The Daily Howler responds to Krugman's suggestion Obama is a "fool" & a "sucker"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111607.shtml

<edit>

Obama “wanted a way to distinguish himself from Clinton,” Krugman speculates. According to Krugman’s speculation, this led to his recent pronouncements.

We’re inclined to agree with part of this—but we’ll be a bit less generous about Obama’s conduct. Reasons? First, we just reread his book. Second, we remember Bill Bradley.

What does Obama actually think about the Social Security “crisis?” It’s perfectly clear that, just last year, he didn’t believe there was one. Last year, he published The Audacity of Hope, a superbly written compilation of his political views. But uh-oh! Here’s what he wrote in that book, just last year, concerning Social Security:

OBAMA (page 182): Just as government policies can boost workers; wages without hurting the competitiveness of U.S. firms, so can we strengthen their ability to retire with dignity. We should start with a commitment to preserve Social Security’s essential character and shore up its solvency. The problems with the Social Security trust fund are real but manageable. In 1983, when facing a similar problem, Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill got together and shaped a bipartisan plan that established the system for the next sixty years. There’s no reason we can’t do the same today.

That passage is slightly shaky on the facts; Social Security was in much worse shape in 1983 than it is today. But in that passage, Obama seems to propose the very thing Clinton is proposing today; he says we should craft a “bipartisan plan” to address this “manageable problem.” On the next page, he continues to sketch his view of the situation:

OBAMA (page 183): As vital as it may be to raise the wages of American workers and improve their retirement security, perhaps our most pressing task is to fix our broken health-care system. Unlike Social Security, the two main government-funded health-care programs—Medicare and Medicaid—really are broken; without any changes by 2050, these two entitlements, along with Social Security, could grow to consume as large a share of our national economy as the entire federal budget does today.

Unlike Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid really are broken, he says. This is exactly what Clinton says now—and Obama attacks her for it. Just last year, this outlook displayed the audacity of hope. Today, it’s a sign of bad character.

We’re sorry, but we’ve seen this movie before; it played in 1999 and 2000, and it did massive harm to this country...

I think its a shame Obama decided to run this year, I would rather have seen him gain a little more experience, I'm sure he'll get another shot.

kudos to the howler for the fact checking and your post.

This is what he has said all along. Fixing social security will be a challenge, fixing Medicare is going to be a gigantic problem.

Hillary won't say what she's going to do. At all. That's what he's attacking her about.

Obama has proposed some specifics, things he would consider when a task force is established.

He isn't saying what the howler says he is saying.

thought was a good idea not too long ago?

The complaint has nothing to do with the commission. Talk about Obama's actual complaint.

said what she's going to do and it was something Obama thought was a good idea not too long ago. That's why his attack doesn't seem to make much sense.

will Hillary?

nt

:shrug:

Why does she tell different people different things about her social security solution? Is it just a commission, or does she have actual opinions on privatization and taxes and benefit cuts.

nt

Not cute now.

He just might be dangerous too.

'From NBC's Mark Murray

LAS VEGAS -- She said, "Social Security was on a path to being solvent into 2055," when talking about
the fiscal situation Bush inherited -- and then squandered -- when he took office. But again, we must
make this point: A 2001 Social Security Board of Trustees report, released just a couple of months after
her husband left office, said the program would remain solvent until 2038, not 2055. And now, Social
Security's solvency is 2041, per the Trustees.

Also, she said that raising the income cap on Social Security taxes would amount to a trillion-dollar tax
increase. Yet the AP overheard Clinton last month telling a voter that she might consider such a hike on
that cap, if there was a gap in protecting those making less than $200,000.'

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/15/469388.aspx

_________

From NBC's political blog First Read:


"The Obama camp clearly sees Social Security as a winning exchange for them last night. In fact, they released
a letter to Clinton from Maquoketa high school teacher Tod Bowman, who writes, in part, "I think it’s important
for candidates to draw substantive contrasts on where they stand. But I just don’t understand how you can like
an idea one day and then turn around and criticize it the next. It just gives the impression that you’re not being
straight with people about where you stand."

Bowman, the AP reported on Oct. 27, "tried to pin down Clinton during a debate in Iowa earlier this month on
whether the government should tax workers' earnings above the present cap of $97,500 to help pay for Social
Security benefits.

"Clinton sidestepped the question in public, telling Bowman privately afterward that she didn't want to put an
additional tax burden on the middle class, but would consider a "gap," with no Social Security taxes on income
from $97,500 to around $200,000. Anything above that could be taxed. Her answer was overheard by an
Associated Press reporter."

Here's the letter:
Dear Senator Clinton:

I was watching the debate last night, hoping to get some clarity on where the candidates stand on the fundamental
issues we’re facing in this country like Social Security. Senator Obama gave the same straightforward answer last
night on Social Security that he gave to me last month. But I was confused about something you said -- because
you criticized Senator Obama for supporting something you told me you’d consider supporting yourself.

On October 7, I attended a forum with you in Maquoketa, Iowa, and had the chance to ask you what you’d do to
protect Social Security. The response you gave in front of that crowd was different from the one you gave when
you came up to me after the event. And one of the things you told me in private afterwards was that you’d consider
supporting asking Americans to pay payroll taxes on more of their earnings. But that’s exactly what you criticized
Senator Obama last night for supporting.

I think it’s important for candidates to draw substantive contrasts on where they stand. But I just don’t understand
how you can like an idea one day and then turn around and criticize it the next. It just gives the impression that
you’re not being straight with people about where you stand. And if you won’t be straight with us on the campaign
trail, how can we be sure you’ll be honest with the American people when you’re President?

So I’d just like to know, are you still considering supporting raising the cap or not?

Thank you,
Tod Bowman
Maquoketa, Iowa

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/16/470282.aspx

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011341.php

I. SOCIAL SECURITY
Let's pick up our discussion from Part 2, where Sen. Clinton was 'caught' red-handed 'ducking' a tough question (or was she was 'ducking' a tough answer? - see below - I can't keep track of this nonsense anymore):

BACON (continuing directly): To emphasize this theme, Obama, who trails Clinton (D-N.Y.) by a wide margin in national polls, was introduced at the event by Tod Bowman, a Democrat and high school teacher in Maquoketa, Iowa. He said Clinton ducked his question about Social Security at an event this month.

"It made me wonder: If a candidate won't answer a question on the campaign trail, how can we be sure she'll be honest with the American people when they're president?" Bowman said at an event at a senior citizen center in Des Moines.

Here is what is interesting about Bowman's claim. Here's the video where Bowman introduces Sen. Obama and talks about Sen. Clinton's response to his question on social security. Notice that he says Clinton:

Did answer his question with a long response (i.e., in Bowmanese this = she won't answer questions on the campaign trail)
He felt her response was not satisfactory
After the session ended, Clinton personally came to speak to him and further explained her position (i.e., in Bowmanese this = she won't answer questions on the campaign trail)
He felt Clinton's subsequent explanation was "conflicting" with her original response

To summarize, according to Valiant Truth-TellerTM Tod Bowman, all of the above meant that Sen. Clinton "won't answer a question on the campaign trail". Got it? That's Reality-Based Straight-TalkTM for you!

In order to see things Tod's way you just have to visualize Hillary as evil incarnate.

Not that I'm surprised anymore. Unfortunately.