Obama Launches The Worst Kinds of Lying Attacks That Undermine Americans’ Hope for Universal Health Care
By SusanUnPC on February 23, 2008 at 8:50 PM in Bamboozling, Barack Obama, Democrats, Health Care, Hillary Clinton
“Shame on you, Barack Obama!” Hillary Clinton lowers the boom on Obama’s phony speechifying in which he says one thing at his big rallies, and then launches odious, anti-Democratic-party attacks — ATTACKS on universal health care. She really goes at him. Good for you, Hillary! (Taylor Marsh has plenty to say too.) And the MSM had better wake the fuck up, and call out Obama for the lying politician he is who uses underhanded tactics while lying through his teeth with his bullshit rhetoric. That phony “Bamboozler“!
Jerome Armstrong, who co-authored Crashing the Gate with Kos, but is far more mature, pithily summed it up like this today in a front-page story at MyDD.com:
On Shame
by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:16:16 PM ESTClinton on Obama: “Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal healthcare.”
Obama on Clinton: “The government would force you to buy healthcare.”
As Alexander Cockburn wrote about Obama: “I used to think Sen. Joe Lieberman was the man whose words I’d least like to be force fed top volume if I was chained next to a loudspeaker in Camp Gitmo, but I think Obama, who picked Lieberman as his mentor when he first entered the U.S. Senate, is worse. I’ve never heard a politician so desperate not to offend conventional elite opinion while pretending to be fearless and forthright.”
There’s your “liberal” for you, people — a conniving, dishonest trickster who picks Joe Lieberman as his mentor, and stabs the Democratic party and the American people in the back by attacking universal health care. He’s got the “latte elites” and the MSM drunk on his phony rhetoric. But he is a FALSE Messiah with rightwing economic plans that will harm Social Security, Medicare, and any hope for a real economic recovery that reaches down to the struggling average American.
Here’s what the Fact Hub has to say in response to Obama’s lame, dissembling response later today in “Independent Voices: Obama Tactics Resurrect Harry and Louise“:
(Not indented for easier reading, and because I can’t do double-indents in this software.)
At his media availability earlier today, Senator Obama implied that the only health care experts who have criticized the Obama health plan’s failure to provide universal health coverage were Hillary supporters:
Senator Obama: “There are many people who support Senator Clinton, health care experts, who believe in mandates who didn’t like the characterization of it, but there wasn’t anything inaccurate in what was said.”
Senator Obama’s suggestion is false. Many independent experts who have not endorsed Hillary have criticized the Obama health plan and the Obama campaign’s Harry & Louise tactics.
INDEPENDENT EXPERTS ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONDEMNED OBAMA’S USE OF HARRY & LOUISE STYLE ATTACKS
Harbage, 2/23/08: “As Senator John Edwards former Healthcare Advisor and a currently unaffiliated healthcare reform proponent, I think that anyone familiar with the Harry and Louise campaign from the early 1990s would immediately recognize the similarity between the insurance industry’s attacks and the Obama Campaign’s mailer. This attack simply drives the debate to the lowest common denominator of generating fear.”
Ezra Klein, American Prospect: “When I say that Obama is demagoguing universal health care, this sort of campaign literature is what I’m talking about…The Obama campaign kept their hairstyles and barely even changed their clothing — which is really quite unfair to Harry and Louise, who probably let go of the plaid years back. What’s worse is that the argument they’re making is applicable to any kind of universal health care arrangement, including the arrangements Obama himself will eventually have to adopt.”
Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2/1/08: “Sorry, but this is just destructive — like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed…I know that Obama supporters want to hear no evil, but this is really, really bad.”
Factcheck.org 2/4/08: “We agree that there is a resemblance between the photo on the Obama mailer and the [Harry and Louise] TV spots. In those ads actors portraying a white, middle-class couple expressed grave concerns about how the Clinton administration’s health care plan would affect them. The ads were part of a $17 million campaign by the insurance industry that was widely credited – rightly or wrongly – with contributing to the defeat of the Clinton plan, and the ads still anger many advocates of broader government efforts to provide health insurance.”
Trudy Lieberman, Columbia Review of Journalism, 2/4/08: “[Obama’s] new mailer attacking [Senator Clinton’s] proposal resurrects the ghosts of Harry and Louise, the infamous pair in TV commercials sponsored by the insurance industry, which helped sink Bill Clinton’s efforts at reform. In those ads, a man and woman seated at the kitchen table worry that under his plan they wouldn’t be able to choose their doctor. The message: “If we let the government choose, we lose.” In Obama’s mailer, a man and a woman are seated in the same positions at a kitchen table—the woman even has the same long, blonde hair. The message: “Hillary’s plan forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can’t afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?”
Fact Check: Hillary’s Plan Would Make Health Care Affordable For Everyone
Today an Obama spokesperson released the following statement: “And [Hillary Clinton] 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.
This is false and misleading. Hillary has never said she would make Americans purchase health insurance they can’t afford — The Obama campaign is taking her words out of context in an effort to mislead voters and the press.
First, Hillary’s plan contains more generous subsidies than the Obama plan. As a result, independent experts — including Emory University’s Ken Thorpe — have concluded that, under Hillary’s plan, everyone would be able to afford coverage.
Second, Hillary has consistently said she would consider a range of ideas to ensure everyone was covered, including automatically enrolling people who use hospitals and other government services, and working with employers to enroll uninsured employees and go after a small portion of their wages to cover the cost of healthcare. This is similar to the withholding structure that many employees use for their 401(k)s.
Third, while criticizing Senator Clinton, Senator Obama himself has said he would fine parents to enforce his mandate on kids and would fine sick people if they don’t get health care coverage until their sick.
More details HERE.
Obama Campaign Distributes Two Dishonest Mailers In Ohio
The Obama campaign is distributing two dishonest mailers in Ohio. The first mailer falsely claims that Hillary said NAFTA was a “boon” to the economy. Hillary never said that. The Obama campaign is basing the quote on a 2006 Newsday article that characterized her views this way without any substantiation. In fact, Newsday recently said that the Obama campaign’s use of their article was “misleading.” The Politico called the Obama campaign’s use of the quote “bogus.“
The second mailer from the Obama campaign mimics Harry and Louise ads that the health care industry used to scare people into opposing universal health care. The ad claims “Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it.”
Here are the facts:
Sen. Obama fails to mention Hillary’s plan cuts costs just as aggressively as Sen. Obama, if not more so.
Hillary’s plan contains more generous subsidies than the Obama plan. Noted health expert Ken Thorpe of Emory University concluded that under the Hillary plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage.
The Obama plan leaves 15 million people out, which drives up costs because everyone else ends up subsidizing their emergency care.
Paul Krugman called the mailer “ugly” and “destructive.”
::::::::::::::::
GET THE PICTURE? This phony it’s-all-about-me-and-winning-and-money, on-the-take-from-mobsters-and-terrorists politician is not only lying about Hillary Clinton’s health plan but he’s also sowing the seeds of destruction for GENUINE universal health care.
Lying sack of shit.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
Obama is not a Democrat. He is a liberal Republican: someone whose social values are fairly tolerant, but who is dead set against “big government programs”.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will quickly move to privatize SS if elected.
Of course, like Bush he will make up a new name for what he is doing.
“Empowering Our Elderly: Keeping the Promise” — something like that.
Asshole. He’s got a pro-privatization economist on his advisory team. He’ll destroy Social Security and Medicare — or at least harm both — and cave to the Republicans every step of the way.
I am getting that creepy feeling that Obama is either a liberal republican as Mark just stated or he’s a libertarian democrat. Either way I wouldn’t be very happy if he is the nominee or the president. He isn’t going to be in my corner or fight for the issues that I care about. What kind of AA leader can’t be bothered to go to a conference concerning African Americans? If he went to a conference like that someone might actually pin him down on some issues so that they could hold his feet to the fire in the future. As it is he is skating through this election process without promising a god damned thing except hope and change.
Remember, Al Sharpton’s campaign (and I like Al) was organized, run and funded by Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone. You know, the buff guy with the swingers ad who called Spitzer’s father to threaten him. Real piece of work. Anyway, he ran Sharpton’s campaign and got a lot of funding from GOP types forAl- the whole being to disrupt the Democratic campaign.
I really wonder if Obama is a trojan horse. Think about it this way - because of Obama, the Republicans can now use a Democrat’s platform as a defense against universal healthcare and any other number of things.
Obama is proving to be very bad for the Democratic party. I don’t know what is going to happen next, but I won’t vote for him if he’s the nominee. I’d rather have a shot at running against a 76 year old McCain in 2012. If Obama wins the presidency, universal healthcare will be lost for another generation. Who knows what else he will poison?
Have you even thought about the poison that will infect us further if McCain wins the White House? After 8 years of Bush you are willing to let McCain have a pass?
WTF is wrong with you???
McCain is a poison we can recover from…..Obama is not!
When the Democrats have a real chance of reclaiming the White House….we will blow it with Obama! Obama will do harm in 4 years, give the Dema a bad name….and give the Republicans 4 years to get their act in gear and take the White house in 2012 for 8 years!
We will loose out on 12 years of recovery!
Hillary must be our nominee…she is the only solid Democratic that we have!
We WILL keep the WHite House for 8 years with Hillary …. and then KEEP a Democrat in the WHite House to follow!
If Obama is the nominee…we MUST vote for McCain and get the House back in 4 years!
Perhaps if Bloomberg launches an Independent party… if the nominees are Obama and McCain, the will give all of us an option who don’t support Obama or McCain!
WTF is wrong with you?
When McCain wins the white house because the democrats failed to field a competent candidadate it will be yours and all those people who voted for Obama’s fault. 4 years of McCain with a democratic congress means gridlock and compromise from both sides. You’d rather us take a chance on someone who is a pathological liar? Someone who would try to enact some bastardized version of a liberal agenda that would have no shot at actually working? It would be much, much better to let McCain deal with the mess left behind by Bush than compromising our agenda for 20-30 years. In 4 years we can elect a real democrat to fix this country.
And what poison are you talking about? Is Obama going to renounce some of that unitary executive power Bush has amassed? No way in hell. Is Obama going to abandon Iraq? If he does he is an idiot. It is now in our national interest to keep the troops there. To give away all those oil reserves to our mortal enemies would be unconscionable and dangerous for our future. We pull out and who gets the prize? The Iranians? The Russians? The Chinese? Radical Moslems? How many people will die when we pull out? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? It would be the second worst strategic mistake in the history of this country. The first actually being the invasion itself.
Do not bet on that democratic congress. Pelosi, Reid and the rest of K street fucked up by using the war as bait, and complaceny as the switch.
I think they’ll be surprised by the number of republicans elected.
And Obama has terrorist ties, too, which has already created an atmosphere of antagonism.
So who will advise him, Auchi?
The virtual game, those idiots don’t understand people DIE, are dying in the Middle East, and America, for the corrupt selfish decisions pols like Obama, and Bush make, dealing with men who support terrorism.
Guys like Kos, you know?
It’s very very real.
We are not there yet, Shoephone. I REFUSE (!) to let myself be bought by the Democrats making me so full of fear that I suspend all rational judgment. Not anymore. They did that to me in 2004 with that dope John Kerry.
P.S. I am not saying where MY chips will fall yet. But I AM SAYING that I refuse to buy into the FEAR OF ANYTHING REPUBLICAN crap that the Democratic party EXPLOITS to get us to vote like a bunch of sheep.
Shoephone, a P.S. I am not yelling at you. I am yelling at the damn Democrats who try to scare us into voting for the worst possible candidates and who shove bad candidates at us. It’s an insult.
I don’t think McCain will be much worse than Obama. I’m not voting for McCain, but I won’t use my vote to endorse the deeply misogynistic campaign Obama has run. I won’t make that worthwhile. The bullies will learn all the wrong lessons and women’s equality in our culture (if not legally), I swear, will be set back many years. It will justify Obama’s plan to run against women and I won’t reward that.
Obama’s contempt for women is so overt as is his need to bring the GOP into our process, that I’m quite certain he’s going to appoint anti-choice judges and saddle the Democrats with the demise of Roe v Wade. Republicans can’t overturn it because it would kill their fundraising base. I think it’s the bone he’ll throw the right for voting for him. I won’t participate in that.
I also don’t think, once he hears the siren call of defense dollars in his future, that he’ll get us out of Iraq. He’s way too greedy as his deal with Rezko more than proves. He’s a guy utterly contemptuous of the problem.
Anyway, all across the nation, women, who are the majority of voters, are saying that they will not vote for him. And this isn’t a pro-Hillary thing. It’s an anti-Obama thing. I just talked to a bunch of Edwards supporters, some of them women who hold party positions in Nevada - all of whom are committed to sitting it out if he’s the nominee. Houston - we have a problem. And the bully boys of the internet are taking women for granted - women who they have kicked off their sites, for being pro-Clinton. Women whom they have allowed other possters to call every name in the book for supporting Clinton. Women who have had to watch people like David Sirota misrepesent Clinton’s history in a ludicrous fashion. Women whose blogsites they have turned into toilets filled with most vile misogynistic rhetoric imaginable. I’m second wave, I recognize the languange, and I won’t vote for anyone who tolerates that kind of behavior - and Obama has. For a lot of us, putting another guy in the White House is same old, same old. One more married guy who thinks women are second class citizens - been there, done that. For us, having a shot at electing a woman with a fantastic resume who is deeply and passionately competent to the job is incredibly exciting. The gusy on the internet, while never admitting their misogyny, have taken her to task in an incredibly harsh fashion for positions that are identical to what her opponents hold. It’s bullshit. I won’t reward it. If he’s the nominee, I’m sitting that race out when I vote.
Lorelynn, the many regulars at our Howard Dean Meetups thought that Al Sharpton was a huge HOOT in the debates in 2003-2004.
I told them at one Meetup about Roger Stone. They were shocked. MOST Democrats — even educated ones like those who came to the Dean Meetups — just don’t know. They watch the speeches / they watch the debates / and they actually BUY that crap.
By the way, it was Village Voice in 2003-2004 who did the legwork on exposing Sharpton’s GOP ties and financing.
Also for republicans, in the long run, but they can’t see it, never could.
It’s why they lost the Middle East, and such, why their version of empire has lost.
And they can’t change, they don’t know what else to do.
a creppy euphamism
The NYT has a story regarding Hillary Clinton’s “dark horizons,” first thing I looked for was the author: Pat Healy.
And I knew it was shit, an absolute, Madonna like, mediocre, ficitonal narrative from a BAD reporter.
Thanks for letting us know who to trust, media wise, Susuan, Larry and dcmediagirl.
It makes such a difference in understanding where these fools are coming from, the garbage they spin, in terms of TRYING to shape the election.
I am so pissed. I cannot believe all those idiots think “he’s the one.” My god in heaven.
And those petty fools at the NYT make it worse. Only Krugman dares to tell it like it is — for which he pays a big price.
And those DailyObama thugs are now attacking David Sirota, who’s about as far left as you can get. Sirota wrote a diary in shock over the attacks he’s getting there:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/23/132444/743/145/462584
SusanUnPC
As one who has been reading Sirota’s posts at his blog for the last 3 years, your concern is sadly misplaced.
Sirota is now a Obama supporter and quite a nasty one at that, and has used his blog to vilify Hillary up and including accusing the Clinton’s of being racists and stating she supported NAFTA when in reality she didn’t when Bill was president.
Mind you I’m not a Hillary supporter at all, but damn, to see Sirota act like Rove and smear a woman like this disgusted me. Wrong is wrong.
Worse, Sirota refused to examine Obama’s ties to big business, his taking money from the Crown family, Xelon(sp?), Rezko, his support for free trade legislation, etc.
All the investigative stuff he used to do before with other politicians, he gives a pass for Obama just like Markos and his gang.
And it gets better, he’s even made it clear that those who criticize Obama on his own blog go to talk radio or conservative blogs.
He’s a joke now.
I agree. I used to get his column and posts in my email every day. When he became blatently anti-Hillary I unsubscribed. I’m pretty much down to talkleft, Tayler Marsh and No Quarter if I want to hear the truth about anything.
My favorites list is so short I barely have to scroll.
And by NOT listening to Air Obama on the weekends I have a chance to read more books, email friends and family and sew the fabric shopping bags I give friends and family as gifts. And I’m not quite so angry all the time.
THANK YOU! I did not know that. Frankly, I resigned from his newsletter a while ago, so hadn’t been following him. I just assumed (sigh) from his being so upset in his diary that he’d been attacked for criticizing Obama.
Thanks again for the clarification. I won’t waste another breath on Sirota.
He is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He will destroy all we have worked for.
Obama?
No, he is owned, like Bush.
But rather than lead America, it will always be a case of minimizing the damage.
And we’ve had enough of that, let’s get someone in who can lead, who isn’t owned by K-Street, and others.
I hope the Rezko trial is what can be his downfall.
Im coming to this site now to get a good laugh. Yes, a good laugh!You all have boiled over and now a very nasty stink is coming from the extra thats burning on the burner! LOL
liberalbuffet -
Are you Barack Hussein Obama’s Health Care Advisor? You sound about right for the position. 18 years old and clueless.
Clinton supporter here - Mike, I’m not sure why you always refer to Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama.” It comes very close to reinforcing that phony “he’s a radical Muslim” email that was going around.
I’m all for criticizing Obama; I think there’s a lot to criticize and as mentioned, I’m a Clinton supporter. But I think it’s really important to keep the criticisms honest and focused on issues and his actions.
otherlisa -
Are you serious? It’s his name.
What phony name would be acceptable to you? What other info. is simply too sensitive like his f-ing name?!
By the way, how do you know that he isn’t a radical Muslim? Because he’s a greedy Christian who doesn’t care if the poor freeze so long as he gets a mansion?
Better protect the public from his name! People might riot if Barack Hussein Obama’s name is released! I feel like I might faint!
Mike, I’m just saying, we don’t generally refer to Clinton as “Hillary Rodham Clinton” every time we mention her name. You always say “Barack Hussein Obama,” and the right wing has already gone nuts with the radical Muslim meme, the name that resembles, you know, Saddam’s, etc. etc. etc., and all this makes me wonder what your agenda is.
Look, you can check out my comments on this blog (or other blogs) if you would like. I am for Hillary. I do not support Obama. I think he’s a bad choice for our Democratic Party. But there are so many things he can be challenged on. I feel like it is dangerous territory to tread so close to a right wing talking point. One of the things I don’t like about Obama is his use of right wing talking points. I’d rather criticize Obama from a progressive position, and there’s plenty of ammunition there.
Samantha, besides Lisa’s very good arguments, it is not smart to do it. … we needn’t be smeared unnecessarily by accusations we’re trying to paint him as a Muslim. Let the Free Republic types do that.
WE WON’T DO THAT HERE.
I’ve read a lot of biographical info on him, and I don’t see any big concerns re his religious influences as a child. (Now there’s plenty of biographical info that is very suspect — see my story last week on his phony baloney books that people lap up as if they were all true.) And, it is terrible to imply that having ANY exposure to the Muslim religion makes him suspect, as the ‘wingers are doing. NOW, the Christian church he goes to in Chicago — that’s fair game. There are some big issues there.
I’m with Lisa, Mike. Let’s not go there, and we can leave that to the ‘winger blogs. (We have so many arguments to bring against him without unfortunately getting painted in a way we don’t wish to. Otherwise, enjoy your comments very much!)
I agree with you both.
Early on in my local Dem meeting I got called out for refering to him as “Obama”. People wanted me to call him “Barack” instead. Obama sounds too much like that terrorist. Even back then I thought, oh crap, we’re going to support a guy and it’s supposed to be shameful to even speak his name? This doesn’t bode well.
yeah, at our house we just now say, “that guy” because we are tired of the constant ad reinforcement of “Obama”.
Repeat it enough and it becomes the truth, they say. Well if I can get you to say Coke more often that Pepsi then you won’t drink the vile shit called Pepsi. Get you to repeat anything long enough and you’ll buy it, even though you’ll swear you aren’t brand loyal.
BRANDING is what its called and I’m not a damn cow.
Yup, that’s getting a little overboard P.C. Good for you.
Are you guys serious? What in the heck is wrong with using his FULL NAME! It IS his name
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! That is his name. His father IS A MUSLIM. Those are facts!
We have to stop acting like incestuous pundits. The deep desire to suppress the truth…about Obama!
We are looking for a President who is at least able to have his full name in print for goodness sake…and to be honest about his roots….his father is a muslim….period. It doesn’t matter if his father left him at 2.
I don’t care that his father was a Muslim. I really don’t. Quite frankly I regard all fundamentalist strains of religion the same way - I think they are dangerous and backward. Islam, Christianity, Judaism - fundamentalists scare me, pretty much equally. They are all based on the same irrational principles.
I’ve already explained what my objections are to this constant repetition of his full name. Certainly at times it’s entirely appropriate. I’m just asking for an equal standard here. You think every time a political candidate’s name is mentioned you should use first, last, and middle name? I don’t even know what John McCain’s middle name is. And nine times out of ten, I’d just refer to him as “McCain.”
I think you guys are doing this deliberately, as a way of stoking fear, as a way of associating Obama with terrorists and Saddam and god knows what, and I think that’s a tactic better left at Little Green Footballs. I think we can attack Obama on substantive issues. That’s what this diary is about. I’d prefer to focus on why he is not a good choice for Democratic nominee for President, and his name and his father’s religious background have f***-all to do with it.
otherlisa -
I have always used Hillary Rodham Clinton’s full name. Her full name was used to make the point when her husband was running for office that she was “too independent” because she had a last name for a middle name.
I use it to show that she is independent from her husband. Even though he was a fabulous President she is very much her own brave intelligent self.
Now you would have me not use Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name because:
Barack Hussein Obama spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads trying to sell people on the idea that he is not Muslim.
That seems creepy to me. He was a Muslim for 26 years and nearly all of his relatives are Muslim. Why the ads? That’s my point.
The Church that he is active with honors Louis Farrakhan, who also lives in Kenwood. I use his full name to point out his name. It may be relevant.
Barack Hussein Obama’s refusal to disavow Ayers - an unremorseful terrorist worries me.
His soliciting wildly expensive gifts from campaign donors like convicted Duke Cunningham (who was a true American hero at one point) worries me.
His close 20 year friendship with a Syrian national slumlord who is friends with convicted oil for food Iraqi billionaire Auchi - to the point of Auchi’s making a 3.5 million dollar loan for him while he’s awaiting his federal trial for government kickback schemes worries me.
Yet you otherlisa and others are sadly pre-occupied with keeping Barack Husssein Obama’s middle name silent.
Please do tell what other public information about him is off-limits?
First Rule: You must never refer to a Presidential candidate by his full name.
There goes John Sidney McCain’s name, which otherlisa didn’t bother to know either.
I am disappointed in you Susan. I thought you believed that words mattered. I foolishly assumed that was to get at the truth.
By the way, the right wingers refer to him as Osama Obama, which I don’t do and I’ve never linked him to Sadam despite otherlisa’s uninformed uneducated drivel.
Mike, I’m sorry, this is deeply silly. I know full well what Obama’s name is, and nothing I say here will turn it into a big secret. I maintain that you are adopting a rightwing talking point with your constant repetition of “Hussein.” It reminds me of the Saturday night live sketch when Dana Carvey played Bush 1 and finally chanted “Saddam, Saddam, SADDAM!” Pronouncing it like “Sodom.”
The Farrakhan connection IS creepy. But trying to fuel fears of some kind of hidden Muslim conspiracy starts going to Islamofascist-Nazi land, and I’ve had enough of that with the last 7 years of Bush and his neocons.
The truth is difficult, but men in power do bad things, sometimes, and if you want to stop it, you have to face it, and deal with it, and them.
otherlisa -
All that from his name? I think people bring their own prejudices and craziness to things.
I wonder how you would do on a Rorschach Test? Would you read some racist conspiracy into it?
You are lumping all people with Arabic names into associates of Saddam Hussein. Don’t put your weird shit off on me.
[ADMIN NOTE BY SUSANUNPC: Mike, the argument is concluded. We won't use that here. Let the Free Republic people do that kind of stuff. I enjoy your comments here very much, Mike, but we can be critical without getting into a name that he didn't choose and which his parents could have never foreseen would have someday been awkward for him.]
SusanUNPC -
You mean to tell me that a Harvard attorney and his attorney wife would be unable to get his name changed if he didn’ like it?
You don’t want the truth. You’re an enabler.
No. Just trying to avoid the labels that we don’t want or deserve here. And, Mike, you have to ask yourself why his name is a fixation…. he didn’t choose it / there are probably millions of Husseins in the U.S., as well as around the world. There are thousands of Osamas in the U.S too.
(And I have so much research and writing to do / please don’t make me keep debating this with you. Your posts are VERY welcome here / your insults of me [and Lisa, a longtime friend who is as fair-minded but hip person as you'll meet] are unfair, and it has to stop. PLEASE help let me do my job by not continuing to fight about this. This is the part of having a blog that is a total drag — having to spend big chunks of time on administrative stuff that should not be required.)
No rational counter-arguments. Per usual. You arrogant SOBs who worship Obama are in for a cruel shock if he somehow becomes president… you will RUE the day.
In the meantime, make your little drive-by attacks without any factual or rational defense of your candidate.
Well…They SHAPED the Last two Elections didn’t they..Simon ..Its just a game to them..like the Cold war was.. and Con game with Iraq..
Where the Hell IS Karl Rove anyhow..Think He would go to the Highest Bidder..?? Sniff Sniff..
Is it Just more DIRTY DICK Politics ..and MOB Warfare..?? Who are the Players behind the Casino Glitter..and roulette Games..??
Who is trying to control the ODDS and Counts the Money..??
Where the Hell is Elliot Ness when you need him the Most?? ..Someone send him to Chicago..It May have been franks kind of Town..but I don’t think its Mine..
I like fresh air..
Search for Karl Rove here, Patrick. I link to his latest WSJ column.
he makes some very good points about Obam’s thin record and inexperience. But he is wrong when he says that Obama is disguising his leftist beliefs. Rove says that because it’s a tried-and-true argument for the GOP. But the truth is that Obama doesn’t have profound beliefs about anything and doesn’t give a shit if he jeopardizes universal health care just to get elected.
Obama is so left, he backed Lieberman over Lemont. He’s so left he backed an earmark that benefited and won the praise of that UberPileOShit Dennis “The Vogon” Hastert. He’s so left, he now utilizes 16 yr old attacks on Clinton with no reservation and then applauds himself.
Yep Rove can be a weathervein, if you know how to read the weather.
With consequnce, though, even for them.
Bill Kristol was on Fox, today, telling Hillary to use fear to puncture Obama’s hope meme, and that’s nonsense.
It is not good for any of us to live in a perpetually frightened America — fear does not innovate, bottom line, and without innovation, we’re dead meat. See Bush v B. Clinton, economic development.
And it is THAT intellecutalism, innovation, that keeps us ahead of others, keeps defense strong, and it must be based on truth.
But I guess game playing makes world situations more palatable, it’s difficult thinking, for them, I suppose, one fuck up can mean Russia owning the Middle East, or prison, for others.
So, turn it into football.
Where the Hell is Elliot Ness when you need him the Most
I’m sorry … this has just become too silly. You have turned a once serious site into a laughing stock. You’ve become a Hate Obama noise machine.
Very sad.
Of course you have ZERO arguments against the very serious concerns about his lousy health care plans and his privatizin’, right-leaning economic advisers. Just smackin’. Typical of the ‘droids.
You spout a great deal of high minded nonsense. As I’ve said, the plan that is eventually passed and signed into law will not resemble anything we see today.
The larger picture is that you are running a Obama hit job column with a rule or ruin attitude. Hillary is queen and Obama is evil on almost every issue? Please .. look in the mirror.
Obama has ties to Tony Rezko, who may have terrorist ties, certainly to Auchi.
Why don’t you explore that charge, before you try spinning?
It’s not going away, the ideal goal is to see Obama in prison.
They say Gov Blogojevich is Fitzgerald’s ultimate target, I wonder if there are others?
Daily is SO corrupt, and Obama, and the Arab community he associates with are a large part of Daley’s posse.
As far as I know, I have no criminal ties to terrorists, even looking in the mirror…
What is this?
Can’t defend the indefensible so you just attack the source.
Obama is a threat to liberal values because he is torpedoing all our values to get republican and independent votes in the primary. What is he going to run on if he actually wins the primary? How is he going to get these people to the polls in November and get them to vote for him? If there is no clear distinction between him and McCain on the issues why would anyone choose him? The liberal agenda is the superior agenda. What we are witnessing is a textbook case of blowing the general election to win the primary. There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary would have won this nomination going away if Obama and his minions hadn’t have went after the liberal agenda from the start using the divisive and disgusting tactics of race baiting, sex baiting, liberal baiting, etc. At this point I don’t think it matters who wins the nomination as both candidates are pretty much dead in the water. Instead of Obama being the republicans worst nightmare he turned out to be their best day dream delivering the white house back to them again on a silver platter.
I don’t HATE Obama..I wanted to believe He was the real Deal..especially if He’s being turned into the Democrat Partys American IDOL..and therefore the partys CHOSEN ONE for thier candidate to be President..I am a Life Long Democrat..I want the Democrats to win the elections..and give us a more FAIR & BALANCED Government..
BUT..I know there has been alot of Betrayal and deception over the last eight years…alot of Lying and waste of Money and Resources…. I Have had ebough of ABUSE of OFFICE..and MANIPULATION..
The Bush Administration Proved that you can’t Trust everyone..and that We Must VERIFY…because
we know that some of the People we trusted..
LIE….( and they don’t even Dance Good either)
So now its VERIFY..Everything..and Only TRUST as long as that trust is EARNED..
Speaking the truth about Obama. Supporters need to take off the Obama Headphones and wake up.
Instead of a cowardly attack on the people on this site, why not state the truth about Obama that we must be missing.
Show us the way to follow his light….what are we..what I am missing? What do you see that I can’t! Please ….. explain this to me?
WHAT is he hoping to change… and how. That should be pretty easy. THen please show me in his history/record….that he really is about what he says and has the ability to change whatever it is.
Please explain!
Yes, another stellar, well thought argument for your candidate. Disgusting, slime, just like Freepers.
So far all I’ve seen Obama do is attack the Bill Clinton presidency, attack Hillary, critisize Democrats, and today he disparages the word liberal.
“There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There’s nothing liberal about saying that doesn’t make sense, and we should so something smarter with our health care system” BO
Well actually there is something very liberal about that, you idiot. Some of us have worked very hard for our liberal values.
It’s lovely for this man to spend so much time wooing Neocons and then Republicans, but is he ever going to spend some time wooing me?
He lost my vote when he went on CNN and denied being a liberal. The fact that he is single handedly destroying the liberal agenda only furthur strengthens my resolve not to vote for him. I really think we’d be better off with McCain in the white house if we maintain our congressional majorities. At least then democrats will act as opposition and protect social programs such as social security, welfare, and medicare. If Obama is president they may not be able to say no to privatizing schemes and unfettered capitalism.
Yeah, because the Democratic majority has been so brave and successful against Bush.
No, not nearly as much as I would like them to, however, there is no privatization of SS and roll back of other programs. Obama as a faux Democrat can bring about the collapse of the last programs of the New Deal, rid the last pieces of the Great Society and bring about the full privatization of government.
Better by far, nominate Hillary Clinton - a real Democrat.
Obama is going to bring about “the full privatization of government”? Where and when did he imply that?
As for Soc. Security, that is the ONE area where Democrats were unified against Bush. What makes you think they are going to fold like lawn chairs on that issue?
I can guarante you that every Democrat on the the Ways and Means committee — including my congressman — is not going to put up with that privatization crap, regardless of where it emanates from.
And for the 1,000th time, I’m an Edwards gal who voted for Hillary in my state’s caucus. But the question is, what direction do Democratic voters take if she doesn’t win the nomination? Me, I’m voting for the Democrat, much as I dislike him. Because I know the havoc that a McCain presidency will wreak on this nation. More war, more torture, more illegal spying on Amercican citizens, more special interest corruption, more corruption and criminality at the hands of independent mercenary contractors, more uninsured Americans, more economic disasters, more oil drilling, more more more of the same nonsense we’ve been dealing with for the past 7 years.
Oh. And then there are the courts. The federal courts, the circuit courts and the Supreme Court.
If Obama wins the nomination and enough of Hillary’s supporters throw a tantrum and threaten to sit out this election I will hold them personally responsible for the results. But by all means, go ahead and make your pledge to McCain if it really suits you. It only proves to me that you are not a Democrat and you are not thinking clearly about the dangers that will be visited upon this nation with more Republican conservatism at the helm.
Well, I have voted a straight democratic ticket every year since 1988 but as an educator I can’t get behind Obama. He claims he has used drugs. He gave a speech in 2004 where he advocated legalizing drugs. He is for merit pay for teachers which basically throws the socioeconomically disadvantaged kids (ie the poor and minorities) under the bus. Yeah, as an educator I could really get behind his candidacy and vote for a guy who is pretty much the embodiment of everything I stand against. Obama constantly says one thing yet does another. The fact that he denies being liberal really bothers me. Oh, and I forgot about his charter schools crap. Obama is no democrat. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Those are much more dangerous than the real thing. But it is all going to be water under the bridge in November anyway. Obama has already compromised his ideas so far right and has divided the democratic party in the process that he wont have a snowballs chance in hell at winning the GE. His candidacy was all about submarining Hillary and her agenda using dispicable tactics. These tactics won’t work against McCain and the republicans because their base won’t be dissuaded and they won’t switch allegiance the first time Obama cries racism.
With all due respect, I think you are dead wrong if you believe McCain would be better for us than Obama. Especially if we gain more seats in the House and Senate.
But lots of Obama supporters are saying McCain would be better for us than Hillary.
Both sides are wrong. How discouraging.
I think people ought to face the facts. Obama is not an electable candidate. Never was, never will be. He intentionally ran a campaign that divided the democratic party and he has openly coveted and begged independents and republicans to cross party lines to vote for him. These folks aren’t going to vote for him in the fall. The people who would have voted for him are people like me; however, he crapped all over us in his pursuit of those crossover folks. In the end if you vote for Obama you are taking a big chance that he really is a liberal democrat when he loudly proclaims he is not. I think ideologically he is probably libertarian which is far worse than a liberal republican like McCain. I just don’t believe you when you say that he’d be better for us than McCain and those Obama supporters who would rather vote for McCain aren’t really liberal democrats at all. Most of his supporters are independents/republicans who are only voting for him because he is running against Hillary. Once she is out of the picture they will be as well.
I never once said Obama is a liberal Democrat, so I’ll thank you to not put words in my mouth. I also don’t believe for one moment that McCain is a liberal Republican, whatever the hell that means. He is reliably conservative and you can check his voting record to see that. The only reason some of the right-wingers have a problem with him is because of McCain-Feingold, which threatened their special interest feifdoms. Except that the soft money now controls the election process and since that’s not regulated, the right-wingers didn’t really end up losing out after all.
They tout the myth that McCain is not sufficiently anti-choice, when in fact he is reliably conservative on that score as well.
I get it that you have a beef with Obama on charter schools. As a national issue, I don’t think it’s going anywhere. You continue to disregard the simple fact that nothing gets passed into law without Congress’s help. Since I actually know some of my representatives and I know they are not going to keel over the first time Obama says “I want this and I want that!”, maybe you should bone up on your own Democratic representatives and find out where they are on the charter school issue. And all the other issues that matter to you.
And just for laughs, when was the last time Obama said we should stay in Iraq for another 100 years? That’s right. He didn’t. But McCain certainly said it (and believes it).
You’re tiresome, just like all the phony Democrats. Instead of thinking about what’s best for the country, you’re only thinking about what’s good for you in your little world.
Congratulations Larry and Susan! You’ve not only turned this site into all-Obama-hate-all-the-time, but you’ve succeeded in turning so-called Democrats into McCain supporters. You must be very proud.
“Ta ta”. I’d like to say it’s been fun. But it’s actually been one big fat disappointment.
Phony Democrats being those that don’t agree with you? And FYI some of us are NOT Democrats but are liberal Independents thus we do not worship at the throne of a party that has betrayed the American People nearly as much as the Republicans. Hmmm let’s see who do I vote for; really, really bad candidate or not-quite-as bad candidate? Some damn choice.
And Susan and Larry haven’t turned anyone into anything. Are you so annoyed with people that don’t agree with you that you think we are little Republican clones that do as we’re told or follow some damn demagogue blindly? We are, I suspect, for the most part, adults who are quite capable of making up our own minds.
And speaking only for myself, there is nothing on the face of the earth that would make me vote for either Obama or McCain.
I will either vote Green or write in Hillary Rodham Clinton is Obama is the democratic nominee.
Just a quick question. If I am a liberal democrat and Obama is not then why should I vote for him? I don’t get the logic. You are admitting that he isn’t a liberal. I am. I want to get as liberal a person in office as possible. I don’t get that I should vote for Obama just because he isn’t a republican. That is something the GOP will do. Obama is lacking in a lot of areas. I have a duty to my fellow citizens and my country. I take that duty seriously.
Oh, and I forgot about his charter schools crap
A one Mr. Rowe has given a fair chunk of change to a charter school or two in the Chicago area….
There are many reasons that privatizing education would be a severe setback to our society. Some charter schools do have their place but the curriculum these schools teach is horrible and the quality of the instructors are very poor. Public schools have some of the most outstanding teachers anyone could imagine. These people are dedicated and damned good at their jobs. Every time I hear some yoyo say that anyone can teach I get infuriated. To do it right requires a level of commitment and competence that most people couldn’t even begin to achieve. I absolutely hate those republican talking points which always seem to demean teachers who put their heart and soul into helping kids.
I will vote for the Democrat as well. If it’s Obama, I may need a few shots of tequila first.
OtherLisa -
You may find me at the barstool next to you, because it won’t be an easy vote for me either. But it will be the vote I’ll make. I guess we know what’s really important. Big Picture, and all that.
Good luck to you here. Since I’m leaving I can only hope that the last remaining reasonable people don’t get squashed like bugs by the No Quarter death sqauds.
Shoe, I’ve known Susan a long time - since we formed an e-group over the shock of the 2000 election. So though I don’t agree with all the commentors here, I trust and support what she’s doing.
I’m a yellow dog Democrat. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I do understand some of the concerns expressed here, however. The only thing worse than Obama getting beat by McCain in the general election would be Obama winning and being another Carter - and by this I mean an ineffective President who is unable to cope with the multi-level challenges that our country faces (and just to be clear, though I think Carter made plenty of mistakes, he was deliberately and thoroughly screwed over by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy TM).
A disastrous, one-term Obama Presidency will screw us over even worse than a McCain victory in the fall.
But, like I said, I’m a Democrat. There’s no way I’m willing to take that chance. I have to assume that an Obama Presidency is preferable to McCain. I’m a Democrat. I don’t have a lot of faith, but I have to have that.
What big picture? Considering how Obama is already pulling the party to the right by attacking social security and universal healthcare, and considering his “present” rather than pro-choice votes and his willingness to lie about it, what makes you think he’ll be any better than McCain?
The big picture I’m seeing is that Obama poisons universal healthcare for another generation and sets women’s equality back fifty years - the only realistic conclusion based on the vile rhetoric of his campaign supporters and his unwillingness to shut it down.
So, what’s the big picture? That women have to take a back seat for another generation because of Obama? How is that better than what will happen if McCain’s elected? With McCain, we can run against him in four years and saddle the GOP with the failure of universal healthcare and the fall of Roe. With Obama, we have to simply write those failures off and spend the next fifty years paying for them. That’s your idea of a bettter choice?
I am a democrat, but I am an American first. I don’t like John McCain’s policies on a lot of issues, but I don’t doubt his ability to be president. I can’t say the same for Obama. If Obama gets the democratic nomination, then I will have to seriously consider voting for him. There I said it. You can blame me all you want.
I’m not sure what you mean by “ability to be president,” but you can’t really be saying that Obama has less of it than our current national embarassment. Can you?
The job involves being head of state and head of government. Obama pretty clearly has the head-of-state attributes of being able to articulate a vision in such a way as to inspire large numbers of people. This is for some reason turned into an insult by the Hillary campaign.
A head of government needs to be able to make clear decisions on complex issues, consistent with some core principles. Obama’s ability to answer questions thoughtfully, in complete sentences, without resorting to canned talking points, implies an ability to do just that. But it’s not just pretty words — the Obama campaign, as described by Frank Rich in today’s Times (http://snipurl.com/20ae7), is “not a vaporous cult[, but] a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done.” As for Hillary, Rich writes, “This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.”
.
I can.
I can say he is less qualified than BUsh.
Bush, at the very least, had a political upbringing, and the men he surrounded himself with, though corrupt, and mediocre, and at least KNOW how the game runs.
Obama has David Axlerod, that’s it. It would appear the ambitions of his crowd are the same as Bush’s, but no one in Obama’s crew has a clue how this thing really works, even in terms of other governments.
Look at Kos site, for instance, the ignorance of international affairs is astounding, the lack of political awareness, even the language they choose to express themselves shows ignorance. Like Bush, Obama has already alienated those who would advise him, truthfully, he’s already a quadripalegic.
And some stupid political consultant, some stupid corrupt american political consultant, will not go up against Putin, and succeed.
Period.
McCain and Clinton are aware of this, Kerry is not, Obama deals with men, profits from men, who deal in terrorism.
So I would venture Obama would make a worse President that Bush, already camped out permanently, on Pluto.
without resorting to canned talking points, implies an ability to do just that.
You will decide based on this? An implication? WOW.
make clear decisions on complex issues, consistent with some core principles
1) Why do you take the liberty of assupmtion?
2) What are “some” core principles?
3) As a human being, does it bother you that Senator Obama knowingly allowed his constituants to live without heat and running water in Chicago winter?
3a) Does it affect your view that Obama would seek assistance from the very person who was responsible for his constituants foul circumstances?
These to me are not complex issues. They are as basic and moral as it gets. It goes to the very fiber of the man’s character and judgement.
4) Given Senator Obama’s record and his inability to make sound choices on even the most basic issue.
Please enlighten me as to WHY you believe he can be “able to make clear decisions on complex issues” when he can’t make correct decisions on the basic stuff.
Is he ever going to spend time wooing us? No, he is not. In fact, his campaign encourages people to leave the Democratic party right after the vote for him. What a missed opportunity to grow the party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUE4Kp0YERs
[...] Launches The Worst Kinds of Lying Attacks That Undermine … February 23rd, 2008 leftofdayton wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBut he is a FALSE Messiah with [...]
Paul Krugman, as usual, said it best:
…Obama just isn’t all that committed to health care reform…I hope he proves me wrong. But as I’ve written before, from my perspective it looks as if a dream is dying.
-February 18, 2008
The fact of the matter is Obama comes in with good sounding statements and then when you look at the actural record, he has in effect caved to the status quo. How can this be called change?
Case in point is the Nuclear legislation. It has become a industry volunteer thing just like it is now. How is this change. So - why bother writing it other than to get headlines.
The other was lobby reform and even ABC called him out on that is being silly. The only thing changed is they have to stand up to recieve their money. How is this change
When his advocates are asked to name any legistlation he passed, they stand their dumbfounded.
Do you realy think this stuff is defensable? It is a house of cards that will collapse like the McGovern campaign did.
There is a new presidential poll out there today
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
from “Decision Analyst, Inc.” with Obama 14% ahead of Clinton in Texas and 8% ahead in Ohio….. Could it be?
Who are this polling people??? Help anyone?
Jerry W. Thomas
President and CEO
http://www.decisionanalyst.com/contacts/executiveteam.dai#jwt
Hillary’s “Universal” Health Care Plan IS Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts “Universal” Health Care Plan, complete with fines & mandates. If it’s such a friggin’ wonderful plan why weren’t you praising it when Romney enacted it?
No outrage here in MA about the Health Care plan.
I’ve read that 20% of Mass. citizens are still not covered. True? Untrue?
Shoe,
They’ll have to get covered or be fined.
Residents in Mass., who refuse to get health insurance will soon face monthly fines of up to $76 , says the AP:
The fines are part of an increasingly aggressive approach written into the health care law designed to pressure Massachusetts residents into getting insurance. The law, intended to create near-universal coverage in the state, was approved by lawmakers and signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006.
It remains unclear how many Massachusetts residents still don’t have insurance, but the number could be in the hundreds of thousands.
No health care? Higher fines in Mass. [BusinessWeek]
Thanks Cee. It’s been hard for me to find defintive answers on the results of the Romney/Mass. plan.
I have to say, I wouldn’t mind having some of my (small) income tagged for health care if I knew in advance how much it was going to be each month. Since I’m self-employed I’ve ended up paying exhorbitant amounts for dental work. And I have to pick and choose which injuries are serious enough to get medical attention for.
Please don’t quote me on this, but I am pretty sure that the mandate aspect of the MA plan has not yet gone into effect, and I don’t know if there is some kind of state funded option (which we would have under HRC’s plan).
So though there are similarities, I don’t think you can really compare what’s happening in MA to how this would work on a country-wide level, under HRC’s plan.
I am pretty sure that the mandate aspect of the MA plan has not yet gone into effect
Otherlisa,
You’re correct. This is a portion of the article that I didn’t add
The penalties, which vary with age and income, are based on half the lowest cost plans available through the Health Care Connector. They accrue each month an individual remains uninsured and will be due as part of tax returns filed early in 2009.
Getting a definitive answer from Cee that doesn’t favor Obama and in some way slam Clinton is way past silly and bordering on down right dumb. But then if you’ve read Cee’s posts and are half as smart as you think you are you all ready know that.
Shoe,
I’m going through a family health crisis at this time (which is why I’ve spent so much time here so I don’t dwell on it) and it has been painful to hear people being asked for their insurance information at various places.
Not hello! Just give us your insurance!
I saw people being turned away because lifesaving procedures aren’t covered or the Dr. or hospital doesn’t accept THAT insurance.
Any new plan by either Obama or Clinton is needed NOW!
Cee I send good thoughts your way, hang in there.
Like shoe, I’m self-employed, I have a kid with a chronic medical condition, I pay cash for everything which is expensive, but still cheaper than any medical plan. I know I should go on SCHIP, but I feel like I’m so much better off, and there are people who have kids in a much worse way than mine is, I can’t do it.
If you want to be amused, tell a lab you’re paying cash for your kids bloodwork, and watch them freak out. Like I did on Friday.
For me UHC IS the issue. It’s why I voted for Clinton in 1999, and why I voted for Edwards in the primary. The system we have now amounts to legalized graft. I had insurance a few years back when my daughter had her first grand mal seizure, thank goodness, but it cost $600 a month for a family of three, didn’t cover pregnancy or prescriptions and had a high deductible. But still, it was “good” insurance. So why did I end up still owing hundreds of dollars to the hospitals, labs, and ambulance services?
Good question. Answer? UHC, now.
According to Paul Krugman, who has apparently become public enemy #1 along with Mr. Johnson, John Edwards, and now, Bill Maher, Clintons plan is better. I’m not an economist, but it seems to me Mr. Krugman has been right where others have been wrong, so I trust his judgment. I think a lot of the social and economic issues in this country will go away with a sensible switchover to affordable medicine.
I hear the Obama campaign use the same right wing talking points that Republicans used back in 2000, and I think to myself, like Mr. Krugman, well, so much for that.
Where it’s true that Obama’s plan isn’t as good as Clintons, I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee, simply because even though the chances are slim that we’ll get relief from Medical bills under Obama, I don’t think there’s even a slim chance under McCain.
yttik, Wow Thanks for enlightening me. I never knew the reason health care is so expensive in this country is the fault of the uninsured. The CEOs of the insurance giants making mega millions, the shareholders of the stock always clammering for upticks & bigger dividends, the lobbyists for the insurers & big pharma buyin’ off the politicans, med schools getting subsidies for turning away students, all the docs are millionairs, tons of unnecessary tests for the most simple procedures, 25% of the population of most major US cities & their kids all on medicaid, all the seniors on medicare & rackin’ up mega bills the last 6 mos of their lives & yet it’s those damn uninsured. So glad you told me.
So is this about policy or the incredibly astounding shocking and Rovian generic stock photo of a middle class white couple sitting at their kitchen table with misc papers in front of them?
The factcheck.org site infact says directly after the comment posted here (which has been conveniently clipped i might add) - “We agree that there is a resemblance between the photo on the Obama mailer and the TV spots…But so far as we can see, Obama’s choice of images in his mailer has nothing whatever to do with the accuracy of the claims it makes, or the accuracy of what “Harry and Louise” said, for that matter.”
And - “The Clinton campaign objected to the mailer on grounds that its image of a middle-class white couple is reminiscent of the “Harry and Louise” TV spots that the health insurance industry used to attack the 1993 Clinton health care plan. We see the resemblance, but fail to see the relevancy.”
Which i’m failing to see as well.
Fact check states that the only problem it has with Obama’s facts in the mailer is that it doesn’t state them in the context of the facts of Hillary’s plan.
I didn’t realise it was up to Obama’s campaign to get Hillary’s policy out there for her.
To claim it’s “The Worst Kinds of Lying Attacks That Undermine Americans’ Hope for Universal Health Care” is a bit rich. I don’t know if you heard but Len Nichols of the New America Foundation likened “the Obama mail piece as “as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois.” Are you fucking kidding me!?
I think we all need to take a deep breath, grab a cup of tea and calm down.
I will say one thing though. I agree with Taylor Marsh’s comment “It’s anger from the heart about an issue Clinton is passionate about. This works.”
While i question the angle and some of the rhetoric it’s the second time in as many days i’ve seen Hillary. The real Hillary and someone i could see as leading.
d.
Hey Andy, How many people are paying fines instead of buying insurance?
One of my favorite Obama retorts to Hillary’s Health Care Plan was something like, “If Senator Clinton thinks she can achieve Universal coverage with mandates, maybe she should just mandate everyone buy a house & then we wouldn’t have any homeless folks.”
Well, we all participate in social security and Medicare, and the co-opting of Rovian talking points aside, that’s worked pretty damn well for this country.
Yes, one of his typically stupid, irrelevant, arrogant statements.
Just freezing without running water….
I love how Obama’s health care plan mandates it for kids then says we can’t do mandates for adults because people would complain. Wouldn’t parents of children complain about mandates? Don’t parents of children have trouble paying for things? Obama says mandates for children is doable but no, we can’t mandates it for adults.
One of the biggest problems with the MA plan is that the affordability protections are not strong enough. If the plan was more affordable, people would be able to buy it. So while it is true that MA has not been a total success, this is not because of mandates in an of themselves, it is becaue Governor Romney was not willing to put in strong affordability protections.
When the Big Dog was elected in 1992, he was forced to move to the right by the ascendency of the GOP. “Liberal” was a dirty word, and there was a multi-million dollar public relations effort to sell the dismantling of the New Deal and Great Society.
On issues like welfare reform, Bill Clinton fought to preserve as much as he could in the face of enormous political pressure. Millions were spent to defeat health care reform alone. (Remember Harry & Louise?)
Bill tried to end the discrimination of gays in the military, but the most he could get was the DADT policy because his own party wouldn’t stand behind him. Yeah, he was wrong on NAFTA, but he wasn’t alone.
But that was then. Right now the GOP and conservatism is discredited, the economy is in shambles, and people are seeing the American dream slip away while the rich get filthy rich.
We don’t need a candidate who is “GOP Lite” we need a liberal Democrat who isn’t ashamed of her political heritage.
“…we need a liberal Democrat who isn’t ashamed of her political heritage.”
Or his, presumably. Right?
The trouble with the whole Democratic establishment is that they have, since the early days of Reagan, been ashamed of their “political heritage.” Except for those who’ve been triangulating so as to get the support of liberal voters without actually representing them any more than absolutely necessary, so as not to offend the big-bucks folks. Hillary’s other half blazed new trails in triangulation, doing quite well for his own political fortunes while watching the Democratic Party lose Congress. That’s Hillary’s political heritage, and she is, of course, free to be unashamed of it.
Another Clinton confidant, James Carville, wanted Harold Ford, the head of the DLC, to be head of the DNC. Ford is now out there endorsing Republicans (http://snipurl.com/20afd). Hillary is also free to be unashamed of that.
Blaming Bill for what happened in 1994 is pretty shallow if you ask me when the truth is so much more complex. There had been a series of scandals in the legislature and Newt Gingrinch and the republicans came up with a neat gimmick called the contract with America and conned a lot of voters. Had nothing to do with Bill and everything to do with our legislature being out of touch and corrupt.
There are a lot of Obama supporters who don’t know that Dems were going to prison on corruption charges in the early nineties and that over a dozen others left office because of corrupt behavior. If you tell them that was why we lost Congress (quite demonstrably so at the time), they’ll accuse you of lying. It’s very bizarre.
They’re very intent on laying the loss of Congress at Bill and Hillary’s feet, and they will not acknowledge that there were other far larger factors.
Indeed. Instead of a love-in at the next debate, instead of saying how proud you are to be sitting next to him, let’s have blood on the floor, please.
Good morning! The student newspaper at the Univ. of Texas-Austin with a 50,000 member student body, endorsed Hillary Friday and they almost ripped Obama a new one. Check it out when you get a chance. Oh, and if Obama makes into that ticket in Nov. I will be voting for McCain or sitting it out.
Well, God bless Texas, then!
May I ask you what you opinion is about the Supremes and having a dem or rebug making any appointments ?…and how this plays in to your saying,
I will be voting for McCain or sitting it out.
Teak,
Thanks for your thoughts in another thread. Pray.
To answer you about the Supreme Count: WAR.
Nothing else will matter if clowns like this supporting McCain and Hillary have their way.
Kristol: ‘I Recommend The Politics Of Fear’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, New York Times columnist Bill Kristol recommended that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) employ the “politics of fear” to attack Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL):
KRISTOL: [Obama’s] riding a wave of euphoria. She [Clinton] needs to puncture it. The way you puncture euphoria is reality, or to be more blunt, fear. I recommend to Senator Clinton the politics of fear.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/24/kristol-politics-of-fear/
Supreme Count: WAR.
I guess my response would be
Which war? Domestic war? Iran? wIII.5?
While I think it was high time Senator Clinton called Obama to task for his BS,
Kristol is NOT supporting Senator Clinton he is making a point how Rethugs will do it Senator Obama.
Kristol can go F himself as far as I am concerned.
If fear is the only thing these freKin’ snake oil merchants have to sell, I am not buying.
Teak,
Sure he is.
Clinton Wins Coveted Bill Kristol Endorsement
07 Aug 2007 10:17 am
According to The Washington Post, he says “Obama is becoming the antiwar candidate, and Hillary Clinton is becoming the responsible Democrat who could become commander in chief in a post-9/11 world.” One can try to speculate that Kristol is playing some odd angles here, but I think the record indicates that he’s genuinely more committed to war — criticized Republican critics of the Kosovo War, criticized Bill Clinton for not killing enough people during the Kosovo War, backed John McCain in the 2000 primaries — and based on the evidence thinks Clinton will be more sympathetic to his agenda than the alternatives.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/clinton_wins_coveted_bill_kris.php
Here’s the thing Cee. Ask yourself, why is this person saying this?
With respect; you are seriously asking me to believe the punk is endorsing Hillary because he likes her?
will be more sympathetic to his agenda than the alternatives.
What is his AGENDA?
Do you play chess Cee? Your opponents pieces are just as valuable to you as your own.
This endorsement has zero to do with Hillary and everything to do with whatever his diabolical agenda is…which at a minimum is to get inside a “decision cycle” and manipulate it.
Would you fire a weapon or use a parachute that was loaded/packed by someone you did not trust? I think not.
and everything to do with whatever his diabolical agenda is…which at a minimum is to get inside a “decision cycle” and manipulate it.
Teak,
Yep. And he will. Don’t you think for a minute that Hillary doesn’t have others of his mindset supporting, donating to and advising her.
They hate Obama and have made no secret of it as Larry (or Susan) has proven by making us aware of their accusations.
Teak,
I saw this today. These locusts will be quite happy with McCain or Clinton
Mark Penn’s lobbying shop is headed by John McCain’s top adviser
Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist is Mark Penn, and Charlie Black, John McCain’s top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller — of which Mark Penn is CEO.
Yes, this is the same lobbyist Barack Obama was referring to when he criticized John McCain for allowing lobbyists to conduct their business on board his bus.
BKSH is a bipartisan lobbying firm. Black, the chairman is the top Republican. The top Democrat is R. Scott Pastrick, who like Penn, supports Hillary Clinton.
Mark Penn’s personal interests would clearly be best served by a Hillary Clinton victory.
A McCain presidency wouldn’t be a bad consolation prize, however. It would be far better to have the head of his lobbying be tight with the president than to have a president like Obama who sought to impose new restrictions on his lobbyist operation.
Burson-Marsteller’s work is primarily for corporations, ranging from Blackwater to Microsoft to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund of the government of Abu Dhabi that recently purchased a 5% stake in Citigroup.
As Ari Berman’s Hillary, Inc. details, there’s every reason to be skeptical of Mark Penn’s willingness to help Democrats. He’s criticized Al Gore for running to far to the left in 2000 and when he was brought into the Clinton’s orbit by Dick Morris, he wasn’t even a political operative.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/24/14518/2213/544/463202
Oh, specious, sort term, plutonian thinking, the terror troll, sacrificing the psychological welfare of the American people, and America, for immediate, short term, personal gain, oblivious to both the greater personal aspects, and world consequence, more non workable nonsense.
That worked real well for ya, Bill, didn’t it?
How ya doing, today, ya nutbag?
Do we all have a better understanding of why we can’t win, anywhere, under a neocon, or his acolyte, ‘bama?
Use fear. Do we now all understand Cheney’s MO in regard to being President?
.
If Obama and Bush are supported by the same money people, why do you assume bama will appoint a moderate, or a liberal?
Auchi, who has been helping finance conservative governments, candidates in Germany and France, is a close friend of Rezko.
Obama, financed by Auchi, and Rezko, also a close friend of Rezko, spouts republican nonsense.
Doesn’t that concern you, or is it willful denial all the way, because after all, it’s just a game, like football, right, no greater consequnce when electing the President…
Aye!
What are you pushing here, Cee?
We’re going around in circles, here, you’re aware, right?
I meant onto the ticket.
[...] is with that in mind that I link to No Quarter. Larry Johnson has been in attack mode vis-a-vis Barack Obama for some [...]
I would think the ultimate goal is to send bama to prison, and here you want to put him in the Presidency.
Thank you, Larry for pointing out Daily Kos’s bias!
I’m also disappointed in Josh Marshall and Move On.org ! By choosing sides, they have lost my support! I can not justify voting for a one page blank slated candidate like Barack (or is is “Barry” as Maureen Dowds calls him) without further investigation of his real motives. I think those that do blindly follow jeopordize the true left!DISGUSTING!!! I for one am not drinking the Kool Aid!!!
Less about left and right, more about criminal.
And criminal in this case is both democratic, and republican.
As are the non-criminal.
TeakWood, as willing as Obama seems to coddle to the will of the rethugs I don’t have any reason to believe that he will appoint proper Supremes. It’s either Hillary, sitting it out or ,McCain for me this go around and as a black woman that’s a hard pill to swallow (voting for McCain) but it’s one I’ll gladly down should it come to that.
Thanks for your honest response. I’ve been stuck on this question for sometime.
And respectfully, since you mention your being a black woman, has it been difficult in coming to your current position? What role has gender or ethnicity of the candidate played in your forming views?
I ask because of my curiosity and and personal disgust at how the MSM has been the biggest promoter of division along this line of gender, age and race.
I’m half black and I feel the same as Sugar. I also have two black friends I know of who have vowed to vote for McCain instead of Obama. Btw, all three of us are left of center and never thought about voting for a Republican.
We all believe that Obama is the most self-righteous, arrogant, shallow candidate since George W. Bush. Race has nothing to do with our decision. Not ALL blacks vote based on skin color. Some of us actually look at substantive issues and policies.
I want to find out about write-in provisions.
Do they vary from state to state?
Of course a write-in campaign might be a prescription for a perverse outcome - depending on how that is defined.
depending on who McCain chooses as VP.
whom.
Hillary better be nice or she won’t even get the VP nod. Those mailings are two months old, and accurate. What makes you think Hillary can do any better than Obama on health care when she blew it last time. She Still wants Big Biz Health Care to make the rules. Screw that, I want someone that at least fights it a little.
On Saturday Feb.23 I attended the Hillary rally at Wayne High School in Dayton Ohio with my mother who is 80. I arrived at the school at 10 a.m and the line was all ready several hundred people long (my mother had gotten their even earlier and had saved a spot, she is completely devoted to Hillary).
Hillary packed the house and once in side we heard that people kept coming and the line kept growing.I heard later that many thought close to 4000 showed up to get into an auditorium that held only 700 people.
The crowd was made up of no nonsense working class women, men and young Americans. These folks are the backbone of our nation, the salt of the earth crowd. The folks who try to work hard, pay their bills and taxes, serve in the military and have lost tens of thousands of jobs to U.S. companies going overseas. As I talked with many of the Hillary supporters they expressed enthusiasm for what many believe to be a historic moment for women and a critical moment for our country. I talked with GM workers, Teamsters, teachers, lots and lots of older women and men who felt that Hillary had worked hard for this opportunity and had the wisdom and experience to take on this important job. At one point Hillary said to the crowd to think about this election not so much as a “vote but that they had to hire the most qualified and tested person” for this job. At that point the crowd exploded into another chorus of “Hillary Hillary Hillary” I heard many folks say that they “trusted” and admired Hillary. I heard repeatedly that they “trusted” that she could clean up the health care mess that many find themselves in and that she understood deeply how to work in a bi-partisan way to get the job done. I heard many people use the word “trust” in regard to Hillary. Many also said that they liked the idea that our nation would get two highly qualified leaders for the price one.
Hillary spoke about Health care, equity in education, taking care of our Vets, getting out of Iraq, smart trade, creating jobs, freezing mortgage rates etc etc. She had strong words for the “shameless” tactics being used by the Obama campaign in spreading “misleading and discredited” information on her stance on health care and Nafta. She referred to herself as the “change maker” The crowd’s calls for “Hillary Hillary, Hillary” were thunderous and rocked the gym.
The enthusiasm was infectious especially coming from women older than me ( 55) who really wanted to witness a highly qualified and experienced public servant become President of the U.S. Many older women began to cry when she was speaking, this was very moving.
Even after all of this I continue to be on the fence about Hillary. Especially when Hillary referred to the “war in Afghanistan” and how “no one gets away with attacking the U.S.” Come on Hillary most people know that 15 of the individuals who rammed U.S. planes into the world trade centers were from Saudi Arabia. We certainly did not invade Saudi Arabia. This statement had me reflecting on my many conversations with my friend from Afghanistan who has shared that many Afghani’s feel that their country is being occupied by the U.S. and that we have failed miserably there. (increase in poppy production and the power of the Taliban on the rise) It made me feel once again that Hillary underestimates the intellect of the working class. I really think that Obama’s message of diplomacy and using new strategies internationally resonate with all sorts of folks who are tired of this aggressive “we’re number one” strategy.
Anyway …I do think Hillary is going to sweep Ohio up. I continue to hear many of my 50 something friends say that they are committed to Hillary.
Another observation…I was sitting in a front row and watched the national press corp. From what I witnessed I did not see them interview or interact with one local Dayton citizens. Tired of hearing what they think…INTERVIEW THE LOCALS!
A Tip…Hillary should walk over to the older folks first after her speeches. Those who are so anxious to meet her and may not be around for the next election. They were sitting right in front of Hillary along with many handicapped people.
I have been following Hillary’s political career since the early 90’s, and she has always inspired me. I remember telling everyone back then, that I believed Hillary could actually be the first female president if she ever decided to run, and most people thought that I was crazy. A woman president? I was interested in the Universal Health Care Plan she had created back in 1993, but it was brought down by the Insurance Industry and small businesses who did not want to cover their employees. She has a great deal of experience. Her attendance record is great, and she has done really well in the senate.
I see the position of Commander and Chief as a job. A huge job, and I know that whenever you apply for a job, the person with the most experience, and the best track record usually gets the job. This country is in a complete mess and cannot afford for someone to learn on the job. We are at war and our economy is on the brink of recession. The foreclosure situation is terrible.
On the other hand, Barack Hussein Obama, is a newcomer, with very little experience, and a horrible attendance record. I think the whole media secrecy surrounding Barack Obama and his radical muslim and anti-American ties is pretty scary.
One of Senator Obama’s books “The Audacity of Hope” is based on the preaching of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, whose close ties with Louis Farrakhan, whom he honored as a “Great Man” is unnerving. He had a 17 year relationship with Tony Rezko, a Syrian slumlord (now in jail), who caused poor people to live in squalor on the south side of Chicago, without heat in the dead of winter. Then there is the campaign funding he received and ties to Nadhmi Auchi, a billionaire Iraqi terrorist funder and Rashid Khalid, a Pakistani terrorist, and the Kenyan terrorist, Raila Odinga. I also don’t want to leave out the Weathermen, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Were they Timothy McVey’s inspiration?
Then there is the Exelon Corporation nuclear plant in Illinois that had not disclosed radioactive leaks that contaminated the drinking water at one of their plants. Senator Obama lied about how he did something about preventing this situation from happening again.
Now down to his Elmer Gantry character.
He is not truthful, and he tells the American people just what they want to hear, but he doesn’t really say anything about how he will “Change” things. I watched the debate, and the hard questions were asked of Hillary first, then his answer would be “I agree”. Hillary really did shine in the end.
Saturday Night Live really did a good impression of the whole Obamamania thing.
PT Barnum said it best “You will never go broke underestimating the American Public.” It seems that Senator Obama is bulletproof from the media really revealing any of his dirt. But then again the media does not care about anything but their bottom line I also believe is a Republican ploy, in part, to gain a running mate for McCain. They knew that McCain was in the bag, in the primaries, so why not vote for his running mate? The question will come down to the general election, and who will come out to vote, and for whom.
In the end, who really knows what will happen?
I hope this explains why I support Hillary, and why I think it would be in the best interest of this country for her to win. If she doesn’t win the nomination, then who else is there to vote for? Ralph Nader
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=50264
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFOOcEQtP0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHq3avztIFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMXR2wBcLIM
[...] [ME? I LOVE BUFFETS!] and offers a health care plan that doesn’t cover everybody [BUT! HIS HARRY & LOUISE ADS SAY SO!]. Even his speech against the war in Iraq was not followed by action in the Senate. [WHAT? BUT HE [...]
[...] one — “Obama Launches The Worst Kinds of Lying Attacks That Undermine Americans’ Hope for Universal Healt…” — is a good start. But there’s much [...]