Mmmm...............no............not today...........

on, Obama, Insurance

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 4, 2008

But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.

Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost.

Let’s talk about how the plans compare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinio...


February 1, 2008, 10:58 am
Obama does Harry and Louise, again

The Obama campaign sends out an ugly mailer. Sorry, but this is just destructive — like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed.

Update: Ezra Klein adds a screenshot of the original Harry and Louise ad — they’ve obviously deliberately copied it. Just to remind everyone, Harry and Louise were the center of the vile smear campaign the insurance lobby waged against health care reform in 1993 — and this time a Democratic candidate is doing the smearing for them.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02...+Krugman&st=nyt

Linda quoted from Paul Krugman, who wrote "But as I’ve tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates’ approaches."

What was your opinion of Howard Dean's plans for health care coverage?

What was your opinion of Howard Dean's plans for health care coverage?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and that matters now,why?

is he about to jump in?

wOOt!!!!

Howard Dean is first.

Howard Dean is FIRST!

If you need attack ads to make your argument (Harry and Louise II) you hace conceded the case on its merit.

we can do better than that

Hillary voted against a ban on cluster bombs

Obama voted for the ban:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Posted February 4, 2008 | 10:51 AM (EST)

If you're a friend of mine, or a fan of "Get Your War On," you probably know how important the issue of cluster bombs and landmines is to me.

It was America's use of cluster bombs during Operation: Enduring Freedom that led me to start GYWO seven(!) years ago this fall

...

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who'd want to risk accusation of "tying the hands of the Pentagon" during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.

But Senator Obama did the right thing.

Is Senator Obama perfect? Of course not. Nobody who voted for 2005's wack-ass energy bill is perfect. Nobody who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act is perfect.

But of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.

I'm 35 years old, and over the years, I've had two experiences in the voting booth: I've voted for politicians I really respected, who I knew could never win. And I've voted for politicians I didn't really respect, because I knew they could win.

Tomorrow, I'm going to vote for a politician I really respect, who I know can win.

62.

The mandate on auto is for liability IF you cause damage or costs to someone else through your actions. So if you cause an accident, your insurance covers their losses (both property and medical/pain).

Steve,

Florida has no such mandate for "liability." The only mandate we have here is called "No Fault Insurance" which requires $10,000 coverage that pays for any medical care up to $10,000 for a victim of an accident, no matter which party is to blame.

Perhaps Florida is just a more Democratic state than yours is. But I doubt if your state has any such mandate either except for a form of No Fault. Check your policy.

if you bet with your head not your heart last night go out and buy some diamonds for Valentines Day before you spend it all on yourself

and that matters now,why?

I think Tom, in his roundabout way, is drawing attention to the similarity between the health insurance plans of Obama and Dean (which everybody here thought great 4 years ago.)

But it makes sense that those who, until a few days ago, supported a candidate who changed his own positions since then would have changed their own positions as well.

Iowa has a mandate for liability insurance Joan jail time if you have an accident without it

Phil wrote "and [your opinion of Howard Dean's plans for health care coverage] matters now,why?"

Because I was interested in seeing if you or anyone supported such a plan.

During the crying meeting:

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Clinton lost her voice pretty badly while at a roundtable in New Haven, CT. She asked for a lozenge and water, and after a minute, she tried to answer a question on health care. She got one short sentence out, and then breathlessly said, "This comes and goes."

A nurse then talked for six minutes, giving Clinton a chance to regain use of her voice. About eight minutes after losing her voice, Clinton began to get her voice back (but still was scratchy).

During the crying meeting:

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Clinton lost her voice pretty badly while at a roundtable in New Haven, CT. She asked for a lozenge and water, and after a minute, she tried to answer a question on health care. She got one short sentence out, and then breathlessly said, "This comes and goes."

A nurse then talked for six minutes, giving Clinton a chance to regain use of her voice. About eight minutes after losing her voice, Clinton began to get her voice back (but still was scratchy).

Continuing the health care discussion. Obama supporters, I have heard no substantive response beyond slogans! Krugman raises these issues here:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/health-care-thoughts/

From Obama's website;

1. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
2. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The devil is in the details, and there are precious few. What is considered "affordable". It's a buzzword without meaning unless defined with details. What is the level of income-related subsidy?

When paired with no mandates, I see the premium costs going higher and the subsidies lower (because of deficits and reluctance on the part of Obama to say he will raise taxes). These same questions can be applied to Clinton's plan but at least the mandates will enlarge the risk pool which is what will keep premiums in check.

11:47 AM EST

if you bet with your head not your heart last night go out and buy some diamonds for Valentines Day before you spend it all on yourself  

+++

Word of advice if you do buy diamonds, ask the clerk if they are "conflict free" diamonds.  Diamonds above a certain carat level/cost are required to have certificates if they are from countries where no current conflict is going on.

7.

rd

Just one more reason the Rethugs are hoping HRC wins the primary. Sooooo much baggage to carry, sooooo easy to beat in the GE even with their awful slate of candidates and their terrible ratings.

There is only one candidate left who can win easily in November, racists excluded -- some which may even hang out here, and that candidate is Obama.

Joan* In*Florida
Mon, 02/04/08

Joan,

that is liability insurance. The mandate is for a certain level of liability. It's the same in all states, only the minimum level varies. But insurance is mandated because your choices may incur costs on others.

Feminists don't "find their voices" at age sixty, folks.

What an effin' disgrace.

Funny, I don't see any federally-funded abortions for low income women on Medicaid (as having been a focus during her Sentate terms).

Enforcement of the 1963 Fair Pay Equity Act?

I haven't seen it.

Family Medical Leave Act doesn't include PAID wages while out of the workplace, either.

What she omits is more important, vs. what she includes.

Oopsie.

The Sen. Dems. can't even force SCHIP passage, re: roll call vote muster.

Expect Billary to pull out the stops (now thru tomorrow).

NH redux--she's desperate, now that the NY feminists have come out for Obama.

Recall Billary's NH primary IL Planned Parenthood smearing of Obama (which was a lie).

His reproductive rights-oriented roll call votes have been JUST FINE.

I have zero respect for *any* upper SES credentialized Second Waver feminists who stays married to a 30 yrs.+ womanizer; and sexual harrasser. He ruined Gore's 2000 election.

Bullshit.

She shouldn't be running the most powerful country inhe world, sans any freakin' boundaries of "self."

"Misty-eyed," my flat arse.

What a manipulator.

A.B.H.

joan and other Obama supporters:

Would you accept "mandates" if it was called "no fault insurance" requirements?

Indy wrote "When paired with no mandates, I see the premium costs going higher and the subsidies lower (because of deficits and reluctance on the part of Obama to say he will raise taxes)."

You liar.  Obama and Edwards tax reform plans both get rid of the Bush tax cuts.

I was attracted to Howard Dean's "Success By Six" before he opposed the war, and ran for local office in the fall of 2002 after hearing his "you have the power" call. we all know Dean the pragmatist versus Kucinich the idealist, but I resist giving away something before you even sit down at the table.

Hillary wins the health care argument, let it lie.

17.

Don't assume you have all the healthcare facts from Steve.

Check them out for yourself at:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

And don't assume anything about Krugman. He teaches economics but he is a pundit when it comes to politics, one who has an agenda of his own which is to sell newspapers. As one of the editors of the NYT, in New York, he has been pushing Clinton for some time. 

quick good morning,

From the January 31st Christian Science Monitor:

"In some of Haiti's most impoverished neighborhoods, cookies made of dirt, salt, and vegetable shortening have become a regular meal. according to an Associated Presss report abaout coping with rising food costs in the region.  Cookies are a bargain at 5 cents apiece, but depending on them for sustenance risks malnutrition, some doctors say. "

Then an article about the thousands of street children in Cairo who have left home because of violence, hunger, and neglect.  There are now some nongovernmental, mostly relgious groups, tring to provide two meals a day and a place for them to be.  

I like the Monitor because it's one of the few papers that recognizes there's a world out there and we are all connected. 

I have a hard time understanding the mindset of Carl Rove.  He must have been hurt terribly as a child.  To those whom evil has been done, do evil to others.  We have so much in this country, and we've gone so far away from the ideals and values we hold, that we truly do need to be the Hopi saying, "We are the ones we have benn waiting for."

Snow here and cold.  I feel cabin fever setting in. 

We have mandates living in America. Social Security, Medicaid, Federal Taxes, Sales tax.

My sense is Obama omitted mandates (the ONLY significant difference between plans) because he wanted to court the "libertarian" free-choice crowd. To me, this is triangulation where policy is designed to move right but compromised from the get-go.

Is this emblematic of how he will govern? If he designs a health care program that caves to individualistic choice from the get-go, and then attempts to patch it up with vague promises of "affordability" and "subsidies"?

I'm looking for a substantive response and discussion, folks. My vote is undecided at this point.

Quick good bye:  I think people show what they are made of when disappointment and failure occur.  Howard Dean, despite being ridiculed nationally, didn't take it personally, rolled up his sleeves, ran for chair of the party, worked towards a fifty state strategy. 

It will be enlightening to see how the candidates respond when they meet obstacles or are not successful.

Howard Dean put the party ahead of himself, and the country ahead of the party. 

2. and others

from a previous thread

There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that an individual mandate, by itself, would result in coverage for 15 million more Americans than would robust efforts to make health care more affordable and accessible."

80 Health Care and Legal Experts: Universal Coverage and the Presidential Candidates� Health Care Proposals
February 01, 2008

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche...

You liar.  Obama and Edwards tax reform plans both get rid of the Bush tax cuts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

true, Edwards was going to pay for his health care plan in paygo fashion

but Obama has floated a whole new round of tax cuts for the middle class including none for seniors up to $50,000

Obama's runaway momentum won't be affected at all by rhetoric about health insurance proposals from a few petulant former Edwardiacs.

Phil wrote "Hillary wins the health care argument, let it lie."

If that matters to you, vote for her.  There are other reasons to support a candidate for president.  If Obama's health care coverage plan is only as good as Dean's, but he is not the embodiment of the opposition that exists in the party to Dean's role, he get's my vote.

21.

Steve,

What you wrote is ridiculous.

Auto insurance is written by the state one lives in, sometimes with local additions.

And No Fault is not a liability insurance that covers property damage.

~~~~~~~~~~~

National new polls on MSNBC

Obama 41%

Clinton 41%

I'm looking for a substantive response and discussion, folks. My vote is undecided at this point.

Sounds to me like Hillary is your cup of tea. 

As one of the editors of the NYT, in New York, he has been pushing Clinton for some time.

~~~~~~~~~

be backed Edwards actually and like all Edwards supporters who are looking for a new home

Joan* In*Florida
Mon, 02/04/08

Why don't you provide some "facts" of your own rather than referring to the website? Obama doesn't deal with this problem with his program.

BTW, krugman was very favorable of Edwards, esp. on health care. Now he is fairly evaluating and challenging Obama on health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html

If you want to convince Edwards' folks to your candidate, listen to us, learn policy and be able to discuss it. Don't just refer to slogans or websites.

National new polls on MSNBC

Obama 41%

Clinton 41%

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

where Edwards supporters go decides this Tues. vote which is why you Obama supporters are d*mned fools attacking universal health care today 

Sounds to me like Hillary is your cup of tea.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

et tu?

Joan* In*Florida
Mon, 02/04/08

Joan,

With all respect, you are just wrong on this one. No Fault is different than insurance mandates. Some are no fault states, some are not.

But All states have insurance mandates for liability. The rationale is that one's choices and decisions affect others. Mandated insurance is a better way to enforce that than expensive lawsuits trying to get "blood out of a turnip".

If you want to convince Edwards' folks to your candidate, listen to us, learn policy and be able to discuss it. Don't just refer to slogans or websites.

Those who need to be convinced are just sheeple who cant decide for themselves.

It's a matter of GOTV tomorrow...whomever has the most effective field operation.

(Hence, the "misty-eyed" stuff appearing along about now--Billary's desperate).

As long as Obama doesn't say anything dumb, he might pull it off.

Voters in "Super-Duper" Tuesday states are (for the most part) at work, will pick up the kids, do errands, fix dinner of some sort, relax a bit, go to bed, etc. And repeat the drudgery of the process tomorrow.

That's those who are *likely* to primary or caucus, which is a tiny minority of the electorate in said states.

I strongly doubt they'll be blogging/researching the finer details of healthcare policy before voting tomorrow, folks.

Blathering on about it here isn't gonna change anything.

Any candidate can project policies all they want...doesn't mean they have a rat's butt chance of *passing* said legislation (as well as getting its funding appropriated at the federal level).

See failure of SCHIP passage of late fmi.

Indy wrote "If you want to convince Edwards' folks to your candidate, listen to us, learn policy and be able to discuss it."

Supporters of Edwards or any other former candidate can do what they want, but reading the liberal manifestos of Edwards' boosters here, I never considered the possiblity that they would shift allegiances to a DLC officer who never viewed her support of an invasion authorization vote a mistake. 

Now I understand that the sentiments expressed by such boosters, like those of the candidate, were essentially hot air.  I can't act surprised by the revelation.

mainefem
Mon, 02/04/08

Triangulation is devising policy to the right to appeal to groups that aren't traditionally "Democratic" constituency. obama's health insurance looks just like this kind of triangulation. This is worth discussing rather than slogans or fall in line or ABH mentality.

Clinton is clearly a triangulator. Seems like we might have a choice between two of 'em.

12:23 PM EST

It's a matter of GOTV tomorrow...whomever has the most effective field operation.

(Hence, the "misty-eyed" stuff appearing along about now--Billary's desperate).

+++

mainefem -

Yep, operation "The Crying Game" redux (first in NH on the eve of the primary vote there; now in CT on the eve of the primary vote there).  Frankly, I don't want a president who cries in public or goes speechless.

Where's the steel ? (or are those crocodile tears ?)

28.

Ah, so well "said."

Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique  was my inspiration in the early 60's.

Hillary Clinton should have gotten a clue back then and anytime since that every woman was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth like she was. She didn't need to know about woman's rights.

21.

Phil Specht
Mon, 02/04/08

Reply to this
National new polls on MSNBC

Obama 41%

Clinton 41%

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

where Edwards supporters go decides this Tues. vote which is why you Obama supporters are d*mned fools attacking universal health care today


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Phil we're not looking at only healthcare, we're looking at the whole picture. I find Hillary a bad choice because of the dynastic notion if nothing else. We've had enough Clintons and Bushes. The Clintons represent the other side of the corporatist side of the coin -- more folks in Washington getting rich on the backs of hardworking Americans. Obama has a healthcare plan and it would make it affordable for all Americans. That's a h*ll of a lot more than we have right now. I don't want any more Bill or any more Hillary or any more Jeb or Prescott or whatever that kids name is or Chelsea. This country is a democracy. If you folks want a monarchy, move to England, no offense to the Royal Family whom I greatly admire, in particular the Queen.

mainefem

most very close elections are decided by two groups the jay walk all stars and the bar stool jerked chains, and busy busy people who feel the need to vote after saying earlier they wouldn't and are not in the GOTV universe

the wild card in this election are the "not likely" voters who are moved

Obama has a great GOTV program but his margin will come out of the blue

"likely" Edwards are the largest undecided cohort and will be until they get in the voting booth

they aren't the number ones that must be gotten to the polls

in the next round of states they won't matter

11:30 CST

43.

Where is this stuff coming from about Hillary's current "misty-eyed" occasion??

My husband will have a belly laugh and contortions over this one. He wrote a letter to the editor about her NH episode which incidently was published.

Desparation indeed.

31.

Indy Steve
Mon, 02/04/08

Reply to this
Continuing the health care discussion. Obama supporters, I have heard no substantive response beyond slogans!

++++++++++++++

Please see number 18 and above which lists 80 'experts' (at least they know more than I do) who say there's no basis that a mandate would make any difference. There's a KOS diary quoting the same thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...

Why Paul Krugman is Wrong
by Jayaprakash Narayan [Subscribe]

Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:29:38 AM PST

40. I see it as an attempt to find common ground not triangulation. I think what a lot of people see in Obama is someone who will try to find common ground.

Steve:

I'm with Joan on this one.

You're perfectly capable of researching both Obama's and Billary's healthcare policy proposals (on your own accord).

Again...there's a slim chance in hell that either would pass thru both houses of Congress, or be appropriated.

Edwards is out.

It's down to Billary or Obama.

I'm not even registered to vote again, but I'm doing so in a defensive manner on Feb. 10th.

My area is filled w/too many suck-ups to the state party's machine (Gov. is triangulated, and for Billary).

He's the reason over 10K Dems have unenrolled...wants to slash millions of dollars in MaineCare funding.

...imagine telling the most poor and vulnerable folks in the state that they need to "tighten their belts!?"

We worked out butts off for him...twice.

And are stuck w/him until 2010.

His "healthcare model" sides w/the insurance companies, re: administration & implementation.

We're still at loggerheads w/Baldacci...bigtime.

His DirigoChoice program has tanked...what a mess.

He won't let go of it (too expensive for people to join, and the bennies suck).

Managed by Pilgrim now--previously by Blue Cross Anthem (we objected to that initially; and he wouldn't listen to reason).

All gloves are off in the legislature during this session.

Tough crap if he doesn't like it.

He refuses to raise taxes (sales--on booze, candy, soda, & junk food), in order to maintain access for those vulnerable folks; and is instead...cutting services and enrollment.

Again.

You best believe that those of us in the base are livid.

To hell w/Baldacci's endorsement of Billary...she's reviled up here w/the base.

Yes, most were probably Edwards supporters (those who will even bother to caucus at all).

It's A.B.H.

Let's see I think this play is as follows: Hill cries, then Bill pipes up and reminds us that Obama is a "black" man. Isn't that how it goes? Then they hack all the Diebolds all over the country and everyone says 'gee those polls are getting worthlesser and worthlesser." Isn't that what happened in NH? But then all the South Carolinians got p*ssed. I hope all the Californians get good and p*ssed tomorrow.

I want to say it one more time and then I'll give it a rest.

This is our first national primary, and Edwards leaving with 15% just days before the vote is like Ross Perot doing the same thing a week out in 1992.

would Bill Clinton still have won?

this is a big wild card and they will not be in either candidates GOTV universe but are likely voters, and on issues, because Edwards was always first with detailed plans

I just wouldn't continue to argue the one issue where Edwards and Clinton agreed if I were Obama folks

11:43 CST

Last nite we witnessed one of the best football games EVER.

What a treat. While I really didn't care who won, I do like Brady's story of how he barely played in high school and was a low draft pick out of college.

Two great quarterbacks. someone had to win.

my post should have been no. 57 and now it is no. 34.

come on guys, you playing with us?? this is ridiculous.

Joan - I think Hillary is hoarse and probably sick. The diary has disappeared from Kos.

Last nite we witnessed one of the best football games EVER.

What a treat. While I really didn't care who won, I do like Brady's story of how he barely played in high school and was a low draft pick out of college.

Two great quarterbacks. someone had to win.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had to think of Judy Lynne Cadoret's dad and his Archie Manning fan club that he shared with jc, I was thinking jc's angel is probably just playful enough to knock down a Brady pass or two

me I liked the number of times Brady was put on his back by defensive ends and thought the Giants defensive line should have gotten the game ball

the team that thinks they "ought" to win before it starts usually loses

12:53 PM EST

43.

Where is this stuff coming from about Hillary's current "misty-eyed" occasion??

My husband will have a belly laugh and contortions over this one. He wrote a letter to the editor about her NH episode which incidently was published.

Desparation indeed.

+++

Joan -

The Crying Game sequel:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/04/635882.aspx

CLINTON ROUNDTABLE IN CONNECTICUT

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones
NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- The day before 22 states hold the closest thing to a national primary anyone has seen, Hillary Clinton's first public event was a small roundtable with 11 women.

...

Penn Rhodeen, Clinton's supervisor during her time at the center, introduced the senator, hailing her work on behalf of children. He seemed to get a little choked up as he spoke, saying she had always been and would always be a champion for children. After he spoke, Clinton joked that she had said she wouldn't tear up, but that already it wasn't looking good. Her eyes had misted up a bit, but there were no actual tears. 

...

12.

Phil Specht
Mon, 02/04/08

Hillary wins the health care argument, let it lie.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Phil, all due respect, who appointed you the Decider here?

the nomination isn't going to be decided with this round anyway, neither will be close to a majority of delegates

17.

Phil Specht
Mon, 02/04/08

but Obama has floated a whole new round of tax cuts for the middle class including none for seniors up to $50,000

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On this ALONE I will vote for Obama.

Hillary wins the health care argument, let it lie.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Phil, all due respect, who appointed you the Decider here?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

just the point I was making about Edwards supporters and them being the largest undecided cohort since Hillary copied John's

Wed. is the time to woo health care voters

Obama brought it up with an attack ad on Hillary and if he isn't the nominee will rue the timing of that ad because he lost Edwards supporters

I really did think Obama was above attack ad politics anyway

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hillary wins the health care argument, (with Edwards supporters who wanted a universal plan)let it lie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

was what I meant

and if you weren't an Edwards supporter maybe you don't get the distinction

Obama brought it up with an attack ad on Hillary and if he isn't the nominee will rue the timing of that ad because he lost Edwards supporters

I like Richardson's new look, and Bill watching the game with him and coming away without an endorsement was telling.

57.

You're still all wrong about this Steve.

Apparently you don't know much about any kind of insurance. Bone up on it.

55.

Phil Specht
Mon, 02/04/08



Hillary wins the health care argument, (with Edwards supporters who wanted a universal plan)let it lie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

was what I meant

and if you weren't an Edwards supporter maybe you don't get the distinction

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK I didn't pick up on the implied wins (with Edwards supporters) and no I never was one so that's prolly why I didn't get it.

1:21 PM EST

"I think I'm going to get verklempt, discuss amongst yourselves" --

The Crying Game moves south from NH to CT:

http://wcco.com/national/clinton.tears.up.2.645408.html

Feb 4, 2008 11:30 am US/Central Clinton Gets Emotional In Connecticut  Emotional Reunion, Coughing Fit Cause Democratic Candidate To Tear Up

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) ― Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton had an emotional reunion Monday with a colleague from the early days of her legal career as a child advocate

...

Clinton responded emotionally to Rhodeen's praise, at one point wiping her eyes with her hand. But unlike her teary-eyed moment in Portsmouth, N.H., her voice never broke and she tried make light of her emotion.

"I said I would not tear up. Already we're not on that path," Clinton replied to laughs.

Some credited her New Hampshire display of emotion — during a discussion of how she is affected by campaigning for president — with aiding her comeback in that state from an earlier defeat by rival Barack Obama in Iowa.

Generally a stalwart campaigner, Clinton was showing signs of strain Monday — at one point starting to cough uncontrollably in the middle of an economic round-table with a dozen women voters.

"It comes and goes," she said, sipping water to get her cough under control.

...

56.

 If you want to convince Edwards' folks to your candidate, listen to us, learn policy and be able to discuss it. Don't just refer to slogans or websites.

I was going to reply to this but I see sitka has done a fabulous job of it at #58. and #66.

Joan

Wisconsin is "no fault" and Iowa has a mandate that all cars (no matter the driver) carry a liability policy, (just driving without the proof is a crime though for the driver not the car, lol, with a hefty fine)

and there is a big difference

1:23 PM EST 

Question of the day:  Will Hillary as president be ready on day one --

-- to cry ?

Yes, Billary's making things ever so much more difficult for other female candidates (present and future) to be taken seriously.

Keep turning the clock back by the decades, Billary (e.g, "women are too emotional to cognate, or be in positions of power" sexist hooey).

The Rethugs are licking their chops (as will the pundits tonight).

I hope it backfires this time.

She'll ruin what's left of every down-ticket race in the nation.

Her campaign & Obamas are courting ME's superdelegates...heavily.

Our state's delegates don't typically count for diddly squat; which tells 'ya how intense things are getting.

I'm not really concerned w/Tom & Michaud--they'll go for Obama (their supporters will dump 'em like a hot potato, if they don't).

http://tinyurl.com/27tyy3

Phil -

You seem to be stuck in a "insurance" rut.

So let me help you out a bit.

Having a car is optional.

In order to get your car registered in MA, it needs to be insured.  So many folks who work for themselves, etc. opt to live in an area served by public transportation.  The state of MA does not garnish the wages of those workers because they don't have car insurance. 

In contrast, having a human body is not optional.

What MA enacted into law under the repub Gov Mitt Romney (that became effective this past Jan 1) is a program that doesn't garnish wages but rather deducts from state income tax returns and imposes fines for those who have not signed up for health insurance and/or have not indicated (by the cut off date of 12/31/07) why they can't afford health insurance.

You can more easily contest fines, etc. than an automatic program of garnishment.

Have you ever had your wages garnished ?

Talk to some folks that have and it's not a pretty picture.

mainefem
Mon, 02/04/08

I have researched it, thanks. And Obama's plan is lacking. He will not lower premium costs without mandates, IMO. I am simply asking Obama supporters to do the work on their own candidate so they can answer basic questions instead of spouting slogans.

If they don't want to, but just refer people to a website they aren't doing their candidate any good. I think if you looked at Obama's health care plan, you'd be strongly critical of it.

Joan wrote: Apparently you don't know much about any kind of insurance. Bone up on it.

Um....

every state (with the exception of New Hampshire and Wisconsin) have minimum insurance laws.

 The state of MA does not garnish the wages of those workers because they don't have car insurance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iowa has virtually no public transportation and will indeed garnish the wages (not literally like child support but they will take  tax refunds) of those caught driving without proof of insurance or you sit in jail

and I know this for a fact because I have posted bail for employees in that fix

Wellesley was a freakin' hotbed of Second Waver feminist activism during Billary's tenure, Joan. 1969 alum.

She should well know her women's history...not many women in this country came from upper SES families during that time.

Now, the "Four Sisters" colleges have need-blind scholarships...not so back then.

My daughter applied to Wellesley; and it was her 2nd choice (attended Smith). Molly Ivins's turf (also Steinem's, but she was always nailed back then for being Euro-white Borgeois).

Rightfully so...as was Friedan (forgot about the needs of women of color and GLBTQ during NOW's early yrs.).

The Second Wave movement has never been in agreement...still isn't.

However, the historians have had time to mellow and age--be a tad more pragmatic.

No, I most certainly don't approve of "tacking to the right" w/Rethugs--good grief.

However, Billary's years of triangulation w/Big Dog (women in poverty) is the clincher for me (along w/staying w/a batterer for 35 yrs.+).

Not my idear of a healthy role model for Chelsea.

No feminist in her sane mind would tolerate yrs. of infidelity--throw his ass out the door, pronto.

It was her "faith" that pulled her through is beyond sickening...pukesville.

Most women don't have the $$$ to leave a dysfunctional marriage...she did (along w/a law degree).

Sorry...I have zero empathy for Billary; or for any other upper SES woman who "stands by her man."

Femnists don't associate w/those self-effacing enabling twits in their personal lives.

When she whipped up the LBJ reference before during MLK's b-day holiday, I hit the roof...she can't be *that* ignorant of African American women's history & the Civil Rights movement(Fannie Lou Hamer & Co.). The so-called Dem. party treated Hamer like crap; and LBJ ordered the TV networks to take the camera off of her speech.

Duh.

LBJ was NOT a supporter of civil rights--he signed the Civil Rights Act (begrudgingly)--nor were JFK & RFK, for that matter.

Esp. RFK, during his stint as A.G.

They both failed to send adequate law enforcement protection into the Deep South...for years (until the mass media showed what was happening on TV--same w/the 1968 DNC convention riots in Chicago)...in the streets, as well as inside the milieu.

She's ruining things for a scant few decent (federal) female candidates; and it pisses me off to no end.

Beyond revolting.

Obama supporters are making the mistakes of all true believers. When presented with questions or challenges, rather than provide an answer or response, they cite slogans and then insults when the questions persist.

That does your candidate a disservice and does nothing to convince anyone of anything, unless they are other true believers.

 The state of MA does not garnish the wages of those workers because they don't have car insurance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iowa has virtually no public transportation

...

+++

Well, you hit the nail on the head.  What works in MA might not work in IA.

Automatic payroll garnishments is what Hillary is advocating for those who don't have health insurance.

That is a punishment just for having a human body .  Understood ?   Having a car is still optional, that's why those without insurance and get stopped, rightfully so get punished.

The IRS is already infamous for garnishing payrolls of those not incompliance with their laws. That's one federal agency too much.

And as you said, you yourself have not experienced your own wages being garnished.

Indy Steve - With all due respect - the same could be said of Edwards' true believers.

I think everyone has to decide for themselves who is the right fit for them. Good grief.

Having a car is optional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

try selling that line to American voters in rural states, sheesh

kinda like, you don't need health insurance, getting sick is optional

"why do I need a car? I'll just hail a cab" kinda of thing

on garnishments -- 

--  if I sound more like a libertarian, than maybe in essence I am

"What's in my wallet ?" is none of Hillary's business.

A lot of New Englanders don't like government sticking their noses in people's business.

mary vb

Obama brought up the health care debate with an attack ad.

One more time, Steve.

You are more than capable of "doing your own work," re: healthcare proposals.

Neither of which have a rat's butt chance of passage, BTW (let alone, being funded).

You never "mandate" piss poor people (or the working poor) to purchase something they can't afford in the first place.

Esp. w/for-profit insurers.

This isn't at all related to vehicular insurance. Apples and oranges.

Their healthcare policies should mention FPL levels (sliding scale discounts)--email their campaigns if you need further clarification.

Also--check Opensecrets.org, re: campaign contributions from said sectors & industries (along w/roll call votes).

You do have a browser and an internet connection...pls. use 'em.

D.I.Y.

It's the down-ticket races that are crucial; and Billary is a damned visceral lightening rod of an Albatross.

No, I don't like either of 'em. I'm still unenrolled.

Cynthia McKinney has announced as a Greenie for Pres. (zero chance in hell of that happening); & Nadar may pop in.

Again. Oh, goody. Somebody smack him upside the haid for me?

...not the time to be splitting hairs and being engaged in wishful thinking.

Mainefem wrote: No, I most certainly don't approve of "tacking to the right" w/Rethugs--good grief.

I agree Clinton has shown much more of a tendency to do that, rather than stand up and define progressive principles. But we just don't know enough about Obama to know that he won't do the same thing.

The problem with his health care proposal is that it does exactly that......it appeals to the individualistic "i want my own choice" crowd when the situation requires some kind of required responsibility with ample subsidies.

Obama's record on the war also tends toward such triangulation where he was strongly against it in 02, silent in 04 and voted for continued funding in 05-07. yes, he talked and voted for deadlines and "benchmarks", but he was not such a strong creature once he gained office.

The same on coal and energy.....this is enough to exhibit a disturbing trend. I think it's our job IF we support his candidacy to bring light on triangulation and shifting right and hold his and any politician's feet to the fire to define progressive principles and work to get there. I hold out hope for Obama but he will need pressure.

17.

Tom Bearse
Mon, 02/04/08



Bush is a commander in chief who has shown his willingness to use American troops in theater as political pawns, such that voting to authorize an invasion of Iraq was the true legislative travesty you should be publicizing. The funding bills you allude to are necessary to supply soldiers in a battle zone. Once the commander in chief is replaced by someone other than a Republican Party successor, the military funding can be safely ended. The sooner you grasp this, the more lucid your posts will become. the funding can be stop now but the dems are up bush ass and if you think bilary is going to stop this war you been watching to much fox news, bush is pawn and it not him that doing it! wake up know your ememy? hint ck CFR members do you know who the Bilderberg Group is?

Mary vb wrote: I think everyone has to decide for themselves who is the right fit for them. Good grief.

What is so threatening to folks to have to respond to some questions about their candidate. If voting were just an "individual" decision, then all the advertising and calling and promoting would be useless.

Perhaps "boning up" and responding to substantive questions would help more than just posting slogans and then hostile responses when someone asks a question. Or just hang out with other true believers.

I want Obama to win the nomination, but not by tacking to the right of Clinton like he did with his health insurance attack ad, and if we don't call him on it here and now when?

Mainefem: Calling Hillary Clinton -  Billary - just might be the most enlightened, feminist action. She has her own views and plans and is not just an appendage to her husband.

I hate it when people reduce others' names to derogatory slogans...but this one is most offensive.

s/be NOT the most enlightened name.

LBJ was NOT a supporter of civil rights--he signed the Civil Rights Act (begrudgingly)--nor were JFK & RFK, for that matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think you need to ask John Lewis why LBJ handed him a pen when he signed the bill mainefem, it wouldn't have become law without LBJ's  part

I think the best thing anybody can do is go the the candidates' respective websites and check out where they stand on the issues.

My mean reason for supporting Obama (and I am late to the party) is his stance on the Iraq War but more importantly, Hillary's vote for authorization. Plain and simple. That's huge for me maybe because my husband served in the military and we have so many friends who have had to go to Iraq.

• ·         Debating little nuances of each healthcare plan (Clinton and Obama) is not the important issue.  They both want dramatic changes from the status quo.  The important question is who as a leader will be able to pass the best policy through the Congress in an expedited way.  Policy is an iterative process and there is not an absolute perfect way.  Debating every minute piece of potential legislation is for the academies.  At the end of the day a President Clinton or President Obama will be using many of the same theoreticians to help them devise the actual plan that goes to the Congress.  Once again who can sell it to the American People (not just primary voters).  
•  
• ·          Seem like being against the war on day 1 shows good judgment!  Better than most.
•  
• ·         Hillary’s a cying worked once……..the second time will cause people to laugh and for her to lose votes

mean s/b main.

mary vb
Mon, 02/04/08

Clinton's vote AND her defense of it that she didn't really mean to give Bush the green light is a big negative for me too.

However, her plan for the future and obama's are identical. The past on that issue may be enough for a vote for Obama now that Edwards is out. Obama's stance on health care, though, is worse than Clinton's.

Rest assured, I've read all the issues' pages. My suggestion to those who want to discuss their candidates, they do the same. Clinton wins on health care.

And Edwards' supporters generally vote on the issues, unlike many in this country., JMHO.

My main reason for supporting Obama (and I am late to the party) is his stance on the Iraq War but more importantly, Hillary's vote for authorization. Plain and simple. That's huge for me

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

me too mary

Hillary is a War Party candidate

2:17 PM EST

some Edwards supporters are already deciding:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/02/04/3

Twenty-two members of the Edwards campaign's 59-person gay and lesbian committee will now be working for Obama victories Tuesday and throughout the rest of the primary season.

The new Obama converts include Eric Stern, who headed up Edwards' LGBT steering committee, and longtime gay activist David Mixner, who famously campaigned for Bill Clinton in 1992, holding some of the very first gay fund-raisers for a U.S. presidential candidate.

Mixner, a peace activist during the war in Vietnam, came out early for Edwards after the former senator from North Carolina made an unequivocal case for ending the Iraq war in a speech at the historic Riverside Church in Harlem in January last year.

Mixner said Obama's clear and consistent opposition to the war is also driving his decision on this go-around.

"Moving from one candidate to another is never an easy process," he said, "but the times demand that we all participate fully and completely to bring about change. Originally, my support went to Sen. Edwards because of the war in Iraq. For the very same reason, I am supporting Sen. Obama. This is not even a close call for me."

...

My concern follows: Not one of the candidates talks in specifics, rather they speak of what they are for, or what they believe in. Bottom line:  what specific steps are you willing to commit to, how are you going to fund it, and what is your timetable...  This dialog could get me excited.

I could not care less about Hillary's marriage, or Obama's come togetherness.  

Lack of manufacturing should be at the forefront of this campaign, along with heathcare.

I fully intend to support the nominee of the party. I suspect I won't like it any better than I did the last time.

2:19 PM EST

Washington's primary isn't tomorrow but is just around the corner -- 2/9:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004160129_apwawashcaucuses1stldwritethru02.html?syndication=rss

Saturday, February 2, 2008 - Page updated at 06:14 PM

By DAVID AMMONS

AP Political Writer

John Edwards' Washington state chairwoman, prominent Seattle attorney Jenny Durkan, has shifted to Barack Obama after Edwards' departure from the Democratic race for president this week.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, leader of the state's biggest Democratic stronghold and a national figure in combatting global warming, also came out for Obama on Friday.

Durkan, a close adviser to Gov. Chris Gregoire, was Edward's state chairwoman for both his 2004 and 2008 races. She said Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, still are shaping the debate after leaving the race, a reference to pledges from Obama and Hillary Clinton to pay close attention to issues of poverty and social justice.

Durkan said she's now fully supporting Obama in the Feb. 9 Democratic caucuses.

...

1:18 CST and this post follows no. 100 back to work for me

2:22 PM EST

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsements_1

Keillor, Michelman back Obama

Sun Feb 3, 5:16 PM ET

...

Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America who was a top supporter of Democrat John Edwards, endorsed Obama.

In a blog entry on huffingtonpost.com, Michelman said she decided to back Obama because he is prepared "to lead in a different way than we have seen for decades. Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him."

That difference, she said, "separates just any president from a great president; and right now, we need a great president."

...

2:25 PM EST

http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=326300&z=16

2/1/2008 9:22:33 PM

ST. PAUL (AP) --

...

He says Obama offers a "soaring image of the future for America" and gives him credit for motivating more people to vote.

...

Oberstar had backed Edwards since 2005, leading a list of Iron Range and Duluth Democrats and union members behind the former North Carolina senator.

84.

LBJ was NOT a supporter of civil rights--he signed the Civil Rights Act (begrudgingly)--nor were JFK & RFK, for that matter.

I disagree with that. History tells otherwise and that about all we have to go by.

The Civil Rights bill had been introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963 in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."

He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19 Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875 Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the  U. S. Attorney General to sue state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions.

It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson utilized his experience in parliamentary politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

From Ben Stein & Politico: 

Chelsea calling

A source of my editor Charlie Mahtesian's tells us that Chelsea Clinton has been calling uncommitted superdelegates to seek their support.

The report: "gracious and genuine."

 http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Chelsea_calling.html

This is worth considering, even if you don't agree with it, from Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html

Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows.

Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.

It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn’t all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.

Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.

One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.

Clinton and Obama have similar plans but different execution of those plans. Clinton is top down and Obama is bottom up. Obama also is following the 50 state strategy - Clinton is not.

Some Al Gore speculation/thinly sourced reportage: Per the American Spectator's "Prowler" blog: "Former Vice President Al Gore has asked his staff to begin laying out plans for an endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama if he performs well in the Super Tuesday primaries. '[Gore] doesn't see the utility of endorsing Obama until the endorsement would actually mean something and give Gore an opportunity to be the kingmaker,' says a former aide with knowledge of Gore's thinking." ...http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/S...

American Spectator Washington Prowler
Healer or Endorser? http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp...

so Indy, bottom line. Who are you voting for?

new thread

I have to agree with Indy Steve. When I see Billary, I stop reading. I have never been a big supporter of H Clinton but when I read the anger, touching on hatred, I know that I am not going to hear a rational evaluation.

Even as much as I emotionally supported Howard Dean, I would always take a step back and be objective.

Emotionally, I don't support either Clinton or Obama. Objectively, I will caucus for Clinton because it all comes down to personal opinion. Which, as we all know, can be wrong. But it is based on objective evaluation.

Zetta Bracher

There is a NEW THREAD that appears to be jumping around a bit so far.

Paine has a nice blog on it though.

Indy Steve
Mon, 02/04/08

Reply to this

And Edwards' supporters generally vote on the issues, unlike many in this country., JMHO.

A bit condescending, don’t you think?  In general I bet Edwards supporters are all over the map (like every other candidates).  Some like you diligently look at every issue while others do not. 

I am sure many of those Southern Whites Mailes (his best catagory) liked his lashing out at rich people from the Northeast but did not look at his policy detail!

"IndySteve: She has her own views and plans and is not just an appendage to her husband."

Hardly.

She's trotted him out thus far--esp. early on in NH (when he made a total ass out of himself w/the "fairy tale" racist smear).

Factor in the "misty-eyed" crap in the Portsmouth coffee shop (plants); and she beyond pisses me off to no end.

I wasn't going to vote at all in the caucus; however, the superdelegates in ME are being harrangued, which is telling.

Our delegate count is pathetically small, and it's revealing that they both want all of 'em; and are unrelenting about it.

I'm non "True Believer," whatsoever.

My revulsion for Billary supercedes, is all.

I abhor the DLC, its history w/Big Dog; and everything they purport.

Her lack of humility is also revealing...when you fuck up, at least admit it (as did Edwards--although, I don't think he was genuine about it).

But at least he did it...early on.

But, Edwards is OUT.

I never cared for Howard's pukey "You Have the Power" crapola, either.

It was beyond lame. Empowerment is intrinsic...never slogan-related, or extrinsic.

It was akin to being around a bunch of 12-steppers. Slogans and marches aren't my thang...they change NOTHING.

Politics is electoral and pragmatic...always has been...always will be.

Billary refuses to express humility; and I despise people who behave like that (my mother and former mother-in-law, off the top of my head).

It's a sign of maturity to admit when you've fucked up--and never repeat said negativistic behavior again (and her Albatross status and negatives *within* her own party tell all).

Her "35 yrs." crap doesn't hold up, as she was only freakin' 25 yrs. old. Hardly "in public service" at that time...let alone, not in political office of any sort.

Billary doesn't pass the straight face test; so I'm therefore, re-enrolling, and voting "defensively."

A.B.H.

I don't care for either of 'em.

Again--neither of their healthcare policies will eventually pass.

Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not looking forward to McCain or Romney, thanks.

She continues to roll back the clock on decades and over a century's-worth of feminist activism w/this latest "misty-eyed" nonsense (the Democratic party has been a PITA during the entire saga).

No dice.

I've *never* voted for either Collins or Snowe, so this having a vagina or a clitoris stuff doesn't influence me at all.

I'd prefer a progressive male Dem. like Tom Allen anytime.

We're really working on him to tout the feminists who support him, BTW. Male candidates are still dense in that regard--Tom's an excellent "more and better" Democrat.

...so fine...go with it.

Collins has attempted the same whiny crap w/the so-called "media tracker" debacle last fall.

"They're bullying me" is an insult to any woman's intelligence.

Same as out of Billary's "misty-eyed" playbook.

It's beyond nauseating.

She has us back in the root cellar, vs. up in the penthouse of power w/that triangulated shit.

Waaaaaaaaaay too manipulative.

Enough, already.

I'd love to hear Michelle Obama mutter something on the line of "my husband keeps his fly zipped at all times."

If and when push comes to shove (it will).

That'll convert some of those wishy-washy "misty-eyed" female voters--who connect w/the stand by your man hooey.

They're in denial, as it's too much work to deal w/their own lives...major projection happenin'.

There isn't an adult (single, married, or partnered) woman in this country who can't identify w/that.

Every time I see Big Dog on stage running his ratchet mouth, all I can recall him uttering is that revolting "I never had sex with *THAAAAT* woman."

Subjugation makes my blood boil.

so Indy, bottom line. Who are you voting for?

I find this amusing because last fall Indy told me that if I don't support a candidate I have no business criticizing any of them.

From that attitude and his current comments about Obama, only hypocrisy could excuse him from being a Hillaroid at this time.