I suppose it’s a question of definitions, but I think a fair definition of universal healthcare is a plan that guarantees access to health care for all people at a reasonable price. Obama’s plan does exactly that. Just as you can choose in England not to go to an NHS hospital, you can choose under Obama’s plan not to have subsidized insurance. It isn’t the mandate that makes it universal, it’s the guarantee of universal access.
But that’s not where I think he’s distorting. On that point, reasonable people can disagree. Where he’s distorting is in characterizing the plan as timid. There are many reasons, politics aside, not to include mandates. There are constitutional issues, problems of punishing those that still can’t afford health care even under the program, etc. Ignoring those reasons and suggesting that the only reason is political timidity is a distortion–and it’s odd to see a progressive do so.
I still don’t see where Krugman’s antipathy is coming from. You don’t find it odd that in the last month alone he has mentioned Obama by name, negatively, in half his op-eds? I think Obama’s response to that, challenging Krugman, is entirely reasonable.
All I can think of with Obama is, and I’m serious, Lincoln. Lincoln was never exactly popular, he was an out-of-nowhere candidate from the Midwest who gave amazing speeches and even better debates. He was smart and had ideas, but not, what some would consider, executive level experience. Granted, the Civil War is an entirely different, more horrific and complicated situation than the War in Iraq, but I still feel the point stands. At this point, I want someone in office who is smart, articulate, who thinks through issues. I want someone who will turn the administration into a meritocracy over this yes-man fiasco we find ourselves in. I want the President to have potential for greatness; I want the office to be poised for success. The chances of anyone being popular following GWB’s is extremely unlikely, as you must take apart to rebuild. There will be roaches under carpets we never knew existed. I want someone in office who will clearly state exactly what the hell has happened these last 8 years. I want transparency. I want to have faith in democracy again. I want to feel proud for American ideals.
Will Obama deliver? I honestly don’t care. As long as he gets the chance, that’s all I want. Clinton and all the other front-runners, from all parties, are too entrenched in this partisan bickering, smear at all costs campaigning that I simply don’t care if he gets the nomination. I used to like McCain, even though he was Super Conservative, because he was conservative and not Neo-Con. I used to think he stood for ideas, but now it seems that he’s another Party Above Democracy type.
Initially, it was all about a dispassionate assessment of the health care plans. Most experts agree with Krugman that without a mandate, you would not approach universal coverage. When Obama attacked and distorted Krugman’s positions (which is quite funny because you often just see this done between candidates), that’s the time when Krugman started to dislike Obama. It didn’t help that Obama’s attacks on mandates echoed Republican talking points - Republicans will be proud to have him.
Barack Obama’s statement is that Hillary “said” that NAFTA was a boon to the economy just last year. That’s inaccurate. When he was corrected, he insisted on repeating the misinformation - that’s dishonest.
Had Barack Obama limited his statement to saying that Hillary changed her position on NAFTA from years back - that would have been a fair statement. But he insists on stating this lie because it would purport to show that Hillary only changed her position very recently and that she made statements showing that NAFTA was a boon to the economy just last year which are both untrue.
Just about ANY Democrats is better than just about any of the Republicans but voting for Hillary is just begging for the status quo in Washington but with Democrats doing what Republicans were doing before.
McCain is prolife but he doesn’t want to overturn Roe v Wade
McCain supported the invasion of Iraq but he wouldn’t have lied to get us in there and we would be out by now if he was running the show.
I would rather vote for an honest moderate republican than a dishonest moderate Democrat.
With a little more humility, he might not have lied to the entire country to get us to go along with his adventure in Iraq. With a little less arrogance, he might have listened to the bureaucrats and generals when they said that we should send a lot more men (instead of firing them for it) or that Iraq would cost more than 100 billion dollars (instead of firing him for saying that it might cost so much) or he might have sent real diplomats and bireaucrats to Iraq instead of a bunch of Heritage foundation interns.
McCain wanted to go into Iraq but he wouldn’t have lied to us to get us in there and without the lies we would never have enough support to go in there.
Hillary’s arrogance is pretty legendary here in Washington DC.
McCain has said that there are some things worth losing elections over when he was asked about his continued support for the war in Iraq when everyone else (including the republican candidates) were running away from the war. I don’t get the impression that Hillary Clinton feels the same way.
I get the feeling that deep down, Hillary doesn’t really care who is in the White House if it isn’t her. She is engaging in the sort of politics that reduces Democratic turnout in the general election no matter who wins the Democratic primary, because she HAS to win the primary for any of this to matter.
How many times did she say that this was a black/brown debate in South Carolina? How many times has her campaign injected race into the conversation? How many lies and mistatements has her campaign spread? It would be funny if her tactics weren’t working so well.
It has achieved every single military goal it set out to but it proves that Mccain was right about the need for more troops in Iraq. The Iraqis may not have capitalized on the opportunity to rebuild their nation but at least the surge provides them with the opportunity (we can’t do it forever but its the best news we have had in 5 years).
I think it was wrong to invade iraq in the first place but now that we are there, I am not entierly sure what the best way forward would be. Since Hillary and McCain both supported the invasion of Iraq (and both were disappointed at how they war was executed), I am not sure that Hillary’s plan forward in iraq is any better than McCain’s http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
After her South Carolina race baiting, I will not be voting for Hillary if she is the Democratic candidate.
That the entire point of this thread. Obama will inherit all of Hillary’s voters but a lot of Obama’s voters are independents and they will not necessarily vote for Hillary (or even vote at all).
It sounds like you are saying that you are a true blue big D Democrat and you vote party line regardless of how that person got on the ballot and you would never vote for a Republican. That’s fine but how would you feel if the race was between Edwards and Clinton and Clinton used the sort of tactics agasinst Edwards that Clinton is using against Obama, do you think that there might be a few Edwards supporters that might not find time to vote next November?
Polls aren’t useless but most recent polls give Obama the advantage over Hillary in a general election. Neither of them have convincing leads over McCain.
Obama will not inherit all of Hillary’s voters in the same way that not all Obama’s voters will vote for Hillary. Those that are really Democrat- leaning independents will still vote for Hillary. The anti-Hillary vote that Obama is getting right now from the right will not vote for Obama in the GE either. Obama’s sending out the meme that his supporters will probably not vote Hillary is divisive. It’s almost tantamount to saying, “Don’t vote for Hillary if I don’t win.”
Had it been Hillary who said that, I’m sure everyone will pounce on her. Obama has been given a pass on too many of his statements and actions, I tend to compare him to Bush. Bush-supporters pretty much forgave everything that he said and readily believe whatever lie is spoken about the other camp. I tend to see that among Obama supporters.
You’re mistaken. I’m looking at the same polls and it’s showing me that Hillary Clinton has a better chance of winning over every Republican candidate. Hillary and Obama handily beats every Republican comer except for McCain. Of the last three polls, Obama doesn’t win a single one against McCain (he ties on one), Hillary wins once and has better margins on the other two compared to Obama.
The pendulum may have swung too far to the left by 1979 and they have certainly swung too far to the right by 2008. Maybe that is the difference between moderates on the one hand and liberals/conservatives on the other. Even after nearly 30 years of steady corrosion of everything that conservatives hated (we haven’t been anything close to a welfare state since 1996, unions lost too much influence, the tax system is not nearly as progressive as it once was, the supreme court has gone nearly full circle, etc.) they still want to cut welfare even more, neuter unions even more, give more tax breaks to the wealthy, pack even more conservatives on SCOTUS, etc.
We have just gone through a few years of a Republican congress and white house shoving their Republican agenda down our throat, I am not really looking forward to a new age where Democrats shove THEIR agenda down our throat.
Its not positions, its character. Hillary’s character is so fatally flawed that I can’t get excited about voting for her. Maybe I wouldn’t vote for McCain but there is a good chance I wouldn’t vote at all.
McCain 46 Clinton 44 -2
McCain 42 Obama 42 0
LA Bloomberg
McCain 42 Clinton 46 +4
McCain 42 Obama 41 -1
Gallup
McCain 50 Clinton 47 -3
McCain 50 Obama 45 -5
I misstated only my last point but looking at this, my main point is still valid - Clinton fares better than Obama against McCain. Obama loses twice and ties once. Clinton loses twice but wins once. Average loss per poll for Clinton is 0.33. Average loss for Obama is 2. (I know it doesn’t work that way, I merely am illustrating.)
That’s not comething coming from some Obama mothership. its just the truth right now. If Hillary can tone down the rancor, that may change. After New Hampshire, I was happy to vote for either Hillary or Obama, that has changed.
