Sunday Thoughts

Clinton: You know, Senator Obama has been — as the Associated Press described it, he could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago, he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care. Then he proposed a health care plan that doesn’t cover everybody. I think that’s relevant. I mean, I think that what we’re looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow. And I think that, you know, there are questions that should be asked and answered from each of us. And I certainly have no problem with whatever scrutiny comes my way.

Gibson: Senator Obama?

Obama: Well, you know, I think the Associated Press was quoting some of your folks, Hillary, so let’s talk specifically about health care, since you mentioned that. I have been entirely consistent in my position on health care. What I said — and I have said on the campaign trail this time — is if I were designing a system from scratch, I would set up a single- payer system, because we could gain enormous efficiencies from it. Our medical care costs twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation. But what I’ve also said is that, given that half of the people are getting, already, employer-based health care, that it would be impractical for us to do so, which is why I put forward a plan that says anybody can get health care that is the same as the health care that I have as a member of Congress — similar to the plans that you and John have offered.

Frankly, Obama’s position was clear to me, and I was just a blogger who did some campaign reading in between law school classes. This is similar to Clinton’s mischaracterization of Obama’s health care plan that I noted at the 100 Club dinner. His plan does not leave people out, it allows people to choose to not opt in. That’s a significant difference.

Moreover, Clinton immediately after that exchange was confronted by Obama that there was a significant philosophical difference between their plans. Instead of engaging in that debate (as Paul Krugman has), she instead changed the subject to the existence of a mandate for children. The reality though is that Clinton would probably out-debate Obama on such policy specifics. She’s running too conventional of a campaign that is not suited to her strengths, and can veer from intellectual honesty on occasion.

As usual Obama was right on pitch for his audience of south side blacks. But this statement also echoes yesterday’s point about where Clinton 1.0 fell short. Obama’s proposed “working majority for change” is all about numbers and energy–as he put it last night, “we have to bet on [the American people].” Hillary and Obama are both smart enough to know this makes his a risky run–with powerful consequences, or real “action,” if it continues to be successful.

If Hillary could be honest with herself, she might conclude that the “words” and “action” argument is a false choice. But without more explicit stuff than Obama gave last night, she might pull this spin off. So my main gripe is Obama’s hesitance to connect his message to his own experience. The “35 years” thing is ingrained by now–do Americans know that Obama does have the experience to back up the message that is captivating America? He needs to incorporate a new smattering of buzzwords into his speech, but foremost among them: “community organizer.” I am at a loss as to why he cannot be more precise about this compelling facet of his experience.