Obama had to confirm to the nation that he is ready for any crisis, especially a terrorist one that may loom in the horizon and land within six months of the new presidency. Of course, Joe Biden is the one that re-opened the cloud of doubt regarding Obama’s readiness with his comment. However, Obama rectified by saying that regardless who the new president he will be tested.

McCain seized the opportunity to alert voters that “we don’t want a president who invites testing by the world. Americans are already fighting in two wars, my friends.” He continued by reminding them that he has been already tested over and over again and not only does he have the experience but our enemies know him enough to think twice before launching an attack of any sort.

In Richmond, VA., Obama, with 15 of his defense and foreign policy advisors behind him, reassured voters of his readiness. Reagan wasn’t prepared either, but he was smart to surround himself with experienced advisors. Some of Obama’s advisors are pillars of Washington’s military and foreign policy departments; these include Sen. Sam Nunn, former U.N Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross, a Middle East advisor to three presidents.

He repeated his goals of starting with “a responsible end to the war in Iraq,” rebuilding foreign alliances and getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as coordinating a global effort to resolve the world economic crisis.

WHO WILL BE READY FOR A CRISIS IN 2009?
By Mark Barabak and Bob Drogin (LA Times 10/23/08)
Abstract by Johana Nadler

click to view article

According to an A.P.-GfK poll, McCain and Obama are basically running even among likely voters. After the last presidential debate many voters decided to go back home to their own party, raising McCain’s percentage and even out the previous number chasm. Some GOP pundits admit that “Joe the Plumber” did strike a chord with many whites and voters earning less than $50,000.

Some voters rallied back to McCain because of his experience, others behind Obama because of the “lying ads” and his choice of running mate. Bottom line: the contest is still very close and bound to fluctuate as we’re approaching November 4th.

Why are the polls so changeable, one might ask? As per Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin and a polling authority, “If they all agree, somebody would be doing something terribly wrong.” Some of the reasons are the wording of the questions, the voter’s interpretation and the margin of error.

Starting with the day after the last debate, it shows that McCain’s increase was due to his strong debate performance and putting Obama on the defensive and a strike of genius by mentioning “Joe the Plumber.”

Because voters are still vacillating, we’ll just have to wait and see till the last count of all the ballots who is the real winner.

POLLS VARIATION INDICATES TIGHT RACE
By Liz Sidoti (A.P 10/23/08)
Abstract by Johana Nadler

click to view article

Obama’s False Medicare Claim
October 20, 2008

He accuses McCain of proposing to cut benefits. Not true.

Summary
In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

A TV spot says McCain’s plan requires “cuts in benefits, eligibility or both. “Obama said in a speech that McCain plans “cuts” that would force seniors to “pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care.”

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain’s policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial “savings” through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We’re skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that’s no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

Analysis
The Obama campaign began the Medicare assault with a 30-second TV ad released Oct. 17, which it said would run “across the country in key states.”

The ad quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying McCain would pay for his health care plan with “major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid,” which the ad says would total $882 billion from Medicare alone, “requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both.”

Obama elaborated on the theme Oct. 18 in a stump speech in St. Louis, Mo., claiming flatly that seniors would face major medical hardships under McCain:

Obama, Oct. 18: But it turns out, Senator McCain would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare -$882 billion worth. Under his plan, if you count on Medicare, you would have fewer places to get care, and less freedom to choose your doctors. You’ll pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care.

But in fact, McCain has never proposed to cut Medicare benefits, or Medicaid benefits either. Obama’s claim is based on a false reading of a single Wall Street Journal story, amplified by a one-sided, partisan analysis that piles speculation atop misinterpretation. The Journal story in turn was based on an interview with McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He said flatly in a conference call with reporters after the ad was released, “No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning.”

Twisting Facts to Scare Seniors
Here’s how Democrats cooked up their bogus $882 billion claim.

On Oct. 6, the Journal ran a story saying that McCain planned to pay for his health care plan “in part” through reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending, quoting Holtz-Eakin as its authority. The Journal characterizes these reductions as both “cuts” and “savings.” Importantly, Holtz-Eakin did not say that any benefits would be cut, and the one direct quote from him in the article makes clear that he’s talking about economies:

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6: Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn’t detail where the cuts would come from. “It’s about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost,” he said.

Holtz-Eakin complains that the Journal story was “a terrible characterization” of McCain’s intentions, but even so it clearly quoted him as saying McCain planned on “giving [Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries] the benefit package that has been promised.”

Nevertheless, a Democratic-leaning group quickly twisted his quotes into a report with a headline stating that the McCain plan “requires deep benefit and eligibility cuts in Medicare and Medicaid” - the opposite of what the Journal quoted Holtz-Eakin as saying. The report was issued by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to Democratic President Bill Clinton. The report’s authors are a former Clinton administration official, a former aid to Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey and a former aid to Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski.

The first sentence said - quite incorrectly - that McCain “disclosed this week that he would cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health care plan.” McCain said no such thing, and neither did Holtz-Eakin. The Journal reporter cited a $1.3 trillion estimate of the amount McCain would need to produce, over 10 years, to make his health care plan “budget neutral,” as he promises to do. The estimate comes not from McCain, but from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. McCain and Holtz-Eakin haven’t disputed that figure, but they haven’t endorsed it either.

Nevertheless, the report assumes McCain would divide $1.3 trillion in “cuts” proportionately between the two programs, and comes up with this: “The McCain plan will cut $882 billion from the Medicare program, roughly 13 percent of Medicare’s projected spending over a 10-year period.” And with such a cut, the report concludes, Medicare spending “will not keep pace with inflation and enrollment growth-thereby requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both.”

“Savings” vs. “Cuts”
For the record, Holtz-Eakin said in a telephone conference call with reporters Oct. 17, after the ad was released, that any shortfall in McCain’s health care plan could be covered, without cutting benefits, by such measures as reducing “Medicare fraud and abuse,” employing “a new generation of treatment models” for expensive chronic diseases, speeding adoption of low-cost generic drugs, and expanding the use of information technology in medicine.

Interestingly, Obama proposes to pay for his own health care plan in part through some of the same measures, particularly expanded use of I.T. and better handling of chronic disease. Whether either candidate can achieve the huge savings they are promising is dubious at best. As regular readers of FactCheck.org are aware, we’re skeptical of Obama’s claim that he can achieve his promised $2,500 reduction in average health insurance premiums, for example.

But achievable or not, “savings” are what McCain is proposing. It’s a rank distortion for Obama’s ad to twist that into a plan for “cuts in benefits, eligibility or both,” and for Obama to claim in a speech that seniors will “receive fewer services, and get lower quality care.”

-by Brooks Jackson
Obama’s False Medicare Claim
click to view article