Ignoring key bill, Wash. Post's Milbank attempted to refute Obama's statement that he "expanded health care in Illinois"
SUMMARY: The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote that Sen. Barack Obama's "signature legislation as a state senator, the Health Care Justice Act, merely set up a panel to craft a plan," not, as Obama claimed, "expanded health care in Illinois by bringing Democrats and Republicans together, by taking on the insurance industry." In fact, Obama sponsored a bill that expanded health insurance programs for low-income families in Illinois. Following that bill's passage, more than 150,000 additional people reportedly received health insurance through the programs.
In his December 14 Washington Post piece, "Attacks Add," Dana Milbank asserted that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "is no Boy Scout" and that "the achievements Obama has to tout are thin." To support his claim, Milbank noted Obama's speech to the Democratic National Committee on November 30, in which Obama claimed he "expanded health care in Illinois by bringing Democrats and Republicans together, by taking on the insurance industry." Milbank then wrote: "Actually, his signature legislation as a state senator, the Health Care Justice Act, merely set up a panel to craft a plan." In fact, while Obama did sponsor the Health Care Justice Act in 2004, which "encourages Illinois to implement a health care plan that provides access to a full range of preventive, acute and long-term health care services," he also sponsored a 2003 bill that expanded KidCare and FamilyCare, health insurance programs for low-income families in Illinois. PolitiFact.com cited a Kaiser Foundation study in reporting that, following the bill's passage, "more than 150,000" additional people received health insurance through these programs.
In 2003, Obama sponsored a bill that expanded eligibility for KidCare and FamilyCare by amending "the Children's Health Insurance Program Act to provide that a child with a household income of 200%, rather than 185%, of the federal poverty level is eligible to participate in the Program." The House version of the bill was sponsored by state Rep. Sandra Pihos, a Republican. On July 1, 2003, Illinois Gov. Ron Blagojevich (D) signed the bill into law. During both his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign and his current presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly highlighted his sponsorship of the bill, often saying that he "expanded health care to 150,000 children and their parents in Illinois." According to enrollment statistics provided by the Kaiser Foundation, the two programs expanded enrollment by more than 150,000. From a September 25, 2007, analysis of a recent Obama campaign advertisement by PolitiFact, a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly:
In an ad making the case for Barack Obama as a political candidate who can bring people together, an announcer says Obama "won health care for 150,000 people."
[...]
So did he?
The statement is based on a 2003 law Obama sponsored when he was an Illinois state senator. His bill expanded income eligibility for KidCare and FamilyCare, the state health insurance programs for low-income families. Gov. Ron Blagojevich, a Democrat, signed the bill on July 1, 2003.
[...]
After the new law passed, both programs saw sizable increases in enrollment. Children's enrollment increased by 55,421 between 2003 and 2005, according to a study from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Adult enrollment increased by 100,458 between 2003 and 2006. That comes to a total of 155,879. So after Obama's legislation passed, more than 150,000 people did get health insurance.
During the July 1, 2003, signing ceremony for the bill, Blagojevich stated: "We're expanding a great program and the leadership and commitment of Senator Obama and Representative Pihos helped to make it possible." Similarly, in its March 8, 2004, endorsement of Obama during his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, the Peoria Journal Star (Illinois) asserted that Obama "was instrumental in extending the reach of KidCare, the health-insurance program for the working poor."
In an October 8, 2004, Chicago Tribune profile, Obama cited "expanding KidCare" as an example of his "signature legislation" while in the state senate.
From Milbank's December 14 column:
When a Boy Scout sees an older woman, he helps her cross the street. In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama is no Boy Scout.
The 46-year-old freshman senator from Illinois, trying to topple the 60-year-old front-runner, never once utters the words "Hillary" or "Clinton." But the target of his stump speech is unmistakable -- and his derision is brutal.
[...]
Obama is arguably the best speaker in the presidential race, and his stump speech the most lyrical. "Our nation's at war, the planet is in peril, the dream that so many generations fought for feels as if it's slowly slipping away," he reports.
On the other hand, the achievements Obama has to tout are thin. "I've done more than any candidate in this race to actually take on lobbyists, and I've won," he boasts. Well, yes, he championed ethics reforms in the Senate but left much of the heavy lifting to others while he campaigned.
"I expanded health care in Illinois by bringing Democrats and Republicans together, by taking on the insurance industry," he asserts. Actually, his signature legislation as a state senator, the Health Care Justice Act, merely set up a panel to craft a plan.
Obama also sounds a bit green when he vows that "I will finish the fight against al-Qaeda" -- a battle nobody expects will wrap up in the next four years.
Well, Dana has to keep his owners and editors happy somehow - even at the expense of journalistic integrity and truth - so here we have the obligatory lie about Obama for today. Now that we have that out of the way, on to the cocktail circuit and some real action.
Here's some truth. Expanded health care? You bet. And if you're part of that "expanded" care expect to have limited options for doctors. Long wait times, etc. Let's expand it some more and go national...
Here's some truth.
Nice start. Too bad all the words immediately following these had no relation to them at all.
I haven't seen anyong who lies as well as Dana Milbank since Richard Milhouse Nixon died in 1994.....
Did you overlook Ray-gun, and pere Bungle, and especially Bungle? The riff on Bungle having never willingly spoken the truth except on two statements, still applies seven years after it was new: "I'm George Bush" & "I want your vote" - with some contending that even those were false, for the creature is so devoid of humanity that it must be an alien impersonator, and that the pro forma solicitation of support was an attempt to disguise the theft of the election.
Ray-Gun did his lying prior to Nixon's death, and we still don't kow the exact magnitude og Bush's lies - we will once the Dems get bac in teh White House and straighten out the mess he made.
Actually, I was simply noting the similarity between Milbank's last name and Nixon's middle name.
I confess I did not take your original posting literally - but it nonetheless afforded an opportunity to spin my "Bungle lies" concoction.
WZ,
Say what you will about Dana Milbank but one thing he isn't, is a bigger liar than anyone that works in the White House or its propaganda machine over at FOX......
Yes, Dana, like any other reporter these days, has to tread the water carefully. Lie? Sometimes I suppose. But I'd say Dana imbelishes and can be a panderer (based on the show he's on).....
Either way, Dana has more credibility than all of FOX combined and is probably one of the more decent reporters (by todays standards that is) where being a 'reporter' lately means to simply repeat talking-points and pre-made scripts.
So goes to many at CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS
Ok, lets stipulate Obama had two achievements as argued by MMFA. He still looks pretty thin to me. :-)
I dunno, AA. After all, two achievements is still far better than the current occupant can muster for his resume. Or, did you intend a play on the fact that Obama is not exactly chunky?
Con,
That's a rather narrow view, don'tcha think?
I prefer "strait" insofar as my view.
You prefer fat candidates then? ;)
He still looks pretty thin to me.
He's still far better than any of the idiots running for the GOP nomination with their mindless "I'm-more-conservative-than-you" mantra.
What does one expect from the WAPO? Rightwingers still think it's a lynchpin of the "elite liberal eastablishment media". But people who have the advantage of reality-based vision can plainly see that its editorial staff and most of its columnists have abandoned objectivity in favor of corporate conservative bias.
It might as well be an actual province in Rupert Murdoch's empire.
Don't you think the article, by bringing down Obama, supports Clinton/Edwards as well?
Looks like a classic case of a journalist making a conclusion and then nitpicking evidence to support it.
What seems to be missing is that the House version of the KidCare that MMFA is touting as evidence of Obama's leadership, is that the Illinois House version was sponsored by a Republican.
So a bi-partisan bill from the outset doesn't really speak to Obama's ability to unify does it now?
I said earlier Obama had two examples and that looked a little thin. Reflecting on this, I think its safe to say Obama is still a lightweight. :-)
So a bi-partisan bill from the outset doesn't really speak to Obama's ability to unify does it now?
You don't know what words mean do you.
Generally bipartisan means unified. Maybe you didn't pass reading comprehension in schools.
Young,
Look at it this way, couldn't Sandra Pihos (R) make the same claim as Obama as she sponsored the bill in the House?
Ok Obama is taking credit as politicians do. It seems to me that this example, as one of only two that MMFA gives, is a little light.
Yes, there was bi-partisan support, but other than taking credit for sponsoring the bill in the Illinois Senate, I see little from this example to prove Obama was the unifier.
Reflecting on this, I think its safe to say Obama is still a lightweight. :-)
Well he is a pretty thin guy ;-)
So a bi-partisan bill from the outset doesn't really speak to Obama's ability to unify does it now?
Isn't a bi-partisan bill the definition of the ability to "unify"? I hope that the next president is able to get things done with BOTH parties.
By the way, as much as MMFA whines when Hillary gets dissed in the media, I think that they really have a case. The picture of Hillary on the Drudge report today is a low blow.
Yeah that photo threw me...
Does she get a face lift before puplic appearances? I mean make-up couldn't hide wrinkels like those!
Me thinks there's something fishy about that picture ;-)
*Public not puplic
Hey why so few threads? Are Conservatives minding their P's & Q's? ;-)
So since there's nothing really shaking here, what did everyone think of Bill Clinton telling Charlie Rose that voting for Obama was like "rolling the dice"
I think he was playing the dominant negative theme about Obama his lack of experience. It is also one of the more valid criticisms. I wouldnt be that big a supporter of his except he seems the only one that can knock off Hillary and I dont really like her. No question Obama can give a speech that just burns the house down but I like to have seen a guy at the national level for a while so I can judge his political courage before I vote for him to be President.
I can agree with that Solon, but I think it's being seen by some as just more mud slinging against Obama as well as an act of desperation on the part of the Clintons.
I'm afraid because of that incredibly stupid move by Shaheen last week in attempting to bring up Obama's youthful drug use, anything the Clintons say or do now that sounds the least bit negative will likely be labeled as dirty politics.
I think he has more "political corage" than any of them. And I think his "lack of experince" only shows that he hasn't spent so much time in the D.C. to have been corrupted by it. (And yes, this totally affects buth 'Pub's and Dem's!) He is the only real idealist. (Well, bside Huckabee, maybe, but his ideals scare the bejesus out of me.) He's the only one who really has any good ideas and his speeches don't just "bing the house down" but demonstrate to me, time and time again, that he has the best understaidning of the issues being addressed. Almost every criticism I've heard of his statements miscontrues them in some way. A sure sign that his idea is superior - it can't be attacked without distorting it. :)
I agree with Solon regarding Obama. I don't think he's quite ready for prime time.
His speeches, although generally uplifting, seem to me to consist mostly of platitudes.
Having said all that, I think Obama will win the nomination. It looks to me that Clinton fatigue has started to set in. I think Democrats like the fact Obama does not engender the dissaproval ratings the way Hillary does.
ps. Watching the candidates lately on TV is there anyone of them that is not excited about where their campaigns are at? I've heard both Hillary and Edwards on the Today Show seem to over sell how well their campaigns are doing after being told Obama has taken the lead. Frankly I thought it made them look silly.
Right because what we've all come to expect from you SOLON is well reasoned debate and decision making.
As much as YOU whine about MMFA doing its job you make a VERY good point here. He said it was a bipartisan bill. The claim was he brought the two sides together to get this done. That IS the very essence of bipartisanship.
I think the point was/is that he wasn't the one who did the bridge building.
He may be a lightweight, but then so was Bush, and he was elected twice. That being said, I highly doubt Obama would end up being the bumbling idiot our president has been, what with his "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" comments.
Media Matters is committing canibalism here. Milbank is Olbermann's sidekick--one of their own!
Hey, that's the price Dana must pay for collecting his lie-check weekly. If he takes the pay-off, we gotta whack him! (With a stick, Sopranos fans).
It really isnt about WHO said it, its about WHAT was said
Olbermann should stop inviting Milbank to his show due to his lack of professionalism, love for trivia and his Republican bias.
Obama did not craft the legislation that passed the State Senate. He was one of thirty senators who sponsored the bill.The Barack campaign is conflating who separate issues into one and by doing so trying to credit for the whole thing, which is typical of Obama, whose ego is bigger than his actual deeds.
Kaiser Foundation is nothing more than a front for the Kaiser Permanente HMO, which has been a huge backer of Barack's campaign. They were also a big promoter of the "KidCare and FamilyCare" as well as beneficiary of the program.