Josh, you are not alone I feel the same way.. I believe if the reporting was fair people would make a fair choice. But Obama is like the Media's small child, in their eyes he can do nothing wrong. On the other hand if Hillary says something wrong they are relentless, But when Obama says something that is insulting to the People of Small Town America they are quick to forgive whith a explanation from him that he should have used different words, as if an insult is served up better with whip cream... Hillary has always been for the working class and I it seems that the media has made the voters feel as if a vote for Hillary would be a wasted vote. They want people to jump on the Obama Bandwagon. I will vote for Hillary in the General Election if she is the Nominee, and if she is not I will not vote.
Factcheck.org: Obama's Mailings
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
The mailer says "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." But it fails to note that Clinton's plan, like Obama's, would subsidize the cost of insurance for many, making it more affordable.
We criticized the mailer for exaggerating the differences between Obama's plan and Clinton's. Since then both candidates have continued to strain the facts on this issue. Clinton keeps insisting that her plan will cover "everybody," which isn't quite true. It's true that her plan would include some sort of "mandate" to require individuals to obtain coverage. But as we reported Feb. 14, that would still leave perhaps a million persons without insurance, or more depending on how strong or weak her "mandate" turns out to be. She hasn't specified how she would enforce it or whether she would grant exemptions for hardship cases. Obama also has run ads claiming his plan would "cover everyone," but we quoted experts who estimated that 15 million or 26 million might be left without insurance unless required to obtain it; he too would have some kind of unspecified enforcement mechanism to ensure children have coverage. And we noted that experts are skeptical of both Clinton's and Obama's claims of huge cost savings from their plans.
For details, see our Feb. 14 article and our discussion of Massachusetts' Mandate from our Feb. 22 article on the Obama-Clinton debate in Texas.
In closing, we'd just note that Clinton is no innocent on sending out misleading mailers. We reported on Feb. 6 that a mailing by her campaign contained a "big distortion" of Obama's position on Social Security taxes and falsely implied that he had "no plan" to address mortgage foreclosures. It also attacked him for voting for a "Dick Cheney" energy bill that gave "huge tax breaks to oil companies," when in fact the bill gave a net tax increase to oil companies.
Note: Feb. 26: Our initial report said, "We could find no direct quote from Clinton praising NAFTA's economic effects." We updated this story to note that such quotes date from the Clinton administration and that her criticisms of NAFTA began soon after and are of long standing. We have also added material noting that many economists have found that NAFTA was indeed a boon to the economy, though a rather small one.
Reprinted with permission from factcheck.org .
Sources
Jeff Coryell, "Obama Mailer Slams Clinton on NAFTA," Ohio Daily Blog 13 Feb. 2008.
Dan Janison, "NAFTA: Us, Hillary and the 'Boon'" Newsday.com 14 Feb 2008.
Kristin Jensen and Mark Drajem, "Clinton Breaks With Husband's Legacy on Nafta Pact, China Trade" Bloomberg News 30 March 2007.
Transcript "Tim Russert" MSNBC.com 27 Oct 2007.
Gary R. Edson, "Advice for Clinton as he begins NAFTA sales job" Crain's Chicago Business 18 Oct 1993.
Bruce Stokes, "If NAFTA's Bogging Down, is Hillary to Blame?" The National Journal 2 Oct 1993.
© 2008
Discuss