Hillary's new ad

[NewHampster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXnakPrdDr4

[Beacool]

1. Thank you, it's a good, uplifting ad. n/t

[NewHampster]

2. Nice ad and we get to hear her real ideas

[creeksneakers2]

3. Great ad!

She comes across as somebody who fights for ordinary people. That's the real way for a candidate to look strong.

[David Dunham]

4. Great ad. It will help her beat Obama.

[Madam Mossfern]

27. It's a very nice ad

and I guess unless you're a Hillary supporter or someone who has not heard any ads from any other candidates, it could be compelling. I do, however take objection to your post "It will help her beat Obama." Why not rather, "It will help her win.

[maddiejoan]

5. Love it!

Not only tells you there will be a change --

--she tells you what the change will actually be!

And she looks wonderful in it.

[NewHampster]

6. We need more of Hillary talking to the people

[maddiejoan]

7. Yes.

She really does need to.

She projects more warmth when she does.

[Zueda]

8. Does she really want to force people to buy health insurance?

[maddiejoan]

9. I'm sure people said the same thing once

about Social Security.

[Zueda]

11. So we have private corporations profiting from SS?

[NewHampster]

12. ahh Word twisting

[Zueda]

15. Twisting?

I'm stating the obvious.

on edit: and a legitimate concern I have.

[maddiejoan]

16. So which part of Hillary's plan to you oppose?

Affordable Health Care for everyone?

or

Affordable Health Care for everyone?

[Zueda]

20. Simply the part that says...

I HAVE to buy.

I happen to work for the second largest health care provider and know this would be a another 'mother lode' for them like the Part D crap.

[maddiejoan]

21. You don't see the advantage

of people HAVING to have Health Insurance?

[Zueda]

25. I do. But what are the stipulations.

In theory I see the costs may go down but what will keep them down?

Will the coverage be better for those who can afford better?

Will the policies be left so that when, heaven forbid, another George Bush comes along he/she will screw us ala NAFTA?

[maddiejoan]

28. In general I assume --

--someone like Georg Bush could screw up anything.

As far as the rest goes, I'm sure someone more informed than either of us will be along any moment to tell us. One of the things I love about DU

[NewHampster]

38. Since Hillary has a 1 in 7 chance of being your nominee

do you think you could actually download and read her very specific plan?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

[sendero]

31. If you mean ..

... insurance as through the current providers, United Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna, etc, then the answer is an emphatic NO.

Any system that takes 25% of our health care dollars to administer is Dead On Arrival.

[maddiejoan]

50. Clearly you haven't read her proposal.

[BootinUp]

33. The part where her name is on it. lol.

[maddiejoan]

72. heh

[zulchzulu]

13. She won't say how she would force the mandate

Apparently we have to wait for a Blue Circle Panel of Experts.... nice try...

:boring:

[maddiejoan]

17. Enlighten me

How is Obama's health plan better?

[zulchzulu]

23. For one, it doesn't force people through a mandate...

It's generally working for affordability and having the same healthcare coverage that Senators and Congress people have with the realistic outlook that mandating coverage through insurance policies will not be "reform".

From my view, when you slap the mandate on healthcare insurance, you're offering something that is guaranteed to fail, like the same thing that happened in 1993.

Check out the details:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

[maddiejoan]

26. I get confused on this one --

Because Obama keeps going back and forth on it.

[BootinUp]

34. don't be

Obama's plan has a mandate as well, its just limited to those with children. The bottom line is Obama's plan is less ambitious in the fight for better healthcare.

[Tellurian]

39. Yep, Here is an article on Obama's farcical attacks on Hillary's Plan..

Krugman: The Mandate Muddle (Health Insurance)

Imagine this: It’s the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they’ve concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance — a so-called mandate.

Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.

But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he’ll have trouble responding — because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.

O.K., before I go any further, let’s be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan — although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans — is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Tellurian]

42. Mandates and Mudslinging

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 30, 2007

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.

Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.

The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.

Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.

And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.

Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.

As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.

In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that “the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it,” he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan.

The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack.

But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.

First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.

Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?

Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.

Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.”

Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.

That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it.

Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against “socialized medicine”: he doesn’t want the government to “force” people to have insurance, to “penalize” people who don’t participate.

I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?hp

[zulchzulu]

52. OK, Mr. Hillary Expert. How does Hillary plan on enforcing mandated healhcare?

How? Tell me. How?

:shrug:

[Tellurian]

58. Edwards came up with an easy solution...not surprised you missed it..though..

When you file your Taxes, you mark whether you have insurance or not...If not, you are automatically enrolled in the Plan..

NEXT!

[bunnies]

71. You avoided Zulus question. I'd also like to know the answer. nt

[maddiejoan]

ahhhh. So he leaves me out.

Good to know. I'll just slump over and die in the gutter then.

[zulchzulu]

51. Let me know when Hillary has an HONEST answer on how she would force mandates

Perhaps you know the answer.

Face it. You don't.

What would you say to someone on the street that walked up to you and asked just how Hillary's healthcare insurance program would be mandated? Would you say that a group of people would decide about that later? What do you honestly say?

Let me know.

[creeksneakers2]

54. Its not decided but all the planners are talking about automatic

enrollments now. You'd be enrolled if you signed up for a government service or went for medical care. I don't know how they plan to force enrollees to pay the premiums.

[maddiejoan]

57. No I don't know how specifically.

But it's not as if it would be a hard thing to accomplish either.

There are many ways it can be done.

[Tellurian]

60. See post #58..Post it on your fridge, so you don't forget!

[NewHampster]

63. I would say I trust Hillary

I would say I don't know crap about health care but I trust the woman who has been studying and fighting for quality health care her entire life.

I don't and will never have your answers because I have a job and a life. I hire professionals I trust to manage my country and do what's right.

[Progress And Change]

62. apparently ZZ is unaware of obama's plan...it has a mandate for millions of parents

It is tough to rail against mandates when you admit you have one in your plan so Obama hides this from voters while using right-wing tactics to attack Clinton's universal health plan...

[Tellurian]

66. Well, we've never accused ZZ of being forthright and honest

maybe it's painful for him to compare and contrast?

[mtnsnake]

77. That's for sure

[Renew Deal]

45. I don't see what the difference is between her plan and Romney's

:shrug:

[Tellurian]

64. It's not Romney's Plan...It's The State of MA Plan..

and one of the differences is.. Hillary plan would have insurance companies competing for the lowest bid..Romney removed a clause in the plan that would punish Ins Co for non-participation... You can see who he is protecting..

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. I liked it.

[applegrove]

14. Good ad. She's very charismatic.

[NewHampster]

40. yes she is

[ElizabethDC]

18. Very good ad. Thanks for posting it, NewHampster! n/t

[NewHampster]

41. U R welcome

[Rock_Garden]

19. Happy to K&R this one.

[Hoof Hearted]

22. I like it :-) n/t

[mtnsnake]

24. What a difference between a professional ad like this & that circus today in SC

No wonder just about the entire country loves the Goddess of Peace. Who wouldn't love her after listening to her rich voice tell guide us in such a presidential manner.

Time to send this gem to the greatest page...

[Froward69]

29. Funny how one cannot post responses.

I count 7 misnomers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOa989IRYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjzaCrjY448

[jefferson_dem]

32. That's her history.

When she posted her original "conversation" piece to youtube, which was just after Obama posted his announcement, I noticed her campaign was not allowing comments. I wonder if any other campaigns do that. If not, what's so unique about Hillary that would prompt her handlers to think comments should not be tolerated?

Friendly audiences only. Planted questions. Focus-group tested stagecraft. Bah.

[Froward69]

36. sheesh

such an isolated candidate, how can she possibly say she is listening to the people?

[BeyondGeography]

46. We the People can be so unruly

[Froward69]

67. yeah not allowing responses

is pretty contrary to the concept of YOUtube? isn't it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Because You Tube Is Unmonitored

Somebody can go there and say the most vile shit and then everybody that sees the youtube is subject to it...

If you want I'll provide concrete examples...

[jefferson_dem]

43. Why is she the only Dem candidate, to my knowledge, that blocks comments?

What is she afraid of? Why let fear of a few would-be troublemakers prevent well-intentioned citizens from taking part in the political discussion?

I wonder, if she happens to be elected, will she also govern like this. Personally, i've had just about enough of an unresponsive inaccessible political apparatus. Hillary...more of the same.

[NewHampster]

44. she blocks because freepers

will never let the message be heard if she didn't. Freepers from the wrong wing and freepers from the freeper wing of the democratic party.

[BeyondGeography]

47. There are 1,200-plus comments on some Obama videos

There's some Obama/Osama, like America will ever elect a black President stuff, but most of it is positive.

[jefferson_dem]

53. OH MY GOD! You mean comments from some who don't even support him!

Cue Brando (a la Apocalypse Now) - ""the horror, the horror"

[BeyondGeography]

56. I'm not here to give HRC advice

but, in this case, her fear of giving voice to the haters also cuts off the enthusiasm of her supporters.

[NewHampster]

74. On her website my posts are always trolled

some sweety named trueamerican is always the first to tell me I'm dumb for liking Hillary. They don't block him/her or anyone.

Latest sample tonight http://connect.hillaryclinton.com/blog-entry/Donnys-Blog/Canvas-Need-Canvas/400013455

I wish they would.

[BeyondGeography]

78. Yep; that sucks

Trolls show up in ones or twos on the O blog all the time. They tend to get a 3-4 week run before being blocked and inevitably replaced by someone else. Trolling a candidate's website is the lowest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. This Is Why

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhzaWB9rcKY&feature=dir


"Fred Thompson is an asshole"


"This dude is bought and paid for by Jews just like everybody on NPR and just like McCain, Jewliani, and Mitt Jewsboughtme Romney. Piss off Fred you fucking jew-lover Thompson."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvTp0PYVLZA


"The best is yet to come shit for brains because good news in Iraq is very bad news for the democRAT party."



"
If you would peal your big fuckin fat head away from CNN on the boob tube you will find out the surge working and we are finally winning this war. You democRATs started this war to but when it doesn't go well you yellow bellies act like you had nothing to do with it. '

[creeksneakers2]

55. They'd do much worse to Hillary. n/t

[Froward69]

65. you mean some american expressing

themselves like "Fred Thompson sucks without a script." is unacceptable to hillarys fragile sensibilities?...



then how can she expect to be an effective president?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Disingenuous Much

"This dude is bought and paid for by Jews just like everybody on NPR and just like McCain, Jewliani, and Mitt Jewsboughtme Romney. Piss off Fred you fucking jew-lover Thompson."

[Froward69]

73. Dear Friend

no one has the right not to be offended. the best one can do is to grow a thick skin... or pass laws to curb (dare I say, Censor) free speech. there fore if one chooses to post on an open and free forum such as you-tube then she should EXPECT criticism. if one wants to broad cast them self without retort then thats what ABC,NBC, and CBS along with all the rest are for. she has the money to do so. You tube is meant for EVERYONE to post be broadcast and receive free speech retort or accolades in return. sad she chooses to distance herself from what you-tube is for. An American outlet for EVERYONE. I will stop here because she misses the point! and I feel myself getting carried away.

on edit= let the rethugs be the Censors... rather don't let the rethugs censor, nor fall prey to the idea that censoring in any form is acceptable.

[Joe the Revelator]

75. Those are pretty piss poor reasons to cut out all comments...

I mean seriously DSB, do you not see how Rovian this type of politics are? I'll be highly dissapointed if we get a democratic President into office who still curtails dissent and discussion. The idea itself is pathetic.

[Froward69]

61. as no one has the right

NOT to be offended. it takes allot to rile me up ... GO FOR IT!!!

[HughMoran]

30. That's a pretty good ad

One of the more inspiring ads I've seen this election season.

[CarolNYC]

35. Nice ad....

She looks and sounds great...Thanks for posting.

[Tellurian]

49. I agree, one her Best Ads to date!

This one is a "keeper"!

[ronnykmarshall]

59. Great ad

I was watching a bunch of Hillary's ads today .... after seeing the shit on DU I needed a break from it.

[rocktivity]

69. It says all the right things, but does she REALLY mean it?

ANY of the Dem candidates could have run this ad...and I'm a little worried about her taking 4 to 8 years before she gets us out of Iraq.

:headbang:
rocknation

[rocktivity]

70. dupe, sorry n/t

.

[JNelson6563]

76. Good ad.

:toast:

[Alamom]

79. Beautiful ad, k&r