Clinton Attacks Obama
Clinton’s going for the throat, but it may be too late.
Mrs Clinton accused the Illinois senator of producing a misleading leaflet on her health care policy.
“Shame on you, Barack Obama!” the New York senator said at a rally in Ohio, which holds its primary in 10 days.
But Mr Obama said he stood by the leaflet, saying he was puzzled by what he called his rival’s change in tone.
“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” said the former first lady ahead of Ohio’s crucial primary early next month.
As the old saying goes, “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.”
“And, you know, no matter what happens in this contest … I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored,” Clinton said in her closing, before reaching over to accept a handshake from him. (From Thursday’s debate in Austin, Texas)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2008 at 0652 hrs
I favor Obama over Clinton, but she’s entirely correct here. A universal health care plan without some sort of mandate isn’t really universal, and it actually incentivizes free riders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2008 at 0907 hrs
I’m torn on this issue. I can see how mandating the purchase of insurance can bring down cost, but I also appreciate the respect for a persons right to choose whether or not to purchase insurance. I prefer a system that offers a freedom of choice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2008 at 0958 hrs
The only thing that bothers me about this story—and it’s a big thing—is that neither of the two articles I’ve read even attempted to tell me whether her charge was true or not. I mean, isn’t that their freakin’ job to tell me this? It’s not a matter of opinion. They could read her proposal, consult with an expert or two to make sure they understood it, and tell me whether Obama’s literature was accurate or not. Christ. Is that too much to expect from the good old Fourth Estate, our watchdog on the powerful, guardian of our democracy? The hell’s the matter with these people.
Posted by scott on February 24, 2008 at 1042 hrs
I agree with scott, that should have been in the story. But really, the press doesn’t about care about the issue, they just want to see conflict because that is what the sells the paper, tunes people in on the TV or read blogs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2008 at 1303 hrs
The Wall Street Journal published a review of both Clinton’s and Obama’s health ins plans back on Feb 7 and reported on the differences with a preference for Obama’s over “Hillarycare” for the reasons detailed in the article. Good read.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120234937353949449.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2008 at 1338 hrs
For an alternate view, one that favors Clinton’s plan over Obama’s, see this piece by Paul Krugman.
Man, have I had it with all the “Hillarycare” stuff. Do you all refer to Massachusetts’ plan as Romneycare? They’re not much different, after all.
In any case, I don’t really know whose plan I favor at this point. I was leaning toward Clinton’s, but now I don’t know.
I support Obama in any case, so I guess it’s moot.
Posted by scott on February 24, 2008 at 1344 hrs
Krugman says:
Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.
Actually, the evidence does support Obama’s assertion.
There are new HMO type plans being offered by Mexican companies who have also built many new modern hospitals and dental clinics along the U.S. Mexican border as well as throughout Mexico to accommodate their clients whom presently are Mexican citizens working in the U.S. or U.S. retirees living in Mexico. Their full coverage plans, including dental as well as all prescription medicines, cost about $24 per month for a family of four. These HMO’s would like to build facilities in the U.S. and/or offer American citizens their full coverage plan using their facilities in Mexico, but the AMA, pharma, and U.S. ins companies have successfully lobbied legislators for laws to protect their monopoly on the health care industry and bar the Mexican companies from the U.S. in every state except California. Over 400,000 people signed up for the Mexican HMO’s in the months after California made it legal and their client list is still growing as word gets around.
So, not only does the evidence in California support Obama’s assertion that people will definitely flock to sign up for affordable health coverage, I think it would be good for the national debate on health coverage to include discussions of creative alternatives like “outsourcing” to affordable Mexican based companies or any other country that want to market their plans to U.S. citizens..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2008 at 1454 hrs
Her rant also included claims that she never supported NAFTA as he alleges in one mailer. She DID support it and has said many positive things about it.
Posted by Kinda Cranky on February 24, 2008 at 2252 hrs
I want the news articles to tell me that. Neither of the ones I saw did.
Posted by scott on February 24, 2008 at 2257 hrs
I want the news articles to tell me that. Neither of the ones I saw did.
So, why don’t you contact them? WTF are you complaining here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 0928 hrs
Relax, Jason. I’m not blaming Owen or you or any other conservative blogger/commenter. You don’t need to get in my face about absolutely everything.
I’m merely submitting this as a media criticism. They aren’t doing their jobs. That is the most noteworthy aspect of the report Owen has posted about.
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 0944 hrs
Scott, well on this very well read political blog, I’m going to make sure that you don’t get a free pass. You can’t just post about what you want, you have to post about what the rest of us want in response to Owen’s thoughts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1122 hrs
Jason, do you have an actual point you’d like to make? Or are you just going to be snarky and deliberately obtuse? If you have something to say, just say it man.
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1132 hrs
You can’t just post about what you want, you have to post about what the rest of us want in response to Owen’s thoughts.
Yes, Sir!
That what I call a blueprint for freedom of expression.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1142 hrs
He’s suggesting that this is how I act, which I most certainly do not.
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1151 hrs
That what I call a blueprint for freedom of expression.
That’s the mission statement for Scott’s crusade against right wing bloggers. Sorry if you don’t agree with it, but Scott’s been very adamant about his goal in life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1201 hrs
Jason, there’s nothing wrong or inappropriate about my comments here, as you suggest. The thing that’s really bothering you is that I piss you off because I disagree with you.
You want to hate me? Fine. But I see no need to hijack a discussion such as this one and make it into a whiny tirade about how unfair Scott is being to you.
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1208 hrs
. But I see no need to hijack a discussion such as this one and make it into a whiny tirade about how unfair Scott is being to you.
Change “Scott” with something like “Life”, and we’ve got close to 95% of your posts here. You know where you can go if you can’t handle it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1218 hrs
Dude, you’re embarrassing yourself. Leave it alone already.
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1221 hrs
Dude, you’re embarrassing yourself. Leave it alone already.
Sorry, but if I and others have to read your daily posts on your crusade against well read right wing political bloggers, then you’re just going to have live with me calling your condescending, better than thou, self righteous bullshit for what it is… idiotic blather. You just don’t get it, do you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1413 hrs
I think someone needs to double up on his medication.
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1419 hrs
Ouch. I guess I should start hanging around MySpace to get some rejoinders for you. I just don’t know what to say after that one.
Look, it’s pretty simple, you’re here, sharing your opinion with all of us, after admitting that you know it’s against the grain here, and your simple reasons why you have taken up this crusade. You’ve been very emphatic in stating what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, and that you’re not going to stop. So take some of your own medicine like a big boy. Or come back here, and get the last word in; either way you’re mired in your own hypocrisy. It matters not to me, like you, I’m not going to stop reminding you of it.
Oh, and if you want to get back on topic, I love seeing the true colors of Hillary, Bill, and all Clinton supporters. They have always resorted to dirty underhanded tricks all while playing the “Poor me, everyone is picking on little old me” card. What they are doing is obvious to even the most ignorant person, so it’s very telling to watch. Go, Go, Party of Compassion and Understanding - you can’t even get along enough to allow the people to vote based on their ideals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1523 hrs
Jason, I don’t feel bad that my opinion is “against the grain here.” There’s no ideological checking at the door that I’m aware of. It just so happens that the writers of this blog are quite conservative and that they thus attract a largely conservative audience. That does not mean that I’m a big jerkface for coming here and challenging people by giving divergent opinions. Do you get that? That does not make me someone who deserves retaliation for some injury or other. I’m as welcome here as anyone else. Just because you can’t tolerate being told you’re wrong doesn’t mean everyone else feels that way.
Speaking of being a big jerkface, why don’t you take a minute to read this thread from the beginning. There’s a couple of things I’d like you to take note of. First, nothing I said in my first comment could have possibly ruffled anyone’s feathers, right or left—unless they happened to work for the professional news media. Second thing: when you entered the discussion you attacked me for doing… what, exactly?
So chill the hell out, man. I’m here to engage in debate with people who—gasp!—disagree with me! If you don’t like that kind of thing, then I don’t think you’re cut out for hanging around on political blogs. if you’re expecting an uninterrupted circle-jerk of far-right ideology, forget it. This forum is open to people with other ideas who may want to express them. Get used to it and stop taking such incredible offense at it.
I stick to my original point in the thread: the only truly noteworthy thing about the article is the fact that its author makes absolutely no attempt to tell who is right and who is wrong—even though it’s a matter of empirical fact that they could discover and relay to us. news should not be “he said/she said” steganography. At many cases they need to actually tell us who is right and who his wrong.
I’m reminded of G. W. Bush when he said “by far, the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom.” Which was of course patently false. Did the media report what he said? Yep. Did any of them bother to see if it was correct and let us know? Nope.
It’s no wonder we’re a nation of ignoramuses.
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1609 hrs
I’m here to engage in debate with people who—gasp!—disagree with me! If you don’t like that kind of thing, then I don’t think you’re cut out for hanging around on political blogs. if you’re expecting an uninterrupted circle-jerk of far-right ideology, forget it.
Good for you, and I’m not expecting that at all. I like good clean honest debate. What you engage in a lot around here is not that. And when you don’t, that’s when I let you know it. As you said, this is an open forum, and so I choose to do this. Just as you have stated your goal on such conservative blogs. I think you should take note of what you told me, before you lecture me on tolerance and understanding.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1652 hrs
I like good clean honest debate. What you engage in a lot around here is not that. And when you don’t, that’s when I let you know it.
I don’t think you—or anyone—can read the thread above and honestly say that this is what you are doing, Jason. it seems a whole lot more like you just hate me and the fact that I’m here and feel like you have a right to attack me on sight because of it.
And I don’t know what ‘goal’ of mine you keep referring to. What is it you’ve latched onto? Something i wrote? What is it?
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1658 hrs
And I don’t know what ‘goal’ of mine you keep referring to. What is it you’ve latched onto? Something i wrote? What is it?
Boy, you sure have a memory problem. Ask yourself if you really want to go down this path, and if you do, then I’ll find the exact reference for you and anyone else who is keeping up on this childish spat. Seriously, do you want to keep going?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2008 at 1754 hrs
Seriously, do you want to keep going?
No, I seriously don’t. But it’s clear that you’re not going to leave it alone, so let’s have it. What’s buggin’ you man?
Posted by scott on February 25, 2008 at 1846 hrs
Jason! Grow up, dude. What the hell? You haven’t made a lick of sense yet and I don’t see it in the near future.
Scott, there is one other newsworthy piece to this article besides failed journalism. I don’t know the first difference between the Clinton/Obama healthcare plans(quite a few conservatives might not), because I am not a Democrat. As I did not cross over to vote in your primary, I really only wanted to learn about the actual candidates version, but the links provided above gave me some info… Of course, you had to provide another article which favors Clinton’s plan over Obama’s so I think the whole national debate…and the national deficit are your fault Scott!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2008 at 0845 hrs
Sorry Tuerqas, I agree, it’s childish. Unfortunately it wasn’t started by me. I personally have no problem with him, when he’s posting his thoughts and opinions in an adult fashion. But he’s admitted that he’s on a crusade here, and other right wing blogs, and when he engages in that, I’m going to call him out. I guess it’s my crusade.
Scott, there’s a lot more on this blog, these are some of the more memorable ones. There’s countless examples here of you criticizing Owen for what he chooses to post on his blog, and that’s probably a large reason for his recent post titled “You have no right to expect anything from me”. http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/you_have_no_right_to_expect_anything_from_me/
So, here’s what I found with a broken search, and about 15 minutes of my time… that’s a huge waste of time - I agree with that.
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/returning_to_the_clinton_years_with_obama/
Post #13 “Well when your husband disparages the character of a political candidate with whom he disagrees on his well-read political blog, and the reasons for the disparaging turn out to be spurious, yet he persists in denigrating the man, yeah, that bothers me. It doesn’t bother you?”
Post #16 “You think it’s worth posting and defending on your blog, “little” or not. “Post #9 “Typical of Wisconsin conservative blogs. 1. Someone somewhere says something nasty about a Democrat—even if it’s another Democrat, and even if it’s untrue or nonsensical. 2. Repeat it on your blog without anything more than a digital shrug for comment. 3. When someone points out that either a) the criticism doesn’t make much sense or b) can’t fairly be made by the blogger himself lest he be an obvious hypocrite, the blogger ducks out, saying “I didn’t say it.”
Rinse, repeat. “
Post #51 “You don’t like me, I get that. You’d rather I not call bullshit on bloggers and commenters with whom you agree politically. You’re very articulate on that point. My message to you, however, is: tough shit, baby. I’m just getting warmed up.”
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/clinton_campaign_money_machine/
Post #12 “Yeah, if there was rumor, innuendo and suggestion to the effect that a Republican candidate might be doing something unsavory, it’d be alll over this blog, that’s for sure.”
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/i_needed_the_money/
Post #5 “It’s for you to say what you meant, I guess. But I find this typical of right wing blogs: insinuate…and then retreat into “but I didn’t actually say that!””
http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/milwaukee_seizes_more_guns_so/Post #1 “Where do you have a problem with—no, an outrage, otherwise there would not be a blog entry about it—”
Post #8 “But you know what? I’m not entirely buying that. The title of your post isn’t “Guy gets arrested, but so what?” “
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2008 at 1820 hrs
I stand by each and every one of those comments. There’s nothing wrong with any of them except that they piss you off.
Grow up for Christ’s sake.
Posted by scott on February 26, 2008 at 1955 hrs
You first.
Wow, isn’t this fun?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 26, 2008 at 2037 hrs
So Jason, you are going to start a snarkfest on every thread that Scott posts on whether the current comments offend you personally or not?...Just stop.
For all his arguments that I disagree with and his sometimes thin skin, Scott rarely needs to grow up. At least wait to pounce until he writes something worth disagreeing with. You don’t think the mainstream media regularly fails at their job these days? If you bring up past threads in every new post, it will ruin a good conservative blog, not Scott.
If you don’t need to grow up, you can prove it by not answering back on this post again. (unless Scott brings up something new or directly offends you after this point.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2008 at 0824 hrs
Whoa, it was fun to go back and re-read all those threads. It gives a somewhat distorted picture of my contributions here in that they have been selected to reflect my angrier side, but still. I read all my comments in each of those threads and you know what? I’m not embarrassed by a single word, nor do I wish to retract any.
Posted by scott on February 27, 2008 at 0904 hrs
That’s too bad, but I would have been shocked had you written anything else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2008 at 1051 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134029
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 03:59 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 107
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 05:15 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).