Good Article

Clayton,

I respect you, but I couldn't disagree more with your take on the ad.

I think your article exhibits the sort of rhetoric that has doomed past black candidates. Maybe, just maybe, race and gender have absolutely nothing to do with the ad. I can think of a million (maybe not that many) reasons why those sorts of subliminal messages would seriously harm Clinton's campaign at this point, the most vulnerable throughout the entire process. So, my question is why would she knowingly publish something that had the appearance of falsely accusing Obama of racial/gender biases? She wouldn't! Give the woman more credit than that; she has a law degree from Yale for goodness sakes...only an idiot would do something like that.

All of that considered, this article strikes me as a divisive conspiracy theory that doesn't do a whole lot to contribute to a meaningful dialogue.

I should note that I do, however, agree with the second to last paragraph that states that should anyone be left out it would've been a result of their own choosing. Clinton, in this case, is misrepresenting the facts. Of course, that's par for the course in politics.

Seke:

You and I both know that the Clintons, for better or worse, have lapses in judgment, from time to time. And to be perfectly honest, Hillary is desperate to win.

Whether the ad's intentions are honest and pure, that is up for each individual to decide. I do, however, think that Hillary (and her campaign team) would have be wise to include a more "diverse" group of Americans in the ad. That act alone would have avoided controversy. (There are TOO many EXPERIENCED people around her that would have noticed--and probably did notice--this "RED FLAG.") Call it a politician's game of chance.

By the way, sir, when has political rhetoric ever been void of subliminal messages? ;o)

Mr. Perry states that the sad looking folks depicted in Sen. Clinton's advertisement

"all look like they should have something to smile about, for the individuals pictured -- four women and three men -- appear, judging solely by their looks, to be middle-class: well-dressed, well-fed, and put together."

Then, he opines that "probably" less than half now have medical insurance. I have no statistics to back up my skepticism on this, but I am skeptical none the less. Be that as it may, if a bunch of middle class, well dressed, well fed, and well put together people elect not to have medical insurance, that would seem to me to be their business. They know, or should know, that catastrophic medical bills can produce bankruptcy.

My best guess is that the people who want medical insurance but don't have it are not middle class, well dressed . . . and so on and elect not to have medical insurance because they would prefer to eat OR because they believe that the "system" will somehow take care of them -- a decreasingly astute belief.

Sen. Obama promises a medical insurance program which would not be compulsory, but which would provide care to those who cannot afford it. That seems better to me.

I would like to see (but have not seen from either camp) some cogent analysis of why medical insurance costs so much. I may have missed it, but tort reform does not appear to play a role in either candidates' platform. While not a complete solution, tort reform would go quite a way toward reducing medical costs and therefore the cost of medical insurance. The cost of malpractice insurance for doctors is outrageously high, and is passed along to consumers via their own medical insurance premiums and via the costs not covered by their medical insurance.

One other point, which some may find elitist: Most goods and services are allocated based on how much people are willing/able to pay. Everybody needs to eat, but some people can afford fillet mignon and some people can't. Everybody needs a place to live and transportation, but some people can afford enormous mansions and travel between them by private jet and some people can't. Everybody needs medical care, but some people can afford dubiously effective but very expensive medical procedures and some people can't. Perhaps if we developed an "affordable" but rather basic medical insurance program for those who need it, with recourse to malpractice suits only in cases of gross negligence, we would all be better off.

Dan Miller

I would love to see a woman as president in my lifetime. And nothing could be more timely than an expose of a powerful front-runner for party nomination in an election year. I have come to have a very real respect for her intellect. And I think every person who wonders whether they should vote for Hillary should check out this book.

I think that the Add is a direct hit and that Clinton is asking the question because she wants to raise a question in the mind of all voters of who side is Obama on. Yes I agree when Mr. Clayton says that the add has a subliminal message because like he stated there are so many people that are not represented in the add and would suggest that Obama does not want to help the people not represented in the add. At the same time I don't understand why Clinton is bringing up Obamas healt care when clearly everytime she tries to bring up something against Obama she has done what she claims he did. So the question is...Who is Clinton choosing to not give health care to; the people she does not have in the add...which by the way as Mr. Clayton has pointed out...does not have a black man represented.

Race is the place.

Heloise