Obama's Anti-Clinton Spin At Odds with DNC

...Or, how Democrats Eat Their Own.

Talking Points Memo has an article up describing Obama's latest mailer attacking the Clinton Presidency:

In what may be Obama's most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton's presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts "the Clintons" for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.

"8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation," reads the mailer, which goes on to list the post-1992 losses suffered by Dems among governors, Senators and members of the House of Representatives. The mailer was forwarded to us by a political operative who told us it was sent to Alaska, though it was probably sent elsewhere, too.

link: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_directly_attacks_bills_p.php

So, being the curious blogger I am I was wondering what the DNC's official take on the Clinton years was. Below is their take on Bill Clinton's legacy, taken from their website (my emphasis added):

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected the 42nd President of the United States. President Clinton ran on the promise of a New Covenant for America's forgotten working families. After twelve years of Republican presidents, America faced record budget deficits, high unemployment, and increasing crime. President Clinton's policies put people first and resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in peacetime history. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 — passed by both the House and Senate without a single Republican vote — put America on the road to fiscal responsibility and led to the end of perennial budget deficits. Having inherited a $290 billion deficit in 1992, President Clinton's last budget was over $200 billion in surplus. The Clinton/Gore Administration was responsible for reducing unemployment to its lowest level in decades and reducing crime to its lowest levels in a generation. In 1996, President Clinton became the first Democratic president reelected since Roosevelt in 1936. In 1998, Democrats became the first party controlling the White House to gain seats in Congress during the sixth year of a president's term since 1822.

In the 2000 elections, Democrats netted 4 additional Senate seats, one additional House seat, and one additional gubernatorial seat. Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote for President by more than 500,000 votes. In 2001, Democrats regained control of the Senate under Majority Leader Tom Daschle, while Democrats swept to victory in races all across the country, including races for Virginia Governor and Lt. Governor, New Jersey Governor, and 39 out of 42 major mayoral races including Los Angeles and Houston.

link: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html

So, Obama's message on the Clinton years: we didn't get enough done because the Democrats lost seats due to how divisive the Clintons were. The DNC's message on the Clinton years: we got a lot of things done, including ripping the mantle of "fiscal responsibility" away from the GOP, and we didn't need Republican support to get there. Heck, we even ended up with more elected Democrats at the end of it all.

While both versions of history have some validity, the overall problem with Obama's recent mailer is this: it is at odds with how the Democratic National Committee wants to view itself during the Clinton years. That's a bad thing.

Being officially agnostic on Hillary versus Obama, I'm not going to claim the Clinton years weren't divisive. They were (now, whether or not that was actually the fault of the Clintons is a matter that could be up for discussion). And if Barack Obama wants to hit Hillary hard on being a divisive figure, I say have at it. Not only is this a valid line of attack but there's more than enough polling data to actually, factually back that one up.

However, when Obama's messaging on the Clinton years starts to directly conflict with the DNC's, it's time to throw in the penalty flag. The Democratic Party, as an entity, has a vested interest in pointing out that Bill Clinton (and by association the DNC) left the country better than they found it, because they can make that same pledge to voters this year in the general election. "It takes a Democrat to clean up after a Bush" should be the rallying cry come November.

But it can't be if Obama takes away that rhetorical goose that could lay all of those golden soundbite eggs.

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to destroy each other in the primaries, fair enough. That's not something I'd prefer but with stakes this high I can see how that one can happen. *But when they start to go after the effectiveness of the Democratic Party and its messaging, it's time to reign in that line of attack.*

We all want to elect more Democrats this year. Let's not lose sight of that goal.

Clinton, Obama Both Flawed On Health Care

In the middle of the mandate pie-fight (which just had a big ole can of gas dumped on it today by Paul Krugman), I think it's important for folks to understand that - mandates aside - there's still issues with both Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's health care plans that need to be addressed. I'm going to pick the big, blank area of each plan that leaves it open to attack, because my primary goal is to have a viable universal health care plan introduced by whoever wins the Democratic nomination (and then hopefully the presidency) as quickly as possible.

I suggest first off that folks read up on both of these plans.

Hillary Clinton's plan is here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

Barack Obama's plan is here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

First off, a little housekeeping. I've read a number of threads on these health care plans and I've seen folks making the argument that the Clinton plan would force folks into private insurance. That is not the case - both the Clinton plan and the Obama plan have a public option. From page 6 of the Clinton plan (I'm retyping directly from the .pdf, my apologies for any typos):

In addition to the array of public choices offered, the Health Choics menu will also provide Americans with a choice of a public plan option, which could be modeled on the traditional Medicare program, but would cover the same benefits as guaranteed in private plan options in the Health Choices Menu without creating a new bureaucracy. The alternative will compete on a level playing field with traditional private plans.

Now, that being said, the big problem with Hillary's plan is that it is vague on regulation. With another politician this may be less of an issue, but as Hillary has a policy of taking lobbyist money (and has been pretty vocal on that subject), this leaves her plan - which includes mandates - more open to the charge that it's "putting money in the pockets of the insurance lobby". Regardless of the public option, folks will (and already have) drawn the connection between mandates and Hillary's friendly relations with Big Insurance. This is the language Hillary uses in her plan that speaks to how she would regulate insurers:

The plan creates rules that all insurers must follow, ensuring that no American is denied coverage, refused the renewal of an insurance policy, unfairly priced out of the market, or charged excessive insurance premiums. Health plans will compete on cost and quality rather than avoiding patients who need insurance the most.

snip

Require minimum stop loss ratios: Premiums collected by insurers must be dedicated to the provision of high quality care, not excessive profits and marketing.

In order for Hillary to answer critics she must put in more specifics on stop loss ratios. "Excessive" is in the eye of the beholder, and if she is mandating that all people opt into an insurance plan, folks have to know that this isn't one big scheme to fleece their already strained budgets to aid the profits of insurance companies. Being more specific on how she would cap insurance industry profits would go a long way to building consumer confidence in her plan.

Now, let's turn to Obama's plan. Although Obama could also be more specific on industry regulation (his plan mentions capping industry profits in certain markets that aren't competitive and removing caps in other markets that are more competitive, which frankly sounds pretty convoluted - see pages 9-10 of his .pdf), he has a much bigger problem that he hasn't dealt with yet: penalties.

From his interview on Meet The Press, December 30 (my emphasis added):

MR. RUSSERT: In terms of candor, you're running a political ad in Iowa and elsewhere about healthcare. And this is what the ad says. Here's the Obama ad. Let's watch.

(Videotape)

SEN. OBAMA: I've got a plan to cut costs and cover everyone.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Cover everyone." Every analysis of your healthcare plan says there are 15 million Americans who would not be automatically covered because you don't call for a mandate.

SEN. OBAMA: But, but, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Let me just give you a chance to respond. Ron Brownstein, who's objective on this, wrote this for the National Journal, and then we'll come back and talk about it. He says this: "Obama faces his own contortions. He commendably calls for building a broad healthcare consensus that includes the insurance industry. But in the states, the individual mandate has been critical in persuading insurers to accept reform, including the requirement" "they no longer reject applicants with pre-existing health problems. If such a requirement isn't tied to a mandate, insurers correctly note, the uninsured can wait until they are sick to buy coverage, which" would "inflate costs for everyone else. By seeking guaranteed access without an individual mandate, Obama is virtually ensuring war with the insurance companies that he's pledged to engage."

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, here's the philosophical debate that's going on. First of all, every objective observer says Edwards, Clinton, myself, we basically have the same plan. We do have a philosophical difference. They both believe the problem is the government is not forcing adults to get healthcare. My belief is that the real problem is people can't afford healthcare, and that if we could make it affordable, they will purchase it. Now, they assert that there're going to be all these people left out who are avoiding buying healthcare. My attitude is, we are going to make sure that we reduce costs for families who don't have health care, but also people who do have healthcare and are desperately needing some price relief. And we are going to reduce costs by about $2500 per family.

If it turns out that there are still people left over who are not purchasing healthcare, one way of avoiding them waiting till they get sick is to charge a penalty if they try to sign up later so that they have an incentive to sign up immediately.

MR. RUSSERT: Which is a quasi-mandate.

SEN. OBAMA: But--well, no, it's not a quasi-mandate because what happens then is we are not going around trying to fine people who can't afford healthcare, and that's what's happening in Massachusetts right now. They've already had to exempt 20 percent of the uninsured, and you're reading stories about people who didn't have healthcare, still can't afford the premiums on the subsidized healthcare, but now are also paying a fine. That I don't think is providing a relief to the American people. We need to make health care affordable. That's what my plan does. And The Washington Post itself said, for the Clinton campaign to try to find an individual who wanted healthcare and could not get it under the Obama administration would be very difficult because that person probably does not exist. If you want healthcare under my plan, you will be able to get it, it will be affordable, and it will be of the high quality.

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22409176/page/5/

I've reviewed Obama's health care plan (and double checked it again this morning) and I have yet to find any details about these "penalties". Any plan for universal coverage has to deal - at some point - with adverse selection (the probability of more high risk people signing up for a plan than low risk people, thereby forcing the plan to pay out more money than it takes in). Hillary is proposing to deal with this on the front end through mandates. Obama is doing this on the back end through penalties (and before folks start on about "making insurance more affordable"...both plans do that. Both plans also have an enforcement mechanism for adverse selection, and Obama seems to have the trigger for the enforcement when the person who hasn't paid into the plan goes to access benefits).

However, as Obama has not been very specific about what these penalties are, how many past premium periods they may cover, whether or not interest is charged, whether or not there is a wage or income garnishment involved, whether or not these folks would be charged higher rates for not opting in sooner, etc. etc. this leaves his plan weakened. It is also unclear whether putting penalties in place on the back end would give people "an incentive to sign up early". The opposite could also be argued: that folks may put off seeking treatment because they don't want to pay these penalties. This would in turn increase, not decrease, the cost of care.

I want universal health care. I want Democrats going in with a strong plan so that - in the eventual compromise stage in Congress - many elements of the plan remain in place. When the plans start to get whittled down I want them made out of oak, not balsa wood or soft pine.

I'd like to see both candidates address the weaknesses in their plans for this reason. Let's not attack each other over universal health care; let's work together to get it done.