A New Clinton Video Slams Obama For Single-Payer...

The Obama campaign calls the video "dishonest." They say Obama has always said that he'd design a single payer system from scratch, if he could, but we're well beyond scratch at this point in our history.

The video evidence seems to show Obama squarely favoring a single-payer system now -- as in 2003.

I asked the Clinton campaign to provide more of the raw footage... so listen to it and judge for yourself.

The political point is that Obama says he's immune from attacks about inconsistency during the general election; if he's found to be inconsistent, or he appears to be inconsistent, it adds information to what voters know about him.

=

Comments

I'm a Clinton supporter but I try to be fair.
I watched both pieces of footage and it looks like he got caught, as far as I can see.
(p.s. I'm for a single-payer healthcare plan. If Obama is, he should say so.)

Posted by Jan | January 22, 2008 5:22 PM

Seeing as how Republicans are against Universal Health Care, I fail to see how this will be relevant to the argument over health care. And frankly, the inconsistency argument really goes to foreign policy, so I think the Clintons are trying to conflate two points (or you aren't explaining it properly). Either way, I think this is much ado about nothing.

Posted by Publicus | January 22, 2008 5:24 PM

Jan, he's said he is. You should be satisfied now.

Posted by Common Sense | January 22, 2008 5:25 PM

What came after "That's what I'd like to see."

Hillary camp evidently has sent an incomplete tape again trying to spin their baseless claim.

Posted by fldem | January 22, 2008 5:32 PM

"if he's found to be inconsistent, or he appears to be inconsistent, it adds information to what voters know about him."

How insightful.

Seriously though, the reason this could be harmful is because the Republicans will be able to attack him by saying he's a liberal in a moderate's clothing. He's hiding the fact that he's a far left liberal who wants to push socialized medicine down our throats and take away our guns.

The Clintons have building up to this moment. Telling us that we have to look at Obama's record and that we don't know much about him. There were earlier stories about how liberal he was in Illinois. That all builds up to this, where we see that Obama is much more liberal than he lets on.

Posted by Mike | January 22, 2008 5:40 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5679110558493099301&hl=en

Hillary says the same thing 1 hour and 18 mins into the video.

Posted by il08 | January 22, 2008 5:41 PM

I dunno... I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that Obama is saying that he wants to work for a single-payer system right now, but it's likewise reasonable to say "I want to see a single-payer system...but it isn't going to happen, so here's the best I think we can do, to get us closer." It seems to me that he's saying the latter as he campaigns for President, and this video doesn't conclusively argue either way.

This strikes me as an instance of the Clinton campaign interpreting Obama's statements in as ugly a light as possible (their prerogative, of course), but then insisting that this is *the only possible way* to interpret these statements. It's like what they've done with the "Reagan as transformative president" and "party of ideas" comments, only not as bad in this (health care) case.

Posted by Jack | January 22, 2008 5:41 PM

It appears they've had that raw footage up on youtube for a few weeks now.

I too would be interested to see what he says after they end the tape. Somehow I doubt he just said that and moved onto Iraq or something, but ya never know.

Posted by Sean Braisted | January 22, 2008 5:50 PM

This stuff is really getting nasty. You wonder what the long-term effects of this could be.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | January 22, 2008 5:50 PM

Here is a link to Politico where there is aven longer version of the tape:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

It is obvious if you say the full tape that he was for single payer health care in 2003 and now he says he was never for it. I have no problem is someone's psoition evolving over time but I do expect them to be honest about such evolution. On this occassion, Obama was not honest. It was stupid of him to say that on national TV when he should know that he would be easily refuted.

Posted by TN | January 22, 2008 5:52 PM

TN - He has always been consistent that he would like single payer, but he thinks it is not politically feasible.

Posted by Rachel Q | January 22, 2008 6:10 PM

I don't think that's the full tape. I remember seeing this quote awhile back...and right where your video cut off he gets into the part about why single-payer isn't feasible. Mark, you really shouldn't post a tape that cuts him off like that...

Posted by Andy | January 22, 2008 6:13 PM

Looks like you guys are right. In the full Politico version, right after this video cuts off, he goes on to qualify his remarks by saying:

"But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we gotta take back the White House and we gotta take back the Senate and we gotta take back the House."

Wonder why Hillary left that out?

Posted by Mike | January 22, 2008 6:25 PM

Hillary's attacking Obama for having been for truly universal healthcare (i.e. single payer)? I hope Paul Krugman sees this and writes a scathing op-ed about how Hillary has been attacking Obama using right-wing frames. He could throw in the fact that she accused Obama of being naive for wanting to talk to Iran and her calling raising the cap on the payroll tax a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class."

Posted by Sean Wright | January 22, 2008 6:26 PM

The real issue is that Obama was for universal health care (2003) before he was against it (now).

BTW, I believe that Clinton cut Obama a break with this video. If I'm not mistaken, this is the video where Obama goes on to call Ted Kennedy old and spineless.

Posted by hwc | January 22, 2008 7:06 PM

HWC:

He's not against it now. He just doesn't think it's feasible under our current infrastructure. As a matter of fact here's his rationale:

"Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered...I don't want to wait for that perfect system...The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who's gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?...I believe I've got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together."

May not fit with the narrative the Clintons are trying to spin, but his words and rationale are pretty clear--though I don't think it will have any impact on those pre-disposed to dislike Senator Obama.

Posted by Keith | January 22, 2008 7:15 PM

re the qualification in the Politico version:

"But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we gotta take back the White House and we gotta take back the Senate and we gotta take back the House."

That comes offlike a mirror of Gingrich on Medicare: first we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it."

Posted by Asp | January 22, 2008 7:19 PM

Am I the only one who thinks this whole debate is stupid? obama wanted a more expansive plan, now he wants to start with something more modest. so what?

Posted by JC | January 22, 2008 7:35 PM

Barf, I am sick of this narrative of "consistency" that the media wants to parrot to boost one politician over another politician with precisely the same set of equivocations.

Posted by mikeVA | January 22, 2008 7:48 PM

Ha, the clinton campaign can put this out there, but your average voter does not even know what "single payor" even is. The terminology that the public is familiar with is "universal health care" vs "socialized medicine." Only high information voters know what single payor means ands so this gets no resonanse among the low information voters who are most susceptible to clinonesque demogoguery. HIllarr should stick to saying Obama loves slumlords....her average voter might actually be able to understand that one!

Posted by RKA | January 22, 2008 8:13 PM

Seriously, if the Clintons insist on this road of picking nits in political terminology (single payer, present votes, etc) they will do nothing but alienate more voters for themselves...both now and if they go on to the general election.

Good grief, who is running their campaign? This is so much like the *forget the issues, trash the character* Rove tactics it hurts.

If Obama's base is more educated liberals, they will see through this in a heartbeat.

If Clinton's base is women and lower income name recognition voters, they will vote for her anyway.

If the aim is to rile Reps in the general, the opposition would use ANY health insurance revamp against ANY Dem candidate.

So who is this supposed to be directed at?

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 22, 2008 8:52 PM

you actually trust something from the Clintons in regard to Obama?
Talk about niave

Posted by vwcat | January 22, 2008 9:15 PM

What I found disturbing last night was the difference of time.

If you review the tape, you will see Wolf "Idiot" Blitzer gave Hillary to ALWAYS finish her talking points. He NEVER tells her that she has 30-seconds to respond.

Yet, he would repeat this to Obama and Edwards.

Why cannot they have an automated timer on the stand of the candidate. Thus, the viewer watching TV can see the running time taken by the preferred candidate of reporters, such as Wolf.

Posted by eorse | January 22, 2008 9:31 PM

Keith:

Read what I wrote again. I wrote that Obama is not even for universal health care now. His proposal is so timid that he's not even willing to fight for coverage for all as a starting point. Forget single payer.

BTW, Clinton's American Health Choices Plan does have a government provided "single payer" style option that will likely be priced lower than the menu of privage insurer plans she offers by opening up the Congressional health plan to all Americans. She sets up a competition between "single payer" and private insurance. It is quite possible that single payer will be the most popular option and set the country on a trajectory in that direction.

Posted by hwc | January 22, 2008 10:10 PM

I am not sure how this hurts him in a Dem primary. This is something the right would throw at him in the general, but what Dem is dropping him based on this?

Posted by cgibson | January 22, 2008 10:27 PM

So Obama flat out lied when he said he NEVER supported single payor universal health insurance. Ok, he lies. So what else is new?

But why did he lie? That is a more interesting question.

If he was once a proponent of it and now is not, why not just say so? What is he doing lying about it?

Posted by ken | January 22, 2008 10:33 PM

Marc, presenting stories cooked up by Clinton operatives as something we should seriously consider is coming pretty close to being a shill.

I would like to hear why you think Obama would have any motivation to be "inconsistent" or hedging on this issue (like say, Kerry and his Iraq var vote). Or are you simply throwing mud as a surrogate?

Posted by Steve C | January 22, 2008 11:33 PM

Creating the appearance of inconsistency when none in fact exists is not providing voters with "information". Rather, it is providing voters with DISinformation.

Marc tries to wash his hands off in the standard pundit way: he implies the issue of appearances is relevant because it goes to the issue of whether or not Obama would be vulnerable to such attacks in the general election. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if pundits like Marc actually held themselves to a higher standard and helped voters distinguish information from disinformation, it would render such attacks far less effective. But instead Marc is participating in making the disinformation more effective by the way he reports on the disinformation, and then he turns around and justifies his behavior by arguing that perhaps the disinformation will be effective.

Of course savvy politicians have long recognized that they can play cynical, lazy, and/or ambitious pundits in precisely this way. That is the premise behind the common practice of passing disinformation to people like Marc, and as this episode indicates, it works all too often.

Posted by DTM | January 23, 2008 12:16 AM

Why is it so hard to believe that as a liberal senator from IL Obama wanted single payer and an end to the death penalty?

He never said he wanted to implement single payer immediately because he knew it would not pass. That's what he indicated in 2003.

Hillary is attacking Obama on healthcare from the left (current proposal) and the right (too liberal for single payer).

The Clintons attacking someone as dishonest isn't going to fly with many people.

Posted by Yiannis | January 23, 2008 12:26 AM

I did a check on this - and find this video implies the inconsistency - it seems they are distorting. The tape is from before he set up his health care plan - he listened while making his plan and realized there would be a lot resistance - and therefore not a realistic goal - i think hillary would agree - she is just trying to muddy the water

"Here's the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system...But we're not designing a system from scratch...And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices....Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered...I don't want to wait for that perfect system...The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who's gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?...I believe I've got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together." [http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/Ames]

Posted by melanie | January 23, 2008 2:28 AM

hwc...from your comments I would assume you approve of Edwards and Clintons mandates.

Tell me, how does one enforce a mandate?

I have heard a fine structure...great. A supposedly progressive President sets up a healthcare system that a family can't afford so we fine them. Fine the lowest income brackets? That's progressive?

I've heard both Clinton and Edwards say they will supplement the lower income brackets so they CAN afford it. Who decides where the floor is? Have you looked at any of the government low income sliding scales amounts? They are ridiculously low income levels to qualify for any help at all, so again a supposedly progressive President is going to force their lower income brackets to either be dirt poor or pay a fine? How is that progressive?

And all the while both of these supposed progressives are cooking up this plan to force everyone into their system, they are allowing the current insurance companies to profit off these mandated plans.

If they are going to force people into something why not do the really right thing and expand Medicare and deduct it from everyone's paycheck? Why not have the courage to go to single payer with payroll deductions? When you're forcing people to do something, at least make it as affordable as possible and cut the insurance industry scam out of it. That would be progressive.

People don't buy health insurance because they can't afford it. That's not wimpy, it's reality.

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 23, 2008 4:42 AM

Political candidates should be fined each and every time they intentionally distort an opponent's records and held accountable for this kind of unethical behavior and slander. Example, Hillary's recent statement she made on Meet the Press in which she said: "Sen. Obama's chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination.'' When in actuality David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said former Prime Minister Bhutto's death will ''call into issue the judgment'' of ''taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq.'' That statement of her's is Outrageous and potentially Slanderous! After all, most of us teach our children to play fair -- not to lie, cheat and steal! The leaders we elect to office should be held to a higher standard and should be people of principal, high moral character, honest and forthright.

Second: There is a time to be silent and a time to speak. Unfortunately, Senator Obama had no choice other than to diplomatically confront the Clintons on their lies and misstatements. He cannot and could not allow them to paint a picture of him that is NOT TRUE. The Clintons' tactics are old time party politics and should be a thing of the past as we move towards the 21st Century, towards cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner politics, towards a more holistic way of living. It is a greater duty and in the best interest of the country for Barack Obama to continue to stay positive and hopeful while attempting to clear his record from these misstatements -- as he continues to try to bring this country together and lift it up from fear and a distrust of one another -- and to continue to show the American people and the world there is another way to run for office other than smear and fear and tearing your opponent down with lies and slander -- Swiftboating! That is why Obama and Huckabee are so appealing. They are authentic and each in their own way are trying to lead the Americans away from dirty campaigning, lies and tricks. How can we as a country be blessed and be a beacon of light to others after all that ugly and dirty fighting (lies, distortions and slander) we can't be. There is a positive way -- honorable way to fight with dignity, honesty and truth and a dirty way to fight that is unethical and slanderous and without dignity.

And too, we have to ask ourselves as a people, why do we allow this unethical and negative way of campaigning to be acceptable and then reward this kind of behavior, with one of the highest offices in the land?

Posted by bacalove | January 23, 2008 6:01 AM

HWC-

How would you know this video goes on to call Kennedy anything unless ou are the person who made/distributed it or you work for Hillary and shill for her professionally.

BTW, I think this like her "I didn't say Reagan" moment at the debates is tendentious and specious. Even in the video, he says he doesn't believe we can get there immediately. His health plan is a way to get there gradually, which is of a piece with what he says here and said in the debate.

You Hillbots who think words mean only what the campaign has told you they mean need remedial education.

Posted by Michael's Mom | January 23, 2008 6:59 AM

Obama is overstating and understating things to stay viable with people to the left AND to the right at the same time.
He says he was never for single payer but Andrew sullivan has posted a link to a 2003 speech were he states unequivivcally that he is for it, then the watered down change in his thinking, and then his current position and his unconvincing denials.
He spends MLK JR. Weekend planting complimentary things about republicans and reagan so attract republican newspaper endorsements in Nvada AND to stay viable with the republicans he wants and needs to peel off to win. He tries to thread the needle and say nothing at all so he can deny to the left he said anything good about republicans when they come back at him. But the truth remains that the last 15 years of republican bizarre policy was not a time of ideas and this was meant as a slam against the clinton years. That's why Hillary was so careful to separate the comment about reagan (27 years ago!) and the republican ideas of the last 15 years. These have not been years of ideas by the republicans so Obama is a horse's ass to suggest they were. His bad
2. Obama could have talked about FDR and JFK as transcendant figures but he choose reagan to attract the right and the independents and the libertarian crazies. again his bad.
3. Obama's refusal to require mandates is to appeal to the crazy libertarians and republicans who don't want the government to tell them to do anything. It's cynical and twisted and lacks courage. He is trying to put together the odd marriages that any 3rd party candidacy requires.

A side note: it is so fun to read the above comments from Obama stalwarts and supporters trying to assert that obama has the right to lie and twist his truths and deny his past and positions.
Hillary showed that he has a glass jaw and a glass resume that really can't stand up to the pressures of a campaign.
My favorite obama quote from the debate: "humina...humina...humina..."
not knowing what to say.
You love your guy even when he isn't what you've continually said he was. it's very sweet to see you stick with him anyway.

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 8:04 AM

Marc tries to wash his hands off in the standard pundit way: he implies the issue of appearances is relevant because it goes to the issue of whether or not Obama would be vulnerable to such attacks in the general election. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy: if pundits like Marc actually held themselves to a higher standard and helped voters distinguish information from disinformation, it would render such attacks far less effective. But instead Marc is participating in making the disinformation more effective by the way he reports on the disinformation, and then he turns around and justifies his behavior by arguing that perhaps the disinformation will be effective.

Too true. Sadly, Marc and Matt Yglesias both seem to be suckers for this trick. I've long been a fan of the Atlantic because it seems to hold itself to a higher standard as far as these things go. Maybe they need to exert a little more editorial oversight on their blogging team...

Posted by J.B. | January 23, 2008 9:06 AM

This is so Clintonian: get people to focus on the most trivial of issues so that they overlook the bigger truths.

Among those bigger truths is the fact that the Clintons have outright lied about Obama's record on Iraq, about his statements regarding Reagan, etc. Among those bigger truths is that the Clintons are playing race dividing politics. Among those bigger truths are that Hillary remains the most divisive force in American politics and can never unite this country to get things done.

This proves nothing. So what if Obama either didn't exactly remember what he said in 2003. His overall position on the issue, and indeed other issues, has been amazingly consistent. It's like faulting someone for being only 98% consistent, versus 100%. And speaking of consistency, what about Hillary and her never ending flip flops on Iraq, Iran, etc.?

This is much ado about nothing. Again, what counts is which politician could actually make progress on healthcare. Elect Obama and you will have someone who can bring people together and get something done. Elect Hillary and you will get nothing, because it will half the country against the other half, all over again.

Posted by cm | January 23, 2008 9:37 AM

So where is Hillary's single payer universal health care plan? Or does she get points for not even trying?

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 23, 2008 10:49 AM

I have been saying since Feb 07.

Obama isn't different. He is a politican. He has been running for President since Harvard and there is nothing wront with that. But is isn't different.

He will say or do whatever he thinks is best to get a vote or raise a buck. That is why he took almost $200,000 from Rezko, or Rezko associates. He is a pol and pol needs money.

But it isn't different.

I support Clinton. If you support Obama fine, but support him on his merits and his faults. Dont' paint some mythical picture of him as some holier than thou political saint. He is just another pol.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 23, 2008 10:57 AM

This is a huge deal and here is why:

A huge plank of Obama's campaign is that he his judgement is better, right to start with and that his process is transparent and that he stands up for what he believes in.
When my favorite candidate Hillary shows that he used to say one thing and then kept moving the goal posts it shows that his judgement and his politics are just like other peoples': sometimes right sometimes wrong, sometimes committed sometimes non-committed, sometimes principled and sometimes politic:

Obama supporters need to face up to the idea that even if he was against the war a long time ago he got wishy-washy about it in the interim: He can call bill a liar BUT he doesn't dispute or explain any of those specifics AND he's had two weeks and a thousand news cycle and two debates to do so: he can pretend then its a lie or that he's above the need for details But he refuses to address the details and his press availability has sharply changed since Bill said those things in NH.
CM above says its okay for Obama to forget his actual words or positions but that is such a dodge:
Obama can get biblical and say none of our hands are clean but its less than christian or honest to then suggest that someone else is dirtier or less christian: And to say all our hands are dirty is the same dodge and phoniness as Rudy saying I never said I was perfect.
JB above blames the press and Marc and Matt because they can't always side with thier guy: poor JB: loose in a world where everyone gets an opinion and the press has freedom!
Hillary has helped a great many people see that Obama is not what you folks pretend he is, not what he has sold himself as, and maybe not even what the urgency of now needs.
She got the best of him by showing his inarticulateness when confront with anything short of hosannas and applause and she showed the black caucus sitting in the front row that he can't take a punch and that he has severe weaknesses as a candidate.
r-o-o-k-i-e.
To baca love: he didn't dispute the details of what Bill said he only dispute its truth: whrere is the details of his denial? Can't he find the paper work on his messy desk? And he disputes Bill's right to say it. You want to fine people for speaking against your candidate in a campaign: shame on you: Obama is a man not a saint. it is not blasphemy to disagree with his press releases is it?

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 10:57 AM

More trouble for Obama.

From Kenya where the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) lead by Raila Odinga in involved in a dispute over elections with the Kenyan government. Almost two dozen have been killed and buildings burned.

Ondinga claims he is the maternal uncle of Obama's father (Obama's campaign will not confirm or deny).

From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012301215.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines&sub=AR

Posted by Stan Wear | January 23, 2008 11:37 AM

Dear CM:
Your post is so unequivical it made me really laugh.
So be specific what did clinton say about Obama's record that was a lie? Each point has been out there awhile -two weeks- and none of the usual fact checkers said he didn't take it off his web site. He doesn't deny softening his criticism around the convention but claims it was to dovetail with Kerry's position which really means he agreed to change his position to get the big career making speaking slot at the convention: isn't that the same old politics that you and he say that he is above? The things Clinton has said he said everyone agrees he said. Tim Russert asked about the same stuff: obama then has the nerve to act like john McCain and accuse others of lying about his record and you have the nerve to say the clintons lie because you don't like the truth .
CM then you pretend that there are big truths and little truths: all that is so you can pretend that obam's lies are little and mean less and that when your guy is so right lying doesn't matter.
You say the Clintons race bait: this is your ugliest and cheapest and most damaging mistruth: if 80% of black americans in SC are polling for Obama then it becomes too easy to say that any criticism by the clintons or thier supporters is also a slur on Black people: the clintons believe Obama is not entirely honest: how is that race baiting?
the clinton's are campaigning for black votes women's votes, latino votes and white votes: how is that race baiting? They have gone to black churches all week in South carolina, georgia and harlem: how is that race baiting? They got John Lewis's endorcement and Calvin Butts endorsement: how is that race baiting?
Obama is saying the Clintons lie because it helps his poll numbers to say that they lie, and he is trying to win and you are believing it because you want to believe it.
Obama says nice things about republicans to attract republicans and when Clinton calls him on it infront of 4.9 million people AND the black congressional caucus he tries to point out the intricacies of his point about the clintons BUT when he says the republicans had all the ideas during the last 15 years he's not talking about the reagans 25 years ago, he's talking about clinton AND the black congressional caucus. DUMB rookie move on Obam's part but so fun to watch Hillary slap him around the stage.

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 11:53 AM

Old news! And why is this more trouble?

Posted by BR | January 23, 2008 11:59 AM

Hillary Backers: you have eyes and ears. You see, hear and KNOW what's going on. You know what the Clintons do, what they're about. As a Democrat, you were once idealistic and principled, weren't you? You know they're ethically murky, you rationalize it, you think the ends justify the means. Take a look at yourselves; were you always like this, or have you drifted over time, compromising here and there until you occupy another place than you once did? Are you being true to your real selves, or have you changed so much that you're not the same person?

Posted by TrueBlue | January 23, 2008 2:47 PM

When Barack said "never" he didn't mean "never ever" he meant "never in this campaign" which Hillary well knows. Attorneys do this all the time where they get your words tripped up, and it's easy to do in the heat of the moment--such as saying "I could just kill them"...that's literally not what you mean, and all of us know that. Consistency is the hobgoblin of fools as someone bright once observed. On the other hand, saying you support health care for all in any form and then passing NAFTA is a matter of calling light darkness. Not only did the Clintons (who incidentally are both running for a third term right now) not bring about any meaningful change in public health care, but they also destroyed private health care for millions of Americans (who saw their job go overseas). So for two of Americas most notorious liars to trip someone up or goad them on....well why should we expect anything less from such....they are people of malignant and empty character as has been proved in many ways which the GOP will remind us of should they receive the honor of running for yet another tedious third term.

Posted by jesse | January 23, 2008 10:32 PM