From Anne in Chicago:

Name: Robert Reich (former member of Bill Clinton Cabinet)
MONDAY, DECEMBER 03, 2007
Why is HRC stooping So Low?
I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and
inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old
friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in
campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC
attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security
doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape
than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need
bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten
years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting
the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll
taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000
(it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates
satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past
midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted
all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00.
That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer
Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's
irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the
retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission
came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all
Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes”
and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She
says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two
plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now.
But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than
HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains
sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help –
including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers
requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience
with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s
happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being
mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower
end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required
to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I
can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be
able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front
investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the
reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic
illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re
both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds
for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. "There's a big difference
between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what
we're willing to fight for," she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa
voters will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and
somebody who's walked the walk." Then asked whether she intended to
raise questions about O’s character, she said: "It's beginning to
look a lot like that."

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history
shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC’s
campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about
anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold
positions and continuously seek the political center, which is
exactly what she’s been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs
doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the
rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is
not the way to build them back up.
posted by Robert Reich | 8:07 AM
232 Comments:...
Conor Ryan said...
OK, the son is not guilty of the father's sins does not apply to
spouses. now, think of HRC schmoozing with Ruper Murdoch, and think
of the Presidential pardon given to the likes of Marc Rich by her
husband. Smells like the plutocratic stench of stealth Republicanism
to me.