Paul Krugman, of The New York Times, made us aware yesterday of a mail piece being sent out by the Obama campaign on healthcare. Via Ezra Klein, I discovered that TPM has scans of the piece and there I found the link to the YouTube video from the original ad.
The mailer was briefly discussed on Bill Maher’s show last night. (I have to admit that I’ve stopped watching Maher because a) he’s turned into a misogynist jerk and b) gratuitous use of foul language just isn’t funny.) Outside of NLS, the VA blogosphere has all but ignored this, perhaps because, as I alluded to in an earlier post, many of them are too young to remember what the 1990s were really like.
There are those who think that this mail piece was a horrible error on the part of the Obama camp and, in fact, has provided fodder for the Republicans to use in the fall campaign. Others are not so sure.
What do you think?
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“How is mandating the purchase of health insurance different from mandating the purchase of car insurance?”
People do not have to own a car.
Do we know if the mailer was actually sent out by the Obama campaign?
You just never know nowadays. 🙂
I hereby forbid anyone to ever be photographed while sitting at a kitchen table ever again.
The image of a man and a woman sitting at a kitchen is simply too upsetting.
We must at all costs prevent the future creation of offensive images, like those of people sitting at a kitchen table, for instance.
Vivian, Thanks for posting this story.
What’s been curious to me is how “untouchable” the Obama campaign has become. They can do no wrong. And all the talk and analysis about Obama’s “perfectness” has really gone beyond reasonableness. Kind of messianic in nature. And that scares me.
On the other hand, to the Obama fans, the Clinton’s are nefarious, dangerous and should be shipped to Outer Mongolia. To the ad, I’m disturbed by it but it just goes to prove that Obama, like many politicians, will do what ever it takes to win. I believe politics has been that way forever and is not to change in the near future….not even Obama.
Found this story at another blog. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article3192712.ece
So maybe he’s as human as the rest of us.
And finally, I’m old enough to have lived painfully through the 90s, watching the painful, vicious way the Republicans went after the Clintons. I won’t forget that….ever. Whomever wins the Democratic primaries, I hope the candidate gets the support of all Dems.
One more thing, if I may. I think all of this Hillary bashing by Democrats is really going to hurt us in the fall, especially if she’s the nominee. The Republicans will say …”even the Dems don’t like her”. Very dangerous but it still continues in the Virignia blogosphere.
The Republicans are really going after hernow … they do not want to face her in the fall.
kayinmaine – yes, it is from the Obama campaign (if you check the links, you’ll see the entire mailer, including the campaign disclosure)
sleepless – great link! I hadn’t seen that story. And I agree that the bashing is going to hurt the Ds.
I hardly believe republicans everywhere, from rank and file, to top leaders and strategist are and have been using Hillary as a rallying cry because they believe she is super difficult to defeat. Remember, she was the point of unification and attack long before Obama was considered a true potential nominee. Even more telling, now that he is, they still harp on her (fairly or not) because she does rally republicans.
The mailer is generally fair, although it would be much more balanced if he further explained his optional approach.
It’s called reverse psychology, Ian. More than 6 months ago, I asked the question about why there was no correlation between Obama’s fundraising and his standing in the polls. I said it then and I’ll say it again: the Republicans think Obama is the easier candidate to beat.
Reverse psychology would be plausible. But not nearly at this level, Vivian! I see it everyday when I talk to political lay people, who may not watch the talking heads as much as those heavily engaged in the race at this point. It’s this visceral negative response that people could not stomach Hillary in the White House. I know it is unfair, but I guess that vast right wing conspiracy must have worked. She CAN win, but her hurdles are larger, and at this trajectory, I believe she would be a bit of a weaker position.
6 months ago Obama was not as well known. Now, his poll standing has caught up with his recognition-and growing. Their focus is on Hillary because they HOPE she’s the nominee. Republicans and a plurality of independents repulse Hillary (like I always say, undeservedly), which makes her the weaker candidate.
You talk to lay Republicans, Ian? Or you talk to lay Ds who have heard other Ds trash Hillary?
Right now, the vast conspiracy is on the left. I’m not about to talk campaign strategy in public but I honestly believe that Ds are our own worst enemy in this fight. Keep repeating Republican talking points, Ian. The other side is loving it.
Ha! I mean lay republicans, Vivian. Dems I speak with may have their preference, as us two and many others do, but hardly is voting for our nominee in question. What I speak of are those avg, non-hyperpartisan, republicans and right-leaning independents who express these deeply negative feelings. I even tell them the attacks are unwarranted and they’d be better off with her than any republican. To be sure, the case was not most would vote for Obama either, but him as the dem alternative was very relieving to many. To me, thats a huge signal. It goes back to why rep would become unified with Hillary on the ticket. Since they cannot be driven by love of John McCain (or Romney or Huckabee as you think of it), the hate of Hillary would become very powerful. Obama doesn’t face that issue.
To sum up: Hillary Clinton is tough, because she’s survived unfair Republican attacks. So we must vote for her, because only she can survive more of these attacks, which will occur no matter who wins the nomination. In the meantime, however, we must not criticize Hillary Clinton, fairly or unfairly. She’s above reproach, because she’s been attacked by Republicans. Meanwhile, she and Bill can attack whoever they want by whatever slimey means they want, because the economy was better in the ’90s, and …., well they just can. They’re the Clintons.
Just stand in line and vote for who we tell you to vote for. Got it.
Spotter I made it through half of what you wrote before I realized you were being sarcastic..you almost got me… You were being sarcastic weren’t you?
You will note that no one disputes the accuracy of the ad. Why? Because Hillary does indeed want to “force everyone to buy insurance.”
The real problem for the people denouncing Obama is the following: Like the Harry and Louise ad, Obama’s mailer commits one unforgivable sin: it tells the truth.
Speaking as a Republican, I will say that I think HRC would be harder to defeat than Obama. We will never know, of course, because only one will win the nomination.
However, the Democratic electors will receive 90% of the Black vote no matter who wins the nomination. Even if Obama could win all of the Black vote, he would still get only another 1% of the total vote. Clinton, however, has a spacial appeal to female voters. There are far more female voters that can be won over.
Demographics aside, I think Clinton has a better machine behind her.
All of this is, of course, irrelevant to the question at hand.
I’m also a little confused. Was the Harry and Louise stuff on YouTube from the Obama campaign? If not, why is it part of the discussion?