Obama Ad Compared To Nazi March On Clinton Call

[Note: Headline updated. See end.]

Ben Smith reports:

The Clinton campaign convened a conference call with health policy experts to denounce Obama's new mailer (.pdf), which attacks Clintons plan for "forcing" Americans to sign up for insurance, and which features a couple at a kitchen table that recalls, for some, the famous insurance-industry financed "Harry and Louise" ads against the original Clinton plan.

"I am personally outraged at the picture used in this mailing," said Len Nichols of the New America foundation, a leading supporter of mandatory insurance, who called it a "Harry and Louise evocation."

"It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois," Nichols said. "I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage."

[Update: At the end of the call, Clinton aide Howard Wolfson disavowed the Nazi reference, saying the campaign didn't think it was appropriate, though he acknowledged the passions the issue stirs.]

Len Nichols served as the liaison between President Clinton's budget office and Mrs. Clinton health-care task force.

Here's the image in question:

Story continues below

advertisement

See the full mailer here. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, a frequent critic of Obama's, agrees with the claim that the ad evokes the "Harry and Louise" ads:

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.

But Obama adviser David Axelrod defends the ad: "He called the image 'standard,' and defended the argument against the plan. He also dismissed the suggestion that this mailing is similar to Clinton attacks that Obama has denounced. 'Ours is based in fact and theirs is based in fabrication,' he said."

Update: Both the Clinton campaign and Len Nichols have released statements.

Clinton campaign:

Earlier today, the Clinton campaign held a conference call to discuss
the Obama campaign's negative health care mailer, which is reminiscent
of Harry and Louise ads used by industry to defeat universal health care
in the early 1990s. At the end of the call, Howard Wolfson made the
following statement:

"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."

These remarks were made by a health care expert unaffiliated with our
campaign. They were totally inappropriate and the campaign rejects them
completely.

Len Nichols, via the New America Foundation:

Len Nichols, Director of New America's Health Policy Program, stated, "For nearly 17 years I have worked tirelessly to reform our nation's struggling health system. Today my passion overwhelmed me. I chose an analogy that was wholly inappropriate. I am deeply sorry for any offense that my unfortunate comments may have caused. I made unfortunate comments that do not accurately reflect my bipartisan conviction, political philosophy, or most importantly, my opinions about Senator Obama and his historic campaign for the United States presidency."

"While I have consulted with seven former and current presidential candidates, I am not affiliated nor a surrogate for the Clinton campaign, or any other campaign."

"I wholeheartedly appreciate Senator Obama's concern for Americans struggling to afford health insurance and I admire his amazing ability to inspire the nation. In fact, it is my own moral and religious convictions that lead me to believe that it is necessary for our country to guarantee quality, affordable health insurance for all Americans. My foremost priority is to advance the health reform debate by protecting a fact-based discussion."

"The New America Foundation is a non-partisan think tank, that does not endorse or advise any campaign in an official capacity " said Steve Coll, New America's President and CEO. "Len's decision to participate in the call and his comments on the mailer are regrettable. Len is passionate and committed to reforming health care in America, and I know that he sincerely regrets these unfortunate remarks."

Note: The original headline for this post described Len Nichols as a Clinton "backer" -- he has consulted with Clinton's campaign (and several others) but is officially unaffiliated in he race.

Comments

[Tigerella]

Well, since John Edwards' plan was similar to this one... his supporters should take heart.

[Digdin]

Let me see, Bill Clinton is back in the news. He is campaigning in his HOME state. Of course talking about himself. Hillary is stuck in California battling for votes that a month ago were in her back pocket and this moron gets in the news calling people piece of literature about health care a Nazi march.

Then there are three press releases telling us how wonderful and passonate they are and yes of course bi-partisan. They just happen to be on a conference call with Hillary but of course they have no dog in this election fight.

You know this says alot about what type of people are associated with this campaign. We have Bubba race baiting in South Carolina. Now we have the Nazi patrol associated with her health care plan. Oh yea I almost forgot we have the head of the NY NOW jumping the shark over not getting her way with the Kennedy endorsement. Gloria Steinem pitting african american males against women in an attempt to divide us. Of course there is the false pamplet on Obama's pro choice position that was circulated in New Hampshire that lead to the former head of NOW in Ill. into endorsing Obama. The list goes on and on.

I really believe that people do make mistakes but I am seeing a pattern here and it is not attractive. Some of you folks have really out lived your usefulness and are close to becoming pimps for your very narrow agenda. Ultimately if you keep us divided, you keep your job and your sense of righteousness. How very Rovian of you.

[HumeSkeptic]

Even though I'm voting for Obama, I like Hillary's healthcare plan somewhat more than Obama's. I think Edwards had an even better plan and, of course, Kucinich's not-for-profit healthcare is what we really need.

I can easily see 22 years olds opting not to buy healthcare insurance under Obama's plan and go for a better car or a better condo instead. That would mean a significant number who would remain uninsured, causing the overall healthcare cost to be more than under Clinton's plan.

The above said, it is quite meaningless to choose candidates based on such detailed policy positions because none of these plans would pass in their present form.

[Rubiconski]

Nominating the WAR HAWK Hillary Clinton would turn the Democratic Party into a worldwide joke and betray the efforts of millions of Americans who have dedicated years into putting an end to the immoral war in Iraq.

[Henry2008]

This from the people that "claimed" that they were going to keep the campaign positive.

Hypocrites.

[rixhex56]

Obama's plan, as I read through it, is reflective of his "sunny disposition" but offers little in the way of details as to how he will accomplish his goals.

The problem with both plans, Hillary's and Obama's, is that neither addresses the actual problem in healthcare in the U.S. That problem is the profit motive. Until the for-profit component is removed from healthcare, there can be no real advance in improvement of healthcare in this country.

Unless Dems gain an overwhelming majority in congress, Republicans will ALWAYS block any moves toward real healthcare reform. Obama's plan, like Hillary's, does not address this for-profit component, and so it will go nowhere in terms of producing any real improvements. Making profit in the "healthcare 'INDUSTRY'" necessarily requires refusing treatment, services, etc. It's a simple equation.

The problem here is this: the entire healthcare system must be changed radically, not reformed within the system that already exists. The existing system is predicated on a weak foundation for providing what it is supposed to provide. Fire departments are not for-profit. Police departments are not for-profit. Those public services are not for-profit because, if they were, that would undermine their ability to provide quality service, as is the case in healthcare at this moment in time.

The thread below by TimeForChange is a classic example of what I'm saying here. So, Obama is just blowing a lot of smoke up our asses with his plan that continues to play along with for-profit insurance companies making money off of denying services in any way possible – profiting from other people's ills is offensive, criminal, and insurance companies and many, if not most, doctors in this country need to be reined in.

[ceasenake]

Elwood: Illinois Nazis.

Jake: I hate Illinois Nazis.

[TRichards]

I don't get it. What is objectionable in the ad? I just don't see it.

The competition for the victim role is hot and heavy . . . and remarkably silly as well.

[jesuswazasocialist]

I hate Illinois Nazi's.

[tkk]

This headline is totally misleading. It IS NOT a campaign call, it was a conference call among healthcare professionals and journalists. The man is not with Clinton's campaign and he did not make the statement publicly. He has since apologized.
More distortion from HuffPo.

[ArchibaldTuttle]

Judging by the Clinton supporters response I believe the Obama campaign has scored a touch.
Verily, a most palpable hit.

[letsreallygetreal]

I am an Obama supporter and I did not like the ad, but you have to remember that it is mild compared to the ads the republicans will run against the Clinton health proposal. Obama said his ultimate goal is universal health care and he wants to publicize on cspan the debates concerning this issue once he is president. Who has the best chance of accomplishing some kind of significant health care reform once elected president? Hillary who has already tried and failed? Hillary who it will be easy to marginalize by the republican attack machine? Or Obama who cut the legs out from under the republicans on this issue by being opposed to mandates?

[hypnotoad72]

Speaking of illegals; if we are giving them free care to cure them of TB and other nasty things, why aren't we being equal to the LEGAL immigrants and those born and struggling to live here? Other developed nations have proper systems. They are not perfect either, but any system that doesn't work on improving itself does nobody any favors. Even those who can afford the best of them.

[SAMMY7]

Has the whole country lost its mind? That is a nasty ATTACK ad from "above the fray" Obama and you you people are worried about the comment some third party souce unrelated to the campaign made? You know I used to like Obama - but this fever is truly scary he can speak well...big deal.....h­e has been compared with Lincoln, Martin Luther KIng, Regan, JFK, RFK,...gue­ss what you have to have done something like END SLAVERY to earn that title and even then it takes a good 100 years to be a GREAT. YOu don't just get to be a senator for a year and 1/2 and make a pretty speech. We are a silly silly people.

[williamg]

Do people tune in to the Hallmark channel, to watch a town hall, to be inspired?