Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Flexing Her Rhetorical "Will"

By Jose Antonio Vargas
LYNDHURST, Ohio -- Sen. Hillary Clinton has upped the imperative ante, countering Sen. Barack Obama's call of "Yes, we can!" with "Yes, we will!"

Sometimes a rallying cry is born on a whim. At a Democratic Party fundraiser in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Clinton was on attack mode, criticizing Obama's health care policy. "I believe that the Democratic nominee in 2008 has to stand firmly on universal health care," she said. "My opponent has given up on the fight ..."

One of her supporters yelled out, "Yes, we can!" Sensing an opportunity, Clinton quickly retorted: "Yes, we will!"

Clinton later brought that slogan to a packed rally of about 3,000 at Lyndhurst's Charles F. Brush High School. Fighting off a cold, she touched on familiar issues during a 20-minute speech. She promised to change the tax code if she's elected and told the crowd that there would be no jobs exported out of Ohio. She spoke of green-collar jobs, a reference to the country's need to be more energy-efficient. After talking about health care, which she calls "a moral right," she led the mostly young and boisterous crowd into chanting: "Yes, we will! Yes, we will! Yes, we will!"

Clinton traversed Ohio on Friday, starting at the historic Skyline Chili in Cincinnati, where she ordered two Coney Chese chili dogs and addressed a standing room-only crowd of mostly women, before heading to Akron, Cuyahoga Falls and Lyndhurst in the northeast corner of the state. She struck a populist note at every stop, declaring herself "of, from and for the middle class," and noting, "There's a big difference between speeches and solutions and talk and action."

Highlighting the importance of the Buckeye State in November, Clinton said, "It's been said that Ohio has sent more presidents to the White House than any other state. Well, it's time you pick a president that will make a difference in Ohio."

By Post Editor  |  February 15, 2008; 8:44 PM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama (D-Bears) in Packerland
Next: Black Commenter, Criticizing Obama, Causes Firestorm

Comments

That "Yes we will" repetition was so painful, I had to fast forward past it. Doesn't she have a speech coach? After the 3rd repeat, she should have at _least_ figured out that the crowd wasn't chanting with her, at all. I suspect the crowd was staring in disbelief that their favorite candidate was making such a complete fool of herself.

Posted by: Colin Purrington | April 24, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

elbr dmtl nbkz kmop paudvls ylvba naqrjmpb [URL]http://www.ywer.agupnwk.com[/URL] oyuwbgcmi wgrfnbz

Posted by: plozcq wkyrm | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

bzodkpwf xmefyjrz pubraqx kbjrqe sogjwl sfgbei mfirlos [URL=http://www.cxmbtdu.qplmzg.com]pzcufr selo[/URL]

Posted by: bsfl xzwfbhri | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

hdenxt acgbxs uynzeixf jdogfxam entdpc nrvjb wbxg hfqbjzngy cfdgnhz

Posted by: uftqkhlji ejmkscyu | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

hdenxt acgbxs uynzeixf jdogfxam entdpc nrvjb wbxg hfqbjzngy cfdgnhz

Posted by: uftqkhlji ejmkscyu | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

hdenxt acgbxs uynzeixf jdogfxam entdpc nrvjb wbxg hfqbjzngy cfdgnhz

Posted by: uftqkhlji ejmkscyu | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

qgrjcad hfotx izltkr woqbhxgu wzmdjgiy coalxfz hjqezy

Posted by: njrfi orwxamd | April 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

If Obama can co-opt MLK, Linclon and JFK, Hllary can take a bi-line or two from the audience.

It's a lot more participatory and less egocentric.

Some of the posters here really need to read: Call me a snob we're a nation of dunces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html?nav=hcmodule

Posted by: vammap | February 17, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Yes we will"???

Hillary has never struck an original note in her life.

Which is why Chris Matthews astutely noted this week that Obama is Mozart and Hillary is Salieri.

All she has left is poison at this point.

Funny how desperately the smaller amongst us feel the need to bring down the giants.

Posted by: filmex | February 17, 2008 4:09 AM | Report abuse

Obama offers empty promises and hope in a pastor style.

A lot of people say they:

CAN stop smoking, but they WILL NOT

They CAN find a job, but they WILL NOT

Every person and our society consists from two opposite parts CAN DO and WILL DO

Between CAN DO and WILL DO is a hell of a difference and they quite opposite.

Obama is a CAN DO type personality and Hillary is a WILL DO type of personality.

Weak people CAN DO everything, but WILL NOT DO anything

Obama supporters' bad reaction on the new Hillary slogan tells me that it hit the spot.

YES, WE WILL - slogan describes correctly Hillary as a person of action and not just empty promises of hope and miracle change.

Bravo Hillary!

Posted by: berenstain | February 17, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

no, she won't.

The Clintons got elected in 1992 promising health care. They failed. They got elected in 1996 promising health care. They failed (actually they barely tried once they got elected, which was all that mattered -- power and money for them, not health care for the people). Now they want to get elected a third time yet again promising health care. If she does happen to become president, she'll run in 2012 promising...you guessed it.. health care.

People fall for this over and over again. Sure she has a proposal, but proposals are meaningless if you don't have 6o votes in the senate who will support you. Her health care plan is meaningless because she'll never get any of her legislative proposals passed in congress.

Just look at Bush's inaugural address after he won in 2004. Like Hillary, he had all kinds of proposals and plans. Fix social security, fix immigration, fix this, fix that. He had plans for everything, plus "political capital." All of it died in congress because he didn't have 60 votes.

If people want to fall for the same old tricks over and over, go ahead and support Hillary. All you'll get is total gridlock, division, hatred, then a newly tailored version of Hillary 2012 yet again promising health care, like a broken record.

Posted by: rwb111 | February 17, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Obama's answer: "Yes, we already are." While Clinton scrambles to catch up on the rhetoric front, Obama is already building the grassroots coalition that will help him force Congress to change its ways.

I've spent years thinking that I was doing my public duty just by voting. The Obamas (for Michelle deserves some credit here as well) have given me hope, motivation, and focus to start doing more. Holding my nose to register non-independent and vote in a primary for the first time is just the beginning. I'm going to go to a city council meeting next, and who knows where it will go from there.

Posted by: Adastra8 | February 16, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

jade
you know i am a reagan democrat and a clinton supporter from cincinnati. i told her at the first stop "yes we will" is what her presidency is about. anybody can, few will. it was not copying obama , it was feeling her supporter's need for a can-do president.

i will vote for mccain if obama is nominee

Posted by: duganal | February 16, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at http://www.16yearplan.com

Posted by: steven4 | February 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"Well, Obama's followers are like a cult where some of them may end up committing "suicide" if he loses"

Posted by: vs_sv | February 16, 2008 07:20 AM

We can only HOPE, vs_sv...lol

Posted by: hotnuke1965 | February 16, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I see all of the lying, lowlife, scum of the earth, pieces of sh*t racist Obama supporters are out in force today...lol

As I've said on many other occasions, Obama supporters are no better than the vicious, TREASONOUS, mindless, lying, lowlife, xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, bigoted lowlife scumbag, Right-Wing, Neo-Fascist Repuglikkkunts. They use the SAME talking points about the Clintons. They use the SAME deceptive tactics. They use the SAME hate-mongering rhetoric. They use the SAME basic ideology of DIVISION MASKED AS UNITY.

To me, they're TRAITORS to everything this nation stands for. They're sick, disgusting scum.

Posted by: hotnuke1965 | February 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Highly educated, upper income people don't tend to riot.

Posted by: bevoroni | February 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Upper income, highly educated people don't don't tend to riot.

Posted by: bevoroni | February 16, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama once supported Universal Healthcare now he doesn't he caved to insurance company and has lied and attacked Hillary's plan using the rightwing smear of the 90s, people your ignorant in your support obama. Hillary provides the money to those who can't afford it, obama provides subsidies, but mandates parent to insure their children but not themselves, their guardians and providers. How does he suggest this mandate is enforced? forcing payment of back premiums and the hospital bill, obama is a coward and doesn't stand for anything but his own bellowing rhetoric.

VOTE FOR OUR COUNTRY, VOTE FOR CLINTON.

educate yourselves people the media hype and obama lies have transcended your ability to think logically and responsibly, our country is in way to much trouble for you to faulter on your intellect.

Posted by: sjl106 | February 16, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

How can Hillary promise to not have any jobs leave Ohio, when she hasn't been able to stop them from leaving upstate NY in the past number of years as she's been senator from NY? Just check out the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Binghamton, and Corning as proof! That's one major reason why I, as a resident of central western NY, will never vote for her if she is the Dem nominee. Charity starts at home!

Posted by: chrishpl | February 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary gives the speech at the dinner in Virgina the day of three Obama victories and she does not have the class to mention any form of congratulation to Barack Obama on the wins. It is all political spin with her. Announcing she donated $5M to her campaign the day after super Tuesday, refusing to disclose tax returns, race baiting in South Carolina and then blaming it on the press, wanted to overturn the rules agreed to in Nebraska, leaving her name on the Michigan ballot while all others took theirs off, and now she wants those votes to count. It goes on and on, making it clear she cares only about getting herself elected regardless of the damage it does to the Democratic Party. People are so turned off by this that if she were nominated So many Hillary supports just seem to give her a Bill a pass on their outrageous conduct in this campaign.I firmly believe we would see the independent voter move from their support of Obama and turn around and head to McCain.

Posted by: yosemite97 | February 16, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is right, it's not about words, it's about action. Her actions as leader of her campaign are exemplary. It has been a first-class organization characterized by a sound strategy executed perfectly. She nailed the finances too. That is why she has a commanding lead. Of course her actions have earned my respect. Now Obama has to go negative and stoop to gutter politics and cheating. He is behind. He has not been able to capture the American people. MI, FL, Superdelegates, Bill and Hillary. It's like death and taxes, only worse.

Posted by: brooksofsheffield | February 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama has used that line way before... so has Clinton been the copycat here? I think we should realize that campaigns use whatever works. Clinton borrowed change when it worked for Obama and now she borrows this.

Posted by: goldie2 | February 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

If Sen Obama had stood up the week of the SC primary and said, "All this talk of the Clintons campaigning on racism is baseless and out of line. The Clintons have always been champions of the causes of people of color and I expect they always will be", he'd probably have my vote.
He didn't, and I count that very heavily against him in my personal voting calculus.

Posted by: zukermand | February 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Fact Checker
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_backroom_deal.html

"Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."
--Hillary Clinton, ABC-Politico Forum, Feb. 11, 2008.

Hillary Clinton has leveled a serious charge against Barack Obama, her colleague on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. During the ABC-Politico forum earlier this week, she suggested that Obama "cut some deals" on nuclear regulatory legislation with the Exelon company of Illinois, a major nuclear power operator. She implied that the backroom "deal" was somehow connected to contributions to the Obama campaign from Exelon.

Both the Obama campaign and Exelon strongly deny these charges, while acknowledging "contacts" between Obama staffers and Exelon officials on the nuclear bill. For the record, Obama has not received any corporate contributions from Exelon. But senior Exelon executives have contributed more than $160,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and $46,000 to his 2004 Senate run.

So what is going on here?

The Facts
Local residents and environmental groups have long complained about unreported releases of radioactive water from Exelon-operated plants in Illinois. Their fears were confirmed in December 2005 when Exelon revealed that more than six million gallons of waste water containing low levels of radioactive tritium had been released from the Braidwood nuclear plant in Braceville, Il., 60 miles south-west of Chicago, in 1996, 1998, and 2000, without the public being informed. The County attorney later accused Exelon of "callous disregard" for public health and safety.

On January 1, 2006, Obama introduced a bill, S. 2348, to help allay the concerns of Illinois citizens. The original draft of the legislation required nuclear plant operators to "immediately notify" local communities of any "unplanned release" of radioactive substances in excess of federal limits (ON EXELON HONOR?.

The legislation was subsequently Modified in committee over the objections of some environmental activists. The new draft shifted responsibility for drafting the regulations away from Congress itself to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the goverment's nuclear watchdog. Both drafts are available here.

The chief Exelon lobbyist on the Obama bill was David C. Brown.

Posted by: rmcnicoll | February 16, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Sappykismet,

your 'citations' are laughable - i'm not sure where your first link went, but the article says nothing about Obama. The point of the second seems to imply that by following the rules, Obama is the bad guy. I see youre already laying the groundwork for an attempt to subvert the rules as they are. shrewd.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Hillary always has had a problem with rules, hasnt she?

Posted by: maq1 | February 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

This may be nitpicking, but "yes, we can" sounds a bit harsh and Bush-like in its tone. Sort of like the "Decider" quote; We don't ant another bully at 1600 who wants their way - or else. That's one of the reasons Sen Obama is fading...

Posted by: zukermand | February 16, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

This may be nitpicking, but "yes, we will" sounds a bit harsh and Bush-like in its tone. Sort of like the "Decider" quote; We don't ant another bully at 1600 who wants their way - or else. That's one of the reasons Hillary is fading...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | February 16, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Of course, if Mr Vargas keeps this up, I expect his presence at venues of this broad exposure is surely short-lived. The Heathers he works with and for will not stand by while one of their number demonstrates their ridiculousness.

All the more reason to support his effort.

Posted by: zukermand | February 16, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I've been harshly critical of the reporters' "work" on this blog. Deservedly so. However, credit where due, Mr Vargas has demonstrated more journalistic integrity and professional responsibility in his last two posts than that of the entire body of work that comprises this blog over the last several months.
The simple act of reporting events, without snide inferences and cartoonish characterizations, is such a breath of fresh air through the putrid stench that normally prevails on this page, that my faith in humanity suddenly flares brightly again.
They say people don't change, maybe they're wrong. Maybe some of us actually care about things larger than ourselves enough to do so. Maybe Mr Vargas is one of those.

Posted by: zukermand | February 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Oh, what a creative force Hillary is turning out to be.

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

So, um, the article is about how Clinton has changed her message again?

Until Obama came along she never used the word "we". She has always said"I". And, in fact, she is the ultimate I candidate. Because her campaign is really all about her.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | February 16, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is policy wonk and not an original thinker who inspires people to action. I changed political parties in order to vote for Obama in the primary. Hillary cannot and does not inspire me that way (though she was a College Repub and a Goldwater girl). Hillary Clinton looks more Republican with Machiavelli machinations on steroids. Hillary will doom the Democratic Party before considering what is in its best interests. So if the DNC wants to nominate her, have at it. We will then hear "Hail to the Chief" being played for McCain.

Posted by: meldupree | February 16, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Hillary now is trying to do the same thing Barack Obama has been doing all along since day one. She is trying to excite voters about her "solutions" and using the catch phrase "Yes we will!" The next thing she will come out with is her "Audacity to Hope". Is there anyone who can believe you can run to be the presidential candidate with out having the hope you will be the candidate? Is there anyone so simple minded that they believe a candidate can put out solutions to problems with out the hope and conviction that they will truely solve the problems? This is why the Clinton's criticisms of Obama's message rings so shallow. If you show me a candidate out on the campaign trail who is not hopfull, I will show you the next 2nd place finisher!

Posted by: mvers | February 16, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton says that Obama's words are cheap. She also says that his words are just talk, and that his message is meaningless. By diminishing the value of Obama's words, she's calling him a fraud. She knows that millions of people across America believe his words and believe in his dream and hope with him for a better America.

Obama's words are not cheap. He is not a hope monger. Obama says that we are the ones we have been waiting for, and America believes him. For years we have searched for a leader who would renew our hope and who would help us believe in ourselves. With his leadership and with what we can achieve for ourselves and for America, we will change the World.

Hillary doesn't always spell out exactly what her words mean. Her campaign is not creative and it has included some of Obama's phrases, but recently, she even tried to imitate Obama, by including the phrase, "yes, we will", which is a copy-cat of our own YES, WE CAN.
Hillary, it's too late to be inspirational, really too late.

Posted by: esther_624 | February 16, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

In the debates, Hillary should ask Obama about "exaggerating" his drug habits ( NY Times artcile) to get the youth vote

Posted by: vs_sv | February 16, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Well, Obama's followers are like a cult where some of them may end up committing "suicide" if he loses

Posted by: vs_sv | February 16, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

please Hillary and Hillary supporters, coalesce around the future of this country and let's all back Barack Obama for President. 2008 is bigger than the Clintons and it's bigger than the Democratic Party, it's about the future of the United States of America and we all need a new page to start moving forward from

Posted by: churtmah | February 16, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton:

"Yes we will" take money from lobbyists.
"Yes we will" play the race card.
"Yes we will" steal votes from Michigan.
"Yes we will" mismanage our campaign.
"Yes we will" divide this nation.

AND

YES WE WILL NOT COME UP WITH ANYTHING ORIGINAL!!!

Posted by: chris30338 | February 16, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

This is so funny! First they ridicule the guy and then they imitate him. Can the HRC campaign come up with anything original??? And she wants to run this country? What a retard.

Posted by: chris30338 | February 16, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

"I'd rather choose yes we will over yes we can anyday."

Yes, Emily - it took a lot of "intelligence", "experience", "toughness", "electability", and "humanity" to steal something else from an oppoenent which she has been doing this entire campaign (anything that seems to work for someone else).

How much do you wanna bet that the "Clinton supporter in the crowd" who conveniently yelled out, "Yes we can", offering Hillary the chance to turn her new phrase was another Clinton PLANT? Come on . . . Hillary leading a chant of, "Yes we will" to close out her stump speech? GIVE ME A BREAK!

First Hillary ridicules. She and her supporters criticize and belittle speeches and enthusiasm and when that doesn't work, they steal the very thing they have been ridiculing. I suppose their is nothing wrong with such tactics now that Hillary has embraced (stolen) them.

Posted by: diksagev | February 16, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

They have been a lot of interesting primary polls over the past 24 hours, especially the latest from Wisconsin that has Obama narrowly up -- http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/02/cleaning-out-friday-poll-wisconsins.html -- as well as the three Texas polls released this morning that have better news for Clinton: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/02/texas-hybrid-polls-and-explanation.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | February 16, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

"My opponent has given up on the fight ..."

GIVE ME A BREAK - to quote a former President who shall remain nameless. Not only is Clinton's assertion that Senator Obama has "given up the fight" on Universal Health Care a blatant lie; it's a case of her trying to have it both ways.

In negative attack ads that Hillary Clinton has been running in Texas and other places, she made most wreckless statement to date, charging Senator Obama with "making a backroom deal"; essentially accusing him (with absolutely zero evidence) of watering down the wording in a bill he authored in the Senate in exchange for contributions from one of the nuclear energy companies, Excelon, which was a target of the legislation requiring more timely notification of area residents whenever there was any spill or leak involving radiation at any facility. The truth of the matter is that the GOP still held control of Congress at the time, and the Republican Chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee (Inhofe) indicated he was going to kill the bill in committee if Senator Obama did not change the wording of the bill. This account has been confirmed by Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Richard Durbin, two other Democratic Senators who sat on that committee. The bill ultimately "died amid parliamentary wrangling" on the floor of the Senate, but Senator Obama did what he had to and managed to ramrod his bill through the committee despite opposition from the Republican Chairman and others. Apparently this is what Hillary Rodham Clinton views as "giving up the fight" and "making a backroom deal"!

Clinton knows full well that her accusations are obsenely false. Hillary actually signed on as a co-sponsor to that very same "watered down" bill when it successfully made it out of Committee and she trumpeted the Bill for all the good it would do on her own web site. Only NOW that an increasingly desperate Hillary Clinton is losing to Senator Obama in the Democratic Presidential Primary does she dare to disparage the Bill she once praised and co-sponsored and uses what she knows to be bold faced lies to attack the author of that bill.

This is the true Hillary Clinton. The Senator who never met a lie she didn't like and who will say ANYTHING to get elected!

Posted by: diksagev | February 16, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

"I believe that the Democratic nominee in 2008 has to stand firmly on universal health care," she said. "My opponent has given up on the fight ..."

This is just one of (literally) dozens of lies Hillary Clinton has been repeating over and over again in recent weeks. In the last 3-4 days, it's been hard to find a word that came out of her mouth that wasn't a blatant lie about her opponent or her own campaign.

Take a look at what Bill Clinton's former Secretary of Labor has to say about the two remaining candidates positions on the issue of Universal Health Care for a little more unbiased assessment:

As a practical matter, the difference between Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's approaches come down to timing and sequencing. Mrs. Clinton wants a mandate first, believing that enrolling the younger and healthier will help reduce costs for everyone else. Mr. Obama thinks forcing people to buy health insurance before it's affordable isn't realistic. He wants to lower health costs first, and is willing to consider a mandate only if necessary.

This fight is little more than a distraction, given that a mandate would matter only to a tiny portion of Americans. All major Democratic candidates and virtually all experts agree that the combination of purchasing pools, subsidies, easy enrollment and mandatory coverage of children will cover a large majority of those who currently lack insurance -- even without a mandate that adults purchase it. A big chunk of the remainder are undocumented immigrants, who aren't covered by any of the plans.

Who's left? Only around 3% of the population. So the question they're really battling over is whether it's better to require this 3% to buy insurance, or lure them into buying it with low rates and subsidies.

The answer depends on who's in this 3%. Mrs. Clinton thinks they're mostly younger and healthier than the general population so they should be required to buy health insurance. That way, they'll bring costs down for everyone else because their payments will subsidize the others.

Mr. Obama thinks a lot of them are people who won't be able to afford even the subsidized premiums, so they'd either ignore a mandate or wouldn't be able to pay for it. He says if his plan gets 97% coverage without a mandate and he finds that the remaining 3% are mostly young and healthy, he'll go along with a mandate.

Who's correct? It's hard to know. So far, the Massachusetts experiment suggests Mr. Obama. Massachusetts is the only state to require that every resident purchase health insurance. The penalty for failing to do so could reach $4,000 next year, but the state has already exempted almost 20% of its current uninsured from the requirement. Massachusetts is concerned they can't afford a policy, even with subsidies similar to those in all the Democratic plans. So far, about 50% of Massachusetts's uninsured have complied with the mandate.

Posted by: diksagev | February 16, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Actually, the facts show it should be, "No, we haven't."

Barack vs. Hillary- The Google Effect:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Posted by: davidmwe | February 16, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Anyone remember Bush the Uniter??? Obama reminds me of that. People voted for Bush because they could have beer with him and now Obama because he gives them hope. But the problem is Media has bought into this cult like following of Obama. They don't see him as politician. I didn't see the outrage in media when Michelle O said she maynot vote for Hillary if she got the nomination. That is what I call hatred. Did you much coverage on that? Nope... DO you see Obama has been taking jabs at Clinton on the Iraq vote and her health care plan saying that she is going to take away their money. Did you see media and cult members pay attention to that and show outrage at his negative campaign.. Nope not at all. It is like his followers are brainwashed. Any one with open mind can see that he is no more than a politician and each candidate is trying to win. But you will hear a lot of uproar when Clinton campaign says anything against Obama. I don't understand how he can be such a hypocrite and with a straight face talk about Clinton attacking when down. I think he is going to create more division in the country because there are going to be many Obama haters when he wins the nomination especially those who can see through him. At least clinton says she can take the heat whereas Obama runs a negetive campagin and lies to the masses that he is running a positive campaign. He is more dangerous in my opinion. He was not even in the Senate when the there was a vote on Iraq, he was a leigislature and he voted present. that is what Bill was saying when he was talking about Fairy tale but media blew it out of proportion becuse they are Obama;s cult members.
I moved to US some 16 years ago. Recently got my Citizenship so as to vote in the elections. Now I am seriously considering sitting it out because it is just a circus.
No one talks issues and with all her faults, Clinton at least provides some details and is ready to debate. Which reminds me about Obama's denial to debate. Imagine Clinton not agreeing for debate? I do not see media uproar on that issue either. If he is not ready for debate, how is he ready to be the next president? And this about Clinton wanting to change the rules about Florida delegates? What about OBama wanting to change the rules about Superdelegates and requiring them to vote according to popular vote etc.. The rule is that is pledged delegates are close then superdelegates decide, key word is "decide" the nomination. Why does he not want to let them decide? Why does he want them to vote according to the pledged delegate? Let the rules apply in the both cases. So there is no reason to keep one candidate on pedestal.

Stop the Cult, Vote smart, vote Clinton

Posted by: sonali_dave | February 16, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was a decent President, but his brand of politics (triangulation) was bad for the Democratic Party. The Dems lost seats everywhere -- Senate, House, State houses, Governorships -- while he was in office. It took Howard Dean to give the Party its voice back. Hilary would be more of the same Bill. I say "no, thanks" to that brand of politics.

And, you know what? If voting for the Iraq War is her idea of a solution, than I want no part of her "solutions". Solutions -- what a joke! Name one significant solution she has ever implemented. All I know is that she has been part of the problem the last 7 years. Bush didn't do all of this damage on his own. He had a whole pack of D's in the House and the Senate not putting up any sort of resistance at all. Not only that, they -- and that includes Hilary -- were voting for some of his dumb stuff. She has even voted for the Patriot Act -- twice! How dumb is that?

Posted by: dwillmore | February 16, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that not only has McCain followed Obama's lead slogan of Fired Up and Ready to Go but here comes Clinton with an twist to an Obama slogan. Someone once said that the mark of a good leader is one who learns to follow the leader. One thing is for certain, Clinton does know how to follow a greater leader, Obama, with some seasoning, one day she too may be a great leader. But that day has not yet come upon her, so follow The Leader, YES WE CAN and get Fired Up and Ready to Go to a better and brighter America for all, not just the rich, famous or well connected but for all of America. All aboard the Barack Obama Express, next stop the White House. A CHANGE IS GOING TO COME TO AMERICA, via the Barack Obama Express, YES IT WILL.

Posted by: lopwise | February 16, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

maq1:

Thanks for the suggestions on rhetoric and tone. I know your candidate relies on both heavily. Let me know if the Republicans are as impressed with your sophistry.

As for Obama eliminating his competition, here are a few links. The man knows his way around a ballot. Of course, he's a Daley acolyte from the old Chicago school. My point is not to claim sainthood for Hillary. But the "scandal-ridden" meme is overhyped. Simply put, none of the '90s scandals stuck, absent Ken Starr's $100 million bj zealotry. My point is to draw a stark contrast to Obama's over-the-top aspirationalism. No one in politics is untainted by the unseemliness of the process. Some are just bigger hypocrites than others.

2004 Senate race: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406220247jun22,1,7688140.story

Illinois State Senate in 1997:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local /chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?ct rack=2&cset=true


Posted by: sappykismet | February 16, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton:

"Yes we will" take money from lobbyists.
"Yes we will" get millions in earmarks.
"Yes we will" play the race card.
"Yes we will" steal votes from Michigan.
"Yes we will" mismanage our campaign.
"Yes we will" attack with falsehoods.
"Yes we will" divide this nation.

YES WE WILL. YES WE WILL.

HOPE. NOPE.

Posted by: junkmail | February 16, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Why should Latinos trust Obama when his track record in actually doing what he says he will do is so poor? Talk to me Obama, be concrete about the ugly realities of poverty, hate, race, and cultural conflict in the neighborhood and how you are different from Hilary in your solutions; and just to say that you were are community organizer and legal services attorney (mere badges) is not enough. I would also like to see some of your original thinking; stealing Hilary's plans or playing off the romance of heroes like MLK or others does not cut it. Your economic plans do not tie together into a coherent whole, your cheerleading (ala George Bush) is great pep rally stuff for the sidelines but it certainly does not qualify you to be on the field of play, and most of all you just don't have the strength of character that it takes to stand by your constituents and not sell them out for your own self-interest.

Posted by: truthteller52 | February 15, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Its disingenuous for Clinton to claim that Obama's plan is not universal because it doesnt force you to but health insurance you can't afford. before anyone should be forced to by anything, it should first be made affordable. And if you do mandate it, please tell us how you will enforce it. And how much enforcement will cost. and how effective it will be.

Robert Reich, Clinton's former Labor Secretary and Economist/Professor at Berkeley, had these thoughts to offer on the health care issue.

"As a practical matter, the difference between Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's approaches come down to timing and sequencing. Mrs. Clinton wants a mandate first, believing that enrolling the younger and healthier will help reduce costs for everyone else. Mr. Obama thinks forcing people to buy health insurance before it's affordable isn't realistic. He wants to lower health costs first, and is willing to consider a mandate only if necessary.

This fight is little more than a distraction, given that a mandate would matter only to a tiny portion of Americans. All major Democratic candidates and virtually all experts agree that the combination of purchasing pools, subsidies, easy enrollment and mandatory coverage of children will cover a large majority of those who currently lack insurance -- even without a mandate that adults purchase it. A big chunk of the remainder are undocumented immigrants, who aren't covered by any of the plans.

Who's left? Only around 3% of the population. So the question they're really battling over is whether it's better to require this 3% to buy insurance, or lure them into buying it with low rates and subsidies.

The answer depends on who's in this 3%. Mrs. Clinton thinks they're mostly younger and healthier than the general population so they should be required to buy health insurance. That way, they'll bring costs down for everyone else because their payments will subsidize the others.

Mr. Obama thinks a lot of them are people who won't be able to afford even the subsidized premiums, so they'd either ignore a mandate or wouldn't be able to pay for it. He says if his plan gets 97% coverage without a mandate and he finds that the remaining 3% are mostly young and healthy, he'll go along with a mandate.

Who's correct? It's hard to know. So far, the Massachusetts experiment suggests Mr. Obama. Massachusetts is the only state to require that every resident purchase health insurance. The penalty for failing to do so could reach $4,000 next year, but the state has already exempted almost 20% of its current uninsured from the requirement. Massachusetts is concerned they can't afford a policy, even with subsidies similar to those in all the Democratic plans. So far, about 50% of Massachusetts's uninsured have complied with the mandate.

A mandate may not make much difference anyway. Columbia University professor Sherry Glied and her colleagues investigated health-insurance mandates now in place in Switzerland and the Netherlands. They report in the November-December issue of Health Affairs that mandates can, but don't always, increase coverage. Whether they do depends on the cost of complying with them and the penalties for not doing so. Overall, they found, the effects of mandates largely reinforced existing high levels of coverage. Switzerland now enjoys near-universal coverage, but this reflects only a tiny increase over the rate of coverage before it was mandated, when over 98% of population had mostly voluntary coverage.

It's expected that gloves will come off in the last months of a primary campaign. But by warring over mandates, Democrats are leading with their chins. It's the least important aspect of what they're offering. It's also, to many Americans, the least attractive because it conjures up a big government bullying people into doing what they'd rather not do.

The public is ready for universal health insurance, but getting any plan through Congress will still be tricky. To get it enacted after January 2009, Democrats need to start building a movement in support of the big and important reforms universal health insurance requires -- and on which they happen to agree.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is clearly leading the way on economic policies, check this out...

TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Neera Tanden, Policy Director
DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 2008
RE: Senator Obama's Economic Speech in Wisconsin

Those covering Senator Obama's economic speech in Wisconsin today could be forgiven if it felt like déjà vu all over again. Voters may ask themselves that if Senator Obama cannot produce his own ideas on the campaign trail, how will he solve new problems as President?

Senator Obama's only "new" ideas were ones that Senator Clinton proposed months ago:

His "new" proposal for a national infrastructure bank is one that Hillary proposed August 8, 2007. ["I'm proud to co-sponsor Senator Dodd and Senator Hagel's National Infrastructure Bank Act that we just introduced to establish a federally-backed independent bank that will evaluate and finance large infrastructure projects by subsidies, loan guarantees, and bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States." Rebuilding America speech, 8/8/07; S. 1926, 8/1/07]

His "new" proposal to create 5 million green collar jobs was proposed by Hillary on November 5, 2007. ["And three, to move us from a carbon-based economy to an efficient, green economy by unleashing a wave of private-sector innovation in clean energy and energy efficiency. I believe that will create at least five million good new jobs from clean energy over the next decade." Energy and Climate speech, 11/5/07]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt praises Hillary's plan to create 5 million Green Collar jobs, 11/5/07: "By emphasizing the connection between promoting a green efficient economy and job creation, Senator Clinton's plan seeks to harness the power of technology and innovation to address one of our most pressing global challenges...The goal of producing 5 million new jobs can be achieved by private sector investment and bipartisan support for increased research and development in efficiency and clean energy."

In addition, while Senator Obama was busy resuscitating Hillary's policies, he failed to offer real solutions for the most pressing economic challenges that Americans families face. As Hillary explained this morning, "a plan that fails to provide universal health care, fails to address the housing crisis, and fails to immediately start creating good paying jobs in America again will not turn the economy around and provide the real relief that our people need. We need real results not more rhetoric."

Posted by: MAB2 | February 15, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Hillary! I am so impressed with her knowledge and passion. She will bring us Universal Health care and turn around our economy. She knows what it takes to bring about the change that America is seeking.

Her website is a great source for details on the change she plans to bring about. I encourage folks to check it out to decide for themselves.

www.hillaryclinton.com

Posted by: MAB2 | February 15, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Sappykismet,

You referenced "Chicago-style electoral thuggery," and said "Obama usually wins campaigns by eliminating the competition."

Can you support this? How has he 'eliminated' Hillary? Somehow, anyone that deign to challenge Hillary and command popular support is turned into an Arch-villain. You're hyperbole verges on ridiculous and makes clear why you don't believe in consensus. You use of language indicates you lack any understanding of nuance whatsoever.

If you're looking to convince people, I suggest you engage reality, and cut the slander.

In Obama's defense, he has not raised any of the major scandals that plagued the Clinton presidency, a number of which directly involved Hillary. If you want to talk about destruction of opponents, you out to look to your own candidate. She's got that down.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

I believe it's not "over" until a nominee secures the minimum number of acquired delegates. And no nominee on the Democratic side is over even to 2/3 of the way there yet. Why all the grave-dancing? Why not wait until the voters have their say? Obama usually wins campaigns by eliminating the competition, I understand that. But to declare this as "over" right now ignores political reality. Candidates go bust all the time out of nowhere, especially when they're surging Dems.

I know your visceral hate for Hillary is seething. And if Obama sweeps on March 4, then it really is over. But that is a political eternity from now in America. Restrain your schadenfreude and let the process unfold as it will.

Posted by: sappykismet | February 15, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Sappykismet,

I respect your dedication to liberal/progressive values, but I have to question how you figure Hillary as the candidate that will most honor them. She's combative and has an axe to grind against Republicans, but beyond that, she's empty pugilism. She takes more money from lobbyists than any of the candidates have. Her earmarks far surpass any of Obama's totals (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303635_pf.html)

I'm sorry, but Hillary is not the champion of liberalism you seem to think she is. She's just the champion of Hillary.

What, specifically, do you think is so far right about Obama? His healthcare plan? The mandate issue is a red herring and any even feigning objectivity admits that (see Robert Reich's thoughts about the mandate non-issue: "Democrats should stop squabbling over healthcare mandates" http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html)

Sen. Obama is not advocating that any liberals give up their values. He's simply saying, "if you wanna see progress, check your baggage at the door." The battles that leave you shell-shocked are not the same issues we are struggling with today. An Obama vs. McCain election will re-paint the political map of this country. Policy victories and a sizably larger democratic party will be the result, if you let it be.

Its not Hillary's policy goals that are the issue. Its her inability to embrace the new approach needed to accomplish them.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

It's over. Her campaign will get uglier with each passing day, then Obama will beat her again. You really see her ego these past 24 hours: The John Lewis situation was announcing that the supers will not bail her out. She just scoffs and looks for another angle. Not going to happen. It's over.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 15, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Once more Clinton and her campaign display an inability to innovate, create, motivate or do anything more than copy.

Clinton has been unable to craft a coherent message about what she and her campaign stands for, other than a return to 1992.

Every other week there is a new slogan, cobbled together by strategy team that seems more content to fight with each other, than help their candidate figure out why she wants to be president. The candidate can do little more than offer laundry list after laundry of thin promises that, based on the record she's running on (her husband's) are not likely to be delivered, nor will the candidate be willing to stand by her promises later. History -- her and HIS record -- is meant to be revised and redacted by the Clintons. And when all else fails, it is time to blame everyone else for failure that lies squarely at the feet of the candidate.

Time for something different. Yes we will is a carbon-copy of yes we can... Ready... Tested... is the copy of Rudy Giuliani's failed slogan. A positive change making agent making change for 35 years of change didn't work. Solutions is a rehash of GW Bushes "Reformer with Results." "Mission Accomplished" was the message out of NH, but that didn't work either.

After blowing through $140 million dollars, secretly loaning her campaign $5 million to kept it barely afloat, losing 8 straight contests, blaming the losses on states and voting blocs that don't matter, it is time for change. Not Clinton change, but "Change We Can Believe In."

Posted by: jade_7243 | February 15, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

maq1:

I see you are persuaded by your candidate's reverence for Reagan's "consensus-building." And, also like your candidate, you are quick to parenthetically disavow all that Reagan actually achieved with said consensus (New Deal gutting, marginalizing of minorities, fearmongering, all with a smile). Obama explained that he admires how Reagan got Democrats to "vote against their economic interests." This is a telling admission that was left largely unexamined. I think the BIG LIE is that Obama is actually well to the right of Hillary. On these grounds, I reject any Milton Friedman-inspired devil's pact with the GOP that he may want to convince us all, "against our economic interests," to = hope for or believe in.

But it won't even get that far. The Republicans will come guns blazin' in the GE regardless if you manage to throw Hillary under the bus now. I just think it's insane that you believe the radical right element is simply dying to negotiate and to give up any of their money without a bare knuckled brawl. Your 65% utopia also assumes that Obama retains all of the Democratic base. And, let me assure you, the substantive progressivist wing of the party (embodied by Hillary and all of us silly old fools who don't want to turn our back on the promise of the New Deal) is not going to follow the procedural liberalists (Obama and his Shucks & Bucks coalition) into the abyss. You can have your new Capitulation Coalition. God help us all if Obama and Axelrod ever do gain control.

Some things are, indeed, worth fighting for. Those with a broad sense of historical context see the impending disaster on the horizon ahead of us if we cede to Obama's Reagan strategy. Hence, we fight on, and refuse to be intimidated by Chicago-style electoral thuggery, even if this version happens to be wrapped in rainbows and riding a unicorn.

Posted by: sappykismet | February 15, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

in response, nothing - some will support clinton. others will lose interest and tune out. I probably wont vote for two reasons: 1) I think a serious constitutional issue arises when you place bill clinton, a former president, in the role of a free wheeling high level policy advisor. The rest of the presidents advisors are bound by existing laws. His authority would not be. there is simply no precedent. its a legal black hole larger then the ones cheney exploited in abusing executive power during the bush admistration

2) I can't bring myself to reward the race-baiting I've seen the Clintons carry out in this campaign. Its behavior that in my opinion is reprehensible, and destructive to the democratic party, let alone the country as a whole.

so thats what will happen, at least for me.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

If you have Hillary Clinton's track record, you are absolutely right that you have no option but to drag the country back into the partisan bunkers the Clinton's inhabited in the 1990s, setting the table for 8 years of Bush, 8 years of getting manhandled by the Republicans. Thankfully, we don't need to chose only from Bushes or Clinton's. We have other candidates that are ready to build consensus.

The logic that you can take control of a country solely by winning the presidency - the logic that you can marginalize your opponents and push policy down their throats is as wrong-headed as Bush's logic in taking us into Iraq. Sorry sappykismet, but you can'tjust win the war, you really have to win the peace. The Clintons can't do that. Its too late for them. They had their shot. I have no moral condemnation for them. No ego play. They just can't do that.

You may make the claim thats not how it works, but you'd be ignoring recent history. Reagan truly affected the political scene (for the worst in my opinion) and was able to do so by building consensus in ways the Clintons can't. Perhaps the fact that Obama isn't blinded with rage at the thought of Republican success enables him to learn strategy from Reagan - something the Clintons never did.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather choose yes we will over yes we can anyday.

Posted by: emily | February 15, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

maq1:

Even if your imaginary 65% consensus existed, why would we hand over such power to a walking rhetorical rorshcach test?

REAL change never comes from happy consensus when you're dealing with radical right-wingers. And make no mistake that is who we have been facing since Goldwater.

You may be well-intentioned, but indulgence in mass naivete will be the undoing of us all!

Posted by: sappykismet | February 15, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Or else, what, maq1?

Posted by: JakeD | February 15, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Dear Clinton Supporters,

Please join up with the Obama camp. This isn't about ego - its about the future of the party. Obama is growing the party leaps and bounds over anything we've seen since before Reagan. We are on the brink of a Democratic consensus for the first time in a long long time. Obama is the one to lead it. Hillary is an accomplished person who is due respect, but she can't build the consensus that he can. Please join up and help us get out of the 51% era of partisan warfare and lead us into the 65% era of consensus politics.

Obama is person for the job. Please give your support to Obama.

Posted by: maq1 | February 15, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone think that there will be rioting if Obama loses?

Posted by: JakeD | February 15, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company