New Hillary Campaign Video Hits Obama On Health Care
Here's a first look at a video that the Hillary campaign has just created hitting Obama on health care. It purports to show that Obama -- contrary to what he said at the debate yesterday -- advocated for single payer health care in principle and in practice in a speech he gave to the AFL-CIO on June 30, 2003.
Take a look at the vid, which the Hillary campaign sent our way:
Here's Obama's 2003 quote, as transcribed by the Hillary campaign:
“So the challenge is, how do we get federal government to take care of this business? I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14% of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out."A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get their immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House.”
This video -- one of many official campaign videos hitting the opposition that we've seen this cycle -- represents an official statement by the Hillary campaign, and hence is news. We'll be digging into it and will bring you more in a bit.
Late Update: In response, the Obama campaign argues that his position on single payer has been entirely consistent.
Comments (73)
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 22, 2008 11:28 AM:That's not exactly going to make me DISLIKE Obama, Hillary. Just sayin'.
La Wanda wrote on January 22, 2008 11:35 AM:Busted.
frankly0 wrote on January 22, 2008 11:37 AM:Problem is, Obama said in the debate last night
Tonight Obama said "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer."
Oops!!
Looks like Obama's silver tongue better move over to make room for his foot!
JM wrote on January 22, 2008 11:38 AM:I'm with Steve. Pretty happy about that as now I can comfortably assume the other stuff is just a step. The vaunted Clinton political savy is starting to look pretty dopey to me.
dcshungu wrote on January 22, 2008 11:38 AM:Steve LaBonne wrote on January 22, 2008 11:28 AM:That's not exactly going to make me DISLIKE Obama, Hillary. Just sayin'.
I suspect that nothing she'll say would make you dislike Obama, but the spot is not aimed at you. After the consensus emerged that she'd scored major points on health care (with Edwards' support) against Obama, she is trying to capitalize on it by targeting undecided low income folks, the elderly, and women, i.e, shoring up her key to victory!
jbentley wrote on January 22, 2008 11:38 AM:And the point is?
Hillary had her shot to fix the healthcare system in 1993 and she blew it big time. In fact her effort was such a massive failure that is used as a textbook example of how not to get major policy enacted in Washington in political science classes in colleges and universities across this country.
james wrote on January 22, 2008 11:39 AM:Steve - I think this points out the hypocrisy of his statements - he attacks Hillary and Edwards for supporting big government when he supported it himself. At the very least this will damage him in the general for A) flip-flopping for points and B) being a "big government liberal" that's in denial. This quote will come back to haunt him in November if he gets the nomination.
billy wrote on January 22, 2008 11:40 AM:finally we have someone besides dennis who is for single payer. barack has my vote now.
Addison wrote on January 22, 2008 11:41 AM:Never has the title of this blog, "talking points memo," seemed so apt as this morning when it's basically just acting as a clearing house for every single one of Clinton's talking points.
frankly0 wrote on January 22, 2008 11:42 AM:And the point is?
Uh, that Obama was lying in the debate?
Not a problem when you're under your KoolAid (or is it KookAid?) medication, but it is for those of us who have declined to imbibe.
Steve LaBonne wrote on January 22, 2008 11:42 AM:I suspect that nothing she'll say would make you dislike ObamaYou suspect wrongly- I'm an Edwards supporter who isn't sure Obama is ready for prime time. (But kudos for the oh-so-predictable Clintonbot response). But Hillary makes me even more nervous as a GE candidate. marcus wrote on January 22, 2008 11:42 AM:
Wow...I'm thoroughly not moved by this at all. Are you serious? Is this the best you have Hillary? Pathetic.
JM wrote on January 22, 2008 11:43 AM:Also, not sure the Clintons really want to go down the road of portraying him as a prevaricator. There is the matter of Hill's futures trading that I'd like a reasonable explanation of. BTW, if I'm spewing a VRWC talking point, please enlighten me. I am concerned about Hill as our candidate in the general.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 11:44 AM:Good for him. I assume people cannot keep track of everything they ever say (I sure can't). In any case, I would prefer that he go back to the single payer plan. The mandates stuff is ridiculous and nothing more than a privatized tax.
Paulie wrote on January 22, 2008 11:44 AM:"finally we have someone besides dennis who is for single payer. barack has my vote now."
Huh? Obama says he was never for single payer (even though he clearly was at one point). His current health care plan is not single payer so what are you talking about?!?
Independent wrote on January 22, 2008 11:46 AM:
I find it useful to have this bookmark these days:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
"Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered...I don't want to wait for that perfect system"
- Barack Obama, Sep. 21 2007
thegolux wrote on January 22, 2008 11:46 AM:I may be wrong but I thought these comments were in the context that Obama was saying he thought single payer was the best system if you start from scratch but that we are not there and so we have to find other ways to progress and maybe eventually get there. Incidentally- that is not too far from what Hillary said in 1992.
thegolux wrote on January 22, 2008 11:47 AM:I may be wrong but I thought these comments were in the context that Obama was saying he thought single payer was the best system if you start from scratch but that we are not there and so we have to find other ways to progress and maybe eventually get there. Incidentally- that is not too far from what Hillary said in 1992.
Angry Vet wrote on January 22, 2008 11:49 AM:Did anyone hear yesterday the same stuff Obama has been saying for months?
"If I were making a system from scratch, I'd go for single-payer. But we aren't creating a system from scratch."
After being attacked as using too many "right wing talking points," HRC and her surrogates through this ad are saying he's "too liberal?"
What the fuck?
Oh well, doesn't matter anyway. HRC has the pull of the non-intellectuals. I hope this does not turn into a stunning disaster this fall....
I'm so depressed... And frustrated....
john mccutchen wrote on January 22, 2008 11:49 AM:Clinton’s Big Spousal Shadow
By
On the heels of last night’s Democratic debate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton held a news conference this morning in Washington, D.C.. But all the reporters wanted to talk about was her husband.
His wife is running for something?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/clintons-big-spousal-shadow/
DanR2 wrote on January 22, 2008 11:51 AM:That's it? There's no their there.
Cyn2 wrote on January 22, 2008 11:52 AM:Um....let me see, is it ok to say what Hillary said in her speech to authorize war in Iraq, and oh yeah, the lobbiest who are just like me. Not to mention, it depends on what the definition of is is.
frankly0 wrote on January 22, 2008 11:55 AM:You know, for such a smart guy Obama sure can't keep track of all his "nuance" very well.
If I didn't know better, I'd call the guy confused. I mean, a few years back he advocates for single payer, but now he somehow loses track of all that, or just "neglects" to bring it up?
And let's see, universal health care is regarded as the single most important issue facing progressives and America, yet he manages to get all befuddled over his own positions on the issue? You'd think that having such a short political career would make it easier and not harder for him to remember his positions, you know?
Lookingforhome wrote on January 22, 2008 12:03 PM:I think the Obama-bots (we're either all thoughtful human beings, or we're all someone's 'bots') and others are missing the point...
Obama came into last night's debate with quite a head of steam, on the issue of Bill's and other's criticisms being based on misrepresentations of his record or lies (if he was being straight about it). In the debate he clearly stated that such behavior should give voters pause, regarding Hillary's integrity. Of all the things his team prepped him for, that was clearly the main attack line.
In this approach he trapped himself, needing to be really correct on what he actually did say on the big issues, and used the single payer point as a key example of how they've distorted his record. Now it seems she was dead on with her critique, and it's in fact OBAMA that is distorting OBAMA's RECORD, by saying he had only ever said he supported single payer in some perfect, start from scratch world. HE'S the one that now has to explain why HE misstated his record in the debate, not her, raising questions about what else he might have not 'recalled accurately'...to be kind.
I know many of you are as reluctant to admit he screwed up as he is, but in addition to all the damage this does to his 'big debate plan' (which also took time away from him making more important points in advance of Feb. 5) it shows his team as sloppy campaigners, not ready for prime time. And you can bet this is going to be raised if he attacks on the integrity front again in the next debate. Really dumb - he shouldn't have equivocated on his former statements...there's other ways to avoid owning up to changing a position if that's the truth of the matter here.
frankly0 wrote on January 22, 2008 12:03 PM:Compare and contrast:
If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch.
I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14% of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out."A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get their immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House.”
Quotes from two people or one with multiple personality disorder?
grover_rover wrote on January 22, 2008 12:06 PM:Thanks Independent, I was looking for that quote, because to people who are actually more interested in facts as opposed to blindly following the Clinton campaign's half-quote deceptions and distortions it is obvious where Obama is coming from. Once again he brings a dead on correct assessment of where we are and what we need to do, and the Hillary campaign attacks him for it. I expect this sort of intellectual-hating from the GOP, but from Democrats? It scares me to be honest.
If the majority (or plurality as it may turn out) of Democrats decide it is easier to be intellectually lazy (or have outright contempt for intellectual observations/criticisms/positions/points/etc) I will have to disassociate myself with this party, because I, for one, believe in intelligence, and enjoy conceptual thinking and well-reasoned arguments. I don't hold a knee-jerk GOPesque attitude toward intellectual arguments or understanding details. I'm appalled by how the Clinton campaign and their supporters are so contemptuous of facts and intellectualism. We've had enough of that in the last administration, do we really want to chose the simple-minded fearmongerer over the well-reasoned thinker again?? WAKE UP PEOPLE!
TC wrote on January 22, 2008 12:06 PM:Does anyone know what a "Single Payer" system means?
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:07 PM:That's great. The one person who the entire country knows has first hand direct experience with how NOT to reform health care, lecturing somebody else on how to reform health care! Spare me.
And no, Looking, she looked nasty. And it will hurt her.
Frankly0 said:
Not a problem when you're under your KoolAid (or is it KookAid?) medication, but it is for those of us who have declined to imbibe.
Sorry, but I'm just flat out going to have to call bullshit on this one.
I make no bones about the fact that I have, in fact, drunk the Obama Kool-aid. Sometimes, its led me to a certain excess of zeal in my comments, safe, as I am in the relative anonymity of my psuedonym, my email address known solely to Josh and Co. But, to paraphrase Churchill referring to being forced to eat his own words, on the whole, I've found it to be a most wholesome beverage and I try really hard to maintain sufficient objectivity to be aware of when I've gone over the top (even if I don't admit it.) Certainly, a recent Kos diary taking all us partisan bloggers to task for our vituperative ways hit home with me.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/21/141828/562/72/440299
So all that said, Frankly0, are you seriously going to suggest that you haven't drunk a pitcher or two of Kool-Aid yourself? You drink grape, I drink cherry, it's still Kool-Aid. I mean, c'mon, we've both been posting here for a long time. Certainly, long enough for me, and all the other relativley long timers, to know that that big walking pitcher of Hillary-flavored Kool Aid busted through your wall, a long, long time ago and you've been knocking it back ever since.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 12:10 PM:Basically, Clinton is the Dem version. Say whatever you need to say, just win baby.
Except she'll get creamed in the general if she and Bill keep this up. Depress the Dem vote, and she'll be the GOP GOTV gift that keeps on giving.
Anyone who doubts that apparently wasn't around for the last half of the 90s.
Nathan wrote on January 22, 2008 12:11 PM:The point is he lied last night.
The point is also that in 2003 he ran for the United States Senate Calling for single payer healthcare and opposing the Iraq War.
But now he says he never backed single payer healthcare and voted numerous times to give unconditional, supplemental war budgets to the President.
Stirling McLaughlin wrote on January 22, 2008 12:12 PM:Clever editing, but he doesn't really appear to contradict himself in these clips.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 12:12 PM:So let me get this straight - Obama is a stealth candidate for single-payer health care. He really wants it, but is campaigning on something else right now because he thinks that the something else will play better in the election than running explicitly on single-payer.
Can somebody help me here? How is this a bad thing? Does the Obama campaign have a secret-agent in Clinton's advertising dept?
Independent wrote on January 22, 2008 12:12 PM:
frankly0, perhaps it would be better to include the full quote?
Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system.
vs
I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14% of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out.A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get their immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House.
Even in his AFL-CIO speech, Obama says "we may not get their immediately." I'm not sure what the issue is here, other than an attempt to make this election about everything but the real issues.
JM wrote on January 22, 2008 12:12 PM:Clinton defense syndrome makes people retarded.
Are we starting from scratch, do we have viable control of the Presidency, House and Senate? I hope she does much better in the GE.
And the point is?
Uh, that Obama was lying in the debate?
Does this mean Obama secretly supports single payer?
So, Hillary is in favor of a single payer system or just has consistently opposed a single payer system?
This is a debate where I actually missed Kucinich who is the only candidate supporting a truly universal, single payer system.
You'd think a Harvard-trained lawyer would be quicker on his feet in a debate. The oratorical skills don't seem to translate to the thrust and parry of debate and Obama comes off looking hesitant or muddled -- meaning that if I had to pick Obama's position, it would be the speech (single payer) not the debate, since it's a better format for him, apparently.
Since this is nothing compared to what's going to happen in the general, his team had start getting it together. He's already being followed round online by bots explaining what he "really means" after he put Social Security in play and started using right wing talking points, and if that perception becomes the narrative, he's toast, despite the soaring rhetoric.
bobby wrote on January 22, 2008 12:14 PM:Yeah, there are no lies here, he is obviously consistent.
PeterB wrote on January 22, 2008 12:15 PM:Don't you think that is more damning to have voted for authorization to go to war without reading the NIE first?
Just saying? The abstracts of health care plans will not get people very motivated. But voting to allow Bush to do whatever the hell he wants and then doing it again on the Iran bill in 2007 seems to be a bit worse.
NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 12:16 PM:And, um, one correction, I'm not a "partisan blogger," I'm a partisan blog commenter. Penalty on me for inadvertant repetition of rightwing talking point.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 12:16 PM:Just in case I'm not understanding...
no Obama supporters willing to admit he got caught with his own words?
Interesting.(not really, entirely predictable, but I'm a meanie.)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 22, 2008 12:18 PM:This quote will come back to haunt him in November if he gets the nomination.
No doubt. I am glad for two reasons that Sen Clinton brought it up. 1) What democrat in his right mind could find that 2003 video to be a point against Obama? S/he would have to be crazy. 2) Obama is going to face much worse than this in the general election, so it is good that he experiences it now. If he survives then he is a great candidate, and if he does not then he would not have survived in the long term anyway. I find it hard to believe that anyone could look at this video and not think that Clinton is handing us a gift on a silver platter.
Nobama wrote on January 22, 2008 12:25 PM:Obama gets owned!!!! OUCH!!
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 12:27 PM:'Don't you think that is more damning to have voted for authorization to go to war without reading the NIE first?'
First, strawman.
It would seem the default response to any criticism of Obama is the Iraq AUMF.
Did Obama take issue with John Kerry not reading it either?
Does John Kerry want to speak up?
Someone might want to ask him about that?
The REASON members didn't read the full NIE is
1.) they get summaries from their staffers
2.) they were briefed on it directly from the white house, and the white house LIED.
The author of the bill, Chuck Hagel, was briefed by Condi Rice, and she LIED.
Trying to over simplify the events that led up to the Iraq War does nothing but whitewash the culpability of the Bush Administration.
Good Luck With That.
kathy Sammons wrote on January 22, 2008 12:32 PM:Come on, folks. Do you really think the republicans are going to let him parse his statements, explain what he really meant when he said something, or try to be fair with him? What is he going to do when they start coming at him--whine about being attacked like he did with Bill Clinton. He needs to learn to run with the big dogs if he's going to stay in this thing. He also needs to stop talking up the Christian crap and stop letting his anti-gay preachers have the limelight. That will work beautifully in SC, but the rest of the nation doesn't dance to that tune.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 22, 2008 12:37 PM:Correction:
'Did Obama take issue with John Kerry not reading it either?'
I meant to say does Obama take issue with Kerry reading the report and still voting for it.
Obama is sounding more like a republican, or a Chicago Mayor. He argues with his own previous positions. He can't admit it, just argues with it?
does this sound like someone in the WH now?
MSNBC supports him now? why does the biggest bomb maker want him?
the fix is in, chicago style
foxx wrote on January 22, 2008 12:43 PM:Hillary, whom I support, would have done better to argue why her plan is better than his current one.
Lookingforhome wrote on January 22, 2008 12:48 PM:His campaign's response to this is a non-response. They found three citations where he used the "from scratch" talking point...how does that make what's in the video consistent?
They can't explain how last night he shaded the truth to attack Clinton, so they post three other quotes to prove that NOW he's on message?
In his flurry of attacks on integrity he said she was misrepresenting his comments on single payer. The video proves she got it right. That's the point!! This is not a debate about single payer, it's about the fact that he's attacking 'distortions' by distorting!!
You can decide you don't care or refuse to acknowledge what's in the video, but can people stop asking "what's the point?!"
frankly0 wrote on January 22, 2008 12:55 PM:Let me quote Obama from 2003 again, this time bolding a different line:
A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get their immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House.
Well, the Democrats already have taken back the Senate and the House. If Obama wins the Presidency, they would have taken back the White House as well.
Where in any of this do you see Obama suggesting that we are going to get to single payer via some other, far less aggressive, plan?
Look, you can try to slice it any way you want, but you can't get around the fact that in the quoted speech in 2003 he's advocating single payer, but nowadays he's not, and, worse, pretending (see the quote from the debate) that he never did.
G-luv from Seattle wrote on January 22, 2008 12:57 PM:Who do you think is going to get more votes from the middle of the road voters in the general election? Universal Health Care or Affordable Insurance for everybody? He's playing his cards for the general election.
It might be a smart move, later on if he can come out the winner.
Count me in as a lifelong democrat who will sit out November if "the Clintons" get the nomination. What Hillary and Bill are up to is making me hate them with a white hot intensity that is troubling.
I'd vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat to avoid having to pull the lever for her, and I am a 45-year-old single female (supposedly her demographic).
Independent wrote on January 22, 2008 1:12 PM:
frankly0,
Taking back the Senate, House, and White House certainly are the first step to getting single-payer health care. The next step, he has made clear, is to quickly pass a health care plan that covers everybody. Completely shifting to a single-payer system is a long term ideal, and one he's been clear about from the beginning.
I understand there are some people who are looking for any point of leverage to use against Obama. But this is ridiculous. It would be much more productive, perhaps, to discuss the merits of his current plan, his ability to get it passed, and whether the long-term goal of a single-payer system makes sense.
MEG wrote on January 22, 2008 1:16 PM:I say this because as a life long dem, who grew up and did work in the inner cities throughout the 80s/90s/early millenium..I'm left with nothing but sheer amazement that anyone can support the Clintons..Come on Dems, be honest with ourselves..the tactics Bill and Hillary have used against Obama are the same they used in Arkansas, the same they tried to use to get their health care passed as illustrated in RCP today..that is destroy your enemy using every dirty, reprehensible strategy possible..Edwards and Obama offer us a complete break from all that..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ex...
Can we once and all retire the stupid claim by the Hillary fans that Obama is using "rightwing talking points?"
With her love of war and lobbyists, to her attempting to hammer Obama for being too liberal, Clinton has proved decisively that she owns the title of "Democrat Most Like the Republicans" in this race.
And when did liberals all get on board the anti-single payer plan? I though we were for it, it just wasn't realistic in the current political climate.
You dipshits supporting Hillary sound more like somebody cheering on their favorite football team when they get away with a cheap shot than people concerned about what's best for their country. Get a grip.
sue wrote on January 22, 2008 1:21 PM:My goodness, Hillary loves to harp on NOTHING. Obama has already said that if our healthcare system wasn’t in its current state and if he was starting from scratch, he’d go for a single payer system. However, under these circumstances (employer plans, etc.), he feels that the private/medicare approach he has proposed is best. There is no contradiction there.
When Hillary tries to make an issue of his comments about a single payer system again, Obama needs to ask – “So f*cking what? What’s your point?”
I have to say that any progressive that chooses to back Hillary needs a gut check. Seriously. This is the same Hillary who voted for bankruptcy legislation. It's the same Hillary that voted to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq (how could she not know it would take years to rebuild the society?), the same Hillary who attacked the evil video games, the same Hillary who believes in criminalizing flag burning. She's awful. Please, people, please.
I don't love Obama. I love that he's not a Clinton triangulator, as my good buddy Molly Ivins once said, and that is good for me. Not. Backing. Hillary.
mamiller wrote on January 22, 2008 1:40 PM:Yes, honestly, why exactly is supporting single payer health care a bad thing?
Compared to Hillary's record on Health care how many stones can she actually throw?
Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 22, 2008 1:43 PM:Personally I really fail to see how this video does anything for undecided voters. I know many like myself were much more excited by a full field of candidates like Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and so on. Unfortunately the voices of these others has been drowned out by Obama and Clinton(mostly). I personally liked the single payer health care plan that Kucinich supported but he isn't allowed in these debates. Obviuosly no candidate can change things in Washington , he or she needs public support as well as congressional support, so therefore single payer can not truly happen as the first hurdle of turning our health-care system around must be first. Can't put the cart before the horse! Maybe sometime in the future we can all see the light that is the single-payer health-care system!
Gotta Go, Stay Solid!
NCSteve wrote on January 22, 2008 2:00 PM:Here's where we seem to be having a disconnect in this discussion: yes, it's all very pleasing to Hillary's current supporters. It makes them all wriggly and happy and vindictive, er, I mean vindicated, because it confirms what they always, always, always just knew had to be true: Obama is a great big stinkyhead liar. Liar, liar, pants on fire, so there.
BFD.
The point is, do you guys really think this is going to move anyone into Hill's column from the Edwards, Obama or Undecided column? At this point, Edwards is down to the diehards. If Hillary tries to make Obama look bad, they just process it as: "they're both bad." No one is moving out of the Obama camp over this. To them its consistent enough with what he's said all along, that it just looks like yet another attempt to squeeze all the nuance out of a factually complicated discussion and convert it into one of those "gotcha" moments that all us cult-like messianic Obama supporters are so sick of.
So does it move any undecideds? Please. "Oh my God! Do you mean to tell me that in a 2003 speech, Obama said he supported single payer but didn't think we could do it in one fell swoop? But, in the heat of a debate he said that, in fact, what he's been saying was that, if he was starting from scratch he'd go single payer, but since we aren't he proposed to start by building on what we already have? Wow! That changes everything!"
What all of you guys seem to think is a big devestating gotcha looks to me like a meaningless hip shot from some over-caffienated, sleep-deprived campaign staffers.
Anonymous wrote on January 22, 2008 2:01 PM:Rezko bought empty lot next to Obama's house because owner wanted to sell both house and empty plot as one parcel. Rezko's plot is fenced and the fence has one door that opens into Obama's backyard.
Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 22, 2008 2:04 PM:NCSteve-well said
I am truly tired of the "gotcha" moments. But there seems to be a hungry crowd for the spectacle of another road side attraction!
Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers wrote on January 22, 2008 2:14 PM:Woe is me! Our country is just too sick to get good healthcare for everyone.
Single payer; medicare fr all lives!!
but not with the politicians.
So it goes.
Dear Hill and Bill. That was weak. Really weak. I'm starting to get the impression that you are the desperate ones and that you are more interested in the power, that you are the people. Thanks for helping me make up my mind to support.
TheraP wrote on January 22, 2008 2:21 PM:Seems like the "gruesome twosome" are doing more to help Obama, while shoot themselves in the foot.
Since it looks like Edwards is going fail, I've been looking for a good reason to support Obama and this may be it. I'm all for single payer.
Laura in Austin wrote on January 22, 2008 3:08 PM:And her point is????
The big benefit here is Hillary getting into a kettle-pot argument? She should RUN AWAY FAST from getting into a situation that puts her own integrety and trustworthiness into question. Play up the differences in her health plan policy, yes. Call attention to character as her selling point? Stupid!
Both Clintons still have *way* more on their records to make people question their trustworthiness.
This just doesn't accomplish their goal.
greg wrote on January 22, 2008 4:07 PM:HRC has no choice but to attack Obama, given that our *wonderful* media will not conduct more than a superficial look at his record.
Obama's free ride is over now that HRC has decided to hit back.
I also wonder why TPM has been so easy on Obama. I'm almost ready to start calling TPM *OTPM* or Obama's Talking Points Memo.
TPM can do better than it has.
Realist wrote on January 22, 2008 4:27 PM:At what point will people realize:
Dem nominee Clinton = President Bloomberg?
Case wrote on January 22, 2008 6:05 PM:Firstly, anyone who says a single-payer system will solve the healthcare crisis in this country has absolutely no understanding of the healthcare crisis in this country. I think it's a great step, but it's definitely not an immediately achievable step and kudos to Obama for pointing that out consistently. Fixing the healthcare crisis requires fixing the entire way we think about health and health care. It requires a much stronger emphasis on public health, it requires a much stronger emphasis on food, air, and water quality-- healthcare isn't expensive 'cause healthcare professionals are greedy (though they are certainly beneficiaries of the system) Healthcare is broken because we throw money into fixing what ails us instead of preventing what ails us. In comparisons with the other industrialized countries, we rank at or near the bottom of the list on everything except for patient satisfaction. We throw more than twice as much per capita on health care and our citizens are less healthy than anyone else's.
Single payer's great, but mandates don't get us there-- yeah, there are people who choose not to have healthcare, but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of the uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford to be insured. Mandating coverage doesn't make it affordable. Fix the affordability first, and THEN talk mandates, which is what Obama has proposed. If Edwards can figure out how to pay for it through taxing the wealthy,
I'm all for that, but unless health insurance is affordable, mandates don't work. It's still cheaper to use the ER when you're sick than pay for coverage when you're healthy at this point, so that has to be fixed first.
Realist--
The real question is at what point will people realize:
Dem nominee Clinton = Bloomberg and Nader jumping in to take away moderate and independent votes = President McCain
Randall wrote on January 22, 2008 10:21 PM:First of all, I'm an Edwards voter bcause I think he has the clearest and most hopeful view of our present politcal realities. I shall vote for him in a closed Dem primary on Feb. 5.
Second, I've never been fond of the DLC and triangulation tactics, and I can't warm up to Hillary Clinton, but she is impressing me with her practical command of the facts and of the issues, and her campaign is technically sophisticated and competent.
Third, Barack Obama is a good-looking guy of impressive physical stature, and I like that. But his command of the issues and even of his own ideas is too obviously disorganized. His heart may very well be in the right place, but as to habits of mind, despite his fine education, he is an immature and unfocused thinker. What makes it most plain is the way he answers questions; he just keep talking and talking hoping he'll hit on something convincing.
Finally, if it's not Edwards, I'm hoping that we'll go into an open convention and that wise heads will call for an Al Gore draft.
Wow. I've been defending HRC against "Obamabot" attacks for a while, but this has really tipped it for me. This is a stupid attack. Obama is right. His position is consistent. I agree with him. The HRC campaign (Bill has just been insufferable lately--I love the guy, but, sheesh) has just about convinced me to vote for Obama.
Thanks, guys!
