-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3286/clinton-advisers-whack-obama-over-mailer/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
- Report: Colorado home to secret immigration detention centers
- Anarchist Ariel Attack pleads guilty to Democratic Party Denver vandalism
- Reformers turn to election reform to clean up co-op energy
- Norton wins over Tea Partiers with call to eliminate Department of Education
What's sad is that most people in this state are either for Obama or Undecided. Those are the facts.
Too bad CC doesn't choose to cover ANY of that, that is until the Clinton media brigade marches through town or the Post makes an endorsement.
I'm done.
Being a state with few delegates to offer, in the grand scheme of things, means Colorado isn't getting much love from the candidates which is entirely understandable when standing in the shadow of delegate-rich New York and California.
We have also linked to reports from our sister sites in Iowa and Michigan who covered their caucus and primary, respectively, last month.
In terms of citing Congresswoman DeGette in this story, she is the local representative who was made available to the press. As Clinton's health care policy adviser she is an appropriate source and her alliance to the campaign was made clear in the story. As is in any political story by any outlet -- whether the sources' backgrounds and allegiances are made known or not -- readers should always read a story with a lens of skepticism and critical thinking.
As to your last concern, over a journalism career that has spanned nearly 20 years, Cara has successfully navigated concerns of conflict of interest regarding her sister's political position. She had absolutely no role in the conception, writing or editing of this story.
Internet coverage on "progressive" sites as well as HillaryHate sites like andrewsullivan.com is wildly skewed toward Obama. He's the candidate with integrity, etc. etc.
I got the Obama healthcare mailer and was like, "Whuuh?? That's not true...is it?" It looked like a cheap hit piece to me, and surprised me coming from Obama.
This CoCo report is the first I've read online about the Clinton camp's response.
Good report, CoCo.
Do you have any thoughts on the dispute between the two candidates?
Much a do about nothing by the Clinton camp?
Politics ain't bean bag?
A misstep by Obama?
Something else?
Usage is cited in stories by the Guardian UK, Washington Post, New York Times, PBS/Nightly Business Report, National Journal, Seattle PI, National Review and others.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but it is a widely accepted turn of phrase to describe a dispute between political campaigns.
Does that sway your vote either way as a former Edwards supporter?
I attended the Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum at the First Universalist Church at Hampden and Colorado on Sunday Jan 27. The forum used surrogates to speak for the candidates. Was a rather interesting afternoon. State Senator Gordon moderated the meeting. At the start and end of the meeting he asked for a straw presidential poll of those attending.
This is the result of two polls Gordon took.
3:00 pm poll results/ 4:45 pm poll results
Clinton 4/ Clinton 2
Edwards 7/ Edwards 7
Gravel 2/ Gravel 1
Obama 11/ Obama 11
Uncommitted 22/ Uncommitted 16
(Uncommitted were nearly all Kucinich supporters)
-------------------------------------------------
Totals: 46/ Totals: 31
Approx. Percent that were
Kucinich or Uncommitted:
45%/Kucinich/Uncommitted: 53%
Kucinich is for Impeachment...
DeGette ignores those of us who want accountability for Bush and Cheney.
I'll let this fellow (Staff Sargent Dan)a blogger at ProgressNowAction.org explain it for me...
Some comments from his posting at: http://www.progressn...
But the one thing that makes this Caucus stick in my throat is the incumbent Representative for House District One - Diana DeGette. That night, she expects us to vote her on the ballot for another term - despite the contempt and disregard with she treats the people of her district.
Yes, she is a Democrat...or at least, a Democratic-shaped object. But her conduct since she was re-elected in '06 seems to obscure an arrogance of entitlement that should be punished, not rewarded.
She can't be bothered with our issues - impeachment,
the war in Iraq, and health care to name a few.
She certainly can't be bothered with meeting any of these insignificant people who've voted for her so many times....that would require her to explain her conduct on the House floor.
And we are angry here in Colorado House District One. A district that may be one of the most liberal in the US, we expected the Deputy House Whip to pursue our issues.
She does not risk losing her seat in voting for impeachment, or not funding President ChuckleNut's endless war...and yet, she acts like timid Washington Insider, afraid to offend some other Master that might remove her from her job.
Even worse, the time that she should spend listening to her constituents is instead spent campaigning...not for her own job, but for Sen. Hillary Clinton's run for the White House.
And it is not an effort spent because they share so many issues - it is to further ingrain herself with the Washington Elite. She has made it plain to all of us in CD1 that her goal is not to represent us....it is to secure a position on (hopefully) President Clinton's cabinet.
And so that makes all of us complete rubes for re-electing her. She's counting on our blind loyalty to provide her with a day job. If Clinton hits the jackpot on Nov 4th, we're the suckers that paid the bills while she gets the payout. If Clinton loses, well, she can bank on the fact that she's a pseudo-Democrat, and she can bask in 2 more years of being in the Beltway.
If Rep. DeGette can be bothered to make an appearance on Feb 5th, ask her what the hell she is doing in Washington. She's not representing CD1...and if she's not going to commit to the issues that we made pretty damn clear in Nov 2006, ask her why we should vote for her again.
The Staff Sargent says it all and tells it like it is.
John H Kennedy
Denver CO (CD1)
Organizer
IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION
http://ImpeachCO.com
..
The main issue with the Obama mail piece, though, was that it was misleading. It suggests that Clinton forces poor people to buy insurance they can't afford, and doesn't mention the extensive funding for reducing the costs. Obama can't promise to change the tone of the debate, but then send out a misleading mail piece. Well, maybe he can, because he did. But I'm not ok with it.
The 2 are not mutually exclusive, but thanks for documenting your copy-cat tendencies. FYI, a Google search does not prove your temperance. Have you ever surfed the Internet? Decorum or good taste are hardly its hallmark.
Also, I do wonder why this is an issue on CoCo when the mailer has not gone to Colorado voters as far as I know? CoCo didn't report on the mailer sent in NH that lied about Sen. Obama being against abortion. Rep. DeGette didn't make hay about that now did she? Cara, your bias is being questioned here for good reason.
- A friend in Longmont received the health care lit piece in his mailbox and passed it to me on Friday morning. Mark Mehringer (commenter above) also received it.
- This item was posted following a press call arranged by the Clinton camp. It is their perogative on the timing and the supporters they make available to the press. Rep. DeGette is a long-time suppporter of Clinton's candidacy and a health care policy adviser for the campaign -- all of which were fully disclosed in the story.
- The local Obama campaign declined to comment on the record after being given ample opportunity. Again, their perogative, but the outreach was made and noted in this story.
- Cara had nothing to do with this story. Please note the byline.
- Colorado Confidential covers stories on politics and public policy as they relate to our state. As much as we are working to expand our state network, covering stories in other states without the benefit of our own reporting staff is very unlikely to result in coverage here. As I recall, there was considerable national reporting on the controversial NH abortion mailer which, again, falls outside the purview of this news organization's scope.
Thus, insinuating bias in the reporting of this story has no merit.
I am very embarrassed about that and stand corrected.
However, as I said, Senator Clinton so much as agreed with Senator Obama this morning on This Week. That's the point. This mailer is stating the truth.
Link: Yahoo News Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay
Now on to the matter of the day: mandates or no mandates.
The principle difference between the Clinton and Obama health care plans is whether to require coverage. Both include subsidies to assist people to buy coverage.
To Clinton's point, nonpartisan and non-campaign affiliated health care policy analysts argue that cost containmment and risk pool expansion cannot be achieved without mandating coverage.
Sen. Clinton's statement today that her plan mandating coverage may employ wage garnishment or automatic enrollment in a plan could be argued a couple of different ways: Was it a verbal miscue that will doom her political fortunes? Was it a rare and honest description of what universal health care demands of the American public? I guess it depends on whose camp one is sitting in.
There's also the issue of what kind of care are we mandating here -- full-blown comprehensive, keep-you-out-of-financial-ruin basic coverage, or a hybrid?
Then, there are the arguments about whether any universal plan should be propping up an already sick health care system of private insurers whose very profits are threatened by paying claims and an inflexible access system that rations care -- yes, we do ration care in the US.
Who are the estimated 45 million Americans without coverage: people who can't afford coverage, those without employer-subsidized care, young invincibles who don't think they need coverage, or the uninsurable with pre-existing conditions? Are the mandates reciprocal to the insurance industry and how does the American public feel about the government telling business what to do? The health care sector represents 16% of the nation's GDP. You know there's a quid pro quo in the mandate schemes for a very powerful industry that goes well beyond expanding the risk pool and garnering more premiums from members?
The 800-lb gorilla in the room that neither candidate has addressed: What's the effect of expanding coverage -- mandated or not -- on improving access to quality medical care? As Colorado Confidential and others have reported there is a serious shortage of providers in some areas of the state, especially in rural communities.
We haven't even touched on single payer yet, which many Americans prefer over the Obama or Clinton proposals.
I'm just now reading a health economist's study on the effect of mandates versus subsidies on people's decisions to get coverage or pay the penalty. It's interesting stuff from a sociological perspective that rarely gets mentioned in this debate.
The long and short of it is that there are both practical and political pitfalls with each of the candidates' health care proposals which I hope to explore later this week now that Colorado's 208 Commission has released its long-awaited report that also advocates mandated coverage.
It's time to remove Degette from office and put anyone in that has some business sense. We just need a candidate. She has deserted Denver and it's time for a change as Obama says very clearly Get her out of office in 2008.The Congress has a worse rating than Bush and the worse in our history. Wake up Denver ..
I agree with the posting above , it's time for a change.
Remember Canada in the late 8-'s all the doctors came to America because they only could make $50,000 and the government would not by new equipment across the country. Most major surgery now comes to the US.As for major surgery in Japan they go to Bangkok.
Yea, we really want Clintons plan. Amazing...
BUT I WILL NOT VOTE for De Gette and will even vote a Republican in if someone runs. We need a change.