« Libertarians and Democracy | Main | Urban Reform » Because She Asked22 Jan 2008 12:55 pm Hillary Clinton's campaign emailed this video clip to me, so in hopes that they'll make me an Assistant Secretary of something or other if I post it, here it is: I don't find the thought that Obama secretly harbors dreams of a single-payer health care system all that damning, but obviously he was shading his somewhat nuanced view left back in the day and right a the moment. Comments (44)
Matthew, I'm give you an actual cabinet position if you'll highlight Martin Luther King III's endorsement of Edwards yesterday: "So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud." 
Thanks Hillary. Another reason to vote for Obama.
Matt, Last time I looked, the attempt to sell a single-payer system didn't work out so well.
Um...of what is that video supposed to convince us? That Obama doesn't remember exactly what he said in one speech 5 years ago? To mix my metaphors, if we're getting into a flip-flop state of mind here, I don't think Hillary is going to come up smelling of roses...
"Oh no! Obama's a closet Reagan fan and a closet progressive!" The problem, of course, is that if you're not against anything, you're not actually for anything either.
Good Lord. Where does Hillary come off attacking anyone on the issue of health care? Health care for the love of God. The most important thing Hillary ever did was botch an effort to reform health care so completely that the Democrats were driven from power and the very thought of health care reform became anethema.
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that Hilary Clinton has captured the large swathe of low information voters in the Democratic primary. We can pull our hair and gnash our teeth all we want, but the more productive course would be to start preparing for the inevitable.
Hillary Clinton's campaign emailed this video clip to me, Sorry, I don't do focus group for free, nor virus spreading. What I would be interested in knowing is whether you have the impression that they understand your demographic or are just flinging stuff out there willy nilly.
On health care, HRC is basically asking for a promotion after having messed up royally in her previous job. Obama and Edwards should hit back on this point.
So basically the video validates what he's always said about health care. Smooth move, Hillary.
Nuance has no place in American politics. Hillary is right to attack Obama for backing off single payer universal health care. It makes her single payer universal health care plan look much better in comparison. Wait, what?
HRC is basically saying that even though she completely fucked up the previous best chance for health care reform in the country, we should trust her not to fuck it up again. My problem is two-fold: 1. I don't trust her not to fuck it up again. 2. I fear that she will place her own immediate political expediency above the needs of the country and will abandon the kitchen if the heat gets a little too hot.
So Hilary has two attacks on Obama's health care position. One is that it does not immediately mandate coverage for everyone, because if you don't mandate it your never going to get there. The second is that he secretly wants a plan that would actually cover everyone, and not simply punish those who don't get it. The hypocrisy is actually clearer if you stick with the health care issue rather than saying he is too conservative on this and too moderate on that.
Petey, The problem, of course, is that if you're not against anything, you're not actually for anything either. You make me want to do focus group. :-) I found him almost disturbingly "laid back" in last night's debate, an increase in laidbackness that was present before. A cool constitution is something that can be sold for a president, however, in his case, it is startling contrast with his passionate speechmaking. That schizo thing may play with teh yut, I dunno, but older folks might tend to read it as one personality side not being "real" or honest. If he wins the nomination, I can also foresee a "lazy" thing applied by the GOP sticking with some.
"A cool constitution is something that can be sold for a president" It may be successfully sold in a general election, but in Democratic nomination races, you have to sell being a fighter. This is precisely why Clinton has appropriated Edwards' rhetoric post-IA. The bulk of Dem primary voters want to know that above all, you'll fight for them.
It may be successfully sold in a general election, but in Democratic nomination races, you have to sell being a fighter. Agreed. The question is where the line is between "fighting" and "fighting dirty", and if the bulk of Dem primary voters would even recognize the difference.
Obama is probably the worst liar evah to run for high office. Debate: "I never said we should try to go ahead and get single payer health care" Video: "I am a proponet of single payer univeral health care"
The bulk of Dem primary voters want to know that above all, you'll fight for them. So far Edwards hasn't persuaded many primary voters. I guess we'll see in South Carolina and Super Tuesday what the "bulk" of primary voters want. That schizo thing may play with teh yut, I dunno, but older folks might tend to read it as one personality side not being "real" or honest. If he wins the nomination, I can also foresee a "lazy" thing applied by the GOP sticking with some. Yeah the GOP would be ballsy enough to do that after electing the laziest President ever for back to back terms. If Obama starts getting tagged with that he should joke about Bush's notoriously long vacations. Seems to me like you have the older, more conservative more fearful (more resentful of Republicans) Dem voters going with Clinton and much of the youth vote, the independent vote and a sizable chunk of the black vote with Obama after he won Iowa. So it's the naive versus the cynics. If Obama wasn't in the race, I'd go with Edwards, but Obama actually has a chance, or perhaps I'm being naive.
Nuance has no place in American politics. Hillary is right to attack Obama for backing off single payer universal health care. It makes her single payer universal health care plan look much better in comparison. Wait, what? Sadly, the bulk of debate viewers and viewers of this clip probably believe HRC is advocating a single payer universal system.
"Obama is probably the worst liar evah to run for high office." What color is the sky on your home planet, ken?
I also don't get it. What is the Clinton campaign trying to convince us to believe? That even though she and Edwards are trying to position Obama to their right, and are claiming his plan doesn't cover everybody, he is actually a secret Social Democrat whose heart lies to their left? Well bully for him then.
Because they just want to laugh maniacally. Because to them that is victory.
It's a gotcha moment on saying one thing then saying another. Hillary has had far worse ones scored on her (on negotiating with our enemies without preconditions). In neither case was it really a flip-flop--more of a verbal typo. But the people this video should really humiliate are the ones who complained about Obama's distancing from mandates. Now Hillary's on the attack against single-payer. Guess what--mandates are to the right of single payer. Moreover, there's a key distinction here. When Hillary "flip-flopped", it was in a situation in which she was arguing how different the two positions were--Obama was unserious for saying the thing that Clinton said later. Her sin was not in flubbing an issue in which the two candidates were basically the same, her sin was exaggerating the difference to score cheap political points--which are the only ones Clinton knows how to score. Obama's gaffe is little more than a verbal goof. Obama was trying to minimize the difference between two positions--and indeed, the two positions are basically identical. It's embarrassing, but serious thinkers will realize you can't expect a person to remember what they've said for five years. This campaign doesn't seem to be dominated by serious thought, though. In fact, this pattern largely holds on the mandates thing too. If Obama is president, Senator Clinton will probably have more influence over the text of a health care bill than he will--and probably more than she would if she were president. The Senate is where this bill will be written. "Going to the mat" on mandates is moronic--go to the mat for affordablity, go to the mat for community rating, but mandates are a means, not an end. If Senator Clinton learned anything from the early 90s, she should have learned that--the bill will be easier to sell to senators if you let them write it. She's really smart, and I'm sure she knows this, but on every issue her strategy is to kick up dust and obscure things--hence attacking Obama over a lack of "universal" coverage. Forcing people to buy health care is a MEANS, not an END. That is, unless your so dedicated to process and grudges that people's lives no longer matter. She's heightening meaningless distinctions and clouding the truth, like her vote for the war, her hawkish advisors, her centrist DLC history, etc. Kicking up dust and confusion is a good strategy for her in the primary and might win her the general--especially with GOP candidate doing the same--but it can't win by very much. If the voters are just completely uninformed and deluded, their choice will be totally random. 100 million coin tosses will almost certainly give you right around 50% of the vote.
At least the Clintons have stopped the overtly racist attacks. After the last few weeks, these ticky-tack accusations of flip-flops come as a welcome relief.
"At least the Clintons have stopped the overtly racist attacks." You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until the day after Obama wins SC. The standard Clintonista talking points will be about how Obama is now the "black candidate".
"It's a gotcha moment on saying one thing then saying another. " Yep. And this is why she'd be a lousy President. She's all about winning battles, even if it means losing the war (metaphorical wars).
So, as expected, Hillary Clinton is running an Eat Your Vegetables campaign. And you know, its hard. Very very hard. She cares, but its hard. Very very hard. Bets on how hard it was to get Bill to talk shit on the campaign trail.
So, given the opportunity to deliberately cherry-pick damaging quotes, her campaign still can't quite hit the target, and she looks stupider for trying ... Mark Penn, everybody!
Yo A, at least someone is policing the shading of somewhat nuanced views.
Bets on how hard it was to get Bill to talk shit on the campaign trail. He probably did it without asking--once it became acceptable to question how far Bill Clinton has advanced progressivism, Bill was uncontrollable. Don't mess with that man's ego. Screw with his party or his agenda all you want.
Obama is probably the worst liar evah to run for high office. Debate: "I never said we should try to go ahead and get single payer health care" Video: "I am a proponet of single payer univeral health care" No, it is you and the Clinton campaign who are the liars. Obama's "never" is in the context of his current campaign, not his lifetime. Try this on: "Wife: When you complained about my fat ass ... Husband: I never used the word 'fat' ..." is he lying if he ever used the word "fat" in his life? Only the lowest, most despicable sort of person would say that he was.
Matthew just say no.... I am sick of this crap.... I guess I thought some wouldnt stoop this low. I guess I am too naive and inexperienced.
LOL...if this is the best or worst depending on your side that the Clintons can come up with, good grief... Either they believe this is a serious approach that needs serious examining, which makes them look completely vacuous, at a much lower intellectual level... OR it makes it look like they are just tossing stuff out there to see if anything sticks, trying to measure where they can get their cheap shots from next... OR they have no idea how things will play in the real world, they are depending completely on name recognition for votes... Any way you look at their campaign, it smells to high heaven. They look calculating, self interested without any regard for their party or the country...they will, indeed, say anything at all to get elected.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
Hi Matthew, I hope at the appropriate point you'll provide some portion of the following bit of context to the readers of your blog. I might be mistaken, but I think it provides a missing link for understanding the differences between Obama and Krugman, et al. Several years ago, when Barak Obama was addressing the AFL-CIO and advocating for a single-payer health plan, GM hadn't yet negotiated its way out of some $50 billion in health and pension liabilities for its workers. During this period, GM and its lobbyists were pressuring members of Congress and the executive branch to create a universal health care program. The creation of such a program would have relieved GM of a great deal of its liabilities. This was before the UAW strike of Sept 2007. During this period a single-payer plan seemed possible. Since then, the settlement which brought the 2-day strike to an end was reached. As part of that settlement, those liabilities will be shifted from the balance sheets of GM onto a VEBA, which will be controlled by the UAW. I believe the full details of this VEBA plan have yet to emerge, but very likely, GM will pay something like $30-$60 billion to the UAW and those liabilities will become the problem of the United Autoworkers. If the VEBA fails, then that will be the problem of the UAW and its members, not GM. So it seems that in 2006-early 2006, GM was lobbying Congress and the executive for universal health coverage as a sort of back up plan, in case the UAW wouldn't be bought off with control of a VEBA. But it turned out they would. So GM is no longer lobbying for a single-payer plan. And so we're not likely to see universal health care any time soon (i.e. in the next 4-8 years), unless some other single entity besides GM has got $50 billion riding on it. So now we can start to see the crucial difference between Paul Krugman and Barak Obama. Krugman does not believe the UAW and other unions to be like other special interest groups. Obama suspects that they might be. It is for individual voters to decide who they agree with. As far as I know, Krugman is an expert in international economics (I remember using the textbook he co-authored while I was at Oxford) and not labor economics. Also, as far as I know, he's never been a member of a labor union. For the record, I'm a member of the UAW. I agree with Obama. I saw this thing coming a year ago. And let's just say I'm not sticking around my current job to see the senior leadership of the UAW walk off with my pension. If you come across anyone in the HR offices at Obama HQ, please tell them to give me a call. Best, Kevin S.
Must be going after the liberal vote since they emailed this to you and ambers and ben smith, and provided some addition context footage. additional additional context footage should also be provided however. I am sure once it is it will demonstrate that hillary sucks. If she wins I will give all my money and time to whoever she runs against, just to see her lose. I don't want her coming within ten feet of the concept of "Progressive." She's about as good for progressive america as that cloverfield monster was for nyc.
Rhetorical inconsistency is not as bad as willful obtuseness or systematic mendacity.
Personally, I think Obama has a pretty good argument concerning mandates. There is a difference between requiring all Americans to have insurance and universal coverage. When you demand that individuals buy insurance you end up with a system that punishes people on the edge. (And of course the people who didn't buy the insurance, still aren't covered). This is a great way to make the idea of universal coverage extremely unpopular. Frankly, single-payer makes a lot more sense to me. If the government is going to demand that people pay $X for health insurance, they should pass a tax that takes $X up front. Here's the way the Massachusetts system is working out. No word yet on whether the mandatory insurance is actually covering needed procedures. When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8TSLG1O0.htm
This thread is hilarious. I have read more "hillary is a liar" comments than I can count at this site and here is Obama caught in a lie and it's "so what?" Now, I agree it is so what, but it was so what for Hillary too no? The blind adulation and blind hatred is hilarious.
So... Hillary is telling me that my largest objection to the Obama campaign, the lack of a healthcare mandate, doesn't reflect his actual views but a calculated political ruse? OK, I'll buy that for a dollar.
Because they just want to laugh maniacally. Because to them that is victory. Posted by E. | January 22, 2008 2:36 PM Good one! :-) Came back to thank you for it and admit I laughed, didn't want to let it go unappreciated.
The blind adulation and blind hatred is hilarious. I agree with Armando. I don't see why thoughtful Dems should be taking the nonsense that is going back and forth between Clinton and Obama personally. There aren't any serious substantive differences between the two and one of them is going to be our candidate. We all need to in the wise words of Rep. Clyburn "chill out". Its painfully obvious why Hillary is throwing mud - not because she's "desperate" or evil", but simply because its smart politics, forcing Obama down to earth, to reduce him to being a candidate rather than the avatar of hope and change. But I think all of the Hillary and Obama haters need to watch more GOP debates. The real alternatives are scary.
The fact that you would post ridiculous oppo research from Clinton's campaign, even while noting that isn't very good oppo research, is a bit disappointing.
Obama's a trojan horse progressive, just like I suspected. SWEET! Thanks Hillary!
Comments closed February 05, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Oh no! Obama's a closet Reagan fan and a closet progressive! He must be stopped!
Posted by alkali | January 22, 2008 1:09 PM