COLUMBIA, S.C. — Senator Barack Obama won a commanding victory over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Saturday, drawing a wide majority of black support and one-quarter of white voters in a contest that sets the stage for a multistate fight for the party’s presidential nomination.

In a bitter campaign here infused with discussions of race, Mr. Obama’s convincing victory puts him on equal footing with Mrs. Clinton — with two wins each in early-voting states — and gives him fresh momentum as the contest plunges into a nationwide battle over the next 10 days.

[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

Interestingly enough, more people seem to feel that the US is ready for a black President than for a woman President. How much of that has to do with the candidates involved [i.e., anyone but Hillary] I don't know.

The Clintons value loyalty and they hate anyone who crosses them. I've already heard a lot of talk that if Clinton wins, she'll choose Evan Bayh of Indiada who had considered running himself but was one of the first to endorse her. He has a long history with both Clintons and is also from the midwest and is seen as more moderate and would be a good balance to the ticket.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
George Stephanopoulous asked Obama straight out this morning if he would accept Clinton as his running mate in November, and vice versa, and he deflected the question completely, saying a) it's too early to talk about running mates, and b) that Edwards is running a good campaign. That looked like a signal that Obama is more interested in Edwards as a running mate. But if Obama loses to Clinton (looking more unlikely) would he consent to being Clinton's running mate? That remains unresolved. Where's the popcorn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
George Stephanopoulous asked Obama straight out this morning if he would accept Clinton as his running mate in November, and vice versa, and he deflected the question completely, saying a) it's too early to talk about running mates, and b) that Edwards is running a good campaign. That looked like a signal that Obama is more interested in Edwards as a running mate.

---

I would take any talk about "running mates" with a big grain of salt at this stage.

Endorsement

quote:

---

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them," Caroline Kennedy wrote in an op-ed posted Saturday on the Web site of The New York Times. "But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

---

I watched Obama speak last night.

I agree he's better than Hillary Clinton.

quote:

---

He's a great speaker - until you notice he's not saying anything much of substance.

---

Well, none of them are, really. It's the game. You don't lay out your agenda in minute detail and give not only your opponents in the primaries, but also your Republican opponents the chance to pour over it and spin it to oblivion.

Look at the comment Obama made about Reagan. What he said was pretty self evident. Reagan was a transformative President. I happen to agree with that. It doesn't mean, however, that I liked those transformations and what they have meant for Americans, and Canadians.

Mr. Kennedy, the latest in a string of senators to get behind Mr. Obama, is said by associates to be drawn to the Illinois senator because of his ability to motivate a new generation of Democrats. His niece, Caroline Kennedy, made a similar argument in an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on Sunday.
[...]
The results of the South Carolina primary provided an important boost for Mr. Obama’s campaign and also raised questions about the Clinton camp’s strategy of aggressive attacks on Mr. Obama. But in an interview today on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Mrs. Clinton said she would not back off from taking shots at her chief rival’s positions saying “It’s important we draw these contrasts.”

“The idea that somehow someone’s record, someone’s words are off-limits, I’ve never seen that in American politics,” Senator Clinton added.

and the JFK parallel:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?ref=opinion

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

He definitely has the momentum. I just don't know if it's going to be enough to overcome Clinton's money and orginization.

---

Even the Climton money machine cannot afford more than occassionaly the amount of money they threw into New Hampshire.

So far Colinton has only demonstrated one win in a very small and red state [Nevada] without throwing the kitchen sink into the battle.

But it has nothing to do with the bitterness between the two campaigns.

Candidates reaching out their closest rival to form a ticket is fairly common - witness Reagan - Bush and Kennedy - Johnson as just two examples.

The reason there won't be a Clinton - Obama or Obama - Clinton ticket is mostly geography. A northeastern liberal doesn't need another northeastern liberal on the ticket. For either Clinton or Obama, more likely choices include people like a sunbelt governor (Richardson) or a southerner (Edwards).

Also, there is a more disturbing reason that may never get any coverage. If people are wondering if the country is ready for a black president or a woman president, do you really thing the country is ready for a ticket with one black, one woman and not a single white male in sight? I suspect that neither Clinton or Obama will want to load their ticket down with any more history.

(Granted, Richardson, is Hispanic, which still would make either version a double "minority" ticket. But the name Richardson doesn't sound Hispanic.)

quote:

---

The reason there won't be a Clinton - Obama or Obama - Clinton ticket is mostly geography. A northeastern liberal doesn't need another northeastern liberal on the ticket.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Candidates reaching out their closest rival to form a ticket is fairly common - witness Reagan-Bush and Kennedy-Johnson as just two examples.

The reason there won't be a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is mostly geography. A northeastern liberal doesn't need another northeastern liberal on the ticket.

---

OK, but precedents are made to be broken:
in 1992, Bill Clinton took the daring step of choosing ANOTHER attractive youngish white Southern policy wonk as his running mate;

lots of double demographics there ... but it worked

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

The choice of Cheney was also interesting in that it focused on qualities and experience instead of personality and electability. The GOP was going to win Wyoming anyways, with its total of 3 electoral votes. And nobody would describe Cheney as exciting or dynamic. It was done to reassure people that there would be someone with experience in teh white house cause Bush was lacking it. And also cause he simply thought Cheney would be a good VP.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
The choice of Cheney was also interesting in that it focused on qualities and experience instead of personality and electability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indiana Jones:
Geneva is right about Clinton/Gore ending the practice of "regional balance" for the ticket. Bush also broke it by choosing another Westerner (Cheney is from Wyoming).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Actually Texas is a Southern state.

---

And only because it has to be categorized somewhere has Texas ever been part of the South... except in the eastern belt of counties.

quote:

---

Apparently, though, Cheney didn't really WANT to be VP. He was making millions running Haliburton and spending his time fishing and skiing.

---

The Clinton - Gore ticket was one of the few - if not possibly the only - ticket in modern times which seemed to offer no balance at all. But what the hey, it worked.

I don't see what particular balance either Obama or Clinton offers to the other. Blue state liberals, one who represents Illinois, one who was born there, both of them "history-making" candidates.

Richardson would be a logical balance to either - a sun belt governor with executive and foreign policy experience. However, through much of his abortive presidential bid he seemed to be playing too hard for the number two spot, which may hurt him.

Edwards, as a white southern man arguably provides balance to either Obama or Clinton. But as a one term Senator, he doesn't give Obama much cover on the experience issue.

Red state Governor Janet Sebelius of Kansas would be an interesting choice, but again, a two "historical" candidate ticket is probably too much baggage.

Other red state / swing state governors include:
- Janet Napolitano of Arizona - an interesting dynamic if McCain is the Republican nominee.
- Mike Beebe of Arkansas - probably more of an option for Obama given that Arkansas is one of Hillary's "home" states, and interesting if Huckabee is on the Republican ticket.
- Bill Ritter of Colorado
- Chet Culver of Iowa
- Steve Beshear of Kentucky
- Brian Schweitzer of Montana - but he's running for re-election there. The primary is in June, so not much of an option unless a clear winner emerges pretty soon after Super Tuesday - and it could mean losing the gubernatorial mansion
- Mike Easley of North Carolina
- Ted Strickland of Ohio - and Republicans have never won without carrying Ohio
- Brad Henry of Oklahoma
- Phil Bredesen of Tennessee
- Tim Kaine of Virginia
- Joe Manchin III of West Virginia
- Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
And of course Republicans are lobbing their own brand of attacks, feeding on the same culturally-accepted misogyny that seems to persist on some Babble threads, despite principled opposition.
A new anti-Hillary Republican org calls itself Citizens United Not Timid. Get
it? They sell $25 T-shirts mimicking female genitalia in order to educate the public about "what Hillary Clinton really is."
Salon story:
The C-word as a political tool

---

That is such a juicy piece of nonsense that you just had to post it here...you just couldn't help yourself...even though it's not really apropos of anything in this thread, right?

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

That is such a juicy piece of nonsense that you just had to post it here...you just couldn't help yourself...even though it's not really apropos of anything in this thread, right?

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

I think it's quite apropo and why Obama will win. What are you scared of Sven?

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

I think it's quite apropo and why Obama will win.

---

????

Maybe you could explain what you mean.

IE, what is going to lead to Obama winning, and why?

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Richardson would be a logical balance to either - a sun belt governor with executive and foreign policy experience. However, through much of his abortive presidential bid he seemed to be playing too hard for the number two spot, which may hurt him.

---

This is all idle speculation but....

I think Richardson is too gaffe prone. Technically he'd be a 'historic' candidate too, but I don't think that matters if he were to bring something to the table (Hispanics who can be swing voters to an extent - and appeal to south westerners another swing area). The gaffes would be a little bit bothersome though, especially for Obama whose appeal is largely based on his eloquence.

quote:

---

Red state Governor Janet Sebelius of Kansas would be an interesting choice, but again, a two "historical" candidate ticket is probably too much baggage.

Other red state / swing state governors include:
- Janet Napolitano of Arizona - an interesting dynamic if McCain is the Republican nominee.

---

So many events occurred during the Kennedy and later , Johnson administration, that they often over shadows the fact that LBJ was one of the most formidable political bull dogs in the Senate and Congress. The geographical reasons were probably secondary to that consideration when Kennedy picked LBJ as a running mate.

Its not a question of political skills- Congress cannot be worked back in the corridors anything like it was in the days of LBJ.

These days, pressuring Congress has a great deal more to do with the same noisy public stage- mediated by CNN and Fox News- where everything else happens.

So a Veep helpful beyond the election is one who can complement the Prez there. Edwards for sure on that score. None of the rest have much experiene or profile. Edwards is the no-brainer choice for both Clinton and Obama.

Running against McCain no Dem has to worry about the experience / foreign experience thing. McCain will be too busy figuring out where to put that baggage- much as he identifies with it.

Edwards might not want to be Clinton's running mate. If she doesn't win, he can try for the nomination again [unless Clinton barely wins and it's assumed to be Obama next]... becasue if he is the losing running mate agian, he's finished.

Can't see any reason he wouldn't want to be Obama's mate and VP. In that case there's no chance for him to run for Pres again for 8 years anyway. And what little likelihood there would be, he'd be in as good position as any as Veep.

Personally, I rather expect a Dem administration to have to be dealing with frightful realities... in as little as a year or 2, but a very high probability within 6-8 years.

The problem that Bush presents is that the office of the President has accumulated too much power.

In the cut and thrust of Washington politics, the President will need a bull dog in the house to get the votes the President needs for his or her agenda.

But at the end of the day, if the office of the President is not returned to something resembling what the founding fathers envisioned, then they are just giving lip service to change.

There is just no percentage in going out and saying "I'm not going to try to be a nasty imperial jackass like our current President, who has demeaned the office and would threaten the Constitution if he wasn't so toothless."

If it makes you feel better, there is braod consensus the Dubya will have at most a couple rivals for worst Pres ever trophy. Among other things he has managed to discredit attempts to extend Presidential power. Any Dem Pres so tempted will get a ton of blowback.

ETA: The Clinton team is by far the most likely to be so tempted. They've exhibited a lot of the tendencies already. But they are only the most likely of a lot I don't expect to try even as they are tempted when the time comes.

[ 29 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

But that doesn't mean Hillary would go after the same thing.

I've spent some time talking to Americans these last few months, and what strikes me is a reticence to really dump on Bush-- Democrat or Republican-- and instead focus on the Senate and House of Representatives.

Not on the radar screen for the public.

But very much on the radar screen for commentators- and they do have an impact.

The topic does resonate with people's sense of fair play and of the Constitution- and there would be lot of blowback if a Dem Pres were to try to go down that road.

Bush was impervious because that crowd was exceptional as to how much they didn't give a shit what anyone thinks... and the constituency we can count on will pull us trough if it gets tough.

[ 29 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

I think it will count.

Oh, and super tuesday is next week.

[ 29 January 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[QB]So super Tuesday was not so super after all
/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
If the convention actually matters (it hasn't in 50 years so this is highly unlikely, especially if Edwards continues to fade) then Florida probably won't be seated since that would be unfair to the candidates who followed the rules and decided not to campaign there on the belief that Florida was disqualified. There will probably be a big fight over it if Florida matters.

---

I agree generally, but remember that none of the candidates, including HRC, campaigned in Florida. All of the candidates 'followed the rules', so I don't see how it's any more or less 'unfair' to any particular candidate if the delegation is seated. Moreover, it's not like the Obama campaign, for example, was naive enough to think that there was no way the Florida delegation would ever get seated.

At the end of the day, while I agree that there would be some 'unfairness' in the sense that if the Florida delegates were truly in play, people would have campaigned in the state and the results might have been different, it's not like seating the Florida delegation gives an 'unfair' advantage to Clinton - they were all on the ballot, Floridians had an equal chance to vote for Obama, Clinton or Edwards, and so as far as I'm concerned they were all on equal footing.

Michigan, on the other hand, is a different story. There Clinton was the only one on the ballot and I agree that it would be unfair to seat the Michigan delegation when Michigan voters didn't have the chance to vote for Obama or Edwards.

[ 29 January 2008: Message edited by: ghoris ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:

Super Tuesday is NEXT Tuesday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:

I agree generally, but remember that none of the candidates, including HRC, campaigned in Florida.

---

I thought she spent some time in Florida this week?

Are there any other media stories about this? I've never heard of MetroPost, and frankly I'm inclined to be a bit skeptical because this 'Pone' individual who writes these stories appears to be an editorialist, not a reporter, and is quite clearly anti-Clinton and pro-Obama. See, for example:

"Bill Clinton the Bully - Obama's Big Test"

Hillary Clinton Problem #1: Bill Clinton's "Friendship" with Belinda Stronach (This one seems like nothing more than sleazy rumour-mongering.)

Plus, here are the Democratic nomination headlines in the 'National' section for the last year, in order:

"Is Hillary Clinton cheating in Florida?"
"Toni Morrison Endorses Barack Obama in Open Letter" (which is reproduced in full in the article).
"Kennedy Endorses Obama"
"Kennedys Like Obama, But Does It Matter?"
"Obama: Election About Past, Not Future"
"Obama Wins South Carolina, But Who's Second?"
"Bill Clinton the Bully - Obama's Big Test"
"Why Obama Will Lose Nevada"
"Obama's McCain Problem"
"Hillary Clinton Projected to Win New Hampshire"
"McCain Wins New Hampshire, Clinton Barely Leading Obama"
"Obama Outperforms Hillary in Iowa Debate"
"Pundits Agree, Clinton or Obama to be Next President"
"Barack & Oprah vs. Hillary Clinton Deathmatch"
"Barack Beats Hillary Clinton, Giuliani in New Poll"
"No 'Rush' to Judgment - Limbaugh's Racist Taunt at Obama Backfires"
"Hillary Clinton Staffers Denies (sic) Hit Job on Barack Obama"

Obama held a news conference in Florida in September:

quote:

---

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that's the case, then we won't do it again."

---

Also relevant to this discussion:

quote:

---

Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

---

Also Obama bought tv ads nationally and some of them ran in Florida.

http://www.ndnblog.org/node/1839

Just in: Looks like Edwards is dropping out. Which I'm very sad to see. Not only is he, at least when it comes to economic policy, the most progressive of the three, but he would have been the strongest general election candidate. I was hoping he's stay to not only affect the nomination, but the debate as well.

[ 30 January 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

The tapes, broadcast this morning on "Good Morning America," were provided to ABC News from the archives of Flagler Productions, a Lenexa, Kan., company hired by Wal-Mart to record its meetings and events.

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

---

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

http://dipdive.com

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: Paul Gross ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I don't think they are all supposed to be celebrities.

---

Well, for one thing, I have never been particularly impressed by the political endorsements of people known for their acting and singing abilities, whether or not these people are celebrities: it's like asking an physician for advice on how to play hockey, or a hockey player for advice on the stock market. Of course, all politicians seem to get into this: isn't Chuck Norris endorsing Huckabee?

But what's particularly creepy is the the whole "We Are the World" schtick. This kind of thing is wonderfully parodied in "Wag the Dog" (a movie I recently had the pleasure to see), by the way.

quote:

---

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

---

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Well, for one thing, I have never been particularly impressed by the political endorsements of people known for their acting and singing abilities, whether or not these people are celebrities: it's like asking an physician for advice on how to play hockey, or a hockey player for advice on the stock market.

---

I am trying to imagine who is qualified to endorse politicians ... and I keep coming up blank ...

[ 03 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

quote:

---

The 2000-2003 period was a dark time for the left. There were few in the media whom we could point to as a voice of truth in a period of increasing media fealty to Bush. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was one of the few brave voices of truth and eerie prescience on issue after issue of concern to progressives. As Jerome put it in early December:

If there's one person that I would point to in the establishment press that was there during the wilderness, the period of '01-'03, before Dean arrived on the scene, it was Paul Krugman. The guy should be awarded some sort of Presidential award by the next President for his truth telling while nearly all the rest of the establishment press could only be found on their knees in front of BushCo during the beginning of this decade.

Which is why I take Krugman's concerns about several of Barack Obama positions to heart. For one thing, he's been overtly critical of Obama on his treatment of Social Security:

Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a "crisis" in Social Security -- most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration's attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal's crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

And he's identified Obama's stimulus package as the least progressive of the Democrats' plans:

The Obama campaign's initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I'm sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama's top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from "morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending." Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure -- doesn't that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan...[H]is stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

---

quote:

---

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

---

quote:

---

Despite all that, experts say Clinton's plan borrows heavily from one Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts, which made the liberal state the first in the United States with near-universal health insurance.

---

Oh, it's universal all right but it doesn't mean the plan is progressive:

quote:

---

Like Clinton's plan, the law Romney signed in April 2006 is underpinned by an "individual mandate" compelling people to buy health insurance. Both plans entail subsidies and government regulations. For those in Massachusetts earning less than the federal poverty level of $9,800, free coverage is provided.

Though it was his crowning achievement as governor, Romney has distanced himself from aspects of the law that offend his party's conservative base, including the extent of the government's role. He has proposed a plan that includes federal tax breaks and incentives to states to help the 47 million uninsured Americans afford coverage.

"What works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas," Romney said at a campaign stop in Salt Lake City, Utah.

And he wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal, "As governor of Massachusetts, I led the fight for reforms that used free markets and innovation, rather than big-government control, to lower health care costs and cover the uninsured."

---

quote:

---

The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.

Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.

After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.

An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don’t sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr. Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up — but it’s not clear how this would work.

So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?

To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.
-----

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
So unless you're going to get, single-payer health care, which neither of the last two Democratic candidates are for what's so progressive about "universal health care" that the government mandates you buy into?

---

It depends on the scheme.

Suppose that the cost of each earner's mandated health care is some percentage, say 10%, of her federal income tax. Then the scheme is exactly as progressive as would be a 10% increase of federal income tax earmarked for health care.

If the cost is simply a flat rate for anyone earning over $9,000, then would basically be a regressive tax (even if it isn't called a "tax").

If the cost is geared to income more progressively than income tax, then it would be more progressive than an x% increase of federal income tax earmarked for health care.

Though in the general scheme of things Hillary Clinton's "Universal Health care" isn't nearly as progressive as a Single Payer system, financed by a progressive taxation scheme, since her plan is really only universal health insurance. It buys into the existing, pretty right-wing, American health care narrative that single payer, socialist, ie: the systems that most other industrialized nations have are examples of EVIL socialist medicine. It also promotes the rationale of the profit motive in health care. And in practicality it isn't actually universal since people can still opt out.

But anyways, here's a series of interesting articles debunking Krugman's defence of Clinton's "Universal Health Care" plan that offer a partial defence of Obama's, although ultimately criticize both candidates (and Edwards too) for abandoning single payer.

In Part One - Introduction what's wrong with all of them, especially Clinton:

quote:

---

Yet without firing a shot and with no debate, the leading Democratic Presidential Contenders--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama--as well as a good part of the Washington progressive infrastructure of think tanks and lobbying groups--have given up the fight for Medicare For All. Instead they propose variations of an Individual Mandate plan developed over the past 15 years by the "moderate" corporate wing of the Republican Party, a version of which Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts and which Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing in California as an alternative to the single payer plan which the Democratic California legislature passed last year that he vetoed.

The thing is, I can't quite figure out why the Democrats are in such rapid retreat from Medicare For All before the first battle has even been joined. Is it another example of the political cowardice by which the only Iraq resolutions that can pass the Democratic controlled Senate are a Republican-driven bill condemning MoveOn.Org. and praising Gen. Petraeus and another declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization? Is it because the Democratic candidates are afraid of being accused by Republicans of supporting socialized medicine? (If so, it won't help because Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney--whose Massachusetts plan Hillary largely imitates--all quickly claimed that Hillarycare 2.0 is socialized medicine, anyway.)

[snip]

First, Krugman argues than an Individual Mandate would not require a big tax increase, although he admits (thus defeating his own argument) that taxes which most people would pay for single payer would most likely be lower than premiums that an Individual Mandate would require them to pay out of their pockets to buy insurance. Second, he argues than an Individual Mandate won't make people feel that they're "being forced into a government plan". But the essence of an Individual Mandate plan is that the federal government forces the uninsured to buy health insurance. It involves even more government coercion than Medicare For All.

Finally, he argues that the Democrats' proposals generally include a Medicare-like public insurance alternative which individuals may buy into and which "would evolve into single-payer over time." Krugman never quite explains how this piece of alchemy will occur.

[snip]

Whatever Clinton might claim, Hillarycare 2.0 in fact requires a highly intrusive government presence in the lives of both businesses and individuals. As with Hillarycare 1.0, this is likely to be the biggest club that Republicans and their insurance company allies will use to defeat her or another Democrat as they did in 1994, unless so many compromises are made to water down the plan that insurance and drug companies decide it's in their interest to accept the 50 million new mandatory government subsidized customers to pad their bottom lines.

---

Part Two, why Universal Insurance Mandates are Bad aka why Clinton's Plan isn't progressive:

quote:

---

But overall, a universal insurance mandate is bad public policy compared to universal single payer health care. Some of the reasons:

1. It's a colossal waste of money.

[snip]

2. Universal mandates punish the middle class who make too much to receive government subsidies, but too little to afford the cost of health insurance that the government will coerce them into buying.

[snip]

3. The universal mandate plans assume that most people will continue to be covered by their employers and therefore they won't have to reach into their pockets to pay the full cost of meeting the government mandate. But employer-based health insurance is a dying dinosaur.

[snip]

4. Large numbers of people opting for lower-cost, high deductible plans will lead to many middle class people avoiding preventive care and necessary treatment until they are already very sick, leading to worse health outcomes and in the long-run resulting in higher costs from waiting to treat preventable diseases until they become serious.

[snip...jist of point 5]

Far from slowly evolving into a single payer system, as its progressive supporters like Paul Krugman argue, the Medicare-like plan is likely to become more and more expensive as time passes, making it less and less affordable and forcing more and more people back to bare bones private insurance.

---

Part Three aka Why Mandates are Bad Politics:

quote:

---

When the Republican Presidential candidate starts attacking the Democratic nominee for trying to compel middle class Americans to buy health insurance that they can't afford, the Democrat's poll numbers may start to dive. "If you're a family making over $40,000 a year so you aren't poor enough for subsidies and you don't have health insurance, the Democrats will force you to sign up and keep your tax return or garnish your wages for thousands of dollars, since the average policy costs $10,000 for a family of four." This is what the Washington consultants think is smart, pragmatic politics for Democrats? The health care issue, which should be a big Democratic advantage on the '08 elections, could suddenly turn into liability.

[snip]

A mass movement has already begun to organize around Medicare-For-All. HR 676 has been endorsed by over 235 union organizations in 40 states, including 60 Central Labor Councils, as well as many citizens and religious organization. In California, SB 849, which would have provided for a single payer system for the State's 37 million citizens, passed both houses of the California Legislature, only to be vetoed by Gov. Schwarzennegger. It was backed by over 400 organizations and unions including the League of Women Voters, the Consumers Union, the California Catholic Conference, the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association, AFSCME and the SEIU, and numerous cities and counties. Many other states are building large coalitions favoring Medicare For All.

[snip]

---

Part Four: Partial Defence of Obama Against Clinton's attacks on Health Care

quote:

---

However, as a single payer advocate, I find Obama's healthcare plan to be politically superior, and certainly more honest, than Clinton's.

First, let's be clear on one thing: Despite the rhetoric, neither Clinton's nor Obama's plan guarantees Universal Health Care for all Americans. Hillary is being less than candid when she proclaims "My opponent will not commit to Universal Healthcare. I do not believe we should nominate any Democrat who will not explicitly support universal health insurance."

Hillary is using a deceptive rhetorical slight of hand. "Universal health insurance," which is at the heart of Clinton's plan, is not the same as "Universal Healthcare" which can only be guaranteed by a single payer system under which all Americans are automatically covered for all medical care by a single, taxpayer funded, not for profit health insurer from birth until death. (Even one of Hillary's top health care advisors, MIT Prof. Jonathan Gruber acknowledges that Clinton's plan will not include everybody, admitting that "Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100% coverage".)

[snip]

The growing failure of Romney's Massachusetts plan will give ample evidence to back these Republican charges. In Massachusetts, premiums are subsidized for people earning up to 3 times the poverty level (i.e. up to $30,630 for individuals and $41,880). If you make more than that, you have to pay the full cost of insurance, which ranges from $1464 a year for young adults to $9600 a year for those over 55. At those prices, it's no surprise that only 7% of the 244,000 uninsured Massachusetts citizens who are mandated to buy unsubsidized insurance had signed up by last Dec. 1, although fines for each uninsured individual will be $2,000 in 2008.

So Obama is right to criticize Clinton for putting forward a plan that would penalize the uninsured middle class, unless and until the cost can be brought down to an affordable level. Hillary's plan is morally wrong, and it's a political loser.

[snip]

So, as a supporter of single payer/Medicare For All, I find it disappointing that Obama did not have the audacity to support single payer. Nevertheless, his program is better than Hillary's coercive individual mandate plan. It will certainly be easier to run on against the Republicans in the fall, and to potentially gain enough popular support to get through Congress without too many crippling compromises. Maybe I'm being naïve, but, in the long-run, the fact that Obama understands single payer and is not hostile to it as a concept, gives me hope that we might get there, or close to there, over the course of an 8 year Obama Presidency.

---

Unfortunately the author got a detail in part four wrong, real Universal health care was introduced under a CCF government in Saskatchewan not a Conservative one, but ultimately this is a pretty compelling argument if you take the entire thing in context. And while it may be a leap of faith to expect Obama to be open to a Single Payer system, and open to pressure from the left, at least his plan wouldn't close the door to real Universal health care in the same way that universally mandated health insurance would. If Clinton's plan fails it could set the entire reform movement back, and it is easier to attack than Obama's.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]