It's getting old
Granted most of Hillary Clinton's campaign has been puzzling to me, but I don't see how throwing a temper tantrum is going to do anything.
For starters, Clinton has long blasted Barack Obama for only being for words and not actions or issues. So, when Obama sends out campaign literature that contrasts his position with hers on health care and NAFTA, Clinton gets all up in arms and says he's misrepresenting her. Well, for one thing, all campaigns misrepresent each other since they're trying to win elections. Also, Clinton did support NAFTA in the 1990s and now, all of a sudden, she's against it (oddly enough as she's striving for votes in Ohio and Texas), plus she's on record saying she'd forcibly take wages from low-income workers to cover her health care plan so acting as if you never said that is silly.
Second, it's a more than a bit disingenuous to sit on the stage in Austin, Texas, and shake Obama's hand and say it's an honor to be running against him and then, just a day and a half later, get all huffy and say 'shame on you Barack Obama' ... over campaign literature which has been circulating for three months.
Third, after you've been misrepresenting Obama's health care plan for more than four months now, it's pathetic to come out and, when he pushes back with criticism of your plan, say that he's attacking the concept of universal health care with 'Republican tactics.' Well, not really brainiac. He's disagreeing with your plan and relying on language you've used in the past to do so.
Though Obama has repeatedly explained his health care plan at each debate since January, Clinton refuses to acknowledge the fact that their end goal is the same, but they're opting for different means to reach it (and I think Obama's plan is fairer and offers a more realistic and pragmatic plan to achieve universal coverage). Instead Clinton keeps saying his plan isn't universal health care and that any criticism of her plan is off-limits.
The sad thing about this little charade - and that's all this is, a calculated stunt to garner votes - is that it will probably work for some swing voters. Since her emotional appeal at the end of the Texas debate was viewed as more of a concession than a plea, she decided to go nasty. Whatever.
Every time I sit there and think that I could get excited about a Clinton candidacy, something ridiculous like this happens. More stunts like this, and I'll be writing in Obama if she's the nominee.
For starters, Clinton has long blasted Barack Obama for only being for words and not actions or issues. So, when Obama sends out campaign literature that contrasts his position with hers on health care and NAFTA, Clinton gets all up in arms and says he's misrepresenting her. Well, for one thing, all campaigns misrepresent each other since they're trying to win elections. Also, Clinton did support NAFTA in the 1990s and now, all of a sudden, she's against it (oddly enough as she's striving for votes in Ohio and Texas), plus she's on record saying she'd forcibly take wages from low-income workers to cover her health care plan so acting as if you never said that is silly.
Second, it's a more than a bit disingenuous to sit on the stage in Austin, Texas, and shake Obama's hand and say it's an honor to be running against him and then, just a day and a half later, get all huffy and say 'shame on you Barack Obama' ... over campaign literature which has been circulating for three months.
Third, after you've been misrepresenting Obama's health care plan for more than four months now, it's pathetic to come out and, when he pushes back with criticism of your plan, say that he's attacking the concept of universal health care with 'Republican tactics.' Well, not really brainiac. He's disagreeing with your plan and relying on language you've used in the past to do so.
Though Obama has repeatedly explained his health care plan at each debate since January, Clinton refuses to acknowledge the fact that their end goal is the same, but they're opting for different means to reach it (and I think Obama's plan is fairer and offers a more realistic and pragmatic plan to achieve universal coverage). Instead Clinton keeps saying his plan isn't universal health care and that any criticism of her plan is off-limits.
The sad thing about this little charade - and that's all this is, a calculated stunt to garner votes - is that it will probably work for some swing voters. Since her emotional appeal at the end of the Texas debate was viewed as more of a concession than a plea, she decided to go nasty. Whatever.
Every time I sit there and think that I could get excited about a Clinton candidacy, something ridiculous like this happens. More stunts like this, and I'll be writing in Obama if she's the nominee.
posted by Jmac at 5:07 PM
1 Comments:
Forcibly taking wages? Sounds like...taxes. So hillary wants to fund her healthcare plan with taxes. I can't for the life of me see what is so wrong with this from the liberal perspective. Unless it's the tax the poor thing. Apparently we're just supposed to forcibly take wages from the rich(er)?
I like that btw, let's rename taxes 'forcible taking of wages'. That way your paycheck will say 'forcible seizures' instead of 'deductions' or whatever it says now.
I do think Hillary is more realistic though, by making it mandatory. The gov't just doesn't do 'voluntary participation' that well. I can't imagine why she's framing it in terms of some kind of direct insurance-ish policy instead of the 'progressive' mooch scheme we all know it would end up as. Just say you're going to tax the rich Hillary, people love handouts.
-Matt
Post a Comment
<< Home