A Telling Moment In the Debate

OBAMA: Well, I think that Senator Clinton mentioned two specific issue areas where we've got some differences. I'm happy to debate those, which is what I think should be the focus of this campaign. We both want universal health care.

When I released my plan a few months later, we were in a debate and Senator Clinton said we all want universal health care. Of course, I was down 20 points in the polls at the time, and so my plan was pretty good. It's not as good now, but my plan hasn't changed. The politics have changed a little bit.

I'm tempted to just let folks think about those statements on their own.  Not that it will sink in for many here.

My thoughts below the fold.

It shows that Obama's first roll out of his Health Care Plan was politically motivated.  That he had to take into account where he was in the polls at the time, and that the Politics at the time were not as favorable to a mandate as they are now.

So he admits his plan isn't as good as it could be.  Which is admirable in a way.

What I would point out is that one of the reasons why a mandate is more politically acceptable now, moreso than it was back when Obama was 20 pts behind in the polls is because politicians with more political courage on this issue, Sen. John Edwards, and Sen. Hillary Clinton stuck to their guns on that issue.

I know all the Obama devotees here will say his plan is/was the best cause you can't mandate it, that's great.  That's a great position to have.  But Obama now admits it's not as good now as it was then.  Why is that?

My understanding of grassroots Democratic Party sentiment is that what's right is right regardless of the timing.  So Obama's statement above acknowlegdes that timing is more important than what's right.

Obama should have rolled out a plan back then that reflected his values, not his political situation.

I hope he values what's right more than political expedience as President.

I expect a lot of anger in response to this post.

•  whhaaaaaa?

  I totally read that transcript differently.

  That he's saying that his health care plan is being criticized more by Hillary now, because he's ahead in the polls.  He's pointing out that she used to be gracious, and is now critical.  And that that's what he means by the politics being different.  Because she's behind.

  Granted, I didn't see the debate.

  by tunesmith on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:48:07 AM PDT

  •  That's what I thought he meant too

    It seemed obvious that he was referring to Hillary's opinion of his health care plan, not the he thought any differently about it now than when he released it.

    by thursdays child on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:49:45 AM PDT

    •  diarist only sees ...

      ... what he wants, and spins like a top

      like a stopped clock or a blind squirrel, the line "Move along, nothing to see here," would ...

      by wystler on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:01:47 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, I noticed :) n/t

        by thursdays child on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:21:56 AM PDT

  •  Bingo

    Diarist bolded the wrong bit. Here's a more appropriate emphasis (though I didn't see the original, so I can't be a witness to its correctness):

    OBAMA: Well, I think that Senator Clinton mentioned two specific issue areas where we've got some differences. I'm happy to debate those, which is what I think should be the focus of this campaign. We both want universal health care.

    When I released my plan, a few months later we were in a debate and Senator Clinton said we all want universal health care. Of course, I was down 20 points in the polls at the time, and so [she could afford to say] my plan was pretty good. It's not as good now, but my plan hasn't changed. The politics have changed a little bit.

    Emphasis and interjections added, punctuation also altered a little bit since this was originally spoken, not written.

    by BlackGriffen on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:52:17 AM PDT

    •  I did see it

      and your analysis is right.

      by thursdays child on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:51 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    
         I was watching the debate and it was very clear to me that Barak Obama meant that his plan was good enough for Hillary Clinto to have included him among those who wanted universal health care when she was way up in the polls, and that it's only as he has been more successful as a candidate that she has criticized his plan as leaving out millions of Americans.

         It was also very clear to me that Obama did a poor job of expressing his thought.

    by garscosi on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:11:35 AM PDT

  •  I do not know who you talk to

    but mandates are not acceptable to most people. The unions are against it even the ones who support  her. Obama made a good point when he said that in MA people are being fined and that is an added burden and they still can't afford health care. Before mandates can be applied you must show how this plan will work and what the actual cost would be to an individual. It may be an ultimate goal but it should never be a first step.

    by ronnied on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:42:46 AM PDT

    •  THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      For pointing this out!  Jeez!  I am so tired of hearing how brilliant Hillary's plan is and how she has "such a strong grasp of the healthcare issue".  I have said several times that I am just a regular person with a regular salary.  I don't want mandates.  I think it is a very bad idea.  The notion that we should trust that the health insurance companies will lower costs once they have everyone on the hook is totally unrealistic.  Is there really a track record of these corporations looking out for us regular folks?  We're really going to base our new health care system on the hope that the insurance companies will be good enough to lower their rates for us once there's a mandate?  It seems to me that most of the puntits and "experts" on this issue are wealthy and don't have to worry about how they're going to pay bills or rent each month.  

      by wethepeople on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:06:59 AM PDT

      •  Also agreed

        While I think Obama's plan is lacking, I think that avoiding mandates is a good call. If we were smart, we'd adopt Kucinich's plan and go single-payer.

        by metal prophet on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:53:42 AM PDT

  •  I saw the deabte

    And your interpretation is 100% correct. The diarist is dead wrong and blowing huge billowing clouds of smoke.

    by Tusconian on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:15:07 AM PDT

•  I think you missed his point

  Which is that Clinton considered it "Universal Health Care" at the time, but now she thinks it's a bad idea, and the difference is that he wasn't a threat before.

  by KateinIL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:48:48 AM PDT

  •  To elaborate

    He's saying that she started digging into the differences and attacking him on it when she needed ammo to throw at him. Aka, he's implying that her attacks aren't substantive, but politically motivated.

    by KateinIL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:50:48 AM PDT

•  That's not what he meant at all

  He meant that when he was down 20 points in the polls, Clinton patted him on the head and said, "What a cute health plan you have!"  

  Now that the situation is reversed, all of a sudden she's claiming his plan is horribly flawed.  Nothing about the plan has changed, just the political situation she finds herself in.

  by noice on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:50:22 AM PDT

  •  lol

    "What a cute health plan you have!"

    by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:22:48 AM PDT

•  Talk About Hearing Through a Filter...

  "The politics have changed" means Hillary now has to take Obama seriously, so now she can't approve of his health plan.

  by AZDem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:50:42 AM PDT

•  Edgar, You're Not Getting It

  Obama was snarking on Clinton.
  Roll the tape again.

  Money, you got lots of friends...

  Obama hasn't changed
  His poll numbers have

  Because he earned them.

  by WriterRoss on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:51:20 AM PDT

•  fix up you syntax

  "Why is ... then..." ???

  by Lepanto on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:51:34 AM PDT

•  Wow... talk about spin.

  I know you might not be spinning, but if that's what you got out of what Obama said, you're spun.

  by Fishgrease on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:53:19 AM PDT

  •  Edgar08?

    yeah, he's a-spinnin' ... like a top

    by wystler on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:04:02 AM PDT

•  Grasping at straws

  The essential difference between the two plans is only the "hammer." HRC would garnish wages. Now think about that--what if a person doesn't have/earn wages? A consultant? Someone living on inheritance? No hammer there.

  Plus the fact that the economic hammer is anathema to the independent but right/leaning working person. It would make such an attack ad in the general it would be like Leno's Hillary-zilla walking over America.

  Better at this point to say: "Our goal is to cover everyone." When you look at the rest of the plans, they are essentially the same and in the end the fine details will be negotiated in Congress.

  by MrMichaelMT on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:15 AM PDT

  •  Mandatory Feature is Essential

    The mandatory feature in health care insurance is essential if the Federal government is to be able to get a lever to use against the insurance companies.  Making it mandatory doesn't give the insurance companies carte blanche.  In fact, as Medicare coverage does with hospitals and other providers, it can be used to establish a ceiling above which the Federal government will not pay, because of the volume and guaranteed payment.  The currently crafted pharma provisions in Medicare were a giveaway, but that is not the way the rest of the system works.  Talk to any doctor about the ongoing battles over Medicare reimbursement rates.  

    by PrahaPartizan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:14:35 AM PDT

    •  Comparing Medicare to this plan...

      ...just doesn't work. Clinton isn't requiring everyone to pay into government health insurance (which is a much better idea than either of their plans), she's requiring people to pay into private health insurance. That's screwed up. I'm sorry, but I don't want everyone in the country to be required by law to give money to BCSC.

      Whatever we do now should be a first step toward single-payer, and I don't think we accomplish that best by ingraining the insurance companies in our health care even further.

      by zbbrox on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:56:43 AM PDT

    •  Neither candidate

      is proposing to eliminate private companies as the primary insurers. When you step back, single payer is the way to go. Medicare actually works relatively well; it's the Bush-ite effort to rip off the elderly that creates the problem.

      by MrMichaelMT on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:54:19 AM PDT

•  Are you still voting for McCain? n/t

  by ParaHammer on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:29 AM PDT

  •  No

    But Obama does have to earn my vote.

    Does that make you angry?

    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:55:33 AM PDT

    •  Its nice you changes your mind n/t

      by ParaHammer on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:56:16 AM PDT

      •  I Never Said I'd vote for McCain

        Even in the most drunken stupors I can't imagine saying that.

        So stop lying.  Uless you have link.

        by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:57:55 AM PDT

        •  your most what?

          were you deep in your cups when you cranked out this POS?

          by wystler on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:05:08 AM PDT

    •  Why would it make anyone angry?

      It's your vote.  If you wish to vote for McCain, or Obama, in the General - completely your choice. Besides, we don't know who the VP choice will be yet, you might be given the opportunity to claim to support the VP pick and still hold your nose at Obama.

      by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:57:49 AM PDT

      •  I Might Wish

        To vote for no one.

        Ok??

        by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:58:40 AM PDT

        •  Of course it is ok.

          Who am I to tell anyone that they HAVE to vote?  Of course not. If you feel that neither of the candidates can assist with leading towards whichever outcome you want in our society - then there probably isn't any real reason to vote for either of them.

          Though, it's almost to the point where such statements won't really be ok on this site, because it does not contribute to the site's stated goal. Once it becomes official that Clinton has withdrawn, leaving only Obama as the viable choice - then comments about being unwilling to vote for the nominee won't likely be tolerated.

          by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:22:50 AM PDT

          •  I Know That

            But I'm also convinced it wouldn't have worked the same if Clinton was nominated.

            Sorry.

            I'm convinced of this without question.  And if it's just one person then you don't have to worry, just have me banned and get it over with.

            But if there's a stench here.  If there's a stench of hypocrisy and even an inkling of what I say is right, then it will linger within the party with or without the bannings.

            Obama has not earned the votes of Clinton supporters.

            He has taken them for granted.

            by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:26:54 AM PDT

            •  Maybe. Maybe not.

              There are still a few months for Obama to win over the Clinton supporters who are still skeptical.

              As for your being certain that Obama supporters would be "allowed" to criticize Clinton during the General?  It is easy for me to say, in full confidence, that you are wrong -- but at the same time, it is impossible for me to prove such a thing, since that isn't the reality in which we live. So instead I'll just say that I feel differently about it than you do.

              by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:39:37 AM PDT

              •  All I Know Is What I've Seen

                During the Primary threatening to never support Clinton in the general election will earn you recommendations.

                Threatening to never support Obama in the general election will earn you troll ratings.

                I take those CONFIRMED observations and make conclusions about how that would translate during the general election if Clinton won.

                Sorry.

                It's just not there man.  There's reapage and sowage going on here, and the sooner this blog owns up to it, the sooner we can move past it.

                by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:43:56 AM PDT

                •  But I'm Assuming there's something

                  "We" about what's going on here.

                  There isn't.

                  That's my mistake really.

                  I, the Clinton supporter, am the outsider now.

                  by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:53:39 AM PDT

                  •  But you don't have to be.

                    As we saw from the Debate last night: Clinton is ready to put the bad blood behind her and support Obama. The hope which many have is that her supporters choose to do the same when the time comes.

                    The biggest problem with the Clinton campaign was how it was sold to the American public.  It made her come off as haughty and out of touch, but this can be blamed upon the strategists and most certainly not the supporters.  Clinton's supporters are some of the most active Democrats in the nation.  Yourself is most certainly to be counted amonth this number.  A very strong advocate for your candidate.  So, you lost; it isn't the end of liberal causes.  But in order for those causes to be realized - it will take Clinton supporters to come on board.

                    I know that I have said things in the past which are in haste, and not fully thought out. Often I lash out when a kinder word would be more productive.  And for this I appologize, both to you individually and to other Clinton supporters (and maybe a few Obama supporters)... Because I know that, in the end, the issues which I care about can not be realized unless those who are most active in politics, are willing to stand side by side to present information and arguments to counter the argumets presented by the insurance companies, and their allies.. the Haliburtons, the Bush's.

                    by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:20:10 AM PDT

                    •  The First Thing then Is

                      Someone in the Obama camp needs to say "We don't take Clinton supporters for granted."  Which means we need to do just a little bit more than just make inspiring speeches.

                      I don't get the Obama thing.  Or rather I do as far as blogs are concerned.  It's anti-clintonism.  You can't tell me Kos LIKES Obama, I know the history of truth and tone and the Democratic Party, I know that Obama said blogs don't offere solutions.  So you can't tell me Kos, and blogs like Obama, they like that someone could defeat Clinton.

                      But Obama has transcended blogs, but I don't get that, that's what I mean when I say I don't get it.  Maybe people are inspired.  And I do think inspiration is a good thing.

                      He needs to win my support with rationalism.  Not with great speeches.

                      Even tonight he invoked Kennedy in the context of his position on Diplomacy, when even scant research of Kennedy's diplomacy will prove that Clinton's position, (get something in return for a presidential meeting,) is more like Kennedy than Obama.  He either misrepresents Kennedy's realism for the sake of selling his idealism or he truly doesn't understand Kennedy's approach to Diplomacy.

                      Some of his speeches sure are great though.

                      You just can't fathom why others would be unimpressed.  You disrespect it.

                      We'll see what happens in the General Election.

                      by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:32:56 AM PDT

                      •  Now, this is just silly.

                        Obama support is just anti-Clintonism? Come on. If anything, the fact that people like Obama so much has caused more anti-Clintonism simply because she's opposing him. How much anti-Clintonism did you see around dK before the current election cycle?

                        Why would bloggers NOT like Obama? He's put together the strongest "netroots" campaign in presidential history. How could you be surprised that bloggers like him when he validates them like that?

                        And do you really think he'd be turning out the crowds he does if all people took from him is "he's not Clinton"? Come on... I think the LAST candidate you could ever accuse of being an "anybody but _" candidate is Barack Obama.

                        by zbbrox on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:03:29 AM PDT

            •  Taken them for Granted?

              No, he's just taken them.  Or more to the point, Clinton has given them to him through her campaign's ineptitude and lack of post-Super Tuesday plan.  Point me to a few people who have switched from Obama to Clinton in the last 3 weeks if you can.

              BTW, you said you expected angry responses (to you missing the point entirely), but yours has been the angry tone throughout if you ask me.

              by vesuvius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:44:27 AM PDT

              •  Yes

                The campaign has said the Clinton supporters will just automatically support Obama.

                by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:46:50 AM PDT

                •  Yes, he said he'd get most of Clinton's voters.

                  ...which should be true. Clinton's voters are almost all strong Democrats, not the Independents and leaners that give Obama an edge. This is a fact, supported by exit polling. Obama has more crossover appeal, and the assumption is that hardcore Dems supporting Clinton will fall behind the eventual nominee.

                  I don't know why you find this idea so offensive. It's based in fact, and all it assumes about Clinton supporters is that they're not self-destructive enough to vote for McCain just because they're favorite candidate got passed over in favor of a candidate with near-identical positions.

                  by zbbrox on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:06:11 AM PDT

        •  sure

          and you MIGHT take a flyin' leap at ...

          or you might not

          by wystler on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:06:25 AM PDT

•  <shrug>

  You are going about six levels too deep, way too late in the process, for it to have any impact. On a Policy side - I don't really like either of their plans... I'd much rather them discuss why Universal Health Care is important, in terms other than costs.. but they aren't.

  As for whether Obama released a plan because it was a political decision? I very seriously doubt that Clinton, or Edwards, or Obama would release a plan for expanded Health insurance coverage - if there wasn't some level of pressure from voters.  And your final point, why is it less good now than it was then - even though it hasn't changed.... You'll have to ask Obama to explain what he meant.  

  In the end though, "gotcha" of this sort isn't going to change the dynamics of the race.  Maybe an interesting phylisophical discussion to have: how does a plan become less good over time without changing...  But in terms of actually changing the dynamics of the Primaries or the General, it isn't likely to catch traction.

  by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:55:45 AM PDT

  •  Well, after reading others' thoughts

    and rereading the passage.. Yes, the emphasis is lacking... of course it is snarking on Clinton.  His Plan hasn't changed, and Obama doesn't feel that the quality of his plan has changed...the only thing that has changed is Clinton's reaction to the plan.

    When Clinton was 20% up in the polls, it was very easy for her to be gracious and say that Obama's plan was a good one.. but now that things are somewhat reversed, Clinton has begun to criticize the plan.....

    .... Atleast that is my understanding of th passage - whether everything there is 100% accurate or not, I don't know.  As I said - I haven't really followed the Health Care debate because I don't really care for either of their plans. I suppose Obama's is better, because the idea of mandating everyone purchase Health Insurance doesn't appeal to me.

    by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:05:41 AM PDT

•  Folks

  Why is Obama's plan, in his own words, "not as good now."?

  Why didn't he roll out the best plan then?

  by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:56:39 AM PDT

  •  some have tried to explain it to you already, but

    It was pretty good then because Sen. Clinton said then that "we all want universal health care" -- because, then, she could afford to be gracious because Obama was down 20 points in the polls.

    Why is Obama's plan, in his own words, "not as good now."?

    But, as he says in the quote, his plan hasn't changed. What Clinton is saying about his plan is what has changed. Subtle, I know.

    by pb on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:00:46 AM PDT

    •  I See

      So Obama really believes his plan is as good as it always was.

      I see what you're saying but I didn't get any irony from what he saying.

      So I'm seeing it through my glasses and you're not seeing it through yours then?  because you people are always perfectly objective and you never see things through your glasses!!!!!!

      Question, put away glasses and biasses, if I misunderstood, fine.

      Obama's plan, as it stood back then, is the best plan he has come up with and that's what he'll be sticking with as president?

      yes or no?

      by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:05:21 AM PDT

      •  It's very simple

        He has always believed in his plan.

        Clinton used to say his plan was great.

        Now she says it isn't.

        His plan hasn't changed.  Her answer has changed.

        by prefan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:07:38 AM PDT

        •  Odd

          If he'd have just said this

          OBAMA: Well, I think that Senator Clinton mentioned two specific issue areas where we've got some differences. I'm happy to debate those, which is what I think should be the focus of this campaign. We both want universal health care.

          When I released my plan a few months later, we were in a debate and Senator Clinton said we all want universal health care. Of course, I was down 20 points in the polls at the time, and so she said my plan was pretty good. She says it's not as good now, but my plan hasn't changed. The politics have changed a little bit.

          Idiots like me wouldn't have got it wrong.

          by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:09:31 AM PDT

          •  He could have been clearer

            Still, the interpretation that others are presenting in your diary is the correct one.  

            by rcald on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:32:07 AM PDT

            •  Next time I hear Obama say something

              That sounds wrong to me, or questionable, or even unclear, I'll run it by Obama supporters so they can set me straight first.

              by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:37:39 AM PDT

              •  Why are you acting so hostile?

                You misinterpreted him.  Move on.

                by rcald on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:08:42 AM PDT

          •  It is allowable to have Hillary...

            be the implicit "strawman(strawwoman)" in his final two points as he has prefaced his comments with multiple references to her... it is, in fact, a very effective rhetorical technique to leave her role as implied, causing the listener to pause and think.... my $.02 ; )

            "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

            by Dood Abides on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:45:37 AM PDT

            •  It's Allowable

              But it's not definitive.

              Sure.  The room is there for all the Obama supporters there to be right.

              But wouldn't it be better if it was definitive.

              I honestly thought he meant his plan wasn't as good now as it was then.

              But again, I'm just a fucking retarded idiot.!!!

              by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:06:45 AM PDT

              •  We all listen through emotional ears...

                I am certainly FREQUENTLY guilty... The English language lends itself easily to contextual misinterpretation... this is at once one of its main drawbacks as well as a thing of stunning beauty...; )

                "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

                by Dood Abides on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:31:24 AM PDT

              •  One problem with Bush

                is that he never admits he made a mistake.

                I don't know why that came up in regards to this diary.

                Just a random thought I guess.

                by Msanger on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:52:18 AM PDT

      •  This goes to the fundamental nature

        of our Government.  The president can submit a plan to the Congres for consideration.....   But he can't pass it on his own.  The Congress will tinker with it - and youcan be 100% positive that whatever they give him, will not look exactly like what he gave them.  Even if they like what he gave them, the individual Senators and CongressCritters will want to have their individual impacts felt on the issue.

        At that point he can decide whether the legislation which goes before him would be considered "sticking to the plan" and whether it is acceptible.

        If not, he can veto it and try again.

        by Yoshi En Son on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:10:31 AM PDT

  •  I apologize if English isnt your primary language

    But Obama is saying he always had a fantastic plan.  Clinton used to agree -- it was perfectly good UHC.  But when he got ahead in the polls, SHE changed her tune, to score political points.

    He's always had faith in his plan.  You're missing the point completely.

    by prefan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:02:34 AM PDT

    •  LOL

      No need to apoligize.

      I don't even know what apologize means!

      by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:06:31 AM PDT

  •  If you don't understand...

    ....that he was being facetious, you're particularly dense. And if you do understand, you're being deliberately obtuse.

    by metal prophet on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:57:12 AM PDT

•  Laughter and sighs, not anger.

  You read an English-language statement that is pretty simple and somehow turn it into something it is not.  Nice try - though if Hillary's supporters have to resort to twisting the clear and obvious statements, that's not a good sign for her waning campaign.

  by rock the ground on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:56:48 AM PDT

•  Are you spinning

  or do you seriously not get that he was saying the same thing he has said in the past, about how the Clinton campaign thought he (or in this case, his health plan) was fine . . . until he started winning primaries/caucuses or beating them in the polls, and then they go negative.

  by Aquaman on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:58:59 AM PDT

  •  Obama's the one

    Who said his plan isn't as good now.

    Not me.

    by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:01:08 AM PDT

    •  No, he never said that

      But keep ignoring everyone in this diary

      by prefan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:04:59 AM PDT

    •  although

      he didn't say that

      by eyeball on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:05:20 AM PDT

    •  Sorry to pile on, but

      in the man's quote itself appear the words "my plan hasn't changed."  It hasn't.  

      Has it?

      When he said "my plan isn't as good now" he was recapping the position of the Clinton campaign.  The man said, in essence, "Hillary once thought my plan was fine, but she says it isn't as good now."

      by teyigdhk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:05:47 AM PDT

      •  Oh

        That's what he meant but not exactly what he said.

        Fine.

        But of course if you're an Obama supporter you're on the same wavelength.

        Idiots like me will never understand and have to ask for clarification.

        by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:07:54 AM PDT

        •  You don't seem to be asking

          for clarification.  You seem to be trying to manufacture something that isn't there in full knowledge that's what you're doing.  

          by bythesea on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:14:03 AM PDT

          •  I Read Something a certain way

            And drew conclusions from that.

            Now my reading of the statement is called into question.

            by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:15:27 AM PDT

            •  Okay granted

              I did say "seem". I guess you really didn't get it if you prefer.

              by bythesea on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:18:26 AM PDT

              •  He really didn't say

                "She said my plan was OK then."

                "And now she says my plan sucks."

                I wouldn't have posted this diary if that's how he answered the question.

                by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:21:38 AM PDT

        •  No, that's exactly what he said

          No "interpretation" necessary. Thirty people have come here to tell you that you misinterpreted this clear statement.

          As for "wavelength," you're right.  You've found us out.  See, when you become an Obama supporter, you're implanted with a microchip.  Every time Obama says something Hopeful, or promises to Change something, it emits a subliminal audio clip of the will.i.am song, directly into the frontal lobes of our brains.  This is also why Obama fans are so good at chanting "Yes We Can"!  We are on the same wavelength, as long as no one in the stadium is operating a microwave.

          When Obama gets elected, his first order of business will be to implant these microchips into all citizens.  Your turn is coming, Edgar08.

          by teyigdhk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:33:23 AM PDT

        •  I Don't Know if You're an Idiot

          But you seem to be shooting for the label.  Look up "irony" in the dictionary, re-read the quoted passage, and if you cannot understand it then I suppose you must be one.

          by vesuvius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:16:38 AM PDT

        •  Oh, for fuck's sake

          Even a halfway honest Clinton supporter would agree with what almost everyone on this diary has said, thus far. Are you that stubborn?

          by metal prophet on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:59:47 AM PDT

    •  You can't possibly

      be so dense, but I hate to think you're being disingenuous.  What he meant is pretty obvious and I'm sure you know that (now that you must have read comments explaining it and still act like you don't know what it means).  Pretty sad attempt.  Try again.

      by bythesea on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:11:42 AM PDT

      •  No

        I'm not hotwired into the support network.

        OBAMA: Well, I think that Senator Clinton mentioned two specific issue areas where we've got some differences. I'm happy to debate those, which is what I think should be the focus of this campaign. We both want universal health care.

        When I released my plan a few months later, we were in a debate and Senator Clinton said we all want universal health care. Of course, I was down 20 points in the polls at the time, and so she said my plan was pretty good. she says it's not as good now, but my plan hasn't changed. The politics have changed a little bit.

        I wonder why he just didn't say it like that for idiotic morons like me.

        by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:14:23 AM PDT

        •  We all get to the point

          where we are so hopeful for something that we start to hear things that just aren't there, when it becomes increasingly clear that what he hope for just ain't going to happen.

          If you truly read the statement as you say you did -- and I have no way of knowing, of course -- then you might just at least consider that it's not about the wavelength of Obama supporters, but more wishful thinking on your part.

          We'll probably see a lot more of these "misundersandings" as it sets in that Hillary might actually lose this thing.

          by Aquaman on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:31:10 AM PDT

          •  That I'm supposed to just "Get It"

            Is one of Obama's weaknesses, a weakness that won't be acknowledged by his supporters, -- obviously because of course, duh, they "get it," -- I offered a more clear statement above.  One that only added two words to two different sentences.

            It did occur to me that Obama speaks clearly and I did take his words in a literal way that I've come to find out isn't apropos to the speaker's whims.

            by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:35:19 AM PDT

            •  Even as he said it

              I realized he was muting -- deliberately perhaps, or just sarcastically -- what many here say he meant.

              So I guess I can see how somebody might interpret his words differently.

              by Aquaman on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:40:23 AM PDT

              •  He shouldn't Mute

                He'll be facing repuglicans soon.

                He should say what he means in the clearest possible way.

                by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:45:32 AM PDT

        •  Me too.

          by teyigdhk on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:36:39 AM PDT

•  His plan is DOA.

  Clinton said it best, "what's wrong with the SS model?"

  People hate the idea of being forced into buying healthcare, but they want health care. What gives?

  If you could opt out of SS, I actually wouldn't care. I would have a hard time with sympathy later on, but it's you choice.

  Health care is different: if you opt out, I would have a hard time stepping over your bleeding body even though I should if you opted out.

  Either people buy into it, or it's not universal.

  I don't see people griping about SS except that it may become insolvent. SS, in my opinion, is a great social contract.

  by MouseOfSuburbia on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:09:58 AM PDT

  •  Would make sense if her plan were single payor

    But it's not.  Systems with mandates only flourish when all people can choose a totally free "safety net" plan, if they feel unable to pay.

    Mandating that people buy private insurance just to be alive, whether or not they think they can afford it, takes the worst aspects of two systems.  It bakes them into a hybrid monster.

    Overbearing mandates + private insurance company windfall = poison in a general election.

    by prefan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:19:30 AM PDT

    •  exactly!

      how can you mandate people have health insurance coverage under the current system?  what is she going to change about the health care system that will allow it to be more affordable? or is she just going to force people to have insurance they cannot afford to ensure her big money insurance company donors can keep raising their prices and keep denying claims?  i don't see how anyone can force us into a system without changing the system.  

      when you have to choose between feeding your afamily and keeping a roof over their head and paying for health insurance.....  i know.  i have been there.  my husband at his old job would have had to pay $800/mo for insurance that didn't cover anything.  we put our daughter on child health plus and i was on medicaid.  we simply could not afford to pay that price.  and when there is nowhere else to cut your expenses.....  times are really tough for a lot of people.  it just keeps getting harder and harder just to stay afloat.  

      by ejpoeta on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:36:33 AM PDT

    •  Single payer will not happen

      without a careful, considered plan to pave the road to get us there.
      It will be a process, not a revolution.

      In a nutshell, Hillary's plan is designed to do just that.

      Obama's plan is biz as usual.

      If you want single-payer this generation, Hillaty is your candidate.
      Is doesn't seem very important to Barack, judging by his "plan" anyway.

      by Niniane on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:01:17 AM PDT

      •  really now

        i thought you were rational

        how is forcing the whole of the American public (those who fail to qualify for assistance) to buy insurance from a private sector insurer paving any kind of road? how is is moreso than a plan without mandates?

        all i can see is creation of backlash political will, along with a massive windfall for an already successful and powerful DC lobby

        if you really want single payer, work to expand the progressive base of the Democratic Party, and work to elect candidates who get our side landslides, rather than 50% + 1 victories

        by wystler on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:14:46 AM PDT

  •  I agree, but I think Obama is being more

    prudent/cynical.

    He figures a majority is unwilling to go for mandates at this time.

    Which means Americans will have to wait longer for full reform of the whole system of health care, but at least he will try to move the electorate to backing some kind of reform and try to get more popular support for further reform. Perhaps that's politically smarter despite being disappointing to many of us.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:22:32 AM PDT

    •  I think you're right

      We're so far from having single-payer right now, which is the only way I'd support mandates.  Maybe by 2015, hopefully.

      by Aquaman on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:35:50 AM PDT

      •  Which leads to some projection:

        I just don't see where his plan is going to survive. That's not a great start.

        Then, Obama is calling for us to be out of Iraq 16 months after starting a drawdown. That too is unrealisitic.

        I will give him credit for mentioning Iran as the biggest beneficiary of the war last night, but he still isn't being honest in telling the people that it is Iran who will determine when the troops come home.

        He is not going to allow Iran to fill the void that our leaving will open. There will be a void, and it will be filled.

        Bringing everyone to the table is fine, but he better have a big carrot to offer for them all to see things our way and not meddle in Iraq's afairs. What carrot could be that big? We are talking about the 4th largest oil reserves and regional influence. Do you really think he is going to walk away from that and give it to Iran?

        by MouseOfSuburbia on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:52:10 AM PDT

        •  yes, of course Senator Clinton is right

          by the end of her second term, perhaps we'll be out

          or not

          -----------------------------------------------------

          give it to Iran?

          why would you think that the Arab Shi'a of Iraq would invite domination by the non-Arab Shi'a of Iran?

          better pay closer attention, friend. meanwhile, quit the fear-mongering about Iran. it doesn't look good on Senator Clinton, and it doesn't look good on you.

          by wystler on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:18:52 AM PDT

          •  You might be a fool if...

            You believe Iran is not already there in a big way.

            Open your eyes, you might see better.

            by MouseOfSuburbia on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:39:06 AM PDT

  •  So is hers

    Mandates will NOT pass Congress.

    Medicare for ALL funded with general tax revenue, NOT private premium payments. Just say "no!" to enriching the insurance companies.

    by Bill White on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:04:08 AM PDT

•  How to totally misread a statement.

  Diary read Obama's statement backwards, in otherwords, completely misinterpreted it.

  Obama is clearly saying that when he was down in the polls his plan was just fine with HRC and her campaign. Now that he is even in the polls, it is suddenly flawed.

  by HeartlandLiberal on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:37:33 AM PDT

  •  Great Spin

    No, that's a complete fabrication.  His plan was always flawed, as pointed out by both Clinton and Edwards.  Obama's health care proposal was always the weakest of the major three Democratic candidates' proposals.  Its weaknesses  prompted Krugman's criticism.  Why spin a pathetic defense of plan which demands major buttressing before it becomes usable?  

    by PrahaPartizan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:02:51 AM PDT

  •  Heartland Liberal

    of course you got it right.

    O's plan is closer to what we will get; people tend to forget that we are still going to have to negotiate with the Republicans to get anything.

    Personally, giving anyone who wants insurance the opportunity and the means (via subsidies) to get it would be a HUGE step forward.

    His plan doesn't "leave anyone out" though people can elect to not buy into it.

    by onanyes on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:22:30 AM PDT

•  I do this all the time...

  I thought that the Beyonce "You Must not Know About Me" song was as in "you MUST'NT know about me", not "you must have not yet heard..."

  and then I also thought that Bob Marley's No Woman No Cry was not "no, woman... don't cry" but "if there's no woman, then there's no crying" which I think is a much more interesting interpretation.

  Edgar, I like your creative interpretation - lay off the guy =)

  by Max and the Marginalized on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:46:19 AM PDT

  •  Rec'd for your interpretation of Bob Marley ;-)

    by SLKRR on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:56:28 AM PDT

•  Boy..talk about getting it all wrong.

  What you see here is called a snark by Obama against Clinton. He's saying "You thought my plan was okay when you were winning. Now you think its crap since youre losing."

  Jeez...

  Edgar, I know defeat must be tough for you. But listen, don't turn into one of these cynical, bitter, people who blames all that is wrong in the world on Obama. This nomination is just about over. Your candidate has begun the process of gracefully conceding and going on to a fantastic career in the U.S. Senate. Be proud of that.

  As far the Presidency is concerned, nothing Obama does between now and November could possibly earn your vote. I suggest you look at McCain and see if joining the other side might be a better fit for you. If not, just go to work for local Politicians that you like and support. Channel your energies there.

  But this thing is just about over. Our full energies are about to turn to the defeat of John McCain and electing the young junior Senator from Illinois the next President of the United States. You don't have to be a part of it, but you can stop denigrating it as well.

  These young students had the polling place closed on them. The marched 7 miles to go vote for Obama. This is what McCain is up against:
  

  by brooklynbadboy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:58:27 AM PDT

  •  Obama's Plan Was Always Weak

    Obama's health care plan was always weak.  Frankly, it was one of the things which suggested that he wasn't really serious about pushing that as an issue.

    If you're trying to say that Obama was trying to be sarcastic, fine.  Because that's what your defense of his weak policy does.  Is he serious yet about trying to propose viable health care legislation.  Your defense would imply that he isn't yet, that he's only put forward a plan to defuse arguments that his position is deficient when compared to Clinton's.  I do hope that's not the case.

    by PrahaPartizan on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:23:10 AM PDT

•  If you think his HC plan was just political...

  that's fine. But you can't twist his statement around to say that.

  by a synthetic cubist on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:35:20 AM PDT

•  you're an idiot

  you really are. just a total dunce

  by TomY on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:48:12 AM PDT

•  A perfect example of their differences

  Clinton just does not LISTEN to anyone because she believes she already knows all the answers.

  To everything.

  Kinda like a smug parent who can never accept their children for who they really.

  "I will tell you what is good for you and if you disagree, well then you are justy naughty!"

  Her smile last night was one of the most telling things about her. Her smile and her refusal to LISTEN to Obama.

  = = =

  PS: Mandates are reverse Robin Hood and will only end up enriching K Street connected health insurance moguls.

  But, since you already KNOW all the answers I predict yours ear are closed as well.

  by Bill White on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:02:50 AM PDT

•  Edwards had the only real courageous plan...

  He forced Clinton and Obama to address the issue.  Unfortunately Obama's plan plays it safe and I have to agree with MouseOfSuburbia above that is DOA.

  by AnnieM on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:04:46 AM PDT

•  you missed the point

  the plan was praised, but then others tried to quickly "one up" him.

  Frankly, I prefer O's plan but that is just me:  insurance for anyone who wants it (and subsidies for those who want it but can't afford it).

  Of course, I still think "medicaid for all" is the way to go, but it will take us a while to get there.

  His plan is what you are more likely to get through congress; more R's will go with allowing people to choose, and O will focus on price cutting.

  by onanyes on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:19:25 AM PDT

•  I cannot forgive Obama his health care stance.

  It's ruinous.

  by BoringDem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:30:54 AM PDT

•  Not anger

  Just wondering if you read the same thing as I did.

  by metal prophet on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:03 AM PDT

•  Ignorant diary...missed the entire point...

  This is a bad diary, inaccurate and just plain wrong.  The difference that I see in the Health care plans is that Obama's is a realistic plan that has a chance to pass in congress, Hillary's doesn't...it is proven(MA) that mandates do not solve the problem...and thats just a FACT.

  by NoCryingInPoltics on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:53:47 AM PDT

•  Codswallop

  Obama has long since stated that the 'ideal' would be single payer health care, but that politically, it may not be doable.

  He was instrumental in the IL senate to expand health insurance for IL kids.

  It is utter bollocks to posit that he rolled out a health care plan for 'political' reasons.

  U N B E L I E V A B L E

  by pvlb on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:56:35 AM PDT

•  Reading comprehension for the win...

  Edgar08. Learn to read first. Then use your brains to analyze the information.

  Then post a diary.

  Sheesh.

  by DarkOmnius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:12:11 AM PDT