In this week’s Dead-Tree TIME, I look at a phenomenon I don’t recall seeing before in a Democratic primary: The leading contenders are having an argument over Social Security. That program, of course, is something that Democrats usually fight about with Republicans, not each other. Why now? As Obama strategist David Axelrod sees it, the real issue isn’t Social Security:
“We’re not really picking a fight about Social Security. We’re picking a fight about candor. [Obama] has been forthright about this, and Senator Clinton hasn’t.”
Team Clinton fires back:
“This whole conversation is bewildering. Every Democrat in America has spent the past several years arguing that Social Security is not in a crisis.”
Also, in D-TT, Jackson Dykman crunches the numbers behind the charges that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are trading back and forth: ![socialsec chart.jpeg](http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/socialsec%20chart.jpeg?w=580&h=550" width="580" height="550" class="mt-image-left" style="float: left; margin: 0 20px 20px 0;"/></span></p>
<p><strong>UPDATE:</strong></p>
<p>Commenter Eric asks:</p>
<blockquote><p>Karen, are you allowed to write about whether Social Security is, in fact, in crisis?</p></blockquote>
<p>Funny you should ask. Here’s <a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1018052,00.html">a link</a> to a 3,000-word story that I did on that very subject when President Bush put forward his proposal. It’s headlined: “Is There Really a Crisis?” The solvency outlook for the system has not really changed much since then, as I note in this week’s story.</p>
<div class="sharedaddy"></div> </div><!-- .entry-content -->
<div class="entry-utility"><div class="entry-topics"><strong>Related Topics:</strong> <a href=)
Uncategorized
