Obama Hits Below the Belt in New Ad

I guess all those threads on the debate-induced detente were premature?

Oh I expected this. It's different when your face-to-face on the debate stage. Playing it cool was the best thing for both of them. Now in the ad arena, HA! Senator Clinton has some "cool" ones for Senator Obama too.

While I’ve been critical of Barack Obama, especially there being so little substance behind his hope-and-change message...

I think he did a good job yesterday of adding more substance.

There's nothing wrong with the ad. The same criticism, which was valid, went at Romney and the Massachusetts plan. (California's plan was even worse; it was voted down even by Democrats, who didn't have any idea what the details in it were and how much it would cost.)

As to the denial that they'll have to buy insurance even if they can't afford it, which is a denial of obvious truth and was in no way rebutted here, I can only scoff.

http://www.examiner.com/p-101424~Uninsured_Mass...

I agree with DLS. Nothing wrong with ad. Sharp but not crazy.

Speaking of Harry and Louise, I think that because he obviously tried to copy that same ad, that, in and of itself, is probably a bit going for the low blow on a very subliminal basis.

And speaking of who is more liberal, who just got the nod from moveon.org?

Shaun: what happened to my prior comment on the healthcare plans not covering the working class, while the poor and rich are better off?

"Like Harry and Louise, like the Nazis in Skokie" -- the Clinton campaigners (including blatant Dim party hack Krugman) and others have no shame.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02...

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/02/krugman_h...

Cosmo:

I don't moderate comments. Never have, never will.

OK, so who does, and why is the comment gone? There was no cursing nor anything profane. I thought this stuff ended with the departure of Steck and MVDG.

All editors can delete comments but I see nothing to indicate that anybody did.

Actually, I think this is an entirely fair question to put to voters. Hillary's plan does mandate that everyone has to buy healthcare - so that statement is not false. Nor does your comment that lower income families get subsidies change the fact that everyone has to buy it. Further, where did Obama say people would face penalties under his plan? So far as I understand he was questioning Hillary about whether there would be penalties for those not buying coverage under her plan. If you paid attention to the finer nuances of the debate you would have realized that Obama made a key point in that he did not think the subsidies were sufficient to be sure that the insurance would be affordable to all families. On this I am in complete agreement. The amount of subsidy one is eligible for is determined by income level - however income level is a very crude measurement tool, with much scope for people to fall between the gaps because one's income level is insensitive to the personal and environmental circumstances that any one individual or family finds themselves in. One only has to consider people paying off student loans, high mortgage repayments and fuel costs and other high debts to pay back (due commercialism and 'have now pay later' promoted by a focus on profit rather than people - shackling people in debt) to understand that throwing an additional compulsory cost into this mix may very well be too much for a lot of people - even with subsidies, tipping them over and causing knock on effects in other areas. Build jobs in the US, change this debt culture, improve the whole picture and then, just then, such a broad mandate would work. While too many other things are broken, it is wise to start out small with a mandate for children but give adults the freedom and choice to negotiate themselves to a position where they can afford to buy healthcare.

PS. Obama's plan is very similar - it will have subsidies too - but he also thinks there is work to be done to lower the costs even further. The difference is choice. Obama will work to make that an easier choice.

Holly: Then you still have issues with Disqus, for mine was comment #1, and was online for over an hour, and the thrust was that neither O's nor Hill's plan significantly helps out the vast majority of Americans. The working poor will get a slight boost, but the poor and rich will still have the same options as before- the poor will be covered by the rest of us and the rich don't need it.

Expanding Medicare for all is the best solution, for the old do very well by it.

Re: the ad. It's truthful but in a slimy way.

"Expanding Medicare for all is the best solution, for the old do very well by it."

Not necessarily, but certainly this is the simplest and most logical thing to do, and it is no longer a radical fringe idea (with Commie characteristics), but mainstream.

Expanding Medicare takes a proven method, and a proven infrastructure, and expands it. There are no new orgs nor gov't entities that need be created- which will save tens of billions, plus it puts all in the same boat, and allows a single entity to take the heat, rather than a cobweb of bureaucracies.