I think Krugman overstates it. These are fair questions to raise, and I think Hillary has answered them last night. But to me, this is what a campaign is -- raising questions, even some disingenuous ones -- so voters can be educated.

Someone expressed surprise the other day that Obama's health proposal does not provide for universal health care. Some argued his plan is universal, but it isn't.  The issue revolves around mandates.

Ezra Klein of The American Prospect writes about Obama's health plan and mailer:

In the end, his plan is not universal, does not attempt to be, and is probably less generous in its affordability provisions than Clinton's. And even so, I wouldn't really care, as it's still a pretty good plan, except that he's decided to respond to the inadequacies of his own policy by fear-mongering against not only better policy, but the type of policy he's probably going to have to eventually adopt. It's very, very short-sighted.

The entire article is worth a read if you really want to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates respective positions on health care.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b...

Hillary says she can fight and beat the republcans and the right wing noise machine.  She says she learned from her first foray on health care  Yet 14 years later she still gets crushed by basically THE SAME ATTACK AD! Why are we upset at Obama for this?  If this ad is effective in the democratic base, how would it play out in the general?  Is it really unfair to point out the obvious part of her plan, that as a mandatory thing, you will have to pay for health care.  Even if you can't afford it.  You might get some kind of subsidy, if the government thinks you can't afford it; but this means you are dependant on government deciding what you can afford to spend your money on.    In summary the Hillary response to this ad has:
-Raised its profile
-Made it clear how hollow her argument about being best positioned fight the right wing machine.  

Unless you consider midnight basketball and its ilk wins over the right, you really ought to look for a different candidate than team Clinton.

First, you ask,

"Is it really unfair to point out the obvious part of her plan, that as a mandatory thing, you will have to pay for health care.  Even if you can't afford it."

No. In fact, I wrote in my first post, "These are fair questions to raise."

So, this is a straw man.

The biggest problem with the ad is its evocation of Harry and Louise, because it implicitly adopts a false right-wing talking point.

Second, if you are against mandates, that is fine. But, and I'm sorry about this, it is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst, for Obama to criticize Hillary's plan on mandates when his plan includes significants mandates as well.

You assert that Hillary's response to the ad has raised its profile. Well, we all saw in 2004 how effective it was to ignore attack ads for fear that a response might raise their profile. President Kerry can tell you all about it.

Health care is a serious issue. It deserves serious debate, not this kind of two-bit demagoguery.

doesn't want everyone to be covered.  

in Massachusetts who wants health care but can't afford it.  She's the exact type of person Obama's talking about...what good does a "mandate" do if she can't AFFORD the insurance?!?  

But Hillary has addressed this. She says that she will also make health care affordable for all by controlling costs. Also, forcing universal participation should drop down the cost as well.

Now, you may think her plan will lower the cost, or you may think she is full of crap, but she has addressed the issue.