I am a Grinch when it comes to rallies. I don't like the noise, the spinwheels, the signs, and the illusion of joy. The high flying speeches and smiles, the ritual of orchestrated applause -- the happy screaming. I don't like hype. I want detail.
I want to know more about why Hillary did this or Obama did that. There are differences between them -- but even their campaign sites are thin on details and proposals.
I agree completely with this editorial in the Wisconsin State Journal that despite Hillary Clinton hoping a debate might help give her a push, more exposure to serious policy discussion is better, not worse, for the country -- and Obama should jump at the chance:
When a political candidate starts demanding more debates, it's usually because his or her campaign needs a lift.In recent days, Hillary Clinton and some of her key Wisconsin supporters have tried to pressure Barack Obama into debating at Marquette University in Milwaukee before Wisconsin's big presidential primary Feb. 19.
Clinton and her political friends obviously favor a debate for more than civic reasons. Yet Obama should wholeheartedly accept the invitation anyway.
The Illinois senator is going to need Wisconsin -- both now and in November -- if he wants to become president. Our swing state deserves its own debate with questions focusing on Wisconsin, the Midwest and the economy.
Hillary Clinton's juggernaut got dealt a mighty blow by her team's failure to take the various caucuses seriously. Obama's team was out in those caucus states in force.
If Obama's team begins to think along similar lines as Patti Solis Doyle did -- that there are things we don't need to take seriously now (like debates!) -- then the Obama team could find itself vulnerable in new ways.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note
clinton's plan is closer to that than obama's plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nnj7r1wCD4
If you can't invest the time, then you don't have any business commenting.
This is a video of Obama being interview by the SF newspaper board. and is much more informative
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDIAUHASH.DTL&o=0
Hillary claims her plan is universal, which it probably is, but this isn't the way progressives saw us reaching the universal mark. Look at General Motors-- their healthcare costs are dragging them down tremendously, making them less competitive with foreign manufacturers whose countries offer the more sensible approach to healthcare advocated by Michael Moore and (the pre-Obama) Paul Krugman.
The difference between Hillary and Obama: Hillary puts the burden of lowering premiums on the People by mandating that they buy insurance. Healthy people, wealthy people, they are forced to sign up, and their participation causes the overall premiums to go down in cost.
Obama puts the burden of lowering premiums on the *insurance companies*. He would have a federal watchdog group which would *force* companies to offer insurance to *everyone* with "fair and stable" premiums. And they can't be rejected because of a pre-existing condition. So premiums would be lower than they are now under Obama's plan because the government would require they be lower.
Hillary may have some variation on that plan. She certainly would try to make insurance affordable to those who are forced to buy it, so they wouldn't have their wages garnished or have to pay a fine. But if the issue is lower premiums, Obama achieves this by forcing companies to do this, and doesn't have the PR problem of forcing people to buy private insurance-- or else.
Again, if Hillary's plan is truly universal, liberals who care about this issue should remember, it's not the way we wanted to reach the 100% level. It's private insurance-- more profits for the health insurance industry, as well as more bureaucracy, and it doesn't solve the problems faced by GM and other giant corporations.