Hillary Clinton has become the shepherd child who cried "wolf!" too many times without a beast to be found, and now -- even when she tells the truth -- no one may be paying attention to her anymore.
It’s about picking a president who relies not just on words -– but on work, hard work, to get America back to work. Someone who’s not just in the speeches business -– but will get America back in the solutions business.
Follow me below the fold for more.
One of the biggest shams in this election has been the nature of Barack Obama's empty rhetoric. He's all fluff and little or no substance. Fellow Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel calls him dangerous, because the senator from Illinois is going to create a whole new generation of cynics once the Big Letdown happens.
[H]e raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he’s used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no ‘there’ there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times—what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen, 'cause he's going to have the reality.
So Gravel recognizes the problem. But he was shut out of the presidential election months ago, before Iowa. Worse, because he is shut out he is dismissed even by his own political party -- just as Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards were.
But that doesn't mean Gravel, or Clinton, aren't spot on about Obama. Case in point: health care. On his web site, he states, "[m]y plan begins by covering every American." Except that it doesn't. Paul Krugman wrote about this back in November.
under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.
As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.
In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that "the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it," he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan.
Obama, knowing how weak his plan is, attacked mandates as an unenforceable policy, which is a valid argument but not against Edwards' health care proposal:
John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.
That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it.
Krugman's not the only one who sees the massive holes in Obama's health care plan. Howard Kurtz writes:
Sen. Barack Obama is touting his health care plan in an Iowa ad unveiled today, six days before the state's caucuses. But the commercial misrepresents some newspaper assessments of the Illinois Democrat's proposal.
The ad says the Obama plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans." But the on-screen citation -- from the St. Paul Pioneer Press -- is truncated in a questionable way in comparing the proposal to those offered by Sen. Hillary Clinton and former senator John Edwards. The full quote reads: "Edwards and Clinton would require all Americans to have health insurance. Obama's plan guarantees coverage for all Americans but does not require all to have it."
"Experts say Obama's plan is 'the best,'" the narrator says, with an on-screen citation of the Iowa City Press Citizen. But the newspaper's endorsement cites no experts and is not even comparing the proposal to the Clinton and Edwards prescriptions; the Press Citizen says it is the best alternative compared to a single-payer health system.
The commercial cites The Washington Post in claiming the Obama approach would be "saving $2,500 for the typical family." The Post article said that "the senator's aides estimated" such a savings but did not attempt to verify it.
While correctly citing the Daily Iowan, a college paper, in asserting that the Obama plan would put "pressure on insurance and pharmaceutical companies," the ad also says the plan "cuts costs more than any other." Obama's staff contends that its estimate of cost savings exceeds those put forth by Clinton and Edwards, but that has not been independently corroborated.
And that's just the health care debate. Hillary Clinton is by no means fit to be president. But that does not mean her top rival for the nomination is. What's worse, her belated attempts to call Obama out for his lack of policy substance have come too little, too late. And it's a shame, too, because despite her numerous flaws she's actually telling the truth when she says all he has to offer is a bunch of words.
Words have power only to the extent that the person using them can generate passion while at the same time making a convincing argument. If you have passion, but no argument, you've only got half the necessary power. If you have a convincing argument but can't rouse the public with it, you're not going to make the sale (just ask John Edwards).
If Obama gets the nomination, which is an increasing likelihood, he'll go to the general election unable to mount the necessary campaign that shall convince a majority of Americans that he can make all that change he talks about. If he has any hopes of winning, he has to start making some solid policy arguments using those oratory skills of his to bolster them.
As for Senator Clinton, her warnings -- like those of Krugman and Kurtz -- may have fallen on ears too distracted by Obama's personality to even hear.