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 10 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.

This post first appeared on Robert Reich's blog.

Comments

[May2002]

I have always admired Mr. Reich. He exemplifies a public servant/elected official should be--for the common good. Clintons represent another brand of politicians to me--self-serving, hungry for power.

As far as Hillary's attack on Obama goes, I am not surprised at all. She has appeared to be eager and willing to win at any cost.

[elkabong]

I'm nobody and I knew they were writing Bush a check that he would cash.

I understand the tremendous pressure from the White House and the Corporate media they were under, but if you succumb, bet on Bush and lose this big, it's hard for me to remain sympathetic.

It should also be noted that the majority of the Democrats in the House and in the Senate voted NO on the resolution. They shouldn't be given short shrift.

None of this should be construed to mean that this isn't BUSH's fiasco. He DID promise to exhaust all options and get ANOTHER resolution from the UN BEFORE invading. The inspectors WERE on the ground in Iraq reporting progress (finding nothing) when Bush told them to get out so he could commit "Shock and Awe", feed his buddies at ExxonMobile and the M.I.C. and call himself a "War President"...oh, and "avoid the brutal Iraqi summer", four summers ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo

[Cavan]

And now she's attacking Obama for his kindergarten strategy for the 2008 presidential run? Was that about the same time she was a Goldwater Girl?

What's happening here?

[williamg]

This kindergarten moment of Hillary's reminds me of the Dukakis tank picture.

[May2002]

I have always admired Mr. Reich. He embodies the geninue public servant--for the common good. Contary to Mr. Reich, Clintons have always reminded me of another type of elected officials--self-sering and hungry for power.

As a result, Mr. Reich's defense of Obama is very convincing to me.

As far as Hillary's negative and dishonest attack on Obama, I am not surprised at all. She has always appeared to be someone who is willing and eager to win at any cost.

I only hope majority of the voters can see through her intent.

When the eight years of Bush nightmare will expire soon, I am hoping my another nightmare will not come true. It scares me a great deal thinking Hillary resides in the White House.

[NYDamien]

Will people making 98K+ have their taxes raised under Sen. Obama's plan? Answer: Yes.To you, that's "stridency." To those of us who have an open mind, that's fact checking. As to your other points, Paul Krugman pretty well destroyed your sychophantic attempt to distort these complicated issues. Besides, why talk facts when character assassination is the name of the game here. President Clinton had one major character flaw (among a few others), he trusted people, especially those he considered his friends. You were one of them, and you repaid that trust and friendship (along with other "friends" like Lieberman, Stephanopoulos, etc.) by stabbing him in the back just at the time the rabid Republicans were lynching him. And now, his wife. Some things never change. You should be ashamed. You're a small man, Robert Reich. And you know what i mean.

[MrsHaskell]

In her defense, HRC is in the impossible position of having to distiinguish her stances from those of her opponents, while simultaneously refusing to commit to any one position. I'd feel sorry for her if she weren't making a mockery of our already pitiful electoral process.

[TheScarletPimpernel]

The reason HRC's polls are dropping is the relentless negative about her from all campaigns. She not only had to deal with the Republican debates which were little more than "hate Hillary " gabfests until last week but she has also had to deal with the constant negativity from Obama, Edwards and the rest of the Dem field. They all took pot shots at her and pretty much called her a liar. It seems to me the media want Obama and Guiliani as the nominee's. They may be able to get Obama nominated but I dont see Rudy making it.Does it help her to go negative on Obama ? probably is it tasteful no.

[Countess]

This is a man who knows the true worth of Mrs. Clinton's experience so he is supporting Obama.

[Lisette]

Bravo! Excellent Post! Very well said.

[coonce]

Very well put Robert. You always make things sound so sensible. Thank you.

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

[Dantheman99]

That may be true, but did anyone think the Clinton's were just going to give up the second 8 years of their planned 16 year presidency without a fight? I don't have a dog in this fight, but keep in mind that old age and treachery beats youth and skills almost every time, so it is a long way from being over.

If anyone is tired of Clinton and Obama, and is disappointed that neither is supporting a universal Medicare-for-all type plan, you can bypass both of them and vote for Kucinich, who actually proposes and stands for REAL universal health care.

If Clinton/Obama/Edwards are all acceptable nominees to you, then vote your conscience for Kucinich. The more delegates he has, the more he can shape the platform and the structure of the party to support Universal Health Care.