New Obama Iowa Radio Ad Hits Hillary, Edwards Health Care Plans

Comments (71)

dcshungu wrote on December 31, 2007 6:41 PM:

Nothing short of a wild rampage! Whatever happened to the "Politics of Hope"? CampObama's negative ad and attack rampage of the last few days, where they've gone after Edwards and now after both Edwards and Clinton, is beginning to reek of "Politics of Desperation"...

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 6:43 PM:

Just when everyone when everyone thought we were going to see this thing wrapped up with only minimal gunplay.

Tom wrote on December 31, 2007 6:47 PM:

Looks like Obama's getting desperate so he has to resort to cheap attack ads using the words of kids as experts. Hahaha. I'll be glad when this lightweight loses and we can have a serious campaign.

AJ wrote on December 31, 2007 6:58 PM:

That's the best Obama could do to back his plan up? "This one guy in my Anthro class said Obama's health plan is like totally awesome."

ava wrote on December 31, 2007 7:03 PM:

If defending your healthcare program is an attack, I don't know what's left. I think it was a fair and accurate ad and that he's actually showing some restraint since Clinton and Edwards have been bombarding IA and NH with mailers blasting his healthcare plan. It's been ridiculous. Obama stuck to the facts. At least he didn't do what Clinton did, when she stated that Obama was "betraying democratic party principles" by not having a mandate. give me a break.

Terre wrote on December 31, 2007 7:06 PM:

Hey, where's donna L.? Doesn't she usually comment first? OIC, it's her candidate that has the ad. my bad.

Obama has really disappointed me. He used to be my 2nd choice. That feeling has evaporated now. Run on your record Obama, and quit attacking Democrats.

Terre wrote on December 31, 2007 7:09 PM:

ava - Please direct me to a link that shows a mailer from Edwards attacking Obama's healthcare plan. I must have missed it.

Kucinich for prez wrote on December 31, 2007 7:11 PM:

Where's articles about the Kucinich ads? Why does TPM boycott him and Paul?

kjoe wrote on December 31, 2007 7:12 PM:

What is ascme's position on mandates? Put that link in again, please. Not that it will stop them from contradicting their own platform to campaign against Obama--

Jay wrote on December 31, 2007 7:12 PM:

"Whatever happened to the "Politics of Hope"?"

Whatever happened to having a legitimate counter argument? Distinguishing yourself from other candidates is not a smear - pull your skirt up for christs sake.

"..is beginning to reek of "Politics of Desperation"..."

Spoken like a true Hillary Operative.

Anonymous wrote on December 31, 2007 7:12 PM:

With communications faculty like Robo Prof, one expects nothing less than world-class analysis from the DI journo-lets.

Dan wrote on December 31, 2007 7:19 PM:

Citing differences between himself and the other candidates is not desperate. Citing a college newspaper as support for his position is.

Jay wrote on December 31, 2007 7:21 PM:

Nothing gets more desperate than one candidate talking about the other's kindergarten record...

Califone wrote on December 31, 2007 7:29 PM:

I want universal health care, but I don't want believe in forcing people to "buy" health care is the answer. It doesn't make sense that you would fine a person who can't afford health care because they would rather save their money for rent, food and gas. Also, it doesn't make sense if it's subsidized by my tax dollars to begin with. Obama's plan makes sense. Make a contractual penalty for those who decide to sign up for his health care plan after the initial offering to the public. (Say add a few hundred bucks to the plan for those who decided to buy a PS3 or iPOD.)

The real issue of health care is inflated cost of treatment and coverage.

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 7:33 PM:

I wonder if the Obama people didn't know the pub they cited was a student newspaper or they did, but were just betting no one else would know...

wes2 wrote on December 31, 2007 7:37 PM:

CalD -- after the McClurkin affair, I'd believe nearly anything about the Obama campaign's inability to do research, but given their trumpeting of their endorsements from the DI and the ISU student paper, it seems highly unlikely that they WOULDN'T know it was a student paper.

josh wrote on December 31, 2007 7:38 PM:

Obama is courting the student vote, remember? Do you really think they used the student paper for any other reason?

Some of you need to back away from the computers slowly and get out of the house or something. You're starting to lose it.

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 7:48 PM:

wes2,

Hmmm. I guess I never considered:

C. Knows the Daily Iowan to be student newspaper but genuinely regards them as a legit authority on healthcare policy nevertheless.

Or perhaps:

D. Knows the Daily Iowan to be student newspaper but it's still the nicest thing anyone's ever said in print regarding Obama's healthcare plan -- take that, Paul Krugman.

wes2 wrote on December 31, 2007 8:02 PM:

Or, pace Josh:

E. Knows that Iowan undergrads secretly long to be taken seriously as healthcare experts and subtly flatters their intellectual pretensions.

AlwaysforHillary wrote on December 31, 2007 8:12 PM:

Obama is desperate!!! He's been on a rampage the last few days now that his momentum is gone! Guess big Oprah didn't help, huh?

Agree with the person who says can't wait till this lightweight and I'll add naive, inexperienced person is GONE!!!

AJM wrote on December 31, 2007 8:36 PM:

Jay wrote on December 31, 2007 7:21 PM:
Nothing gets more desperate than one candidate talking about the other's kindergarten record...

Oh, really? How about one candidate attacking a Senator who happens to be female for being ambitious?

I can just see the conversation: Her-- he's attacking me for being ambitious? Two years in the Senate and his running on what? I bet he was ambitious in the cradle! Hm, that would make a really funny ad -- but given him I'd better have it documented!

Later: What -- you mean he took it seriously and is now whining about how mean I am to attack him about it? ROFL.

Meanwhile -- meme that women who are ambitious are horrible has faded into the background.

Obama picks up Republican tag lines but really doesn't know how to play them.

DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 8:41 PM:

Of course Obama and the Daily Iowan are both right about what mandates would actually require.

Ni Daye wrote on December 31, 2007 8:45 PM:

that's pure rovian technique - attacking the strength of your oponents! Forcing people buying healthcare insurance is bad policy? What about forcing poor people buying car insurance? The only way that everybody can be covered is to force everybody to have coverage so everybody's cost of coverage can be lowered. Otherwise, there will always be free riders who end up in emergency room financed by You and me.

What's called audacity of hope? I guess he has the audacity of hoping you don't realize he is desperate!!!

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 8:47 PM:

"Or, pace Josh:

E. Knows that Iowan undergrads secretly long to be taken seriously as healthcare experts and subtly flatters their intellectual pretensions."

LOL!

In other news, another hour and fifteen minutes until the unveiling of the final Des Moines Register poll, says Armbinder.

Here's something to snack on in the mean time. Apparently there's a new Insider Advantage poll for the Iowa Democratic Caucuses (only) that shows
Clinton and Edwards tied for the lead, Obama trailing. It just sort of appeared on Real Clear Politics today.

Insider Advantage
12/28 - 12/29, N=788 LV

Clinton 30
Edwards 29
Obama 22

Caveat: In general I consider their stuff to be pretty low grade.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 31, 2007 9:24 PM:

Looks like Obama's getting desperate so he has to resort to cheap attack ads using the words of kids as experts.

Labor secretary Robert Reich is a kid? Somehow he strikes me as a rather qualified expert. Incidentally, did you listen to the ad? If that counts as an "attack" then my little boy should be a decorated combat veteran, because there was nothing in there that was any harsher than I might hear from him. It was mostly about the advantages of Obama's plan, with only one brief line about the disadvantage of mandates.

texasdem wrote on December 31, 2007 9:33 PM:

FWIW from the Ben Smith comments section:

The Iowa Newspaper Foundation recognized The Daily Iowan through several awards this year in its annual "2007 Better Newspaper Contests". What makes the DI staff especially proud is that this campus publication serving the University of Iowa community went up against professional dailies with circulations over 10,000 from all over the state of Iowa. The awards include: First Place, Best News Feature; Second Place, Best Personality Feature; Third Place, Total Newspaper Design; Third Place, Best Sports Story; and First Place, Best Spot News Photo. http://web-server1.daily-iowan.uiowa.edu/pdf/02.pdf

Guess I can't sneer at any of the over-the-top commenters here about posting screeds on New Year's Eve...because here I am. :)

Explain to me how a contrast ad = "an ad attacking rivals." This is what they said, this is the reality. All in calm, point-counterpoint terms. The caucus must be really close, because you're going nuts about nothing. Attacks my backside. How does this even compare to Kindergate, Muslimgate, cocainegate, etc.?

Time to get away from this computer. Happy New Year, y'all.

jay wrote on December 31, 2007 9:42 PM:

"Obama is desperate!!! He's been on a rampage the last few days now that his momentum is gone! Guess big Oprah didn't help, huh?"

So says the person who's candidate let out the "cackle heard around the world" in the last debate - I'm still chuckling over Kindergate over here. lol

DemAC wrote on December 31, 2007 9:47 PM:

Something is not right in camp Obama – desperation or not. Obama now attacks John Kerry and Al Gore. Whatever it is, it’s not “hope” and “change”.

jds wrote on December 31, 2007 9:49 PM:

It's ABOUT DAMN TIME Obama addressed this.

Hillary's (not Edwards so much as his supporters) has been falsely representing Obama's plan, while being vague and misleading about her own! (Not the least of which is that the "15 million left out" number Hillary likes to quote, includes like 6 million illegal immigrants- and her plan doesn't cover them either.)

Hillary has purposefully mislead everyone into beleiving that her plan is socialized medicine, a single payer plan like Kucinich's. Hillary and Edwards healthcare plans, are a gift to the insurance companies. But at least Edwards has been honest enough to say that people who don't buy insurance will have their wages garnished or nailed at tax time.

Hillary has run a very dishonest healthcare campaign. Good for Obama for addressing it.

jds wrote on December 31, 2007 9:50 PM:

It's ABOUT DAMN TIME Obama addressed this.

Hillary's (not Edwards so much as his supporters) has been falsely representing Obama's plan, while being vague and misleading about her own! (Not the least of which is that the "15 million left out" number Hillary likes to quote, includes like 6 million illegal immigrants- and her plan doesn't cover them either.)

Hillary has purposefully mislead everyone into beleiving that her plan is socialized medicine, a single payer plan like Kucinich's. Hillary and Edwards healthcare plans, are a gift to the insurance companies. But at least Edwards has been honest enough to say that people who don't buy insurance will have their wages garnished or nailed at tax time.

Hillary has run a very dishonest healthcare campaign. Good for Obama for addressing it.

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 9:50 PM:

texasdem:

So they're fine journalism students. Nice work. I'm proud of them.

That makes them policy wonks? The ad does begin with, "Here's what the experts say," and the attack line against Clinton was a direct quote from the paper, not the former labor secretary -- who may in fact be a wonk himself, but we also seem to be a few wonks shy of a consensus among "the experts" regarding his conclusions about Obama's plan.

I still think Denny Kucinich has the right idea on health care anyway.

NCSteve wrote on December 31, 2007 9:53 PM:

Obama's desperate? Oh yeah? well your candidate must be double-dog desperate desperate to constantly claim that another candidate is desparete! So there.

Okay, sriously people, I'm really thinking this recent trend against not going to drunken debauches on the other side of town for New Years has gone too far. Everyone on here has been regressing steadily since last Friday. As the other guy said, everyone needs to back away from their computers and turn off their PDA's for a while.

Guess I can't sneer at any of the over-the-top commenters here about posting screeds on New Year's Eve...because here I am. :)

Ummm, err, I'm just here until the Des Moines Register poll comes out. Then I'm off to one of those drunken debauches I was talking about. No, really.

Happy New Year, everyone.

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 9:59 PM:

For some reason I'm more interested in the Des Moines Register poll than watching the stupid ball drop in Times Square. Don't ask me why.

AC Slater wrote on December 31, 2007 10:00 PM:

The DMR poll is out:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044/-1/caucus

OBAMA LEADS BY 7!

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 10:04 PM:

Happy New Year to you too, NCSteve, and all the other political junkies out there!

And it's nothing to be ashamed of, BTW If we didn't pay so much attention to politics, no one would and then where would we be? Democracy requires constant vigilance on the part of it's citizenry. Even good politicians need watching.

Ni Daye wrote on December 31, 2007 10:05 PM:

Obama lover, you finally got a relief. YOur loveboy is leading by 7%, the only one showing him up for a long while. I would be impressed all these new found first-time voter actually showed up. Let it snow, let it snow!

josh wrote on December 31, 2007 10:10 PM:

That DMR poll sure is going to make someone desperate.

Happy New Year, all!

NCSteve wrote on December 31, 2007 10:11 PM:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/NEWS09/71231044

Yep. Widened his lead over Hillary, Edwards still stuck at 24.

So much for that theory that Ploffle's PowerPoint presentation was "prebuttal" for an expected bad result in this poll. I'd hoped it was really a (bloody brilliant!) attempt to frame the coverage of a poll they were expecting to do well in, but I confess some of you folks had me a little worried.

I can see from the searing glare my girlfriend is giving me that its party time! See y'all next year.

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 10:12 PM:

Ni Daye: Have a drink. It's New Year's Eve.

Anonymous wrote on December 31, 2007 10:12 PM:

Without Oprah Obama needs to do something desperate to differentiate himself from both Edwards and Clinton healthplans.

Actually both Edwards and Clinton have plans that can work as this tough trial lawyer who knows how to fight, and Hillary who knows why she failed, have the best chance of providing social change. This is the defining issue in the progressive movement in the next 8 years.

Obama's twisting of facts regarding Clinton/Edwards inclusion for all plan, appears insincere and it intends to confuse, but does not answer the important weakness in Obama's plan.He has not sufficiently [nor can he] explain on its merits what is superior about a plan that does not include everyone and leaves loopholes for millions of people to be left behind.

Obama is losing traction with this strategy, and Edwards gains as a fighter with a good plan and the guts to win.

This doesn't hurt Hillary either as her plan is similarly inclusive, but Edwards is getting most of Obama's heat which does sound desperate and defensive.

I am a Hillary supporter, but feel Edwards will win Iowa and Hillary may be
#2.

Lis wrote on December 31, 2007 10:17 PM:

Okay, I've been trying all day to figure out how to get my charts and research out to everybody, but I don't know how to add such an "object" into a text message.

So I'll just say it right here, in simple language.

I searched total contributions to Edwards, Hillary, and Obama in Des Moines, Ames, and Cedar Rapids, and found that Obama got the most money and the most contributions based on ZIP code.

I haven't even started on New Hampshire or South Carolina ZIP codes, but I'd safely bet that Obama is a lot closer to Hillary in contributions and $ than most people realize.

For those of you who want to see my totals from Iowa, based on the three cities I searched:

Clinton Donations: 13
Clinton Dollars: $14,740

Obama Donations: 37
Obama Dollars: $19,225

Edwards Donations: 27
Edwards Dollars: $14,895

(My search was done on fundrace2008 by ZIP codes)

Rita wrote on December 31, 2007 10:18 PM:

Awash in Hillary supporters wishing Obama were desperate is fun happening!
Hillary thought her smears, denigration and belittling of Obama was going to be the "fun begins". Hillary is an exhausting personality, tiresome, and old politics personified, who has deftly stolen the theme of "change" from her nemesis, Obama. Won't work and Hillary loses Iowa. FUN Happening.

CalD wrote on December 31, 2007 10:21 PM:

NCSteve,

I still think the PowerPoint was a prebuttal. It's interesting that the Seltzer poll and the Zogby poll today are so different. In 2004 they were within +/-2% of each other across the board and very much in line with other polls taken around the same time.

So the fact that we've seen a slew of polls in the last several days showing wildly different results make it entirely credible that the campaign has been seeing something different in their internal numbers. Anyway, I guess we'll find out soon enough if Seltzer's magic touch proves out once again.

Now go get bombed. You've got something to celebrate!

Pandora wrote on December 31, 2007 10:22 PM:

New DMR poll that many were waiting for shows Obama has wide lead over both Clinton and Edwards

Obama - 32

Clinton - 25

Edwards - 24

Ni Daye wrote on December 31, 2007 10:23 PM:

CalD ---

thank you for the good suggestion. I'm not least concerned. It is very clear that Obama is running on momentum and is currently running on fumes. I am watching WABC7 and drinking as well. Happy New Year to you and to all supporters of Democratic candidates.

DemAC wrote on December 31, 2007 10:33 PM:

Happy New Year y’all!

And this DMR poll is just GREAT! Now Obama is the presumed frontrunner with sky high expectations on Thursday. Look for the msm to talk him up tomorrow.

And what has he got to execute with come Thursday? A massive lead among very-young-never-caucused-before-in-their-lives-and-not-registred-democrats. Good luck with getting them to the caucus sites Barry!

Cheers!!!

josh wrote on December 31, 2007 10:35 PM:

Now that's some spin, DemAC.

Tom wrote on December 31, 2007 10:38 PM:

That DMR poll is BS. There's no way that many independents are showing up to vote. I trust the other polls better.

DemAC wrote on December 31, 2007 10:44 PM:

josh,
It's actually worse than spin – it's the bare knuckled truth.
See y'all next year.

jdb wrote on December 31, 2007 10:45 PM:

A little slow to post the DMR poll, are we Greg?

Paul wrote on December 31, 2007 11:14 PM:

Perhaps the PowerPoint was a pre-reinforcement! Go Obama!

c wrote on December 31, 2007 11:17 PM:

(a) I have no idea what'll happen in Iowa, but the DMR poll is the latest in a series of polls that show Obama *much* better positioned to reach out to independents and to moderate Republicans. Reminding people how bitterly and evenly divided the country was the last two elections is not an attack on Gore or Kerry, it's a statement of fact. Some of us do NOT want an ugly, divisive win with barely half the vote next November. Let's be honest: HRC, like Gore and Kerry, is an establishment Democrat who got where she is *in part* because of family connections to power and/or wealth. That's not to say she's not a fine and capable person, just that she may not be our absolute top political talent at this moment.

(b) The health care politics is fascinating. I'm OK with mandates (perhaps because I'm already insured) but Obama hay have accurately gauged that public sentiment opposes them. In any case the Clinton camp was happy when Paul Krugman went after Obama for opposing mandates. Clinton supporters were delighted to mock the Obama campaign's clumsy riposte to Krugman a couple of weeks ago. So now Obama's laying it out: their plans include mandates, his doesn't, decide what you want. You have to be pretty far gone to call that an attack.

c. Can I say something *really* controversial? By the standards of U.S. Presidential politics, and making due allowance for the testiness that builds up in competitive campaigns, all three of the leading Democrats are handling themselves pretty well right now.

Happy New Year to all of you.

DTM wrote on December 31, 2007 11:39 PM:

Of course the DMR poll really just confirms that the outcome in Iowa is well within the range of uncertainty caused by us not knowing exactly who will show up to caucus, or how the process will play out.

cms wrote on December 31, 2007 11:44 PM:

Why is Election Central the only GO-TO site without the DMR poll ?????

C'mon guys -- it's 3 days before the primary... you can't keep bankers' hours ;-)

Daniel wrote on January 1, 2008 2:18 AM:

This review of the HUGE weirdnesses of the DMR poll is enough to show that it is very unlikely that many independents and first-time caucus-goers vote on Thursday night. Not impossible, but unlikely. Check out the analysis.

dcshungu wrote on January 1, 2008 3:03 AM:

As a NYC resident for 14 years, I had planned to spend New Year's eve at my local spot, watching the action at Times Square on the tube and not be bothered by the anticipated DMR poll, but there was no escaping it. During a news brief, the DMR poll numbers were flashed on the screen, and they upended the ongoing narrative. I just now looked at the "internals" of the poll and see some "irregularities". However, if DMR's reputation for predicting the correct finish order holds, I would could live with their prediction: Obama followed by HRC and JRE. But considering that no other recent poll has shown Obama 'leading' so substantively, I wonder whether this is the year that the DMR poll falls on its face and Zogby regains a measure of respectability...

I still believe that Edwards is a lot stronger than the polls have shown him to be, but that may be just me.

Zogby v. DMR, who wins? Stay tuned, unless the Zogby tracking poll converges to show the same thing that the DMR just showed...

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 3:19 AM:

Marc Armbinder all but confirms my suspicion that this AM's PowerPoint was in fact a prebuttal, Register poll or no Register poll:

"Note: Obama's internal polling does not show this high a proportion of independents choosing to caucus."

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 3:32 AM:

DC: we may not see anymore polls before the caucuses. It would be kooky to conduct interviews on New Years's Eve or New Years's Day. So there may be one more day's worth from Zogby on the morning of the third, or there might not.

JFNIKKI wrote on January 1, 2008 7:00 AM:

OBAMA IS GOING TO LOSE.POLLS DONT VOTE. SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT.

c wrote on January 1, 2008 1:05 PM:

ooh, capital letters! I'm totally persuaded.

Rick B wrote on January 1, 2008 1:54 PM:

Obama is a fool.

The main reason for government to be involved in health care financing at all it so that the risk pool of paying potentially ill or injured people includes everyone in the nation.

However, I am willing to let anyone who believes that they will never have an accident or get sick opt out. Or if they do have an accident or illness, they can pay for it themselves. But anyone who ever does require health care they cannot pay for will automatically be enrolled in the government plan for the rest of their lives at a premium of at least 50% higher health taxes and will have any amount not paid at their death taxed from their estate before anyone else gets any part of it.

That would allow the people who wanted to opt out of any mandate to do so, yet also not leave the health care providers who had to provide health care to them unreimbursed because of their poor judgment.

The alternative is to simply eliminate all charity health care. If you can't pay for it or don't have insurance, then you can die by the side of the street.

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 2:12 PM:

I still think Kucinich has the only sensible plan. He may be a little ahead of his time on that, but it doesn't mean he's wrong.

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 2:18 PM:

CalD,

For what it is worth, Obama also thinks a single-payer plan would be the best if we were starting with a blank slate. The problem is how to get there from our current position, which is fundamentally a political question.

jay wrote on January 1, 2008 2:53 PM:

Hey Rick B, don't get your ass beat. Watch that mouth...

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 3:52 PM:

DTM: When did Obama say that? Or have you been reading his mind again?

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 4:06 PM:

Speaking of ass-kicking, the Nation's Campaign Matters blog had a great quote from Joe Trippi regarding the Obama campaign's ironically unnecessary prebuttal of the Register poll.

"Joe Trippi, a senior strategist for John Edwards, blasted Barack Obama's field program in Iowa on New Year's Eve, bluntly rebutting the Obama Campaign's attempt to promote its large crowds as a sign of momentum in the homestretch. "If the crowd numbers are that huge, and ours are this small, and they're going to kick our ass then there's no reason to explain it. Just show up and kick our ass. It's better if you don't say anything about it," said Trippi, who has overseen caucus campaigns for Howard Dean and Walter Mondale. "Anytime anybody starts throwing those kinds of things around, it's because they're in deep shit," he told The Nation.

The Obama Campaign has been circulating impressive estimates from events in towns where his crowds reportedly double those of Edwards and Clinton. Yet with only three days before the pivotal caucuses, this is an unusual time for any campaign to raise their own turnout expectations. Operatives in several Democratic campaigns say that Obama's support continues to fluctuate widely, while Edwards is clearly rising, so Obama's aides may be simply aiming to buck up their soft supporters...

Kos points out that Trippi ought to know. (Remember the Dean campaign's claims of 40,000 committed votes in the closing days of the 2004 caucus campaign?)

kris wrote on January 1, 2008 4:21 PM:

I refuse to trust the opinion of someone who oversaw campaigns for Howard Dean and Walter Mondale - that's like asking Charles Barkley and Jim Kelly what its like to win a championship.

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 4:43 PM:

If that Obama PowerPoint/conference call was intended as a prebuttal to the Registe poll, as seems very likely if Armbinder's inside poop on Obama's internal poll numbers (along with everyone else's apparently, according to the Nation thing I excerpted above) was correct, then it may have been a tactical error. Softer supporters and people who would have to make extraordinary effort to get to the caucuses (e.g., students on break who would have to drive back early from out of state) might very well see that register poll, hear the campaign's hype about crowd sizes and whatnot, figure he's got it in the bag and decide to stay home and watch the game.

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 11:21 PM:

CalD,

See here:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070405-1118-obama-healthcare.html

magkay wrote on January 2, 2008 6:19 AM:

All the "tough stance talk" by Obama is just what "ignorant americans" can understand. If US & the electerol votes for anyone other than HILARY,,,will be making the BIGGEST BOoo-BOO again. HILARY stands for the better US compared to Obama & perhaps the next election he would be better prepared than now.
I hope americans will not make this mistake again because she is a WOMAN BUT SOMEONE THAT WILL MAKE A STANCE TO THE WORLD OUT OF THE USA. This is vital for th boosting of the terrible wasted years of good economical trend & CORRUPTION THE WORST DISEASE BY POLITICIANS NATIONWIDE. Polititcians have been know to be linked with corporate companies but if it means for a better chance for the people of the country to have employment & fair distribution of wealth then it should be looked into. Afterall it is the PEOPLE POWER,,,if any is left.
The system in the election should be changed because it is THE PEOPLE WHO CAST THEIR VOTES THAT COUNTS,,,,NOT THE WAY IT IS NOW,,,TOTALLY RIDICULOUS & SICK SYSTEM FOR A COUNTRY U CALL DEMOCRATIC,,,,SO WHY TELL OTHER COUNTRIES HOW TO CAST THEIR VOTES IF IT HOLDS NO WATER??/

Jay wrote on January 2, 2008 1:12 PM:

"All the "tough stance talk" by Obama is just what "ignorant americans" can understand."

You are a foreigner, so your opinion doesn't really matter - and that's a good thing I believe.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)