By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, December 10, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Alderman and local Obama for America spokeswoman Kacie Starr Triplett, Missouri State Representative T.D. El-Amin, and PubDef.net editor Antonio D. French appeared on Magic 104.9 FM's "Sunday Morning Live" radio show yesterday to discuss plans for a large group of St. Louisans to travel to Iowa on Saturday, Dec. 15, to campaign on behalf of presidential candidate and U.S. Senator from Illinois Barack Obama.
10 Comments:
The Post Dispatch continues its subtle and not so subtle trashing of Obama on an almost daily basis. Paul Krugman has still another column--the third this month---raging about the shortcomings of obama's healthcare proposal---there are two sides to the mandate issue, but you will get only Krugman's in the PD. A subtle dig at Obama in the lead editorial, and of course the news department does its part. After reading about Huckabee's rationale for deporting Aides victims from 1992, and McCain's views, if you look real closely on page four---they do have a tiny article which mentions that Oprah was campaigning for Obama in a couple of states.
12/10/2007 11:39 AM
Edwards supporters are also making regular trips to Iowa to help the Edwards campaign, including on Saturday, Dec 15. E-mail me at archcityonecorps@yahoo.com for more info.
12/10/2007 1:02 PM
Kjoe, Obama's health care plan incentivizes free riders. Under Obama's health care plan, someone could avoid buying insurance, come down with a serious illness, and then purchase insurance with no penalty for not paying into the system prior to treatment. In other words, it's going to drive the cost of health care up. That's the sort of problem any health care plan that doesn't have a mandate will run into. Unless of course, you want to allow insurance companies to pick and choose customers based on their health.
Krugman's problem isn't so much with Obama's health care plan, which he regards as good but inadequate. He doesn't appreciate Obama bringing up Social Security as a crisis, and he's doesn't like the right-wing language the Obama campaign has employed to attack Clinton's health care plan.
12/10/2007 1:06 PM
Obama voted for the Gang Abatement Act that was passed on September 21st, 2007. The only reason Mychal Bell was released and his cased moved back to juvenile court was to ensure that knowledge of this federal legislation didn't come out beforehand. Had he been sentenced in the adult justice system, knowledge of the provisions in this and other legislation that makes pre-existing crimes federal would have come out.
This law is similar to the laws that allow credit card companies to raise the price of purchases after the merchandise has been obtained.
12/10/2007 5:37 PM
clarkent---you do a good job of summarizing the views of Krugman.......there are contrasting views which are not from the right wing---a constant accusation from the Clinton camp for anything that differs from her postions is that they must be either republican views or republican views in costume. Robert Reich--generally considered more liberal than either of the Clintons---Clinton's first secretary of labor until Dick Morris used his FOOT OR TOE OR WHATEVER to get rid of him so Clinton could focus on passing the republican agenda---is just one of many------------
Monday, December 03, 2007
Why is HRC stooping So Low?
I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.
I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.
Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."
I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.
All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up.
12/10/2007 8:16 PM
Things are changing hourly on the talking point memos site.
the closer you look-----
Poll: More Dems Think Hillary Is Running The Most Positive Campaign
By Greg Sargent - December 10, 2007, 2:15PM
This is pretty interesting: Despite the fact that the Obama campaign has been hitting Hillary pretty hard of late for her "attacks" on him, a new New York Times poll finds that more people think Hillary is running the most positive campaign of any of the Dem candidates:
but, by 4:38----
Poll: In Key Primary States, Hillary's Campaign Viewed As Most Negative
By Greg Sargent - December 10, 2007, 4:38PM
As we noted below, a new New York Times poll finds that Hillary's campaign is viewed as the most positive one by national Dems.
however,in the key primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the opposite appears to be true; hers is viewed as the most negative of the Dem campaigns.
12/10/2007 8:28 PM
I'm so glad I don't listen to KMJM...I can barely stand to hear Triplett whine...El-Amin complain, and French say whatever he is paid to say
12/12/2007 3:12 PM
Barack Obama is not a client of mine. In fact, I plan to give money to him. Does that mean he's going to say good things about PubDef? Hmmmmm...
12/12/2007 4:08 PM
i thought the comments were helpful and the call to action genuine.
I went to Iowa about a month ago; it is definitely the place to be.
I talked to a good number of people who have never caucused before, but were going to participate this time around, only because they believed that Obama is a genuine voice for change.
That is what his candidacy is all about. Hillary may be able to turn out unions in droves, but only Obama is energizing a set of "non-voters." That is what he can do on a national level and why I'm going back to Iowa. I hope anyone who supports him can find the time before Jan. 3rd.
j
12/12/2007 7:33 PM
thanks for the Reich commentary kjoe.
12/12/2007 7:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home