RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama's mailer is like Nazis in Skokie?
February 01, 2008 1:04 PM
ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT DAVID WRIGHT WRITES:
It may have been warm and fuzzy on the debate riser, but behind the scenes the day after, the name-calling is getting fierce.
Today on a Clinton campaign conference call, a health policy expert said a new Obama mailer is as offensive as "Nazis marching in Skokie."
The mailer, obtained by Ben Smith at Politico, uses "Harry and Louise" imagery to raise questions about Clinton's health care plan.
This prompted Len Nichols, director of health policy at the New America Foundation -- who says he is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign -- to call the mailer offensive, going so far as to play the Nazi card.
"It is outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois, or some other things we could think of probably if I had more time and my heart was beating less quickly," he said.
Clinton campaign senior adviser Howard Wolfson said on the call: “I heard someone make a reference to a march in Skokie in comparison to the photograph in the mailer which is not a comparison that we would make. And everyone on the call is obviously very passionate about this issue, and rightfully so, but that is not a comparison that we would make.”
In one picture in the Obama mailer a couple sits at a breakfast table talking about the issue, evoking the series of highly effective TV ads in the 90's that helped kill off Hillary Clinton's first failed effort to achieve health care reform.
Among the questions the mailer raises are the penalties Clinton would impose on those who fail to purchase insurance under her plan.
Clinton has dodged repeated questions to clarify what penalties she would impose. Today, on the call, campaign officials refused to be specific, saying only that as president she would decide the penalties "in consultation with Congress."
Under a similar mandatory plan in Massachusetts, the penalty for failing to buy health insurance are more than $200 in the first year rising to more than $1,000 in the second.
Obama's plan -- which is similar to Clinton's in many other respects -- would not require health insurance for adults but would aim instead to cover more people by reducing costs. He does require mandates when it comes to providing health insurance for children.
Clinton says Obama's plan would leave some 15 million uninsured, a figure he disputes.
It is, however, one thing to have a rational discussion - as the two candidates did last night.
But Nazis marching down main street? Surely that's pushing debate a bit too far.
-- David Wright
NOTE: This piece has been updated with the Clinton campaign's response and the full Nichols quote.
February 1, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (33)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Obama pulls the race card out just at the right moment. Now this. Look at what he and Rezko did to Chicago. We don't need Obama's type of experience.
Posted by: j0hn edwa | Feb 1, 2008 2:47:23 PM
Be wary of anything from the Politico.
At least you update your posts, though. Can you be the Political Punch blogger?
Posted by: Memekiller | Feb 1, 2008 2:42:36 PM
this is a non-issue...let the kids blow steam on the trail...brothers and sisters fight like mad in the real world...that's nature.
But, at the debate last night they showed that they are still family.
Move on...please drive through.
Hillary 08'
Obama 08'
I'll vote for either...
Save our supreme court!...that's the REAL ISSUE!!
Posted by: NON-ISSUE | Feb 1, 2008 2:32:18 PM
Great post, Chuck.
Posted by: catlady | Feb 1, 2008 2:18:36 PM
Ah, yes. It's now time for Hillary and Barack to play the new game that is sweeping the nation, or at least the candidates running for President: "Could You Possibly Be More Offended Than I?"
The rules of the game are simple: a candidate or his supernumeraries say or do something which could possibly be misinterpreted as a highly prejudicial racial/ethnic/age/whatever comment. The candidate's opponent demands an apology or retraction while simultaneously comparing the incident to some historical event which was far worse and usually so emotionally-charged that any rational thought ceases thereafter. The accusing player receives more points the more bombastic the charges are, with a bonus number of points for making the charge in the first place.
The first candidate is now on the defensive and may lose the game unless he or she can either dismiss the opponent's charge as misunderstanding what was said, or can countercharge some even-more outrageous claim. Extra points are awarded if the countercharge is more outlandish than the first. If the countercharge can be linked to a highly-emotional historical scenario (like, say, the Hindenburg disaster or the Black Plague), then the tables are turned and the accuser is on the defensive. All the while, the candidates MUST show such a level of outrage as to question their opponent's moral decency, not to mention their sanity.
At the end, the one candidate who plays the best may be considered the winner of this game. The truth and all voters are considered the losers.
Posted by: chuck | Feb 1, 2008 2:14:43 PM
Maybe a future cabinet member or support staff of a Hillary Clinton presidency? It is policy people like this that the general population has to deal with when we elect a president. It tells a tale about the candidate they support.
Posted by: Ed Faunce | Feb 1, 2008 2:14:08 PM
Eric: Of course, the Clinton campaign distanced themselves from the statement immediately. That was the plan. Have the statement made (or have Bill say it) and then back-peddle and act all innocent and shocked that 'someone in my campaign would say that." Aah, but the words are out there and that's what counts. I did have hopes of some civility after last night's debate. It was, after all, Mrs. Clinton who said "It IS my campaign.
Posted by: catlady | Feb 1, 2008 2:13:56 PM
It is "HILLARY-OUS" that Senator Clinton has spent months (including a New Hampshire mailer) sending out MISINFORMATION about Senator Obama's health care plan, and now she cries foul about a mailer that tells the TRUTH about her plan. And she STILL will not specify the penalties. What a joke!
Posted by: Obama mama | Feb 1, 2008 2:12:58 PM
Has the Clinton campaign jumped the shark by invoking Nazis?
Posted by: DBC | Feb 1, 2008 1:40:24 PM
shocking!!!
Posted by: joe | Feb 1, 2008 1:38:05 PM
Len Nichols is a former Clinton appointee. I would like an unaffiliated health policy expert to cite a factual error in this mailer. I am a health policy scholar...and I don't
Len Nichols
Director, Health Policy Program
nichols@newamerica.net
Len Nichols, a highly respected healthcare economist, directs the Health Policy Program at the New America Foundation, which aims to expand health insurance coverage to all Americans while reining in costs and improving the efficiency of the overall health care system. Before joining New America, Dr. Nichols was the Vice President of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a Principal Research Associate at the Urban Institute, and the Senior Advisor for Health Policy at the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton reform efforts of 1993-94...
Posted by: jay | Feb 1, 2008 1:37:02 PM
Apparently the debate was too civil for the media so they had to come up with something to stir trouble. Give the American people a break!
Posted by: tmd | Feb 1, 2008 1:25:12 PM
It was one supporter and the campaign distanced themselves from the statement immediately.
Posted by: Eric | Feb 1, 2008 1:13:53 PM
Post a comment
