Obama hitches his wagon to wrong issue..polls show it's still the economy, stupid

'stwo reasons for running for President, the Iraq War and a new non-partisan politics seem to be missing the mark with voters. While Obama's campaign was quick to blame dirty, negative campaigning for their three state loss last Tuesday, the real reason for that loss seems to be that Obama was campaigning on the wrong issues. From Paul Krugman in the NYT on March 7, 2008: "Yet for the time being, public optimism about Iraq is rising: 53 percent of the public believes that the United States will definitely or probably succeed in achieving its goals. So anger about the war isn’t likely to be decisive in the election.

The state of the economy, on the other hand, could well give Democrats a huge advantage — especially, to be blunt about it, with white working-class voters who supported President Bush in 2004.

Even at its best, the Bush economy left most voters unimpressed: only once, in January 2007, did a slight majority of those questioned by the USA Today/Gallup poll describe the economy as “excellent” or “good,” rather than “only fair” or “poor.” A year later, only 19 percent of voters had a good word for the economy.

This collapse in economic confidence has occurred even though the full economic effects of the implosion of the housing market and the freezing of the credit markets have yet to be felt. As more things fall apart, perceptions will only get worse.

All of this should work to the Democrats’ advantage. They can contrast the Clinton boom with the Bush bust; they can make the case that Republican economic ideology, with its fixation on privatization and deregulation, helped get us into this mess.

And John McCain can be ridiculed as a man who has declared on a number of occasions that he doesn’t know much about economics — only to insist, straight-talker that he is, that he never said any such thing.

But first, of course, the Democrats have to settle on a nominee. And the shift in electoral focus from Iraq to economic anxiety clearly plays to Mrs. Clinton’s strengths.

According to exit polls, Mr. Obama narrowly edged out Mrs. Clinton among Ohio voters who consider Iraq the most important issue — but these voters cast only 19 percent of the ballots in the Democratic primary. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton led by 12 points among the much larger group of voters citing the economy as the most important issue — and by 16 points among those who cited health care. Mrs. Clinton’s winning margin was twice as large among those who were worried about their own financial situation as among those who weren’t.
Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues? Well, on health care — which is closely tied to overall concerns about financial security — there is a clear, substantive difference between the candidates, with the Clinton plan being significantly stronger.

More broadly, I suspect that the Obama mystique — his carefully created image as a transformational, even transcendent figure — has created a backlash among those unconvinced that he’s interested in the nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things. Ohio voters were more likely to say that Mr. Obama inspires them — but more likely to say that Mrs. Clinton has a clear plan for the country’s problems."

Experts Condemn Obama's Health Insurance Attack Mailer

From Larry Johnson's NoQuarterusa.net: "Harbage, 2/23/08: “As Senator John Edwards former Healthcare Advisor and a currently unaffiliated healthcare reform proponent, I think that anyone familiar with the Harry and Louise campaign from the early 1990s would immediately recognize the similarity between the insurance industry’s attacks and the Obama Campaign’s mailer. This attack simply drives the debate to the lowest common denominator of generating fear.”

Ezra Klein, American Prospect: “When I say that Obama is demagoguing universal health care, this sort of campaign literature is what I’m talking about…The Obama campaign kept their hairstyles and barely even changed their clothing — which is really quite unfair to Harry and Louise, who probably let go of the plaid years back. What’s worse is that the argument they’re making is applicable to any kind of universal health care arrangement, including the arrangements Obama himself will eventually have to adopt.”

Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2/1/08: “Sorry, but this is just destructive — like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed…I know that Obama supporters want to hear no evil, but this is really, really bad.”

Trudy Lieberman, Columbia Review of Journalism, 2/4/08: “[Obama’s] new mailer attacking [Senator Clinton’s] proposal resurrects the ghosts of Harry and Louise, the infamous pair in TV commercials sponsored by the insurance industry, which helped sink Bill Clinton’s efforts at reform. In those ads, a man and woman seated at the kitchen table worry that under his plan they wouldn’t be able to choose their doctor. The message: “If we let the government choose, we lose.” In Obama’s mailer, a man and a woman are seated in the same positions at a kitchen table—the woman even has the same long, blonde hair. The message: “Hillary’s plan forces everyone to buy insurance even if you can’t afford it. Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?”

Fact Check: Obama's Attack on Hillary's Health Plan are False

From factcheck.org: "Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context.
Summary
An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care. Specifically:

It touts measures included in Obama's plan to help low-income individuals buy insurance but fails to mention that Clinton would provide similar financial assistance.

It says Obama's plan would save the average family $2,500 per year – an estimate provided by experts at the campaign's request – but doesn't say that Clinton estimates hers will save $2,200 per year.


It also neglects to point out that Clinton's plan isn't the only one that would have an enforcement mechanism for those who failed to purchase insurance. Obama's plan, which would require that children be insured, would need one as well, though it would affect fewer persons. The Clinton campaign objected to the mailer on grounds that its image of a middle-class white couple is reminiscent of the "Harry and Louise" TV spots that the health insurance industry used to attack the 1993 Clinton health care plan. We see the resemblance, but fail to see the relevancy.
Analysis
Barack Obama said at the Jan. 31 debate in Los Angeles that his health care plan has "about 95 percent" in common with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's. Nevertheless, his campaign sent out a piece of direct mail that lacks a good amount of context and could mislead those who are not familiar with Clinton's plan. The mail piece drew an angry protest from the Clinton campaign, which compared it to the well-known "Harry and Louise" TV spots by the Health Insurance Association of America that attacked the 1993 Clinton health care planThe mailer focuses on the primary difference between the two candidates' proposals: whether they would require everyone to obtain coverage. Clinton's plan would require all Americans to get insurance, though she hasn't said what will happen if they don't. Obama's plan would require insurance for all children but not for adults. Both plans would help consumers with the cost of getting coverage – although you wouldn't know it from reading Obama's mailer.

Affordability for All?

The mailer opens with the claim that "Hillary’s health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." Clinton's plan does require everyone to have health insurance, and there will be some kind of penalty for those who don't comply. The mailer is correct on that point. But the Obama mailer leaves out any information on cost-reduction measures and low-income help that Clinton's plan offers, while it touts such measures found in his plan – some of which very closely mirror Clinton's.


For instance, the mailer says Obama's plan will save the average family $2,500 per year. That estimate comes from several Harvard professors who examined the plan at the Obama campaign's request. But Clinton says the Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, estimates her plan would do nearly as well, saving about $2,200 per year per family.


Also, the mailer says Obama's proposal "offers health care coverage for all Americans similar to that of members of Congress, and subsidies to help those who cannot afford it." It leaves out the fact that Clinton, too, proposes allowing Americans to "choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress," as her Web site states. Instead of direct federal subsidies, Clinton would rely on tax credits that hold premiums to a set percentage of income:


Clinton Plan: This credit will ensure that securing quality health care is never a crushing burden for any working family. This guarantee will be achieved through a premium affordability tax credit that ensures that health premiums never rise above a certain percentage of family income. The tax credit will be indexed over time, and designed to maintain consumer price consciousness in choosing health plans, even for those who reach the percentage of income limit.

The Clinton plan doesn’t specify what "a certain percentage" will be, and whether health care is perceived as a "crushing burden" will probably depend on the family. Obama's plan is similarly vague, promising "income-related federal subsidies" for those who "need assistance" but not specifying amount or eligibility requirements.

The Obama campaign is trying to shift the focus to some unspecified "punishment" that Clinton's plan would mete out for those who didn't obtain coverage. It's true that a "mandate" implies penalties for noncompliance, and Clinton's campaign has yet to outline what those would be. But Obama's plan, which would mandate coverage for children, would presumably also have some enforcement mechanism, and he doesn't make explicit what that would be, either, at least as his plan is laid out on his Web site.

According to news reports, the Clinton campaign lashed out at the use of the mailer in a conference call with selected reporters, complaining that the mail piece bears a resemblance to the "Harry and Louise" TV spots of 1993 and 1994

More Lies from Obama Campaign

Obama's campaign sent a mailer attacking Hillary's health care proposal using the same scare tactics that the insurance companies used against her plain in the 90's. So much for Obama's new kind of politics...

Obama's Claims about Success of Illinois Health Insurance Plan Prove False

According to Thecapitalfaxblog.com and The Chicago Sun-Times, contrary to Obama's claims about the success of the health care bill that he worked on in the Illinois Senate, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes (and fellow Democrat) stated that the number of uninsured people in Illinois between 2003 and 2006 have not decreased. This is the same health insurance bill that Obama had help from the insurance lobbyists to water it down.