Wall Street Journal Examines Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Advertisements

The Wall Street Journal on Saturday examined advertisements by Democratic candidates Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) that since March 4 have become "increasingly antagonistic." In Mississippi, Obama on Feb. 29 began to air a television ad that combines "stump-speech oratory" with "bullet-pointed messages" about his health care plan and other proposals, according to the Journal. Ahead of the Wyoming caucuses "both campaigns also [had] positive radio ads playing in the state," including one Clinton spot that focused "on health care, which exit polls showed gave her a major boost in both Texas and Ohio" (Rutkoff, Wall Street Journal, 3/8).

Clinton has begun to air a radio ad in Mississippi that says, "Eighteen years as our neighbor in Arkansas. She worked to improve the schools and expand rural health clinics" (Chandler/Rupp, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 3/9).

Obama on Saturday defeated Clinton in the Wyoming caucuses, CNN.com reports. Obama received 61% of the vote, and Clinton received 38% (CNN.com. 3/10).

Democrat Fills Hastert Seat
Health care was a key issue in the Saturday a special election for the Illinois 14th District congressional seat vacated last year by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), the Chicago Tribune reports. Bill Foster (D) defeated Jim Oberweis (R) with 53 % of the vote, compared to Oberweis' 47%. According to the Tribune, Foster "campaigned on this year's election refrain of change, promising to vote to remove U.S. troops from Iraq, support universal health care and target tax breaks to the middle class" (Kimberly, Chicago Tribune, 3/9).

House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said that Foster won the election in part because of his focus on SCHIP. During his campaign, Foster aired television ads and sent mailers to voters that said he would help the House override a presidential veto of legislation to expand SCHIP. Emanuel said that the election "reflects a huge level of anger at the Republican party" and is "the first shot fired in a change election" (Tankersley, "The Swamp," Baltimore Sun, 3/9).

McCain's Health Care Proposal Examined
CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday included a discussion with McCain about his health care proposal and other issues (Pelley, "60 Minutes," CBS, 3/9). Video and a partial transcript of the segment are available online.

Editorials

• Baltimore Sun: Medicare and Medicaid comprised "almost a quarter of all federal spending" last year, but the presidential candidates "fear discussing" the programs because "all the conventional choices for reining in" costs are "unpleasant" to voters, according to a Sun editorial. Many experts believe entitlement spending "can only be controlled by slowing the growth of overall health care spending," but "[u]nfortunately," the candidates' plans "for reducing health costs don't inspire confidence," the editorial states. The Sun continues, "[C]andidates who seek to expand health coverage shouldn't find it so difficult to talk about tamping down costs," adding that some health advocates "argue persuasively" that extending health coverage to more people "will reduce costs" because the insured "are more likely to avert costly illnesses through preventive care." According to the Sun, "Pointing out the connection between expanding coverage and controlling costs" could be a "'safe' way for skittish politicians to broach this uncomfortable subject," and it is "a conversation the nation can't afford to put off" (Baltimore Sun, 3/9).
  
  
• Denver Rocky Mountain News: "No matter who wins" the Democratic nomination, "that candidate will have a significantly different prescription for the nation's health care system" than McCain -- which is a "good thing, since that means the country is in for a debate involving real substance," a News editorial states. The editorial continues, "Until the next president takes office, states would be well-advised to steer clear of comprehensive reform," but they "can act on the margins" (Denver Rocky Mountain News, 3/9).

Opinion Pieces

• Martha Burk, Topeka Capital-Journal: Conservatives who criticize universal coverage plans as "socialized medicine" show how "clueless" they are about health care, Burk, author of Your Money and Your Life: What's at stake for women in 2008 and beyond, writes in a Capital-Journal opinion piece. According to Burk, universal coverage means "everyone would have health insurance," not that "the government would provide health care as a 'welfare' or 'entitlement' benefit to everyone." In addition, under a single-payer health care program, the government would not be the "primary provider of health care ... just the primary payer," she writes. Single-payer "is what we have now with traditional Medicare," and the model of "'socialized medicine,' a system "in which all health facilities are owned by the government" is "the model used" by the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Burk notes that "red-hot rhetoric notwithstanding, none of the candidates -- nor either political party -- advocates socializing the entire" U.S. health care system (Burk, Topeka Capital-Journal, 3/7).
  
  
• Mike King, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Discussion of health care in the Democratic campaign has been "largely confined" to expanding health coverage to all, or nearly all, U.S. residents, but "we don't hear" about "what can be done to stem the steep rises" in Medicare and Medicaid costs, Journal-Constitution editorial board member King writes. The programs are "growing faster than the national economy or the tax revenues used to finance them," and their costs would make "other federal initiatives ... impossible to sustain without a substantial tax increase," King writes. Although "higher costs" are in part a product of new medical technology, any "suggestion" that Medicare or Medicaid "might save money" by limiting reimbursements for these procedures "is sure to generate charges of rationing," according to King. Democrats are "right to push universal health insurance as the first step toward a solution," and their proposals are "clearly preferable to the slower, marketplace reforms" proposed by McCain, King writes. However, "whoever walks into the White House next January" will encounter the "formidable challenge" of "matching the worthy goal of increasing coverage with a genuine need to restrain costs," which will require reaching "out to those who disagree" and being "honest with voters about the choices the country faces," he concludes (King, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/9).
  
  
• Paul Krugman, New York Times: Obama has "stumbled" upon health care because the "Obama mystique" has "created a backlash among those unconvinced that he's interested in the nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things," Times columnist Krugman writes. Ohio Democratic primary voters were more likely to say Obama "inspires them" but "more likely to say" Clinton has "a clear plan for the country's problems," according to Krugman. On the issue of health care, which "is closely tied to overall concerns about financial security," there is "a clear, substantive difference between the candidates, with the Clinton plan being significantly stronger," he writes (Krugman, New York Times, 3/7).