Obama's Team Is Confident About Health Care Politics, Too

Obama:

"I comment Senator Clinton for her health care proposal. It's similar to the one I put forth last spring, though my universal health care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal."

Here's why, from the perspective of Obama's campaign, the politics of health care cuts in their favor:

(1) Her plan isn't terribly bold, reinforcing the idea that she cannot see more than a few inches in front of her face, whilst Obama can see around the corner.

(2) By refering, repeatedly, to the "secrecy" and intruige surrounding the botched 1994 effort, Obama's team extends their argument that Democrats really can't trust Clinton at the end of the day.

(3) They disagree with the Clintons about whether Democrats laud Clinton for having tried health care first; in the view of Obama's advisers, Democrats blame Clinton for giving Republicans the power to halt any momentum towards universal health care.

(4) Clinton chose to unveil her proposal late in the game, suggesting that she's a follower, rather than a leader; Democrats know she waited and wondered why; key health care interests in the party are frustrated.

Comments

Obama's team was also confident that it won the "Who will meet with dictators?" debate, when they did not and the poll numbers went South for Obama from that point onwards.

Democrats remember the 90s and the remember how Hillary worked hard and they are not going to forget that, so that helps her; no one doubts the commitment of Hillary towards universal health care.

Heck, Obama got out of law school while Hillary was trying to cover everyone!

Posted by American1989 | September 17, 2007 12:03 PM

What the previous post fails to recognize is that Obama represents the next generation of politicians. He does not represent Clinton’s (and my, for that matter) generation, although he has many enthusiastic supporters among the boomers, who recognize this. As a result, he is not hindered by the debacle that Clinton created in the 90’s with her health care proposal, which was the beginning of the end of the Democratic majority during that period.

As far as Obama’s “talking with dictators” is concerned, I defy you to show me polling that says Obama lost on that issue. I think he was broadly supported in the press and among Democrats for this stance, especially when Clinton has said the exact same thing.

Posted by Katie McGee | September 17, 2007 12:13 PM

To Katie McGee:

If he was so accurate on that issue, then why didn't he catch up to Hillary in the polls, or tighten the gap between him and her. Also, most voters in IA, NH and SC think Hillary would do a better job in foreign policy and health policy that Obama.

Posted by American1989 | September 17, 2007 12:19 PM

Obama was and is right about talking to foreign leaders. Hillary essentially follows Bush’s foreign policy. If she is too scared of loosing a PR battle to dictators to try and make progress in the world, that is her problem and she shouldn‘t project that onto the will of the American people.

As far as healthcare goes, Clinton was given nearly one hundred thousand dollars by insurance company lobbyists to keep her mouth shut about healthcare whilst trying to get “coverage for everyone”. Ever wonder why we haven’t heard about it again until now, the build up to the election year? Although at one point she was righteous, she sold out long ago, and her “experience” is tantamount to corruption or political spinelessness now (hints the vote to authorize the war when the war was popular). She is politics as usual, and not all that different from most of the GOP candidates. All of her supposed “time in office“, and NOW she unveils her plan. What a political floozy.

Posted by Bo Dierker | September 17, 2007 12:21 PM

Ya, that is a good point. Hillary claims to have all this experience, and yet she waited until now to unveil her healthcare plan. Besides that, Hillary's plan sounds a lot like the one Obama put out a while ago. It seems like she is just playing politics. I do support both plans, however, I question Hillary's ability to actually lead.

Posted by Jim Rizzle | September 17, 2007 12:28 PM

Hillary’s plan would be too financially burdensome for lower-income individuals and families. And by mandating health insurance, it is clear that she didn’t have poor people in mind.

Such a mandate would be too invasive and would restrict personal freedom and choice. If she’s mandating health insurance, she needs to come out and tell us how she intends to enforce it. Because I’m pretty sure that what such a mandate does is eventually fill up our jails with poor black people who cannot afford health insurance.

Individuals cannot be forced to purchase insurance until the cost of coverage is significantly reduced.

Posted by Diamond | September 17, 2007 12:36 PM

Poll numbers aren't an indicator of truth. Remember, for a long time polls showed that most Americans thought Saddam was connected to 9/11 thanks to media coverage and organized political distortion. Obama actually has more time in public office than Hillary, and he's never been bribed by insurance lobbyists. My point being that just because the polls don't reflect that Obama is more honest, and a better leader, doesn't mean its not true. Your argument about poll numbers is pretty weak, just like Hillary's foreign policy.

Posted by Steph P. | September 17, 2007 12:37 PM

Hillary's "plan" is a nightmare. Massachusetts is going to be trying this soon. It just means that the middle class get squeezed, being now required to spend an additional 10-16% of their incomes on health insurance, while the poor get subsidized and the rich don`t have to pay anywhere close to a fair share of this new tax. Massachusetts has shown that you can ram through a morally bankrupt law with bipartisan support as long as you have the insurance companies greasing both sides.

Posted by Pat | September 17, 2007 1:01 PM

I like the fact that Obama's plans offers a choice. Some people aren't comfortable with gov't run healthcare. Does anyone else feel like its the 1990's all over again? First Hillarycare now O.J. Simpson. Whats next?

Posted by Joe | September 17, 2007 1:13 PM

Poll numbers? Blah. Give me a break. I agree with Pat, not to sell my fellow Americans short, but I just don't believe most of us can really say whether 'meeting with dictators' indicates sensible foreign policy or not. Only the most opinionated walnuts on this forum would stride in here, echoing hysterical concerns about Obama's foreign policy credentials. To my mind, he's giving Hillary a run for her money, and America's should tune him in, not tune him out.

We have to rely, to a great degree, on expert testimony when it comes to the complex issues of foreign policy and healthcare. We need journalists, academics, Walter Cronkite types, not pollwatchers and horse race commentators. I pity and fear those of you who have your mind made up against Obama (or Hillary), on behalf of Tucker Carlson or some other pompous pundit.

It would be a shame if we gave one of our most appealing candidates of the past thirty or so years a cold shoulder because some doofus in a bowtie told us he 'gaffed.'

Posted by drrew | September 17, 2007 1:15 PM

American1989:

I remember the 90s too. I seem to recall the health care plan Hillary proposing giving the Republicans a a landslide in what might have been just a southern readjustment.

We've been dealing with that for years.

Maybe she's smarter now, but that she "worked hard" on a massive failure isn't a reason to vote for her, it's a reason not to.

Posted by Tom | September 17, 2007 1:33 PM

Heck, Obama got out of law school while Hillary was trying to cover everyone!

Trying and failing. Trying and failing. Hillary Clinton may have Howard Wolfson as a top advisor but she ain't go one Yoda on her team. "Do or do not. There is no try."

The Clinton record:
Do - pass NAFTA
Do - pass welfare reform
Do - initiate the policy of extraordinary rendition
Do - begin "faith based initiatives"
Do - require taps at major teleco switchs for surveillance
Do - give away billions in spectrum width
Do not - get universal healthcare coverage passed
Do not - address systemic poverty
Do not - get loan/grant programs that make higher education accessible to all
Do not - reform our campaign finance system
Do not - address wage stagnation

The Clintons are smart, honest diligent people but Democrats are kidding themselves if they think this country is going to get anything progressive accomplished on their watch.

Look at the record.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 17, 2007 1:39 PM

The polls at this early stage are not really related to the issues, and it is a false notion to connect them. In face, the issues are not what differentiates the frontrunning candidates, seeing as they are not that far apart on Iraq, healthcare, or even on things like "talking to dictators" or "using nukes on terrorists" (if you look at Hillary's earlier statemens). In the end, voters in the Democratic primary will be influenced by more subjective factors, like character and integrity, that make a more visceral impression, rather than the rational facts on specific issues. If that turns out to be the case, we may be in whole new ballgame.

Posted by Mark in Burlington | September 17, 2007 2:23 PM

We need to fix the health care issue but we cannot fix it unless we know how it is broken. For the answer, please see http://www.InteliOrg.com/

Posted by Dr Coles | September 17, 2007 3:27 PM

What no one seems to be asking is whether the U.S. government should be in the business of health care. It has mis-managed nearly every program it has initiated, except to make the Congressmen and the administration fatter. Prior to Federal involvement in healthcare, the system worked just fine. It was affordable and charities took up the slack. Doctors made house calls. That is why I am supporting Ron Paul. He would leave health care issues to the states, who would certainly do a better job than the over-burdened Federal Government. I encourage you you examine his explanations; the make sense.

Posted by zenpiper | September 17, 2007 6:47 PM

I want a fresh start, I am tired of business as usual. It seem to me that the American goverment and the American People out of step with one another, we didn't vote for g. bush Jr. for president but we got him, we did't want NATFA - we got it, on immargration we have spoken loud and clear yet our goverment is not listing, on the ability of Mexico's truckers to cross the border, yeh you guess it. Just think our hold way of life has changed and not for the better. America goes to highest bider, politicians come to office making one -two hundred thousand $ a year they leave far wealther, with goverment contacts, goverment contacts and yes, you guess agin our money in their pockets. I am voting for Obama because he's new, does not have the same old experince. I am following the fellow, who follows the DREAM.

Posted by Karen Harrison | September 17, 2007 7:03 PM

It's obvious that people need to read more books, especially the two biographies currently out on Hillary. The reason why healthcare reformed failed in the 90's was because:

1. When Bill was elected Hillary acted like the queen and condensingly talked down to Congress. Many Democrats went on record about her behavior. It turned off both republicans and democrats.

2. The healthcare reform meetings were held in secret same as Cheny's meeting with Big Oil.

3. Because of the haugtiness of Bill and Hillary two years after he was elected the Democrats lost the Congress.

4. After the lost of Congress, Bill told his staff some who are on record of saying to bar Hillary from any policy discussion. That is when she went in hiding for almost a year and then starting acting like a traditional first lady by traveling extensively. That is why she doesn't want her wh records release. Because it will show that all this experience she touts is a lie.

5. Most of her time was spent on battling travelgate, Vince Foster's death, whitewater, cow futures, Rose Law firm accounting, and then Monicagate. Do you ever wonder why most of the scandals concerned Hillary at first and the Republicans went after her but stupid Bill gave them the mother load with Monica.

Hillary is no Bill Clinton, she is a very cold and calculating woman. The Lady MacBeth of American Politics. You know how she always talk about being a survivor, but she never has said one thing that she has done for any community from Illionis to Arkansas to the nation to NY. She only talks about her years of advocating for people. Advocates only talk, they dont create anything. I am a woman but I know with all the years of watching Hillary and researching her she is not the right woman for the job. And if she is elected President, it will be more of the divide and conquer mentality that Bill bought to DC and wa perfected by Rove. She will do more harm and set woman's role in political office further back than what Nancy Pelosi and Condi Rice are doing right now.

Posted by sonya | September 18, 2007 5:55 AM

"The polls at this early stage are not really related to the issues, and it is a false notion to connect them."

How long are the Obama (and Edwards) supporters going to talk about the early stage of the campaign? It's been going on for almost a year now; all canddiates have high recognition numbers and all of them have spent considerable time outlining their vision of what their presidency will look like.

That the polls have shown Hillary going up pretty consistently ought to tell you that the more thhey see her and hear her the better they like her. If your candidate were in the exact same position you would be making this exact same argument - and you would be right.

Posted by Pragamatic Liberal | September 18, 2007 12:10 PM

The polls are of likely voters. Meaning people who voted in the last election. The last elected was way less than 50%. Many people were turned off by Kerry lack luster performance as a canididate and just opted out because they knew Bush would win a second term during a time of war. Secondly, polls are conducted through calling people's homes using land line phones. This doesn't account for the huge number of people with cell phones only. And lastly, some polls are being fixed. When I was in college taking a quanatative analysis class, polling was discussed. The minimum number of people to fall had to be over a thousand to ensure accuracy. The best polls are the ones that have an average of 5,000 people being polled. I've seen a number of polls that have less than 500 people in it. That decreases the accuracy rate. People, dont be fooled again. We were fooled in reelected Bush, we were fooled into the Iraqi war and now we are being fooled regarding Hillary as being the best canidate. This is what the media wants a story match between Hillary and Rudy because it didn't happen in 2004 when she was running for reelection in NY. The peddling news as entertainment- a story they can sell, and distract people from the truth because the truth sometimes is a pretty story.

Posted by sonya | September 18, 2007 10:37 PM