"Shame on you, Obama"

[Coriolis]

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton slammed rival Barack Obama on Saturday for campaign leaflets on her health-care plan that she called "blatantly false" and accused him of using Republican tactics in their contest for the Democratic U.S. presidential nomination.

In a bitter exchange, Obama defended the leaflet as accurate and campaign spokesman Bill Burton decried Clinton's "negative campaign."

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," Clinton said, speaking to reporters after a rally in Ohio, a state that is key to her struggling campaign.

Brandishing a copy of the leaflet, Clinton said the Obama campaign was spreading "false, misleading, discredited information" about her health-care plan.

"Senator Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," Clinton said. "It is blatantly false and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods. It is not hopeful. It is destructive, particularly for a Democrat to be discrediting universal health care."

Obama said the content of the leaflet was correct. He said he was puzzled by the sudden "change in tone" by his rival because the leaflets Clinton referred to were sent out days or weeks ago. He suggested there was something "tactical" about her attacks now.

"The notion that somehow we're engaging in nefarious tactics I think is pretty hard to swallow," he told reporters. "There's nothing in there that's factually inaccurate."

MARCH 4 CONTESTS

Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, would be the first woman U.S. president if she won the general election, and Obama, an Illinois senator, would be the first black president.

Obama has won 10 consecutive state nominating contests since February 5. The string of victories has put him ahead in the race for delegates to a nominating convention this summer where the party will pick a candidate for the November election.

Many analysts say Clinton must win contests in the delegate-rich states of Ohio and Texas on March 4 to cut Obama's lead and still have a chance at the nomination.

Campaigning in Ohio, Obama told a roundtable on health care at a hospital in Columbus that his health care plan would cut medical costs more than hers. He also touched on the issue that Clinton had complained about.

"The main difference between us is that Senator Clinton includes a mandate, which means she'd have the government force you to buy health insurance, and she said that she'd consider 'going after your wages' if you don't," Obama said, adding that he disagreed with that approach.

Meanwhile, Clinton said the campaign leaflet on health care reminded her of health insurance industry attacks on her plan. She also said another leaflet Obama's campaign issued misrepresented her views on trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

'ROVE'S PLAYBOOK'

"Let's have a real campaign. Enough with the speeches and big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook," she said, referring to the Republican political strategist behind George W. Bush's winning presidential campaigns.

Obama, speaking to reporters, acknowledged that on the NAFTA mailer, a story using the word "boon" to describe her feelings about the trade accord with Mexico and Canada had been amended after the mailers were sent out.

But he said Clinton referred to NAFTA as a success of her husband Bill Clinton's presidential administration in her autobiography.

At the earlier rally Clinton had trained her fire on Bush to try to undermine Obama's message of change. She said Bush, who campaigned on a platform of "compassionate conservatism," also had promised Americans change.

"He promised change, didn't he?" she said. "The American people got shafted and we're going to have to make up for it."

For his part, Obama criticized Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain's ties to lobbyists.

"It's indisputable that ... his top advisers in this campaign are lobbyists, that many of them have been helping their business on campaign bus," he said in response to questions from reporters. "And he's comfortable with raising money from lobbyists who are currently active in Washington. I have a problem with that."

This smells of the Hillary propaganda machine. I haven't read the leaflets, so I'm willing to give Hillary benefit of the doubt, but Obama does have a point about the timing.

[Fire Fly]

Her campaign is running low on cash so she plays fake outrage to get free media. When she brings it up in the Ohio debate, I hope Obama hits back at her with "Shame on you, Hillary, for being so naive that you bought into George Bush's war in Iraq."

[CmdrWilkens]

I don't think he needs to parrot back the shame bit. What he needs to do is take her starting point and turn it back into the larger question on the race. seriously this attack of hers plays almost straight into his hands. he doesn't have to attack her at all, instead he just needs to wait until she attacks then pivot the whole attack to remind everyone that divisive attack politics are what is getting us into this mess and he won't stand for it. He has to take the high road because if he attacks back then all bets are off but if he stays ont he hgih road then all of his surrogates will be able to hit back because his image covers their attacks. In the end the effect is the same, hit Clinton for going negative and make her the story, but he retains his positive image for the general election.

[Flagg]

Ther best way to deal with this attack is as he's dealt with all the others. Basically, just respond to the particulars and point out that she's a lying cunt, and then shrug off the attack itself as "The politics of the past" and push his "change" message. Obama doesn't need to gain any more ground, all he has to do is maintain what he has.

That's why Clinton cannot win. That's why Clinton should withdraw now, before the March 4 vote, rather than wait until afterwards when she all but has to. She can be conciliatory and say "I'm putting my ego aside for the good of the party and for America". That puts her in position to come back strong in 2012 should Obama lose, and for a leadership position in the senate should Obama win. Even a 2016 run is a possibility.

[Frank Hipper]

There's several points in those leaflets of Obama's that are entirely on-target, and Hillary's screeching sounds all the more pathetic and desperate because of it.

He's absolutely on-target in criticising her health-care "plan"; making it illegal to not buy health insurance only promotes an already broken system and supports the insurance companies that's she's gone to some length to attack in her recent Ohio TV ads (I love seeing them air during prime-time, gods the money they must be costing her!), and there's no reason to assume that the subsidised insurance plans for the poor will provide for jack, or shit, on top of the risk of breaking the law in not "availing" yourself of them.

He's absolutely on-target in mocking her on NAFTA; it's only because of the political expediency of attacking it that she's waited until now to do so.

What Obama should do, in my estimation, is take Hillary's "I've got the experience" bullshit and feed it right back to her, making her choke on every hypcritical morsel.

...oh, and speaking of hypocrisy, how her campaign can claim with a straight face that she garnered her vaunted foreign policy experience as First Lady, and on the other hand downplay any role Bill would play in her hypothetical administration is self contradictory, and extremely so.

[Mange]

He's absolutely on-target in criticising her health-care "plan"; making it illegal to not buy health insurance

Wait, so that's part of her "plan"? How is that going to help the millions of Americans who can't pay for a health insurance in the first place? What sanctions are she planning for those people?

[The Star Marshall]

He's absolutely on-target in criticising her health-care "plan"; making it illegal to not buy health insurance

Wait, so that's part of her "plan"? How is that going to help the millions of Americans who can't pay for a health insurance in the first place? What sanctions are she planning for those people?

She's said she's willing to "go after their wages." Meaning, I assume, that if you don't buy healthcare she'll garnish your wages to pay for it. Personally I don't see how taking money from people who are already barely getting by is going to help those people live a better life. Then again I don't have her "years of experience."

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The "plan", would be to introduce a new payroll tax. The money would be gone before the poor sucker ever sees it, same as every other tax.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck kind of deranged plan is it to force people to buy private insurance at whatever rates the insurance companies decide to charge? Wouldn't a mandatory health insurance plan only make sense if you enact government price controls and guaranteed-access laws on health insurance? And what happens to unemployed people?

[Coyote]

Ahh, the "Hillary Experience"... Sounds like a terrifying ride at a studio theme park? The truth is more tame. Far, far, more tame. This list of her Senate experience has been making the rounds on the net but I have not yet seen it here. This is cribbed from "The Swamp", a collective political blog, but this should be easy enough to verify through "real" sources...

The following is a list of the bills she authored and got passed into law in her six years as New York's Senator. Bear in mind this does not include stuff that she supported or assisted in, these are her sole-authorship bills:

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.


These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

So, maybe it's just me, but that's pretty light stuff. Fluff pieces, if you will. Nothing in there seems to be very risky or daring, nothing that really challenges status quo or confronts the system.

Now let's see about Obama:

During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.


His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded

**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

So what I see are bills that actually tackle issues, rather than name post offices and national parks, or pat local sports teams on the back. I may not like Obama's stance on everything (ie, gun control) but I admire that he's willing to take a stand on something of substance (and I can put aside my one-issue interests for the overall good).

Has anyone else run across this stuff before, or things like it? As in, details on these various bills, or any earmarks they might have pushed?

[Frank Hipper]

What the fuck kind of deranged plan is it to force people to buy private insurance at whatever rates the insurance companies decide to charge? Wouldn't a mandatory health insurance plan only make sense if you enact government price controls and guaranteed-access laws on health insurance? And what happens to unemployed people?

I'm certain that it will be squarely in the Romney MA mold, and that those that can't afford it would have it subsidised for them at little or no personal cost, but what I weant to know is if the subsidised plans provide any meaningful coverage at all?

Health insurance that provides for little or nothing, even at no cost, just to gain "Insurance for da masses!" sounds like pure perfect sewage to me.

[Flagg]

What the fuck kind of deranged plan is it to force people to buy private insurance at whatever rates the insurance companies decide to charge? Wouldn't a mandatory health insurance plan only make sense if you enact government price controls and guaranteed-access laws on health insurance? And what happens to unemployed people?

I'm guessing it's going to be in the car insurance mold, where the minimum coverage is basically shit for you. Probably with some massive deductible but enough so that if you end up in the hospital they'll at least get most of the exorbitant and ridiculous bill they charge you.

If she gets elected and tries to pull that shit I just won't do it. What are they gonna do, send me to jail for refusing to put my money in the hands of extortionist cocksuckers like the insurance companies? Fuck, at least then I'll have decent health insurance and you poor taxpaying bastards will be footing the bill.

[Patrick Degan]

What the fuck kind of deranged plan is it to force people to buy private insurance at whatever rates the insurance companies decide to charge? Wouldn't a mandatory health insurance plan only make sense if you enact government price controls and guaranteed-access laws on health insurance? And what happens to unemployed people?

That's the American Way™.

[LMSx]

I'm definitely not arguing Hillary's plan overall is a great idea, but according to her plan there WILL be guaranteed access regardless of pre-existing condition and those who have jobs but can't afford it will be subsidized by the government so the insurance cost is never more then a fixed percent of income.

[Nova Andromeda]

Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see a link or a copy to Hillary Clinton's actual health care plan? Hillary's Health Care plan.

Having quickly scanned her plan, there are several things I'd like to point out:

1. You can keep your current insurance.
2. The private health insurance options must offer benefits as good as those congress gets. There are also several major regulations mentioned such as requiring preventative care.
3. The gov. will offer a plan similar to medicare with benefits as good as those in 2. This is intended to compete with private insurance plans to force them to provide reasonable premiums.
4. The states can offer alternative plans.
5. The gov. will limit premiums based on income.

-Depending on exactly what the #'s are for the above, the plan could be far too expensive for people. However, one first has to assume that Hillary is outright lying when she says the plans offered will be affordable for everyone and offer good benefits (using Congress's benefits as a benchmark). Furthermore, I fail to see a good argument for NOT requiring everyone to have health insurance. I guess you could argue that we should keep that as an option and not pay for the uninsured, however, it is well known that far to many people don't make good decisions on such matters. In addition, noone would pay for health insurance if you could get it all even if you don't pay.

[Keevan_Colton]

You mean, dun, dun, dun....a socialized system where those private insurers get fuck all profit out of the system?

[Turin]

Having quickly scanned her plan, there are several things I'd like to point out:

1. You can keep your current insurance.
2. The private health insurance options must offer benefits as good as those congress gets. There are also several major regulations mentioned such as requiring preventative care.
3. The gov. will offer a plan similar to medicare with benefits as good as those in 2. This is intended to compete with private insurance plans to force them to provide reasonable premiums.

If the benefits are really "as good as those Congress gets," and the premiums are designed to be affordable based on income, doesn't this give employers whose employees are not very-well-paid incentive not to provide health benefits. Which means that you've just created a national system that leaves a tier of well-paid professionals (and the rich, obviously) having private care, and the rest of everyone else using the government system.

Sounds a lot like a socialized system (as Keevan has said), but I'm curious the process of funding for this idea. With the "tax credits for employers who give benefits," this sounds suspiciously similar to a voucher system. We have a similar scam these days with schools -- money gets taken out of the public schools to give vouchers to people who don't want to use them. The result is more inequality. I'm a big fan of single-payer nationalized healthcare, but this doesn't seem like the way to go about it.

[CmdrWilkens]

Both Obama and Clinton's plan, as I recall, place fines on buisnesses over a certian size if they don't contriubte at least a certain percentage of their net sales to health care. In a way its similair to something MD already adopted (but poorly) which requires large employers to utilize at least 8% of sales to pay for health care costs of employees. The two plans would basically fine comapnies up to the 8% if they don't contirbute it themselves and then use that money to subsidize low-income insurance.

Again both of these are compromise plans. I know Obama is on the record syaing that if he could build it from scratch he would run a single payer system but since taking on the health care industry would basically swamp a president with anything short of super majorities in both houses this is the middle road he is hoping can get us at least some of the wy there. Clinton my main problem is that she went winner takes all to try and pass healthcare reform in 94 and I just can't see her being all that much more successful this time around.

[Elfdart]

He's absolutely on-target in criticising her health-care "plan"; making it illegal to not buy health insurance

Wait, so that's part of her "plan"? How is that going to help the millions of Americans who can't pay for a health insurance in the first place? What sanctions are she planning for those people?

Hillary Antoinette: MAKE THEM EAT CAKE!

[Turin]

Both Obama and Clinton's plan, as I recall, place fines on buisnesses over a certian size if they don't contriubte at least a certain percentage of their net sales to health care.

On closer examination, you're right about that. From Obama's site, he's a little more clear on the details, but it's essentially the same idea.

Again both of these are compromise plans. I know Obama is on the record syaing that if he could build it from scratch he would run a single payer system but since taking on the health care industry would basically swamp a president with anything short of super majorities in both houses this is the middle road he is hoping can get us at least some of the wy there.

Well that's always the trick, isn't it. Even if Obama (my favorite) is elected President and he actually follows through with all his plans, he's still got to get everything through Congress.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck kind of deranged plan is it to force people to buy private insurance at whatever rates the insurance companies decide to charge? Wouldn't a mandatory health insurance plan only make sense if you enact government price controls and guaranteed-access laws on health insurance? And what happens to unemployed people?

I'm certain that it will be squarely in the Romney MA mold, and that those that can't afford it would have it subsidised for them at little or no personal cost, but what I weant to know is if the subsidised plans provide any meaningful coverage at all?

Without price controls and guaranteed-access, this isn't worth shit. Insurance companies can still ass-rape those who can afford to pay and ass-rape the government for those who can't, while stamping a big red "denied" on specific claims at will and congratulating their shareholders on another obscenely profitable year.

Health insurance that provides for little or nothing, even at no cost, just to gain "Insurance for da masses!" sounds like pure perfect sewage to me.

Even if it's great coverage on the surface, they will find ways to keep their profit margins high. That means watching as insurance companies continue to gouge people and deny their claims almost at will thanks to a Wild West regulatory environment. Only now, they get a whole shitload of your tax dollars to boot.