Obama’s short-sighted attack on Universal Healthcare

I support Hillary because I think she understands the policy issues better than most, including Obama. I also think that when push comes to shove she is the one who can deliver on the very issues that are important for me including universal health care, ending the war in Iraq, and standing up for the middle class.

I don’t begrudge Obama’s resume or his legislative accomplishments. I simply think that when push comes to shove Hillary’s experience and track record on the issues is more impressive. There isn’t a state in the union that hasn’t been affected by her legislative accomplishments. The scope of her accomplishments on the issues has had real and lasting effect on almost every American from health care and women’s right to choose to civil rights and equity for all.

Now, we all know that Senator Obama has been something of a political rock star and his campaign for the presidency has taken a quick and high rise towards the most powerful office in the world. Obama has been riding on a movement driven by his message to unite the country and to bring change. But as we all know it takes a lot more than just being able to get yourself elected (and everyday it seems more evident that Obama is going to do just that) to be able to govern. After it’s all said and done, as Obama often likes to remind us, words really do matter. And the words that are going to come back to haunt all of us who are in favor of universal health care are the ones that he has recycled in a short-sighted attack ad against Hillary’s universal health care plan.

The rehash of the “Harry and Louise” attack on Hillary’s universal health care plan is dangerous (and infuriating to me) because it basically demonizes the only good way we have to provide universal health care. We all know that the only way to realize the economic and health benefits of universal health care is to ensure that everyone enrolls in health insurance and stays enrolled. Now, Obama is trying to make the point that Hillary’s plan forces everyone to get insurance or else they’ll be penalized, while, his plan instead is wholly voluntary.

The problem with this ad is multi fold. First, the ad is particularly unseemly because it is just like the hit job the health insurance industry did on the health care reform back in the 1993. Second, the ad is completely misconstruing Hillary’s plan by neglecting to mention that her plan specifically has tax relief for those who need it and it ties the premiums to a percentage of income as means for ensuring that everyone can afford to enroll. Thirdly, even Obama’s voluntary enrollment plan, if it is to be effective, will have to eventually enforce some sort of penalties (which he hasn’t mentioned any specifics on) to prevent people from gaming his plan.

But even all of these points pale in comparison to the biggest issue I have with this attack ad. I am completely bewildered as to why Obama would pursue a line of attack on universal health care against Hillary. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that these same words he used against Hillary are going to undercut his integrity on the issue of health care when and if he becomes the nominee (and President). He is effectively knee-capping himself on the issue of universal health care because when it comes time to implement his own “universal” health care plan he will have no ground to stand onto enforce his policies.

You know it’s hard to believe Obama’s words (or Deval Patrick’s assuming he hasn’t loaned them to him) when he says that “What we shouldn’t be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time trying to lift the country up.” Now this is where perhaps either in his zeal to become president or worse his naivety in governing, Obama has compromised his core message. In so doing he has basically sabotaged his credibility on the issue of universal health care.

It really doesn’t make a penny’s worth of sense to me why it is even necessary to run this kind of attack - given his clear lead and front-runner status. Obama should be sticking to above the fray campaigning at this point, but apparently he is not above the fray. Let’s just hope he is as talented at delivering and enacting his lofty promises as he is at making them.

We all know that the only way to realize the economic and health benefits of universal health care is to ensure that everyone enrolls in health insurance and stays enrolled.

Clearly, everyone does not know this, or agree with your position.

I am completely bewildered as to why Obama would pursue a line of attack on universal health care against Hillary.

Perhaps because she’s been attacking him ceaselessly, claiming that his plan is not universal, and that his plan will not work. Is he just supposed to sit back and take that? Both parties are clearly playing this game, so don’t be so confused.

You know it’s hard to believe Obama’s words (or Deval Patrick’s assuming he hasn’t loaned them to him

By Hillary’s standards, she’s a plagarist too, stealing both her Husband’s words, and those of John Edwards.

Bill Clinton, 1992:
“The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.”

Hillary Clinton, tonight in the debate:
“You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.”

(For the record, I don’t think any of them are plagarizing)

It really doesn’t make a penny’s worth of cents why it is even necessary to run this kind of attack - given his clear lead and front-runner status. Obama should be sticking to above the fray campaigning at this point

So there’s a double standard here? Hillary can attack Barack all day because she’s not the front-runner? A different set of rules somehow applies to her? And please don’t act like she’s above negative campaigning.

• Hillary distorts Obama’s Social Security position in New Hampshire and Massachusetts
• She suggests that he’s for “disastrous Republican ideas” in South Carolina
• She distorts his position on abortion in New Hampshire

And now, Hillary is shocked - SHOCKED - that Obama has retaliated with a negative advertisement. Excuse me for not feeling like she’s a victim here.

Well I see that you went and sliced up phrases from my post and addressed some of my minor gripes about Obama, but you haven’t addressed the central issue of this post. I’ll be the first to admit that Hillary has attacked Obama - this is politics - and he’s very good at it too. But, you completely missed the whole point of this post. Which is to say that Hillary’s ads don’t compromise her stance on the universal health care, while Obama’s stance does. And he compromises himself by boxing in himself in to a health plan with no mandates. He starts this legislative agenda at significantly weaker position given his position in this ad.

So there’s a double standard here? Hillary can attack Barack all day because she’s not the front-runner? A different set of rules somehow applies to her? And please don’t act like she’s above negative campaigning.

- this standard was set by Obama . So he can’t complain now that he wants to go negative and also reap the benefits of being the candidate of uplifting hope and inspiration. That is what we call double speak.

“We all know that the only way to realize the economic and health benefits of universal health care is to ensure that everyone enrolls in health insurance and stays enrolled.”

Clearly, everyone does not know this, or agree with your position.

- the consensus in the field of experts who study this problem is that you have to cover everyone in order to realize the benefits of universal health care. For reasons that I pointed out in my first post on universal health care. It basically means that in order for private insurance companies to take on the high costs of enrolling very sick they are going to have to be offset by the large pool of relatively healthy enrollees. The more people you leave out the more expensive it becomes for everyone else.

“You know it’s hard to believe Obama’s words (or Deval Patrick’s assuming he hasn’t loaned them to him”

By Hillary’s standards, she’s a plagarist too, stealing both her Husband’s words, and those of John Edwards.

-echoing a sentiment in a retooled one liner is completely different then calculatedly and decisively delivering several passages of someone else’s speech. especially when the central argument of that speech is that your words matter! - talk about irony. If you are going to argue that your words matter at least let them be your own.

Hillary plagiarist???? Chris the difference is this she shared the same sentiment as Edwards and Bill. He copied his line per line. Obama’s campaign are based on his positive outlook and not the usual politics. He is know contradicting himself. So now, he is also about negative campaigning. That’s what used to set him apart because he losses the expeirience issue.

Michael thanks for your tip about Hillary’s last minuet apperance. I was able to take my boys and my husband. I shook her hand and wished her the best. I do feel bad for all those who didn’t get in, but she spoke to them briefly on her way out.

sorry about my mistakes (change are to is, know to now,expeirience to experience…) I don’t function well on Sundays.

Hey that is great that you saw Hillary! I was to pooped to go (after Obama’s and Bill’s rallies ) plus I had tons of work backed up. I am glad you saw her though.

“What we shouldn’t be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time trying to lift the country up.” Now this is where perhaps either in his zeal to become president or worse his naivety in governing, Obama has compromised his core message. In so doing he has basically sabotaged his credibility on the issue of universal health care.

Okay, this is your big argument.

I did some research, and I can’t find solid evidence to show that either campaign was the first to go negative. It’s been happening from the start though, much of it through surrogate organizations, like unions, that campaigns may or may not have sway over.

In the defense of both sides, this is politics, and it’s impossible to differentiate yourself from another candidate without saying “my plan for X is better than theirs”. (Especially when the candidates hold the same views on so many issues) In order to do this, a candidate has to say why their plan is good, and why the other plan is bad. I simply don’t see how you can get around this fact.

Attacking the other’s plan, while building yours up, is a hell of a lot different from Rovian smears, which is what Hillary accused Obama’s campaign of doing. Obama isn’t attacking Hillary’s character, or making up bullshit swift-boat attacks. He’s offering evidence that his plan is better than hers.

And to be fair, her plan does require a mandate. It forces everyone to buy health insurance. The details of her subsidies are still quite vague, and according to the WSJ article that you linked, her plan may very well leave some people unable to afford insurance, if she sticks to her current cost estimates.

I just don’t see that contrasting the two plans is evidence of Republican-style smear tactics. I don’t think I could vote for anyone who didn’t make these kinds of arguments against their opponents. Neither Obama or HIllary will sit back and let McCain smear their plans - they’ll respond with ads like these, that show why their plan is better, and McCain’s plans are worse. You can do that without compromising an overall hopeful and positive message.

As for the other arguments I addressed above, if you had just written an analysis of the two plans, I wouldn’t have felt obligated to respond, but you also included all kinds of ad hominem attacks on Obama, many of which are fairly serious distortions.

I’ll even tell you straight up that I think Hillary’s plan for health care is better. If that were the only issue at stake here, she’d have my vote. Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, it’s not.

As for the plagarist claims:

Chris the difference is this she shared the same sentiment as Edwards and Bill. He copied his line per line.

He borrowed three very popular quotations from Patrick, and the framing (WITH permission!). Surely, everyone else who’s invoked MLK, Jefferson, and FDR in a speech doesn’t have to append footnotes, thanking Patrick. Please, let’s get over this ridiculous accusation (that got Clinton booed in Austin, BTW) and stick to the issues.

the ad is completely misconstruing Hillary’s plan by neglecting to mention that her plan specifically has tax relief for those who need it and it ties the premiums to a percentage of income as means for ensuring that everyone can afford to enroll.

Funny, I didn’t see Clinton talking about how Obama’s plan also offers subsidies to lower-income people, so that it will be affordable to everyone My point is, she omits facts all the time too. This is very much the pot calling the kettle black, and her outrage was unjustified, in my opinion.

Chris,

You still haven’t conceded the fact that Obama’s attack on mandates compromises his footing on implementing universal health care. You can bet that the republicans in congress are going to pull out these attacks and use them to obstruct implementation of meaningful reform of the health care system.

And in the general election Obama is going to have nuance his way around this issue all the whilst the republicans will be saying he was against nationalized health care and now he is for it. We remember how well that worked for Kerry, as you often like to point out.

I think it is short-sighted and unnecessary on Obama’s part and this kind of republican type demonizing of universal health care was tactically inept. Anyways, I don’t think we are going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. So, let’s just agree to disagree. In the end we will see what happens.

You still haven’t conceded the fact that Obama’s attack on mandates compromises his footing on implementing universal health care.

Mandating coverage for kids, as Obama does, is a lot different from mandating coverage for adults. I now see the point you’re trying to make, though.

I suppose I just don’t think Republicans will be able to spin it that way. Then again, they are very good at making shit stick. (they sure throw enough of it)

I don’t expect to come to a resolution here, and yes, we can agree to disagree.