Obama sinks low with misleading ad

[Cowpunk]

Obama's got a new ad out that's a bit, uh,questionable

The commercial cites The Washington Post in claiming the Obama approach would be "saving $2,500 for the typical family." The Post article said that "the senator's aides estimated" such a savings but did not attempt to verify it.

The ad contains other thin assertions, and tries to link the other candidates to big meany "interest groups", claiming that outside groups are running "attack ads" against Obama's plan.

Here's one of those nasty "attack ads":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUP0WH8Ful4

Here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBEn98-4ne0

Is he referring to some other ad? If he is, let's see it. I'd like to know.

[dogishboy]

1. Unions are not "special interests"

Someone needs to tell Obama who TR was referring to.

[sandnsea]

5. But they are telling lies

And they are spending a lot of money to tell those lies.

[dogishboy]

12. Most dems do not bash unions

Nor do they make baseless accusations

[sandnsea]

13. It's not a baseless accusation

They are lying about the health plans, pure and simple.

The funny thing is, Edwards doesn't call for a mandate at the front end either. He calls for it AFTER everything else is implemented, same as Obama. So when he attacks Obama over the lack of mandates, it really is complete bullshit. And when the unions join in, they're lying.

[dogishboy]

15. It is a baseless accusation

which explains why you post no "basis" (ie "evidence") to support your baseless accusation

And when Obama attacks the mandates in the other plans, he is being a hypocrit because his plan includes a mandate

[sandnsea]

19. It's on Edwards' web site

I figured you could type johnedwards.com all by yourself.

Obama's has a mandate for children so that they can be signed up at all sorts of access points, not so there will be garnishments the way Edwards has stated.

[dogishboy]

23. Still no evidence in your posts

You claimed unions are lying about Obama. Now you're switching to Edwards. Hint: Coherency has its good points.

Obama has a mandate, and he has no means of enforcement. He is hiding what he will do while hypocritically criticizing other plans because they have mandates

[sandnsea]

27. That's quite backwards

The others have criticized Obama because he doesn't have a mandate. He doesn't want a mandate with punitive enforcements. He opposes that. The unions have joined in that argument.

Here's just one post, by Harvard Professors, stating that Obama's plan is being misrepresented.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/harvard-professors-criticize-afscme-for-misrepresenting-barack-obamas-health-care-plan/

They're Lying.

[dogishboy]

36. Ahh finally!! As I suspected, somone so reluctant to post evidence must be wrong

I see now that you disagree with the opinions of those who have studied Obama's plan and concluded that 15 million would go uninsured under Obama's plan

You obviously can't distinguish between fact and opinion. Some believe that Obama's plan is not universal, and for holding that opinion, you call them "liars".

How dare they criticize Obama

[sandnsea]

41. Tell it to the Harvard Professors

Yes, basing a lack of coverage on mandates, when we all know that everyone doesn't even have auto insurance, is a LIE. You surely must understand that a mandate does not guarantee anything and anybody who says it does is LYING.

[dogishboy]

44. Care to translate that into English

I have no idea what you mean by "basing a lack of coverage on mandates" nor do I understand why you raise additional straw men of what I "surely must understand"

You made a baseless accusation that unions were lying about Obama's plan leaving 15 million people uninsured. You have yet to show that it is a lie. All you can do is point out that other plans will also leave people uninsured, which does nothing to refute the union's claims.

If you want to claim that the unions are lying, you will have to prove that they are wrong. Pointing out problems with the other candidates plans does NOTHING to show the unions are wrong about Obama's plan.

But I guess it's a waste of time to explain this to a rabid Obamanational. Few Obama fans are willing to defend his plans. All they do is attack others thinking that, somehow, it makes Obama's plan OK

[sandnsea]

47. Mandates Don't Guarantee Coverage

Is that plain enough English for you?

[dogishboy]

48. It's plainly a straw man

Who is saying that "mandates guarantee coverage"?

And please supply a link. One baseless accusation is enough for one poster in one thread.

And, even if someone is saying that (which I doubt), it does nothing to refute the claim that Obama's plan will leave 15 million uninsured. It seems you don't understand how to argue a point. You seem to want to refute this claim of 15million uninsured, yet you have said NOTHING to show the # is inaccurate. All you can do is whine about the other plans, but you can't defend Obama's plan

[sandnsea]

49. Hillary, Edwards & the Unions

It's the ENTIRE basis of their attack that Obama's plan leaves 15 million out.

[dogishboy]

50. Links? Or just lies?

And again, nothing any of the other candidates have said (which they didn't. You just make stuff up) does anything to disprove that Obama's plan will leave 15 million uninsured.

When will you defend Obama's plan instead of attacking others? Can you even try to defend Obama's plan, or will you just respond with another attack?

[sandnsea]

51. Go get an education

You obviously haven't been paying attention or you'd know that's the basis of their charge. Good bye.

[dogishboy]

53. So you must have made it up

since you don't have a link.

Like I said "baseless accusations"

And still no refutation of the claim that Obama will leave 15 million uninsured

[sandnsea]

54. Where do you think the number comes from? n/t

[dogishboy]

55. a non-partisan group

and you still have don'e nothing to refute the claim that Obama leaves 15million people behind

[sandnsea]

56. Based on the mandates

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05truth.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[dogishboy]

57. Ummm, I don't think that articles says what you think it does

"Mrs. Clinton is right that Mr. Obama’s plan would leave out millions...The 15 million figure apparently originated in The New Republic. While experts say the article was well researched, the 15 million is an estimate; no one appears to have a better figure.

Nothing in the article suggests that Obama's plan won't leave 15 million uninsured. You seem to think that pointing out how other plans are not universal will somehow make Obama's plan cover those 15 million. You claimed that unions are lying about the 15 million Obama will leave uninsured, but all you have is NYT article that AGREES with the union. In the words of the NYT "no one appears to have a better figure"

[sandnsea]

58. "Mandates rarely achieve 100% compliance"

You really just thought you could show up here with your talking points and go unchallenged??

The entire 15 million debate is PHONY. It's a LIE. It's based on MANDATES. Mandates don't work anyway. Get it? It's bullshit. You're being lied to by the most professional liar in DC. Thunk thunk. Wake up.

[dogishboy]

59. So what?

No is saying that mandates guarantee 100% compliance, which is why you have yet to provide any evidence that anyone has said so. The NYT article you linked to does not say that mandates guarantee 100% compliance

You are just trying to use this mandate straw man to distract attention that you have done nothing to defend Obama's plan which will leave 15million uninsured. The ONLY evidence you've posted AGREES that the estimate of 15million uninsured is the most accurate # available

"The entire 15 million debate is PHONY. It's a LIE. It's based on MANDATES."

Again, could you translate that into English? You keep saying "it's based on mandates" as if repeating it will give it meaning and accuracy.

The 15 million uninsured estimate comes from a group that explcitely states that mandates do not guarantee universal coverage, so I don't see why you think they said "mandates guarantee universal coverage". This group's estimate is "based on Obama's plan". They even explain how they came up with the figures they used, and it had nothing to do with mandates

[sandnsea]

60. Can't fix stupid n/t

[dogishboy]

61. Funny how the stupid hide behind name-calling

Must be that New Politics thing I've been hearing about (but not seeing)

And of course, nothing from you showing that Obama won't leave 15million americans uninsured. You can't defend Obama's miserable plan

[sandnsea]

63. Social Security leaves people behind

Do you know that?? There isn't any way to EVER guarantee everybody would be covered. It's PHONY. It's like saying you can't stop all the farts in the world because you can't force every single human to eat the BEANO. It just IS. It's a PHONY ARGUMENT.

[dogishboy]

64. Obama leaves 15 million people behind

And you can't refute that.

All you've got is name calling, and now, you're ranting about SS.

[sandnsea]

65. The Harvard Professors disagree

and I already posted that link.

[dogishboy]

66. Dishonest

It's not "Harvard Professors disagree". It's "Two Harvard professors disagree", and like you, those two professors provide NO EVIDENCE to support their claim.

All you've got is you and two professors whining "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

Let me know when you have some evidence

[sandnsea]

67. It's common goddamn sense

I'm sure you have some somewhere.

[dogishboy]

68. I half agree with you

It's "common".

[Cowpunk]

69. Nor do they use phony right-wing tactics

It's called an "echo chamber".

Matt Drudge makes up a story that Democrat X is having an affair.

Fox Noise reports, "The buzz around Washington is that Democrat X is having an affair"

The Washington Times reports, "Fox News reports today that a scandal is brewing about a reported Democrat X affair"

Fox Noise reports, "Washington Times confirms Democrat X affair story".

And so on...

[ThatPoetGuy]

14. Telling lies and spending money.

Here is the union's 527 ad that Obama has complained about:

“The price of dependence on foreign oil. Health care in crisis. Government run by corporate lobbyists. Isn't it time someone had a plan to take them on? The Edwards plan: Ban campaign cash from lobbyists. End tax breaks for big oil. Stop job killing trade deals. Stand up to insurance companies for real health reform.

Ask all the candidates what their plan is to level the playing field."

There's nothing dishonest in there. There's no attack.

Barack Obama has deliberately misled Americans into thinking that this mild, union-supported, pro-Edwards ad is a vicious, negative attack by a corrupt group.

The 527 is spending $750,000 to put that on the air.

Barack Obama has spent ten to twelve million dollars in Iowa, last I heard.

Telling lies, and spending money. That's Barack Obama for you.

[sandnsea]

20. I don't think that's the ad n/t

[ThatPoetGuy]

22. That's the ad.

Barack Obama misled you.

[sandnsea]

31. That's one ad

There are many things being said, many ads out there. Not just this one. He is addressing the lies about his health care plan, most specifically. The rest of the union ad is shit too, but Obama's ad is about health care.

[ThatPoetGuy]

70. No, this is THE ad that Obama raised such a stink about.

All that whining about evil 527s supporting Edwards were based on this one little ad. It's the one that was made by a man who used to work in one of Edwards' offices.

All those accusations -- Barack Obama was being dishonest.

This is the text of the ad that Barack Obama has been lying about.

“The price of dependence on foreign oil. Health care in crisis. Government run by corporate lobbyists. Isn't it time someone had a plan to take them on? The Edwards plan: Ban campaign cash from lobbyists. End tax breaks for big oil. Stop job killing trade deals. Stand up to insurance companies for real health reform.

Ask all the candidates what their plan is to level the playing field."

No smears. No dishonesty. No negative rhetoric, at all.

Please, look at that text, and tell me what in there is "shit," as you claim.

A $750,000 ad buy, as opposed to the millions spent by Barack "Money-Is-Ruining-Politics" Obama.

[dogishboy]

72. that poster likes to call others "liars"

but that poster will NEVER demonstrate the lie.

The ad (and it is THE AD that BO whined about) is 100% accurate

[ThatPoetGuy]

73. Ah.

Thanks for the scoop, dogishboy!

[Cowpunk]

62. What Lies?

Present some factual evidence, or STFU!

[killbotfactory]

17. Unions are also supporting Clinton

Pro-Free-trade, Pro-Nafta Clinton.

They are not beyond reproach, and they make mistakes, just like every other group of human beings on this planet.

[sandnsea]

18. Recent DMR has unions supporting Obama

Someone posted that earlier. Isn't that ironic.

[dogishboy]

24. Nope. Clinton leads with union members

Obama leads in one state, not the entire nation.

[sandnsea]

28. This ad is about Iowa n/t

[dogishboy]

38. So what?

The poster made an unqualified claim that Clinton leads with unions. The poster did not limit the remark to Iowa. And the poster was right - Clinton does lead with unions.

Hint: Reading matters

[TeamJordan23]

34. Can you back that up with support? nm

[Adelante]

30. Union households

I found that interesting, too. It means the rank and file isn't necessarily swallowing what the leadership is pushing.

[sandnsea]

35. They voted Kerry in 2004

Even though the Dean people thought he had the union vote. Just like the young people went Kerry too. Most people prefer their change with a healthy dose of common sense pragmatism, not red hot rhetoric. If Joe Trippi ever figures that out, he'll be the best strategist in the business.

[Jai4WKC08]

43. They usually don't

After all, union members voted for Reagan en masse.

My hubby's union is very Democratic now. Very anti-Bush. So most of them will vote Dem, assuming they vote at all, but very few have any idea who it will be, even tho the leadership endorsed Clinton. I'm guessing most won't vote in the primaries (KS and MO).

[Bitwit1234]

39. OH NO...when someone supports someone other than Obama

they are attack ads, didn't you all know that...geez....what a bunch of crap....boo hoo boo hoo get out the hankerchiefs Obama is crying a river.

[TeamJordan23]

2. Desperation from Anti-Obama crowd reaches a new low. nm

[dogishboy]

6. How did Obama come up with the $2500 in savings?

If his plan is really going to save me money, shouldn't he be eager to explain HOW it's going to save me so much money?

[TeamJordan23]

7. How are Edwards and Clinton going to enforce their mandate?

I don't know how he came up with the number. It is likely his health care policy advisors did. Maybe you can have the press ask him about it and he will likely say the same thing.

Also, how are Edwards and Clinton going to enforce their mandate?

[dogishboy]

11. You don't have answer, so you attack?

Edwards has already described how he will enforce his mandate. Clinton has not. Neither has Obama, who despite his dishonesty, includes a mandate in his plan.

All plans lack some detail. Obama's plan does not specify, in detail, how he will achieve the savings ($2500/yr) he claims his plan will achieve. This lack of detail doesn't seem to bother you. It's only wrong when the lack of detail comes from someone who isn't named "Barack"

[TeamJordan23]

16. Open your eyes

It's politics. Every candidate has made tons of promises without specific methods of how they will do it, how it will cost, and how they will enforce it. Have any of the candidates - Edwards and Clinton included - specifically told us how much healthcare insurance will drop by and what the likely insurance cost will be? Nope.

This is American politics for you. It's not ideal - I will be the first to say it. Instead, we have to take the candidate's words for all their proposals and policy plans. You might not like Barack, but he is not stupid. And I doubt his policy advisors are not dumb either. So I am sure they have this calculation on how they came up with this number somewhere in their specific policy plans - which I think would bore people if they went through it line by line on the campaign stump.

[dogishboy]

21. So, a lack of details, which you criticized, is OK?

You do realize, I hope, that by excusing Obama's lack of detail, only minutes after criticizing Clinton's and Edwards's lack of detail, does not reflect well on your credibility. And when you say "It's politics", it sounds like "You shouldn't believe TeamJordan because s/he will say anything when it comes to politics"

For example, in addition to attacking others while excusing Obama for doing the same thing, you also go on to say "Instead, we have to take the candidate's words for all their proposals and policy plans" I sincerely doubt you take anything Clinton and Edwards says as the truth. In fact, I've seen you describe other candidates as liars. So much for "we have to take the candidates words..." It's obvious that even you don't believe that load

[TeamJordan23]

33. I was not criticizing Edwards and Clinton's lack of detail - only to make my point.

I was just saying that to prove that you will never get all the answers you want out of a candidate - specifically 'meaty' policy stuff. To me, it does not bother me that much that they havn't laid out specific details of their plans. Because I never expect any of the candidates to do so. If everyone expected detail out of each candidate, why isn't the public asking for specific healthcare insurance plan costs from each candidate?

Maybe you should put pressure on the press to ask Obama's claim. From your tone, you think Obama is flat out lying when he makes his claim. Which, like I said is flat out stupid.

[dogishboy]

40. A piss poor point

"I was just saying that to prove that you will never get all the answers you want out of a candidate - specifically 'meaty' policy stuff. "

Clintons' plan details the savings. See pages 11-13 from her American Health Choices Plan:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

"From your tone, you think Obama is flat out lying when he makes his claim. Which, like I said is flat out stupid. "

Please don't put words in my mouth. That is flat out dishonest

[sandnsea]

42. Did you read his plan?

He has mandates on the actual insurance companies, requiring all of them to provide specific coverage and quit offering phony plans. He pulls the catastrophic cases out, which reduces premiums. He has a whole host of plans that will reduce costs.

Are you saying Edwards and Clinton WON'T reduce costs??

[dogishboy]

46. Yes, I did and I was not impressed

1) His plan has mandates and he criticizes mandates. How is his plan going to pass when Repukes run ads with Obama criticizing his own plan?

2) All of the plans do the same for catastrophic cases

3) He has lots of plans with few details. Like his "Politics of Hope", I see little of substance. Clintons' plan details the savings. See pages 11-13 of her American Health Choices plan. It's a PDF that is available from her website

[comradebillyboy]

3. This union family will not be

supporting Obama.

[TeamJordan23]

9. Yet, he leads both Clinton and Edwards among union households in Iowa

According the last night's DMR Poll.

I think Union workers are a lot smarter than you are giving them credit for and can see through political BS that you are advocating.

[comradebillyboy]

29. Both my wife and I are union members

Our unions don't tell how to vote or think. Will Saint Barak repudiate those 527 "special interests" in the unlikely event he wins the nomination. I think not, because nothing is more important than winning.

[madmom]

52. Nor this one!

[sandnsea]

4. There are lies being told

And unions are telling them. Sad but true.

[DemKR]

74. im surprsied you're not on obama's campaign staff n/t

[CyberPieHole]

8. An Obama presidency would not be much different than what Bush has wrought...

Obama's politics of hope is a sham.

[indimuse]

10. Obama has been quietly running a dirty and hypocritical campaign for months

and now..NOT SO QUIET!

[comradebillyboy]

32. I'm shocked, just shocked I tell you! nt

[mtnsnake]

26. Especially if he invites his mentor to become his VP or his Secretary of State

That would really suck

[ShadesOfGrey]

37. Now that would be a nightmare!

[surfermaw]

25. He is probably anxious

Be glad when the primaries are over, so we want blow 2008

[Capn Sunshine]

45. Keep trying

We're up by 7, the caucus is tomorrow.

Why bother with tripe like this?

[DemKR]

71. gimme gimme more

[Czolgosz]

75. recommended