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region." [United Press International, 11/1/96]

COMMENTATORS AGREE CLINTON HAS SUPPORTED NAFTA AND FREE TRADE

Sirota: "What A Total Joke" That Clinton Camp Tries to Argue She Did Not Support NAFTA, "Clinton Has Made Statements Unequivocally Trumpeting NAFTA." In response to Barack Obama's attack on NAFTA, the Hillary Clinton campaign has gone into meltdown mode...The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House. What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools. Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread." [David Sirota, 2/14/08]

Bloomberg: Clinton "Praised" NAFTA, Friends Said She Was "A Free-Trader at Heart." Bloomberg News reported, "Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. `The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better," she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. `Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.' Praise for Nafta At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting `a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." She added: `It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.' Clinton `is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,' said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. `She would absolutely do the right thing as president.' There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton's trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children's health care, and wasn't a major voice in trade-policy debates. As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization." [Bloomberg News, 3/30/07]

Ø Clinton's NAFTA Rhetoric Is Not Driven By Policy. Bloomberg News reported, "Clinton's positioning on trade reflects the changing nature of the debate in the U.S., which increasingly focuses on concerns over outsourcing and the shift of jobs to other nations such as China and India rather than on the benefits of tariff reductions. It also -- as with Republicans grappling over illegal immigration -- demonstrates the extent to which grassroots sentiment can alter candidates' platforms. A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted in January found 39 percent of Democrats believe free trade hurts the economy; only 18 percent say it is a benefit. Both parties agree that a backlash on trade helped Democrats in the 2006 elections. West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, said U.S. workers have been `so decimated' by unfettered competition that `I think the American people understand they will be hit by it.' Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart." [Bloomberg News, 3/30/07]

SF Chronicle: "Add to this Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton's coolness to the idea. Her husband moved earth and sky to win passage of the NAFTA trade pact with Mexico and Canada in 1993. Now she favors periodic reviews to continue such deals, a "timeout" on new ones, and more federal officials to oversee complaints. It's clearly a flip-flop favor to unions and industry sectors hit by layoffs and cheap imports and bid to outflank her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who is more favorable to free trade." [San Francisco Chronicle, 10/12/07]

BILL CLINTON CONTINUES TO ARGUE FOR NAFTA

JANUARY 2008: Bill Clinton Says "A Lot Of People Think NAFTA's A Bigger Problem Than it Is." During an event in Las Vegas, Clinton said "She [Hillary Clinton] believes that NAFTA, she believes that all our trade agreements should be reviewed in the first 90 to 120 days of taking office. She would have a total moratorium on all new trade deals until we conducted a review. And one of the things that we have to examine is the point I made earlier. That is, is the trade agreement basically fair, but we just don't enforce it. A lot of people think that NAFTA's a bigger problem than it is. Our problem with Mexico, our trade deficit with Mexico is mostly because we buy oil from them." [Bill Clinton, 1/18/08]

by mainelib on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM EST

by poserM on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:06:30 PM EST

This seems like just a tactic. Clinton tried the "offensive-attack" strategy in WI and it failed miserably. She has to do something if she's going to win TX and OH on 3/4. So what are her options? Just touting her plans and explaining how great her 35 years of experience has made her ready to sraty work on day one also will not work. She has few choices and probably figures her best chance is a defensive-attack. You know, where you attack but say you're not really attacking but responding to an outrage.

Voters can't claim that you're attacking unfairly (or at leas so you hope). But you get your attack anyway.

Probably a Penn idea.

Re: On Shame (1.00 / 1)

I think Obama has to cancel his membership in Democratic party and start new religion or church. Or run for Pope. But he is not good enough to be my president.

by WeNeed3rdParty on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST

by tomthroop on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow - Your standards are awfully high. If Obama, with the incredible promise he brings to the table, does not pass your litmus test, is there anyone, other than yourself, of course, that would?

by EvilCornbread on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny how so many people can post content-free tripe like this, but can't answer my simple question a few posts above.

Am I still a Democrat because I actually (none / 0)

do not want universal healthcare?

I actually want to choose what healthcare plan I want. However, I really do want healthcare to be MORE AFFORDABLE and I am not sure that universal healthcare is the way to achieve that.

All I want is EXCELLENT and AFFORDABLE healthcare that does prevention as well as maintenance. Also, there needs to be continued medical research as well.

by puma on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:16:29 PM EST

Re: Am I still a Democrat because I actually (2.00 / 1)

I think if your employer offers a great plan and the price is right, then I don't think you should have to buy in. But I don't one should opt out because one feels content with "going without."

by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Am I still a Democrat because I actually (none / 0)

How many people REALLY do that? This young and healthy not getting insurance argument is bogus... They don't get it 'cos they are still pretty poor out of college, and their jobs might not offer it, and individual insurance, even for the young and healthy can be very pricey....

Almost everyone who doesn't have insurance is because they either couldn't afford it, or was considered to be uninsurable by the insurance companies.

Thanks,

Mike

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Am I still a Democrat because I actually (none / 0)

"Almost everyone who doesn't have insurance is because they either couldn't afford it, or was considered to be uninsurable by the insurance companies."

This is not factually true. At least 7 million people who do not have health insurance have incomes over 75K, and could very likely afford it. And over half of the people who actually qualify for FREE Medicaid or other state level health insurance programs never sign up for them, for a multitude of reasons, including both discouraging forms and hoops to jump through, or simple inertia, and the average American family that does pay for their health insurance ends up paying over $900.00 per year extra on their insurance and medical costs due to prices inflated to cover the uninsured.

Everyone has an interest in our achieving universal health care, not just the uninsured.

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by dmc2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:19:40 PM EST

Hillary's "Dean Scream"

by bruh21 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:21:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well this is a delusional comment. Have you bothered to see where the American people in actual polling are on this issue. Look, there is a very good chance she will lose the nomination, but it won't be because of her calling Obama out on this issue.

by christinep on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That dog--or, in this case, ploy--don't hunt.

Re: garnishing wages (2.00 / 1)

I lived in England and my wages were "garnished" and I never felt more free!! I got off the plane with my legal working papers, was handed a healthcard with NO STRINGS ATTACHED, worked a series of temp jobs without fear of losing insurance...it was the best time of my life. Went to the doctor and didn't have to sign in, just flashed my card, and got a prescription for a couple of bucks. Of course, it was a single payer system...but still, the security was what was key.

I'm damned happy they "garnished my wages" for Social Security, because now I'm on disability....thank goodness. For those of us without pensions...and that means an awful lot of younger workers now coming through, too...Social Security is just that. Some stable income.

When you hit 50 you'll understand what that means...esp. if you have no pension and no savings....

by Gloria on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:28:32 PM EST

Re: garnishing wages (none / 0)

No, you paid taxes. There's a big difference psychologically between taxes and having your wages garnished. And if you don't see the difference, I suspect you're politically tone deaf.

by kjblair2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is very competetive (none / 0)

Look at the money she is raising online. $2 mil in 1 day.

by bayareasg on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:31:14 PM EST

Re: Hillary is very competetive (none / 0)

Last I read Obama was doing that too. Every day. For a month.

by EvilCornbread on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You want shame? (none / 0)

Read this MyDD diary. Doesn't get much more shameful.

John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.

by recusancy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST

Re: On Shame-I miss John Edwards (2.00 / 1)

This argument about healthcare plans is a waste of time. Neither plan will make it a president's desk - the congress will decided what goes into a plan. The best plan, the one the majority wants is single payer. That's what the polls say. Medicare for all - just like the other modern countries have. Obama and Edwards have said they wish for it single-payer, but think it would fail congress because the insurance companies have so much power.

I miss John Edwards who was happy to say aloud what he thought of too much corporate power harming our democracy.

by mrobinsong on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:55:49 PM EST

Re: On Shame-I miss John Edwards (none / 0)

This is true. The plan that is eventually signed (or vetoed) likely would look nothing like the one initially proposed.

by rfahey22 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Shame i miss j.e (none / 0)

Mrobinsong why won't your man J.E come out and endorse Hillary? They seem to have more in common. Instead he sits on the sideline and watches as the civil war continues.

by nzubechukwu on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:23:31 PM EST

Re: dmc2 (none / 0)

Dmc2 what a joke. Because she points out the obvious... Your bringing up Dean? Please son fall back.

by nzubechukwu on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:26:28 PM EST

by RussTC3 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:50:26 PM EST

I wondered why all the outrage by Clinton about these fliers, then I went out to my mail box and saw that the Clinton campaign mailed out their own about Obama being disingenuous.

This was all planned. LOL. Geez, the Clinton campaign is so desperate now, it's actually quite sad.

Oh well. Just a little over a week until she's gone and the Democratic party switches to "Beat McCain" mode.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:05:53 AM EST

I don't get it: isn't the difference in health care plans one of the few substantive differences between the candidates (foreign policy and Iraq being the others)? If so, and given that these same "attacks" were addressed at the last debate, what is the cause of the uproar from the Clinton campaign? Since when does differentiation (albeit maybe pointed) of one health care plan from another amount to an "attack"? And, why would addressing such a policy difference be out of bounds? Is Clinton's plan above criticism now?

Comparitive review is not an attack. (none / 0)

by Toddsly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:15:57 AM EST

Re: On Shame (none / 0)

Did you just watch Tina Fey on SNL?? She obviously supports Hillary.
Interesting.

by devoted1 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:28:47 AM EST

by nzubechukwu on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:29:38 AM EST

Toddsly your to logical for rfahey and rustc. They have no clue about universal health care. Instead they rather frame the discussion as HRC being angry or desperate. Im tired of the Naiveness of these Obama fans. Were not drinking the koool-aid. When HRC points out differences they start whining.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

??? No whining, just wondering why this makes any tactical sense. I've seen nothing new in Obama's criticisms of Clinton's plan (and these criticisms were addressed at the most recent debate, among other places), but now all of a sudden it's cause for some huge blowup. I don't understand the theatrics - hers or yours.

by mainelib on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:41:51 AM EST

People in Ohio aren't even really getting these flyers. According to Politico:

"During her next speech, at a high school in Huber Heights, Ohio, Clinton again blistered Obama over the mailings. Holding them up, she asked the crowd of more than 1,000 people how many had received them. Many in the crowd reacted with puzzlement and relatively few people raised their hands."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8648.html

by Bob Johnson on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:21:34 AM EST

Jerome, you have become as pathetic as SusanHu, Larry Johnson and linfar.

Funny. But sad, too.

Oh, and Obama is Satan.

On Obama (none / 0)

I've come to terms with the fact that not only is Obama throwing my every issue under the bus, he's actually thrown ME under the bus.

Will be sitting out this prez election.

by Sensible on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:40:17 AM EST

Ohio
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

Texas
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

just a point of information..

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:45:34 AM EST

Re: On Shame (none / 0)

Break time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ9qWpa2r Ig

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:03:24 AM EST

On Shame (none / 0)

Yes. Shame on Hillary Clinton and her bobbleheads Lee Feinstein, Richard Holbrooke, Madelain Albright, and Sandy Berger for supporting a useless war leading to hundreds of thousands deaths including 4,000 Americans, thousands crippled for life, and millions of refugees.

She will burn in hell.

by drtalc on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:25:57 AM EST

Sigh (none / 0)

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/bill-c lintons-party-1985934-clinton-democratic

by mady on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM EST

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/20/ there-will-be-bamboozling/#comments

watch this video - maybe the messiah affect will be shattered if enough people view it

by wakeupnow on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:39:16 AM EST

by Bob H on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:55:26 AM EST

I had resolved to vote for Obama in November if it comes to that, and had urged other Hillary supporters to think the same way. But I cannot vote for anyone who runs Harry and Louise ads against a Democrat.

If Obama is so confident about Texas and Ohio, why would he be pulling this very risky crap?

by bslev22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST

The fact is that Barack Obama is ahead and is the likely but not definite Democratic nominee. The fact also is that it is weird to this life-long Democrat, I'm 48 fwiw, to observe how many Democrats are not troubled by Obama's attack on the universal mandate component of Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposal.

Hillary Clinton is running for president so, yes can you believe it, she is seeking to make political hay out of Obama's bizaare but not politically ineffective attack on this core Democratic position. But, my friends, stripping the election aside, as a lifelong Democrat I am and remain disturbed by Obama's fundamentally right-wing and destructive attack on Senator Clinoton's plan. Indeed, it is identical to the argument that Social Security and Medicaire should not be mandated for all Americans.

On Shame (2.00 / 1)

The stunning chutzpah of asking "Since when do Democrats attack each other on universal health care?" never ceases to amaze. Clinton has been attacking Obama for allegedly depriving "15 million" of health insurance for months now.

Hello??

by rneisuler on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:46:45 AM EST

by Texas Latino 2008 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I swear Obama supporters are so unintelligent.

by suskin on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:08:34 PM EST

Wake up, please - if you don't have insurance and you need medical treatment that you can't afford, your wages will be garnished - and not by a couple thousand dollars, but potentially tens of thousands of dollars. They will take your car, your house, ruin your credit. You are responsible for your health insurance whether you like it or not. The question is - how much will it cost.

Obama's plan flunks because it doesn't solve the problem - health care costs are out of control. These costs cannot and will not come under control unless everyone is insured.

A vote for Obama is a vote against universal health insurance, it is as simple as that.

by mainelib on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST

He's not attacking her on universal health care.

He has a disagreement about mandates, an idea that was never supported before by a major Democratic candidate and which was devised by Republican think tanks.

I know a lot about American public policy and I can tell you that it has never been a core Democratic principle that citizens should have to buy private health insurance. Many more people have supported expanding Medicare, my own preferred position.

But I don't think that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are traitors to Democratic ideas and not real Democrats because they disagree with me and the bulk of the American people about such a system.

Why so much emotional energy in support of a requirement to make people buy insurance from private, profit-making health insurance companies?

by 07rescue on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"He has a disagreement about mandates, an idea that was never supported before by a major Democratic candidate and which was devised by Republican think tanks."

Mandates were devised by Liberal/Progressive think tanks and are modeled on the very best European health care systems that use the mandate to create universal coverage for all their residents. Universal health care has been the third rail of American politics because the insurance and drug companies have stockpiled an enormous amount of money to fight the reforms we desperately need, so no Democratic candidates have had the political courage to tackle the issue until Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton put themselves on the line to do so.

---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------

"I know a lot about American public policy and I can tell you that it has never been a core Democratic principle that citizens should have to buy private health insurance. Many more people have supported expanding Medicare, my own preferred position."

You are talking about either single payer or Ted Kennedy's bill, I'm not certain because you were not specific about the details. Only 35% of Americans support this option, unfortunately. It will require far more grassroots support to win such a program.

But you are misrepresenting the Clinton plan by saying it forces people to buy private health insurance, it emphatically does not. There is a public option that would be our only politically feasible way to get to a single payer, "Medicare for All" national health insurance system.

I am convinced that it will never be possible to impose a single payer Medicare for all program on Americans from the top down, it will require Americans choosing it themselves, because it must prove itself to people before they will give up the coverage they already have.

It's like Iraq, you cannot force democracy on people, they must choose it for themselves, or it will not work, and people will resent the imposition.

by mainelib on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST

But Obama's plan does not "leave out" 15 million people.

The 15 million is an estimate, not by his campaign, of the number of people who would choose not to buy health insurance. Under his plan, subsidies would make insurance affordable and they could decide to buy it - they are just not required to do so.

That's a far cry from depriving people from health coverage.

Re: On Shame (none / 0)

if you read Sirota's article: http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-si rota/a-trade-transformation.html
it's hard to think that the debate in Ohio won't be ugly.

by alex100 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/02/report_obama_campaign_wr ong_on.php

Well, I have been posting at Daily kos er Obama and the front pagers have decided to hide my comments because I called Obama a liar:

That blog is not progressive, more like a RW blog with no dissent.

I hope I can enjoy my freedom of speech here because I support Clinton.

by gotalife on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:47:54 PM EST

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =4137

openleft (David Sirota) has a great bit on Clinton and NAFTA:

by alex100 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]