Fighting Barack Obama’s 15 Million Lies

Imagine if President Roosevelt had said, ‘well, lets have Social Security, but lets start by leaving out millions of our seniors.’ Or suppose President Johnson, fighting the fights over Medicare, said, ‘you know, lets just cover some of our seniors with Medicare. Eventually the others will catch up.’ That is not the way it works.

They knew what it took to make big, important changes in our country. They also knew that if you aim too low, if you give up before the fight has started, then you have no chance of making it to the finish line. And I intend to not only make it to the finish line, but to be there with all of you. Because we’re going to do this together.

Hillary Clinton is right, “we’re going to do this together. What Hillary wants us to do is UNIVERSAL Healthcare. Hillary has a UNIVERSAL Healthcare Plan.

Obama does not have a UNIVERSAL healthcare plan. Obama has a pocketful of mumbles and mud. Don’t take our word for it. Paul Krugman, a probable John Edwards supporter, exposes Obama and his lies in today’s New York Times.

As we wrote yesterday, Obama is lying. Obama is lying about “preconditions”; Obama is lying about his attack Pakistan plan; Obama is lying when he denies repeatedly saying “Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia”; Obama is lying about Social Security; and Obama is lying about Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan; and Obama is lying about his own healthcare plan.

Paul Krugman, in today’s column in the New York Times entitled Mandates and Mudslinging, makes our argument against Obama:

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.

Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis”attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.

“ecohing right-wing talking points” – Krugman is saying what we have written about over and over, many months ago. Krugman now explains the central and important issue which Obama is trying to obfuscate with attacks on Hillary:

The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.

Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.

And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.

Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.

As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.

In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that “the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it,” he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan.

Thank you Paul for explaining in very clear language exactly what Hillary has been trying to explain in very clear language. Let’s see if Obama attacks Krugman with the same lies he attacks Hillary. Paul Krugman won’t be as polite as Hillary. In fact, Krugman is already calling Obama’s attacks “cheap shots”:

The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack.

But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.

First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.

Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?

Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.

Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.”

Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.

That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it.

We wrote yesterday that Obama was using Rudy Giuliani type tactics in his “drive by shooting” attacks on Hillary. Krugman too says Obama is now sounding like Giuliani:

Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against “socialized medicine”: he doesn’t want the government to “force” people to have insurance, to “penalize” people who don’t participate.

I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

“Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform” – That is what “reformer” Obama is doing. But we are not surprised. George Bush used the same tactics – remember when George Bush, running for president, called himself a “Reformer With Results”? Remember when George Bush, running for president, called himself a “Uniter, Not a Divider”? Obama is exposed as a Rezko-loving, Chicago mud-slinging, divisive enemy of reform — attacking Democrats and Democratic social programs, using Ripublican talking points. Dis-Gust-Ing.

* * *

Obama is lying repeatedly and knowingly on several areas of the current healthcare reform discussion. Recently, Obama slimed Hillary with allegations that Hillary in the 1990s did not require a mandate. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic is extremely polite, but what the facts point to is that Obama is lying:

Did HRC Oppose A Mandate In The 90s? That’s the claim from the Obama campaign today.

But the charge is hard to square with the fact that Clinton’s 1993 Health Security Act did indeed contain an individual mandate. [snip]

Politically, it’s going to be hard to argue that Clinton’s 1993 plan, which popularized the concept of “government-run universal health care,” was somehow not premised on the idea of required, universal coverage.

“For that is how most of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, enter the Senate…their words distorted, and their motives questioned,” Obama writes in The Audacity of Hope. As Senator Clinton might today say: “Indeed.”

Obama and his campaign have simply lied. They have posted their lies on the Obama website and continue to make statements to the media repeating their lies. The Obama campaign knows they are lying and refuse, in Bush-like manner, to retract their lies.

On mandates, Hillary has, like John Edwards, proposed ways to enforce the health plan mandates even as Obama continues to lie that there are no proposals on how to enforce the mandates.

Clinton said she is puzzled by Obama’s approach.

“Sen. Obama [is] now criticizing a mandate, when he has one in his own plan, when he helped to set up a task force that says there has to be a mandate,” she said. “And there are lots of ways to do it, through default enrollment, through going to schools, workplaces to enroll people.”

Obama of course does have a mandate in his plan – for children. It appears to be much more punitive than anything Hillary Clinton or John Edwards propose:

Obama said he is open to assessing fines against parents who fail to enroll their children in health care.

“If they don’t have health care, we will work with the parents to make sure that it’s provided and it would be mandatory,” he said. “Parents would not have an option. … I would fine parents if for some reason they refused.”

One way to “fine” parents is for the government to withhold the costs of a child’s insurance from a parent’s paycheck, said David Cutler, a Harvard University economics professor who advised Obama on his health care reform plan.

“Probably the easiest way to treat it is like deadbeat dads and say, ‘Look you have this obligation and if you don’t do it voluntarily, we will do it for you,’” Cutler said in a telephone interview today.

Hillary Clinton is very clear in what she is proposing on healthcare – UNIVERSAL heathcare.

“If we don’t get universal health care, then we will be betraying the Democratic Party’s principles. And it’s important that those who will caucus on January 3rd understand this difference. Senator Obama’s [plan] does not, and cannot, cover all Americans. He called his plan universal, then he called it ‘virtually universal,’ but it is not either. When it comes to truth in labeling, it simply flunks the test.

* * *

The Associated Press reviewed Hillary’s healthcare speech on Wednesday:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused her leading Democratic presidential rival Wednesday of flinching from the struggle to provide health care for all Americans and said, “I am not afraid of the Republican attacks” on the subject.

“We’ve got to put up a candidate who’s willing to stand up for it and fight for it,” said the former first lady in her most pointed criticism to date of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Frequently accused of ducking key issues, Clinton said it was Obama who is seeking to finesse a difficult question. “He has called his plan universal, then he has called it `virtually universal,‘ but it simply does not deserve that label,” she said. “When it comes to truth in labeling his plan simply flunks the test.” [snip]

Clinton said that by turning his back on universal health care, Obama was essentially siding with Republicans.

“If anything, Democrats should stand for universal health care. That distinguishes us from the Republicans. The Republicans don’t believe in it. Democrats do and we should fight for it,” she said.

As first lady nearly 15 years ago, Clinton spearheaded her husband’s attempt to achieve universal health care. It failed in the Democratic-controlled Congress, and now, she says she is eager to try again.

She said Obama’s plan would leave 15 million Americans uninsured, including 100,000 Iowans, about half the population of the capital city, Des Moines.

She also said Obama favors a mandate for coverage of children, a point she said made no sense. “If you believe you can enforce a mandate on children, that means you enforce the mandate on the parents of the children to enroll the children. So why would you leave out the parents?”

Clinton’s plan requires all Americans to obtain health insurance. Those without it would be able to choose from among options that are currently available to members of Congress.

* * * * *

Video excerpts of Hillary’s healthcare speech on Wednesday can be viewed HERE.

Speech Excerpts:

“If we don’t move toward universal health care coverage now, if we don’t have an election about it where I stand against whoever the Republicans nominate and let them answer the questions about why they won’t take care of covering every single American, why they want to still be in bed with the health insurance companies, that is an election we will win,” she said. “

But we’ve got to put up a candidate that’s willing to stand for it and fight for it.”

“More than anybody else in this race, I have a plan to reduce the cost of health care by $120 billion a year. And I think its important that we understand the differences among us who have plans.

You know, among the Democrats, all of us except Senator Obama have universal health care, they have put forth a plan. [Governor] Richardson, Senator Edwards, Senator Dodd. We’ve put forth universal health care plans, because we know if we don’t cover everybody, we’re going to leave millions and millions of people out. Its a substantive and important difference. Because if you don’t start with the goal of covering every American, you will never get there.

Here’s how my plan works: if you already have private insurance and you’re happy with it, nothing changes. You keep that insurance. But if you don’t have health insurance or you don’t like he insurance you have, you can choose from a wide variety of options that are available to members of congress.

All Americans will have a responsibility to get and keep health insurance. I believe if we make this the law of the land, Americans will follow it and will purchase health insurance far more than if we don’t have that requirement.

We’ll provide tax credits to ensure that people can afford it, and we’ll give tax credits to small businesses so that they can cover more of their employees. If you want to cover everybody you have to make health care a shared responsibility.

I know you need to have the willingness to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies and demand universal coverage.

And that’s why I don’t understand why we have this difference on the Democratic side, because if anything, democrats should stand for universal health care. That distinguishes us from the Republicans. The Republicans don’t believe in it. Democrats do. And we’ll fight for it.

It will be a president with the experience and strength to make that happen, otherwise we’ll be right back here in another ten or twelve or fourteen years, and we’ll still have tens of millions of people uninsured and in fact our problems will be even worse and we will have lost more jobs because employers won’t be willing to provide insurance. They’ll move jobs off shore because they don’t want to have those benefits. And we will not be either competitive or living up to our ideals.

It is impossible to get to universal health care if you don’t have a mandate. That is a key difference between my plan and Senator Obama’s plan.

Now when Senator Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he helped to create a health care task force that looked into how best to cover everybody in Illinois with health insurance.

 They released their report earlier this year – and they made it very clear, if you want to cover everyone you need to require people to get health insurance. Otherwise you will fail to cover 60-90% of the uninsured.

Now, there are a number of ways of doing this. one sensible step would be to use what’s called default enrollment. If you don’t make a choice, well we set up a system where people are automatically enrolled when they come into contact with the health care system or with schools or colleges. We could also work with employers so they automatically enroll people. The Congress has ideas about this, it will work to make sure that these mandates are enforceable.

But what’s strange is that Senator Obama’s plan actually does have a mandate, but only for children. No requirement for adults. Now I’ve worked on this issue a very long time.

 And if you believe you can enforce a mandate on children, that means you enforce the mandate on the parents of the children to enroll the children?

Why would you leave out the parents of the children? 

Because what happens when you leave out the parents is that they’re less likely to get health care for their own children. See, this is all connected.

And I’m proud that Senator Edwards agrees with me, Senator Dodd agrees with me, Governor Richardson agrees with me. Congressman Kucinich has a different approach, but he gets everyone covered to have universal health care.

If we don’t have universal health care, then we will be betraying the Democratic party’s principles. And it’s important that those who will caucus on January 3rd understand this difference. Senator Obama’s plan does not and cannot cover all Americans.

He’s called his plan universal, then he called it virtually universal, but it is not either. When it comes to truth in labeling, it simply flunks the test.

He’s been saying there’s no difference between our plans, but his plan would leave at least 15 million Americans uninsured, including more than 100,000 people right here in Iowa.

So why don’t we just say everybody against the wall, you don’t get insurance. We’re very sorry, but we’re just not going to have a plan that covers you. Who’s going to choose who doesn’t get covered? Who’s going to leave out 15 million people, or 100,000 people in Iowa? That’s more than half the population of Des Moines. That’s a huge difference for those who get left out, like the daughter of the woman I met from Greenville.

And its a huge difference to me, to leave 15 million people virtually invisible, because that is what we would do. Well when I’m president, there will be no invisible Americans, and there will be no Americans without health care. That is one of my highest priorities.

And I know its going to be a tough fight. But I have been fighting the republicans and the special interests for 15 years.

I have to admit I get amused when any of my opponents try to claim they’ve fought more fights than I’ve fought. Well I don’t remember them being with me in 1993 and 1994, to tell you the truth.

So I don’t mind standing up and fighting. That’s what I want to do for all of you.

And I know that you are not going to get the health insurance companies to say, oh ok, we’re going to cover everybody, and therefore its going to be hard for us to make money because we’ll to have to do it the old fashioned way.

 Instead of eliminating people from coverage and refusing to pay doctors bills and hospital bills, we’re just going to eliminate you in the first instance, or deny coverage for you and refuse to pay your bills. I know they’re not going to like my plan. That’s not the point.

Just because it’s controversial or ambitious, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. The time is now. If we don’t move toward universal health care coverage now, if we don’t have an election about it where I stand against whoever the Republicans nominate and let them answer the questions about why they won’t take care of covering every single American, why they want to still be in bed with the health insurance companies, that is an election we will win. 

But we’ve got to put up a candidate that’s willing to stand for it and fight for it.

Imagine if President Roosevelt had said, ‘well, lets have Social Security, but lets start by leaving out millions of our seniors.’ Or suppose President Johnson, fighting the fights over Medicare

, said, ‘you know, lets just cover some of our seniors with Medicare. Eventually the others will catch up.’ That is not the way it works.

They knew what it took to make big, important changes in our country. They also knew that if you aim too low, if you give up before the fight has started, then you have no chance of making it to the finish line. And I intend to not only make it to the finish line, but to be there with all of you. Because we’re going to do this together.

Those that don’t have insurance, they don’t just struggle with costs themselves, they impose costs on everyone else. When you leave 15 million Americans uninsured, the result is a hidden tax on every other American. What do I mean by that? Well when someone is finally forced to go to the emergency room because they can’t afford a doctor’s appointment, we all pay the bill. When they can’t pay their medical bills, insurance companies just raise the rates on everybody else.

And when you leave 15 million uninsured, insurance companies will just continue to cherry pick the healthiest people and discriminate against the sickest. Those that need the coverage the most.

We’re going to eliminate health care discrimination. Were going to require insurance companies to insure everyone, including preexisting conditions. You will not any longer be denied insurance, you will be entitled to insurance. And as long as you pay your share of the costs, no one can take it away from you

And that will also be a cardinal principle when it comes to how we’re going to make it absolutely clear to people that having insurance is a shared responsibility. Everybody’s got to pitch in. No more hidden taxes. No more insurance company cherry picking.

I know we can do this, and even the Republicans, at least some of them, do. That’s why Governor Schwarzenegger has a mandate
in his proposal. No one who looks seriously about how we get to universal health care can come to any other conclusion.

So this is a fight worth taking on. I’ve never shied away from tough challenges., and neither has America. You know, we’re the nation that split the atom, that sent a man to the moon, that mapped the human genome. We’ve got the best doctors and nurses and health care professionals in the world. We’ve got the most exciting research, the most promising treatment and cures. And it’s long past time that all of our people benefited from that.”

* * *

Hillary booed by PINOs when fighting for UNIVERSAL healthcare in 1994:

Hillary calling out Obama to his face, for abandoning 15 million Americans, during televised debate:


124 thoughts on “Fighting Barack Obama’s 15 Million Lies

  1. that’s right admin. the punk is being exposed of what he is, a empty, all hot air blowhard with no evidence of substance. WHAT ADUCITY!!! 15 millions left out and all his response is “some people can’t afford it”. weak.

  2. wow, that 1994 video brings back memories. not all good becuase of the gop sweep that year. lordy, look how young hillary and then congresswoman cantwell(now sen.-d-washington state) look back then. they still look

  3. After watching my daily 5 minutes of Scabby Joe, in which I heard Chris Rock tell those attending the Obama event at NYC’s Apollo last night that they needed to look around and better decide to support Obama — just so they’d be on the right side should he be elected president — instead of supporting some white lady … I went online to work some more on my SW article on Obama’s Hopefund (yes, it’s an on-going story in the media even if BO wishes it would go away) and came across this extremely interesting piece of info from Lynn Sweet (pub’d today):

    Jesse Jackson, Jr., who received some of BO’s Hopefund money, is obviously endorsing BO, as is his father, Jesse, Jr.

    However, NOT endorsing BO is Jesse Sr.’s son, Yusef, who is “a major Clinton fund-raiser who has bundled together at least $100,000 in contributions. … Now his mother [Jesse Sr.’s wife, Jackqueline] is also siding with Clinton and may go on the road to stump for her. If she goes to South Carolina — where Jackson Sr. was born and where he won the 1988 presidential primary — she will find herself having to dilute the impact of radio ads her son Jesse Jr. has made for Obama.”

    Did you catch that … a prominent Black woman whose husband has standing in S.C.’s Black community, let alone her own clout, is going to stump in S.C. for Hillary and go against both her husband and son to do so.

    BO can have Oprah. She’s a tv personality and media icon. BUT, the Jacksons are the real deal and Southern Black women know that.

    Now all we need is for Hillary’s campaign to get Jacqueline Jackson talking to Black women about universal health care for their families. I can’t imagine a more powerful message that would get a more resounding response.

    I’m going to pass this on to my local HRC contact person, as well.,CST-NWS-sweet30.article

  4. The Jacqueline Jackson story is on Hillary Headlines in the right hand column.

    On Obama’s healthcare plan missing 15 million, CBS did a factcheck and this is what they found:

  5. NewsBusters has the “that white lady” comment and video.

  6. Is there any weight to the rumor of the Bloomberg possible Obama VP story? I just checked the internet and this summer Bloomberg was saying Obama was too inexperienced. Is Blooberg the type of guy who would just shove his feelings aside for any chance to be in the white house? And wasn’t this guy a Republican a short time ago? Why on earth would Obama think that he would be acceptable to Democrats? Wouldn’t many be appalled? And how arrogant for Obama to think that he should be looking at VP candidates at this point..

    If this is true, it’s one more thing to add to the growing list of negatives about Obama…using a gay bigot to scrounge for votes in SC, considering a Republican for a running mate, spreading falsehoods about other candidates with abandon, using PAC money to buy endorsements etc, etc….

    Maybe the time has come for the Clinton campaign to start airing ads with these things in Iowa. It appears the media is never going to examine the Obama campaign and voters need to know that Obama is not at all what he pretends to be…

  7. Scabby Joe and BO’s stealth spokeswoman Mika were speculating on what it meant that BO was having breakfast with Bloomberg.

    Bloomberg’s comments on BO would surely come back to haunt him and the Repugs could easily beat them both over the head on both the comments and both Bloomberg’s and BO’s lack of experience. In this case, 2 + 2 can’t = 4.

    It would also be a definite signal that BO is out of his league if he has to shore himself up with someone as #2 who could buy his way to #1. Bloomberg is no second banana nor is BO. They’re both all or nothing types.

  8. Another thought, though, is this …. should BO be the candidate (God wipe that thought from my brain), his Ivy League status plus a New York running mate would ensure a Repug win. Where’s the support for the South? It’s a losing ticket.

  9. One commenter wrote last June about an Obama/Bloomberg ticket:

    “Definitely has the potential to deliver the northeast, California and the Great Lakes region. Maybe even Ohio and Florida” to any Convervative candidate.

  10. I found that joke completely offensive. It’s more Chris Rock’s bad taste than Obama, but HWC pointed out that Obama didn’t distance himself from it at all. It’s not just offensive to women, I think he was goading african americans, whom for their own reasons, don’t support Obama, you know, probably because he’s an empty suit who lacks experience.

  11. I love the Jacqueline Jackson story, the Transit Union endorsement, and the Rick Warren story. What a morning and I just woke up (:

  12. Well, Bill is gonna give BO another headache. Politico reports that Bill told CSPAN that Hillary’s First Lady schedules will be available soon. That’ll give MSM another chance to bring up the transparency issue again and, hopefully, point out BO’s failure to provide his own records. It’ll also take another RNC talking point off the table.

    Of course, Arianna, Michelle, Rush and the gang will find all sorts of things to complain about. But they will always find “something”, now won’t they?




    Big jump for Edwards in NH in the ARG, but BO stays stagnant. The one thing I notice is that even in polls where Hillary has lost a few points, OB ISN’T the one picking up the slack, it’s either JE, Rihardson, or (now Ia ARG)) Biden.

  14. How surprising. I just read that Maureen Dowd and Arianna Huffington sat together at that Apollo event. Lovely. They probably really had a laugh together at Chris Rock’s joke.

  15. It is hardly surprising that a Reagan admirer like Obama would be unwilling to embrace the progressive concept of universal health care. By the same token, it is hard to imagine that Obama could begin to solve the problems facing our country as more and more of them approach critical mass. Barry is a talker. Hillary is a problemsolver. It is important that voters understand the difference, and what it means to their future.

  16. Just imagine if someone had said “dont vote for the black man” at a Hillary event. The blogosphere would be on fire, the big media would be headlining it and Matthews’s head would be spinning so fast that it would have exploded.

    BO said the other day, “every country is Obama country once Barack Obama has been there ..”. that is what is called audacity of arrogance .
    Hey, but BO is the media darling. so lets move on …

  17. Friday, November 30, 2007

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Hillary Clinton below the 40% level of support for the second straight day. The former First Lady now attracts 37% of the vote from Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Barack Obama is in second place nationally at 27%. That’s his highest level of support since early October. As with all tracking poll data, it remains to be seen whether the Clinton decline and the Obama bounce reflect a lasting change or are merely a temporary aberration.

    John Edwards remains in third place among the Democratic hopefuls at 13%, Bill Richardson is the top choice for 4%, and no other Democratic candidate tops 3% (see recent daily numbers).

  18. ARG also shows Obama ahead by 2 in Iowa, after their last poll had Hillary ahead slightly, but she’s increased her lead in SC to 24. Iowa is definitely a toss-up. I just thought Hillary’s good debate peformance would’ve helped her polls, but the MSM didn’t focus on it nearly as much as they did her “bad” performance a few weeks prior.

    As for Rasmussen, it looks like Obama had a couple of great polling days. When they fall out of the rolling average, we’ll see what happens.

  19. If Edwards ends up third in Iowa, do you he’ll drop out and endorse Obama? Can anyone explain why he dislikes Hillary so much? What did she ever do to him?

  20. Does anyone have an idea about what the average bounce is from an Iowa victory (from prior primaries) ?

    She’s ahead in NH by 11-14 points at this point. As long as this is a double digit lead, I think she can pull off a NH victory. But if that lead shrinks to within the margin of error (based on a loss in Iowa, and a bounce to the winner) , that would be troublesome. Dont think that will happen though – her SC lead also appears to have increased in the latest ARG poll. And she’s far ahead in Nevada too.

    The problem is an Iowa loss will have the media vultures circling and doing their very best to boost the winner to affect her chances in NH. Thats why its important that she retains that NH lead till the end of December at least.

  21. I also think if she finishes a close second in Iowa she’s probably OK, too. BTW, kostner, how do you reconcile what you’re hearing from Iowans about the race with what the polls show? Just curious.

  22. dt, What’s weird is that many eventual nominees lost Iowa, so I wonder if the bounce isn’t always there. It was for Kerry, of course, in ’04.

  23. A perspective from conservative Christainn on “Evangelical sfor Hillary”

    David Brody
    CBN News Senior National Correspondent

    Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation from conservative Evangelicals Thursday.

    Let me repeat that sentence again in case you missed it. I’m going to increase the font size. Hold on, I need to copy and paste it:

    Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation from conservative Evangelicals Thursday.

    Read more below from the OC Register and then get my take afterwards:

    Many evangelical Christians have taken issue with Hillary Clinton for promoting abortion rights, gay rights and teen condom use, but you wouldn’t have known it from the standing ovation that greeted her at Saddleback Church this afternoon.

    Although all leading presidential candidates were invited, Clinton was the only one to show up for the annual Global Summit on AIDS and the Church. She delivered a bipartisan message that emphasized the role of the church in addressing AIDS.

    “Twenty five years ago when people – mostly young gay men – started dying of an unnamed disease, we didn’t talk about it in church,” she said. “We’ve come a long way. Not only can we talk about AIDS in church, but churches can lead the way.”

    The three-day event leading up to World AIDS Day on Saturday is part of Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren’s global assault on the disease, with an approach that claims churches worldwide as the most capable network to address the problem.

    The full article is here and you can read more about Clinton’s plan to fight AIDS here

    Before I give you my analysis, I should point out that she spoke of her faith in God during the speech too saying, “I’ve often been asked if I’m a praying person. Had I not been, probably one week in the White House would have turned me into one.” She also cited her favorite Bible passage from the book of James which says, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”. She went on to say, “I have concluded that works without faith cannot be sustained,”

    Let me say a few things. I know the conservatives who can’t stand Hillary have their reasons and their minds will never be changed. But does this woman have to be demonized so much? Listen; let’s not get caught up in all this biblical talk coming from all the candidates. A relationship with God is a personal one and it should be left there. From a public policy perspective she clearly sees an intersection of the way she views her faith as it relates to fighting AIDS and many other causes. The pro-life community sees faith and the abortion issue intersecting on the other side. It’s a different perspective. But when those Evangelicals rose to their feet at Rick Warren’s Church, it wasn’t just a sign of respect for a woman who has made it this far. It was an appreciation for her commitment to fighting AIDS. Is there anything wrong with that?

    And by the way, on a political note, can’t you see the ad now in the General Election if Hillary’s the nominee? As she positions herself in the middle (just like the Republican candidate will do on the other side). The campaign ad will show these Evangelicals giving her a standing “O”. Then you’ll see her at a press conference when she introduced legislation with conservative Rick Santorum or at a press conference with Newt Gingrich from awhile back. And the announcer’s voice will boom, “Hillary Clinton. Bringing America together. A President for all the people…even those who may not see eye to eye with her all the time.” (Cue the sappy music)

  24. It’s a question of expectations – she has the largest number of endorsements in NH and a pretty strong organization so the media narrative is that a loss in NH will mean a repudiation of her candidacy. But Bill Clinton did not campaign in Iowa and lost NH. Hillary can easily survive a loss in both states but she’s fighting a media machine that is determined to take her down.

    Notice BO hasnt moved much in NH at all. I think Hillarys support is actually the strongest of all in Iowa and NH – her base support is solid and its unlikely that people who have made up their minds to vote for her at this point will change their minds later.

  25. Ben Smith at Politico picked up on the health care thread. Hillary is calling for BO to take down his false health care ad. This could get good. [remove spaces] Pushing_healthcare_contrast_Clinton_wants_Obama_ad_down.html

  26. I find Rock’s comments extremely offensive. Imagine Hillary using a comedian to tell white women: what was I thinking, voting for that black man? Her candidacy is just as much a historic first, still no excuse for this pandering in the guise of a “comedian.”

    As far as bloomberg is concerned, it’s just silly speculation. he has too many skeletons in his closet.

    rasmussen — that’s better be a blip and not the result of that phony zogby poll.

  27. chris rock’s bigoted and sexist “joke” reminded me of a shirley chisholm quote

    • Of my two “handicaps” being female put more obstacles in my path than being black.

    what is even more upsetting, is the laughter the “joke” invoked from mika, joe and willie..

  28. The “Morning Joke”, much like “Sourball” and “F..cker”, are a bunch of frat boys who have let a cheerleader or two into the locker room to share their sweaty socks and sniff their jock straps. It all stinks but that’s the price you have to pay to be one of the boys.

  29. More anonymous sources. Now Chase Martyn is alleging that Hillary is fixing the upcoming Brown and Black Forum in Iowa. What’s wrong with these people. It’s posted on HuffPo, of course.

  30. That comment pisses me off on multiple levels. It’s particularly ugly when told two blocks away from Bill Clinton’s office. Rock and Obama should clarify — is the problem with “white” or with “woman” or both?

  31. Hillary has done nothing. An Obama supporter is whining because he’s not part of the planning committee.

  32. b-merry,

    in regards to the B&B forum, you should know better, that white lady will do just about anything to get elected president.

  33. For some reason, I am getting the feeling that Hillary’s support is going to start creeping back up in Iowa and NH as Jan approaches. The more they expose BO’s duplicity in his PACs operations and his health care plan combined with his inexperience , people are going to step back and wonder if this is really who they want to see as president.

    Hillary will do just fine 🙂

  34. I love the note that Patti Solis Doyle wrote to David Axelrod about that ad in New Hampshire (:

    I love her! That is one powerful Latina (:

    Here it is:

    Dear David:

    I am writing concerning a false advertisement you are currently airing, in which Sen. Obama claims that his health care plan would “cover everyone.” Your advertisement not only contradicts the judgment of health care experts, but public statements by your campaign and your candidate. Senator Obama has pledged to put “honesty first” in this campaign. In that spirit I respectfully request that you stop running this ad which is misleading voters in New Hampshire.

    In today’s New York Times, noted Economist Paul Krugman wrote that Sen. Obama proposed “a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although [Sen. Obama] declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that ‘my plan begins by covering every American,’ it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.”

    Health care author Jonathan Cohn looked at the data and concluded that, under the most optimistic scenario, Sen. Obama’s plan would leave “15 million people who are uninsured.” The Washington Post reached a similar conclusion, finding that Sen. Obama’s plan would not cover “a third” of the 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

    Additionally, a constellation of the nation’s top health care experts – including MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Diane Rowland and the Urban Institute’s John Holland — have concluded that plans like Sen. Obama’s, which does not include a requirement for all Americans to have health care, would leave a substantial portion of the American public without coverage.

    Even Sen. Obama himself has admitted that his plan would not cover everyone, calling the plan “virtually universal.” Your top health care advisor, David Cutler, acknowledged that Sen. Obama’s plan could leave “significant pockets” of people uninsured and said Sen. Obama would “deal with that when the time comes, possibly by mandating insurance.”

    On an issue of this magnitude Americans are looking for more than a nice ad or a good speech. It’s not enough for Senator Obama to say he covers everyone, especially when that is inaccurate. The American people need a President who will take the action necessary and fight for healthcare for every single man woman and child. Until the time comes when Sen. Obama has a plan that will cover everyone, you should stop running this false advertisement. The American people deserve an honest debate about health care.


    Patti Solis Doyle
    Campaign Manager
    Hillary Clinton for President

  35. Read the article if you’d like to waste a few moments of your life. Nothing but speculation and veiled accusations from an Obama supporter who is not part of the planning committee this year, brought to you by an Obama-supporting blogger.

  36. People in Iowa are not getting the memo that obama is not universal healthcare, because on the phones, we get people saying their #1 issue is healthcare, but they are supporting bo. We tell them, and they refuse to listen and say things like we won’t change our decision. UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. Chris Rock’s “white lady comments,” and equally as important, the reaction to them, is a good example of screwball racial politics, where a double-standard exists, where for minority community members up is down and wrong becomes right.

    Right or wrong, a majority community backlash against this sort of malarky iis a big factor in why O-Bomb-A will not be nominated.

  38. Early this morning I was reading a Wash Post blog in which there was an anti-Hillary post so vile, so hate-filled, so far past even passionate political discourse that I was going to e-mail the Post to ask if this wasn’t way over the line.

    I wasn’t sure how to e-mail someone at the Post and it was about 5am so I went to sleep and thought I’d do it when I awoke. I was going to make the point that this sort of demonization could easily lead to violence and does not belong in a family newspaper.

    I have no idea what set this man off but my point remains. It would behoove MSM to scrub the worst of the blogs, no matter who they refer to.

  39. The MSM will have another field day of how ‘polarizing’ Hillary is. I’m sure it’s going to be Obama’s new weapon…


  40. kostner, Polarization is Obama’s old weapon. He’s been using that ad nauseam. Thanks for the video links, BTW.

    Freckles also makes a good point about blogs. Vile stuff shouldn’t be tolerated about Hillary or anyone else.

  41. hes demanding to speak to hillary

    Great. Now the Georgetown Social Club will spend a week bashing Clinton for not making herself accessible enough to voters.

  42. This is a very serious situation, but your comment, hwc, made me lol, probably because it has a real ring of truth to it.

  43. Dean:

    “Unfortunately as some of you know, there is a hostage situation in New Hampshire involving a Clinton campaign staff person,” he said. “The details are sketchy at this time, but understandably Senator Clinton is now dealing with this very difficult problem and she is not going to be able to join us today. And we will keep them in our prayers and hope for a resolution to this situation in New Hampshire.”

  44. Paula, definitely no. It’s like giving in to the demands of terrorists. It’ll only encourage others, who will think that if THAT guy got his demands met, they will, too.

  45. filbertsf,

    I think this all depends on the negotiation tactics of the SWAT team… I’m sure Senator will follow professionals’ advice on this serious situation.

  46. kostner, is she really? What source are you getting that info from?

    I, too, think Hillary needs to get to NH to comfort her campaign staff and volunteers.

  47. Fox News has Carl Cameron and a Fox satellite truck about to arrive on the scene. Stop rewarding MSNBC with your viewership.

    Fox News just had a live report from the DNC meeting in Virginia. The speeches (other than Clinton’s) are continuing.

  48. America is such a violent culture. Not a day goes by that you don’t see on the news someone using violence to get their way.

  49. The constant character attacks have to stop. It brings out the whacko’s. The so-called liberals who continue to participate in character assacination must stop.

  50. This is what happens when the MSM and the rightwing talk radio take Hillary for granted and spread so much personal hate. Some nut cases really get riled up and resort to these mindless tactics.

  51. yep you are so right ra1029,they say so many bad things then nutcases watch this and thrive on doing something.i hope all the blogs and all are cleaned after this,with all hate material anyone or any presidential candiate

  52. The good news is that the hostage taker has let some people go, including a women who is either pregnant or has a child. This means the hostage taker is viewing the people in the office as people, not objects.

    The Hillary Campaign is doing the right thing by following the instructions of police and hostage negotiators. Hillary is safe and helping the authorities to do their work.

    This is not a political situation but rather a police situation.

    Of course, as has been noted, soon Big Media will turn this whole episode into a political situation. Right now we hope for the best for the citizens of Rochester, NH and the people in the office.

  53. Hopefully, those still held hostage will be able to go back to their homes safely by tonight. It is a delicate and tense situation for the families and the police.


  55. MSNBC is PATHETIC.. they are already spinning this as something like Hilalry clintons “spin” thing.

    MSNBC has Cliff Van Zandt nattering on about whether this is a “true” hostage situation. I get that Van Zandt is trying to make a distinction based on what the bomb guy’s objectives are but, seriously, he’s taken hostages.

    I am done with MSNBC. I am shooting them off an e-mail today, and to their advertisers. I have LOST my total respect for them. In addition, I am writing to keith obermann a good bye letter. I pledge to NEVER watch MSNBC again! I hope I can get osme to follow. these guys are pathetic.. fox is much better than them in terms of covering this situation.

  56. I’m here in Rochester and can see across the river towards town. My husband is in county law enforcement and it appears that this man is someone well known in the community as an alcoholic and nutjob. If/when I know more, will let you know. Been watching tv as well as across town.

  57. There was an excellent PBS Bill Moyers show with Kathleen Hall Jamieson on gender bias and language usage with respect to the current political campaigns, media coverage, public response and so on. Check it out at (Dec 7, 2007)

    I am happy I found this site. I hope others see what I see in Hillary Clinton — pragmatic, no nonsense, serious, go-getter (well, we share the same birthday!) I can’t understand why people are falling for lyricism and “feel good” words when what we need is someone really smart and serious about policy and governance (to get us out of the mess we are in now).

Comments are closed.