home

Hillary's Anti-Triangulation On Universal Health Care

By Big Tent Democrat

David Brooks writes what he thinks is a damning column regarding Hillary Clinton's life long fight for universal health care. I believe it reveals Hillary the Fighter, the anti-triangulator. Brooks writes:

Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee . . . is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.

But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage. . . . Cooper told [Clinton] that she was getting pulled too far to the left. . . . Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. . . . At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ”

. . . [T]he debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago. The issue, once again, is over whether to use government to coerce people into getting coverage. The Clintonites argue that without coercion, there will be free-riders on the system. . . . Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”

Barack Obama is likely to not fight the way Clinton did. He will find "common ground" with someone like Cooper. Some would call that triangulation. Clearly on health care, Hillary Clinton was no triangulator. Who was right on the merits? I do not know. But SOMEONE was right. And it was to Hillary's credit that she fought for what she thought was right. Will Barack Obama fight the Jim Coopers of the world if he thinks he is right? That is, at best, an open question. The Unity Schtick suggests he will not.

< Zogby Predicts Obama Rout In California | CIA Admits Waterboarding >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The problem I have (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by dk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:50:37 AM EST
    is that his lack of substance indicates that no particular issue is much of a priority to him.  Health care certainly isn't.  Sure, he has some hip and trendy young advisors around him (and I'm sure that some of them are very bright and progressive) but he has never really given an indication as to what specific issues he feels strongly about.  

    To me, the logical conclusion is that, if President, he would focus on some easy, symbolic issues where he could find his "common ground," and not touch the complicated issues that will automatically end up being partisan.  

    I think, however, he'll have to hold to his promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts.  And, in doing so, at least half of the American public will be prodded and pushed by the Republicans to start hating his guts.  

    Hilly comes out two days before the biggest election of her life to advocate for automatic enrollment in health care.  Anyone who isn't voting for her because they think she isn't a fighting progressive is detached from reality, as far as I'm concerned.  As a gay man, who has already been thrown under the bus by Obama, I can't say I would shed tears for the disappointment these anti-reality based people would feel from an Obama administration.

    I just ask people to think one more time about who is really fighting for specific progressive values in this election.

    I Agree With You On Dedication To Issues (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    Either candidate as president should be able find "common ground" on things like stem cell research or expanding the S-Chip program. But once the low hanging fruit has been picked, that is when the hard decisions will have to be made.

    I worry that Obama, if elected on a mandate of bipartisanship, will feel the need to further prove his unity creds and will find "common ground" regardless of issue or outcome. Last year in the senate, Obama found strong Republican (bipartisanship) support for liquified coal. He introduced and cosponsored the bill. Six months later he withdrew his support  only after sustained pressure from environmentalist who made it clear that this would jeopardize his political ambitions. Just because something receives bipartisanship support does not make it good legislation.

    Parent

    It's funny, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by dk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    I just popped over to SF Chronicle website and read this article.  I had actually never heard this story before, but it's interesting in how it points out just the point I was making above.  In this case, it's about Obama being careful back in 2004 not to look "too progressive" on gay marriage.

    www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

    Parent

    Note the reply by the Obama spokesperson (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    It's a classic tactic. He doesn't refute the charge, but comes up with a strawman that he refutes, in the hope that they'll be similar enough to at least muddy the waters.

    The charge is: "You refused to have your picture taken with Newsom" (who was linked to making same-sex marriage legal at the time).

    The answer: "Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time". I'm sure he does, but that was not the issue.

    It's along the same lines of: Charge: "You called the Republicans the party of ideas during the 90s". Answer: "But Clinton said positive things about Reagan too". Well, yes she did, but that was not the issue.


    Parent

    My favorite example (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    When Mark Halperin of Time magazine reported that Obama had refused to sit with Hillary at the SOTU address, because party leaders wanted them to do this as a show of party unity, Obama's excuse was that SHE did not ask him. How is that an excuse. In fact, he was the one riding high that night, since he had just gotten the Ted Kennedy endorsement. Yet she agreed without a personal invitation from him.
    http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/29/the-snub-before-the-snub/
    Funny how little play this got. It contradicts the media storyline of Obama bringing people together. Apparently that does not include his own party.

    Parent
    It's been said before... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    Obamabots are the new Bushies.


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:17:44 AM EST
    Well, in this case I was talking about a tactic that professional spokespeople use. It's always interesting to see that in action. The Obama campaign's spokespeople have used this one successfully several times.


    Parent
    So damn odd. . . (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    that Obama is so much like the Bill Clinton of 1992 and yet the people who believe themselves to be against "triangulation" flock to him.  Meanwhile, it's Clinton (Hillary) who has done a better job of not being all things to all people in this campaign.

    I'll take cult of personality for $300, Alex (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    I think that's. . . (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    cult personality for $32,000,000.00!

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    she doesn't have appeal beyond a partisan base, because her supporters insult people that don't support her, rather than trying to win them over.

    Parent
    Mr Pot, Mr Pot. . . (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:24:41 AM EST
    er supporters insult people that don't support her,

    . . . phone call from a Mr. Kettle for you.

    (Not to indict you personally, but in the high-scoring game of insulting supporters of the other candidate all the polls agree on an Obama victory).

    Parent

    who (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    insults Hilllary supporters.  Name one left blogger.  

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    Name one Left blogger who insults Obama.

    Of course you just changed the wourd supporter to blogger.

    So now we are playing "What jgarza Meant."

    Parent

    hello? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    Read Daily Kos.  Pretty much any diary will do.  If you want to go straight to the meat, visit the hidden comments section -- but there's plenty of uprated Hillary Hate there as well.

    The degree of venom aimed at Clinton (and her supporters) is amazing.  It's certainly true it doesn't come from all Obama supporters, but almost all of it comes from Obama supporters.

    Parent

    You are truly a dedicated blog reader (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    if you not only read those diaries and comments but also the hidden comments.  

    Parent
    As one of the elite. . . (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    400,000 or so people with trusted user status on that blog, I take my responsibility to help uphold the level of discourse there to the standard that people have come to expect.

    (snicker).

    Parent

    Umm Have You Ever Been To The Big Orange (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    Pot meet kettle.

    Parent
    Jinx. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    Buy me a coke!

    Parent
    Same Idea (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:59:57 AM EST
    But you win the trophy hands down for witty, clever writing. Wish I had that skill and am green with envy.

     

    Parent

    Bingo! (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    Reading all this over-the-top Obama bashing 'round here is pretty amazing. The funniest part of it, is that there is almost a perfect mirror projection going on.

    Cult of personality!!! - by those insane, kool-aid drinking, immature cultists who call people names ! And dare to criticize the, like, most awesomist woman ever.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM EST
    Supporters of any candidate bash the other candidate(s). Clinton supporters are no different, that much is true.

    There is one difference that does appear to be there, though: Clinton supporters have no illusions about her being perfect, or being an inspirational figure that will transform the country or politics. They simply think that she is the best person to get the job done.

    With Obama supporters, there seems to be (at least online) a higher percentage of supporters who think he can do no wrong and are willing to rationalize most, if not all, of his actions.


    Parent

    well of course (none / 0) (#50)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    no one imagines that Hillary is an inspirational figure that will transform the country or poltics.

    I just find it odd that people seem uninterested in doing that.

    It really does get down to a basic issue. Do you want to use the old machine to slog your way, hopefully, to a 51% win, and have 4 or 8 more years of the same dynamic playing out. Or do you want to reset the poltical landscape? Seize the opportunity to build a vibrant new progressive mandate.

    Small bore, or go for the big prize. Maybe, in the end, our personalities are determinative, and all the policy talk is just a lot of hot air dredged up to justify positions taken for deeper reasons.

    "a higher percentage of supporters who think he can do no wrong and are willing to rationalize most, if not all, of his actions."

    Sorry, but this strikes me as just empirically wrong. There is an absolute resistance amongst the Hillary supporters, at least as I have found here, to admit that she ever does anything wrong, or ever has. It can all be characterized as part and parcel of the VRWC memes, and thus dismissed out of hand. Do you like, actually read the comments here?

    Parent

    Empiricism (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    How can you claim empiricism when you are supporting a promise of the holy land, and we just want a better here and now. We admit her wrongs. We acknowledge her scars. Do we have to recite them every time? But I do not suspend my reason to believe in a mythical power of transformation. I want policy. I want someone who gets how government works. Government is the small bore. Obama's promises the big bore, but I don't believe he can even deliver, because he has not, the little bore. The big bore is for religion. Obama supporters have transferred their desire to revolution to someone who is promising compromise. Where is the big bold something in Obama? We don't see it, cause he never did the big bold something. He is just another politician, packaged and sanitized. He does not have a new machine, he has a persona. In 1960 we could afford charisma, in 1929, more comporable to now, we need FDR.

    Parent
    Your propensity to (none / 0) (#59)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    purlpe prose, about holy lands and mythical this and that, for the purpose of insulting people who happen to support a different candidate, is really tiring and old.

    I understand that, for some strange reason, you think that Hillary understands how government works better than Obama. He, of course, has been an elected official for twice as long as she has, and she, of course, utterly failed in the one policy program she actually tried to lead.

    But I admit, that last paragraph was not a complete and totally fair characterization. She is a lot better than that, and he has things to learn. It is people like you though, who are pushing the comparisons to absurd extremes.

    The big bore is not religion, nor is it about religion. It is about the core principles that define a political era. Reagan (oops, sorry) defined the post 1980 era as one of small government. Not that it actually shrunk much overall, but it was a handly cudgel with which to convince people to shrink government in all the ways it should not be shrunk. And the glorious triumph of that age was to get the progressive president to declare - the era of big government is over.

    Thats what you get with a small bore politician operating in the big picture defined by the opposition.

    I dont deny Hillary's competence at governance - I do hope she has learned some lessons, and her performance in the Senate has been very very good.

    I think she would make an outstanding Sentate Majority Leader - I hope she takes up that position tomorrow morning.

    But the overall big picture, the common understanding amongst not only politicos, but the average person, about what the underlying ideas about governance should be - yeah, that vision thing - that is far more important.

    I am not even claiming that Hillary doesnt have as good a vision as Obama. The point is that Obama is infinitly more likely to sell the progressive vision to the average voter, to the country at large.

    He has the ability to grow the party, to grow our movement. She doesn't, or at least, not as much as he does. I dont want her to go away - I want her voice at the table. Obama for president, Hillary running the Senate. Let the two of them sit down in the Roosvelt room and hammer out policy. Obama can sell it. Hillary can drive it through Congress. Win-win.

    Parent

    Utterly bizarre (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    What is utterly bizzare (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    is that Clinton has a record of triangulation, yet has no appeal beyond a partisan base.  One has to ask what was the point of her triangulation?  Why the vote on the war, against cluster bombing bans?  On Bankruptcy? I just don't get what it got her?

    Parent
    Obama's Unity (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:00:13 AM EST
    This is my idea of Obama as a unifier: He will bring the people for their slaughter to the corporate appeasers. Meanwhile, the inspired, transformed and transcended will be full of awe. The blogosphere and MSM apologists will be twisting all his actions to sustain the fantasy. You never hear the one that gets you. What in god's name is wrong with being a partisan? When did partisanship become a dirty word.

    Parent
    When did partisanship become a dirty word. (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

    ---Through The Looking Glass

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    you still haven't figured this out.  When selecting a president, a lot of people don't have a check list issues that they mark off and pick the candidate that fits them closest.  Certainly that is an aspect of it, but not the entire decision.  More of the people that disagree with Obama on certain issues are willing to vote for him, because his style of leadership appeals to them, than HRC.  Certainly HRC has people that don't agree with some stuff she has done, but support her in spite of it.  I have friends that hate her stance on war and iraq, but will vote for her anyway.  I have friends that prefer her health care plan to Baracks but will vote for her.

    People that don't see eye to eye on every issue with Barack, know that is the case.  they don't think he has a different position then he does.  

    Parent

    This is always the case (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    but usually people look for someone who is with them on the big issues.

    We should understand now the danger of voting on public persona and personality. This is what the media sold us on in 2000. If the media had bothered to tell us the whole story we would have seen that actions speak louder than words. Apparently many of us have not learned our lesson and are again voting strictly on emotion.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#35)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    that Obama supporters tout his "small donors" as proof he's a "people powered" candidate - but ignore the Corporate Owned Media giving Obama a pass.

    Parent
    Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    I cannot find it. It comes down to some mystical belief that Obama, the high priest, will transfigure, a la communion, the wine and bread to the body of Christ. There is some mystical power because he awes the fans, that he will do the same with the opposition. Well that is the leap I will not make. Because in everything I have seen he has not shown courage, taken risk, stood up for something or have back bone. His job will be to protect the person he created, not to change America.

    Parent
    If its just about personality . . . (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by IndependantThinker on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    Then why don't we just elect a handsome or gorgeous looking actor. Say Brad Pitt or Michelle Pfeiffer. Lets just drop this pretense that we're trying to elect a leader of substance.  We just want a face or a pretty speech now and then.

    Parent
    That sounds familiar (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Seems like that is just what the Republicans did with Reagan. Contrary to media and Republican spin Reagan was not a great president. His policies were a lot like Bush's with the same disastrous results - ballooning deficit,economic disasters from lack of regulation (S&L), policies favoring the rich, profligate military spending on dumb things like Star Wars, etc.

    We do not seem to learn from these kinds of mistakes. I fear that a society of people who get a daily diet of Madison Avenue/Hollywood generated imagery can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy.

    Parent

    Remember what I called him? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    Check this out
    SFGATE

    But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.
    "I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."
    Today, of course, Obama's people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."


    Parent
    Now, Stellaaa... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    Obama has lots of gay friends, and they have raised many, many millions for their guy.

    He just doesn't want his picture taken with them.

    Here's a great clip of some thoughtful, educated Obama supporters.

    (warning: Hannity alert)

    Parent

    I loved that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    How embarrassing!!!

    Parent
    It's fun to watch it without sound (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    Because you can say things like, "Did anyone finish their homework?" or, "Bueller?  Bueller?  Has anyone seen Bueller?"

    Parent
    Now Kathy (none / 0) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    I've already been called ageist once today.  

    Parent
    Stellaaa (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    you think you've got it bad?  Check out what the new republicans are chattering on about down thread.  It was easier figuring out Paradise Lost than it is deciphering their drivel.

    I figure if we don' t answer them anymore, they'll move on.  Just caught a glimpse of HuffPo thanks to my BFF oculus sending me to a MO clip there where she (MO, not oculus) dogs the Clinton marriage.  I couldn't help myself and had to look at the comments.  They were kind of like:

    You're a pig!
    No, you're a pig!
    Well, you voted for a pig!
    I voted for the pig because the pigs want the other pig to win!!
    FIGHT THE PIGS!!
    BITE MY PIGS!!!

    ...and so on.

    Parent

    So, has Willie endorsed either Dem.? (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    And the war funding votes too (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    Ooops, Obama did that too.

    Parent
    it's going to (none / 0) (#15)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    get her the presidency duh!

    Parent
    Obama knows (none / 0) (#16)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST
    What did Obama's lack of substance get him?
    Rockstar status and a free pass from the corporate media.

    Parent
    Come, (none / 0) (#73)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    Big Tent Democrat,

    I really like the objectivity you bring to this debate, and on most points, you seem to agree with Hillary Clinton and her supporters.  Please, pardon my impertinence, if you haven't voted already, consider voting for her.

    The primary is the time to vote for what you believe is right.  

    As I said, pardon my impertinence.  I felt I needed to say it.  Thanks.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton was brilliant in 1992 plus (none / 0) (#75)
    by bridget on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:01:30 PM EST
    Obama is NOTHING like Bill Clinton. Nothing. Obama should wish he was that brilliant.

    After 12 yrs of GOP it was amazing to have someone run for Prez who was able to answer any question   thrown at him. No matter what it was he had the ability  - and still has of course - to identify and articulate and solve polical issues. Right then and there. With total confidence. Without hemming and hawing. He needed just a couples sentences to explain and people got it. No extra time needed.

    I remember him talking about education and he had so much knowledge at his finger tips. For example,  when discussing education in the USofA he suggested programs that had been a success in European countries like Germany. I was so impressed. Of course, these things were never appreciated by the media pundits and commenters who rather support those who don't threaten them w. knowledge, those who reinvent the wheel over and over again.

    btw. the Clinton haters with their triangulation yells on just about every netsite never really understood what that word really meant. Otherwise they wouldn't have used it re the Clinton Admin.
     

    Parent

    Letterman (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    Letterman asked her should we have to pick between personality and experience. And she said you have to vote with your heart and you believe in. She was funny and managed once again to explain some really complex issues in that format. She did not make one anti Obama statement. She said her campaign chose to focus on the positive after the brouhahas.

    Here is my critique: (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    not her best venue or best choice of attire but she held her own.  

    Parent
    what would david broder, (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM EST
    and the rest of the punditocracy do without unnamed "sources"? you can make up anything you want, and claim a "source" within (insert organization name here) told you about it. you needn't provide corroborating evidence, it should just be accepted by the rubes, because you said so.

    the best part is, this "source" claimed to remember something that happened what, 14-15 years ago, for which no records exist to support it.

    I just voted for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by felizarte on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    went to the polling place at 7am when it opened; there were already more than a dozen lined up when I got there; more than half of them were women above fifty; of the 14 who were there including myself, one was a young african Am. 1 young white man in his twenties; 1 asian and the rest white men above 50, some of them may have come with their wife. I did not see any Hispanics. But this was very early in the morning.

    I think Hillary will do well; better than what the polling suggests.  

    Neither were right (1.00 / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:51:06 AM EST
    National Health Care is a huge hot button, but neither side has faced up to the base fact that those who have employer sponsored health care insurance are scared that:

    1. They will lose the insurance and have it replaced by a more costly and less effective plan.

    2. They will be stuck with huge tax increases to pay for the insurance of those who do not work, illegal aliens, etc.

    The only way past this is to pay for it through a national sales tax, adjusted to zero, or very low, rates on essentials consumed by the "poor."

    That is fair, and can be sold to Joe and Jane.

    After you have established that point, you can then have a discussion on the various problems so well highlighted in Canada and other plans.

    We don't need a national sales tax Jim (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    that would kill it.

    As for why people have been frightened ask your allies in the GOP.

    In the meantime, maybe you could get people to read this discussion by someone who has experience with both Canadian and US health care.

    Parent

    Nonsense (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    The issue is perceived fairness.

    If everyone pays then the issue becomes moot.

    Talk of garnishment, etc., kills it.

    Parent

    Garnishment is a different issue than (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:52:14 AM EST
     fairness & sales tax

    Try to be coherent in your argument.

    A sales tax is inherently unfair. I suspect you are not actually interested in NHC, you are more interested in killing it with no fingerprints of your allies on the corpse. Talk of sales tax will kill it.

    Parent

    We're already paying for health care for the poor- (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by hellskitchen on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    the most expensive kind at the emergency room.  They get to the doctor sicker, use the most expensive form of medical service, and the government picks up the tab.

    Be enrolling them in a health care plan, they get preventive and early response care at a doctor's office or clinic which ultimately saves money.

    Parent

    Hillary makes it explicitly clear (none / 0) (#18)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    that you can keep the plan you now have if you want to. As for paying taxes to pay for others, we are all ready doing that. Our taxes go to programs like Medicaid and SChip. In addition we all pay much higher rates to cover the uninusured who show up at emergency rooms after putting off preventive care. A mandate would also bring in money by making everyone who can afford to pay do so. This would bring in a lot of young, healthy people who will not, as a group, be a drain on the system until they are older.
    Hillary has worked for several years to help cut bureaucracy by getting electronic medical records instituted, something that has helped the VA system cut its costs. She has included many other cost cutting measures. The estimate of what it will cost per person for her plan is under $2,700. Obama's is $4,400. Both are significantly less than what we pay now, which is $6,400 per person - that figure includes the uninsured. We spend 16% of our GDP on this. Other countries spend much less and cover everyone. So the money is already in the system, it is just wasted on overpriced medication, red tape, excessive profits of some parts of the system, etc.

    The Republicans may still make people afraid of what Hillary proposes, but they will do the same for a national sales tax. The ONLY way to stop this is for all of us to get informed and fight back when this happens. This means fighting the media, too, who are all too willing to repeat Republican talking points.

    Obama constantly talks about audacity but has already backed off on universal care. Hillary got viciously slammed for trying to bring health care to all Americans (apparently a truly evil thing to do) yet she is willing to fight for this again. She is the one who is truly audacious.

    You can start here with an excellent article by the New England Journal of Medicine.
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/4/325


    Parent

    I thought it was transparent (none / 0) (#29)
    by nycvoter on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:33:32 AM EST
    Let Brooks waste his space.  Anything thinking person would have to look at this and say, okay Brooks is just bashing Clinton.  He's using quotes from an Obama supporter.  It's just so over the top it's a ridiculous column

    "antitriangulation" (none / 0) (#32)
    by diogenes on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:45:25 AM EST
    Her "resolute" position on health care was chosen to contrast with Obama and appeal to the base in the primaries and was based on the direction the polls were blowing at the time.  This is her entire pattern from Iraq to flag burning amendment to everything other issue.  The only time Hillary didn't pander to pollsters was when she DID "antitriangulate" in 1993 and designed a health care system- and her political instincts at that time were worse than leaden.  

    And now anti-chronology, anti-historicity? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    How in the world can you claim that her health care position, an issue on which she has worked for almost 20 years, was put together in reaction to a position put together only recently by someone who was just starting out in state politics then?

    Please do explain.  

    Parent

    Let me guess, in 1992 (none / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
    While Hillary was working her ass off about healthcare, you were interested in something else, right?

    Parent
    In 1992... (none / 0) (#58)
    by diogenes on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    If Hillary's best effort about healthcare in 1992 was based on the decision to form a topsecret commission to make a doomed topheavy plan, then maybe someone else could do better.  Hillary personally set back the cause of universal health care by fifteen years.  Dissatisfaction with her plan contributed to the Democratic loss of Congress for the rest of the Clinton presidency.
    Supporting Hillary due to her "unique" expertise about health care is like supporting GW Bush for a third term because he has the most "experience" in fighting foreign wars.  

    Parent
    I want to (none / 0) (#33)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    hear a common good post, please!  

    TPM/Krugman (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    So apparently TPM was outraged enough about Krugman's piece that they wrote a piece requiring a Krugman response.

    Funny how nobody over at TPM were outraged enough at Brooks to attempt to invoke a response from him...

    Clear skies(tm)
    Healthy forest(tm)
    Progressive blogosphere(tm)

    Actually the exact opposite is true (none / 0) (#49)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    and somehow, for some reason, I suspect you know that.

    The Republican party is in crisis mode, with the various parts of their coalition splintering off, and their core base very upset at the prospect of McCain winning the nomination.

    Whether deserved or not, whether rational or not, the spectre of Hillary as the opposition is the one factor that they all see as a unifying force for their party. The differences amongst them pale in comparison to their loathing of Hillary, and her nomination will do for them - in terms of unifying their party - what they cannot do for themselves.

    Obama they fear, very very deeply. They dont read this site, or Taylor Marsh's, and are thus unaware of the existence of a faction of Democrats who are intent on whipping themselves up into a frothing mass of Obama-hatred. Or, perhaps they (correctly) see that this faction is very small. They assume that Obama will have a unified Democratic party behind him, and they know that he can appeal to those independents and moderate Republicans, and they know they have nothing that can really counter that.

    They feel their best hope might be McCain because they hope that he can also make a play for the independents. But they see the young, the articulate, the dynamic Obama and they see their old, tired one dimensional McCain, and they know, deep in their hearts, that they are holding the losing hand.

    okay (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    this is the last post of yours I will respond to because-clearly-you are nutted up.

    Hillary Clinton has millions of voters behind her.  I am but one of them.  I am ecstatic about her ideas.  I had tears in my eyes when I heard her speak.  I am, like many, many women and men I know, an incredibly enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.  I am well-versed in her policies, I understand her plans for healthcare, the environment, investing in our infrastructure and watershed management.  Voting for her last week made me feel excited about a candidate like I've never been excited.  To claim that there is only a handful of folks supporting her is not only short-sighted, it is extremely naive.

    Now, as for your second load of crap: I do not give a good jolly hoot who you say the republicans are scared of, who they want to run against, etc.  The goobers of the GOP do not tell me what to do and they do not control my vote.  I am picking a candidate for the democratic party nomination.  Hillary Clinton is the ONLY nominee who is a proven, true democrat.  She is also one tough lady, and has endured the worst the republicans have thrown at her only to come back stronger.  I have no fear about her taking on the bast*rds in the general election.  I am sure she welcomes the challenge, too.

    Lastly, as evidenced by the egregious amount of time I spend posting here, I am obviously one of those well-educated, well-off latte-drinking dems who is supposed to go Obama.

    Well, today I voted with my brain and with my heart.  I voted for Hillary Clinton, and I am a proud supporter of her bid for the presidency.

    So, in short: bite me.

    Parent

    I am a republican and I pray (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    every night that Hillary wins the nomination.  

    Nothing will make the rich white males; social conservatives and tax cutting partisans of this country ban together more then a Hillary presidency.  

    I just got a poster mailed to me by the Republican National Committee that had one simple phrase in bold red print..."STOP HILLARY!"  

    That just about sums up what every republican from Pat Robertson to Michael Bloomberg will feel when she stands on that podium and thanks here supporters for the democratic nomination.  Long gone will be the hard feelings over immigration and campaign finance reform.   One simple montra will bring every repblican together for one common cause...ending the Billiary legacy once and for all.   Take note...we didn't get him in impeachment.   Now we get a second chance to put a stake through the evil vampire that is the Clinton couple.

    Short of Ronnie rising from the grave to claim the nomination nothing will bring republicans together like a Hillary presidential campaign as the democratic nominee.  

    Please, please, please nominate her so I can spend 8 months hating them with full gusto again.   They say you can't relive the past but democrats are just about to do that and this time the candidate isn't as smart, smooth or politically gifted as the last Clinton they nominated and it will be a crushing defeat.  

    Please.

    Parent

    Self-parody? (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    Or Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

    Slado posts, you decide.

    Parent

    I am a card carrying (none / 0) (#65)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    member of the vast right wing conspiracy as is any republican worth his salt.

    I'll take Self Parady for 1000 Alec.

    My point is only that Kathy is crazy if she thinks republicans secretly want Obama to win over Hillary.

    But don't just take my word for it.

    Parent

    Then calling the Clintons (none / 0) (#69)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    'vampires' is about getting your point across, and isn't parody at all.

    After all, Kathy really would have to be crazy if she thinks Republicans won't be energized by the need to keep a Vampire out of the Whitehouse.

    So you guys really mean it when you call them Vampires. But no, that's not crazy. It's Kathy who is crazy ;-).

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    Vampire is a little harsh.   For me anyway.

    For some republicans however...and that's my point.

    Hillary has HUGE negatives amoung my constituents.  White afluent males, even ones that are democrats.

    Her negatives are higher then most presidents when they leave office (not this one) but you get my point.

    Parent

    Wow, you cant read or something? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    I didnt say that Hillary had only a small group of supporters.

    I said, very clearly, that there are only a small group of Democrats who are intent on whipping themselves up into a frothing mass of Obama hatred.

    Which means the Republicans are right to assume that Obama would have a united Democratic party behind him.

    "I do not give a good jolly hoot who you say the republicans are scared of"

    Well, if you dont care, then why are you commenting? I was responding to a Clinton supporter who did care, and who did make an assertion regarding this issue. And I countered it. You are not obliged to respond to every two people who are discussing something you dont care about.

    Parent

    Unfair (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    You post: "the existence of a faction of Democrats who are intent on whipping themselves up into a frothing mass of Obama-hatred."

    Please show links.
    I think you are confusing taking him to task for positions and actions he has taken or failed to take with personal hatred of the man.

    I think he's likable enough, I just don't think that at this time he is the most qualified to lead the country.

    I also don't see posters in here denying any of his personal attributes, rather they point out the inconsistencies in what he says and does. i.e the dirty Harry and Louis mailer about Hillarie's Universal Healthcare.

    Hillary on the other hand is attacked personally by posters and some bloggers alike. Big difference.

    Parent

    Obama is wrong about mandates (none / 0) (#72)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    but (unfortunately) I think right about what Americans will find politically acceptable, i.e., a majority will resist being forced to buy into insurance. And the country will continue its patchwork of healthcare with different tiers of care available on the basis of wealth alone, not need, not the public good, because ultimately that's the way Americans believe it should be.

    I said this a year ago and it still sums up how I think things will play out:

    I think that the indoctrination of the population in the US will almost certainly make people make the wrong choices on health care. A universal system has to be single-tier in order to work. If you introduce special treatment for those who can pay outside the universal system, it undercuts the universality and ultimately the quality and viability of the system. But at the same time there aren't infinite resources available to fund it. So a universal system requires some rationing.

    In Canada it involves rationing by time...Waits are short for most things, long for a few things, but everyone gets treated, and (theoretically at least) gets treated equally. Anyone who's lived exclusively in the US for the last few decades will probably be unable to see the system functioning like that as a whole, but only themselves and their own immediate needs, because that's how they've been propagandized to think. In the US there's rationing too, but it's by who can pay. For those who can pay, there's the best health care in the world, it's true.

    A mandate is necessary to change that kind of thinking to see healthcare as a basic human right, but it won't happen overnight, and it would take leadership.

    Obama thinks bringing transparency to the negotiations is all that's needed to leverage the public's self-interest and help get his program passed. I think he's wrong about that, just as wrong as Hillary is in thinking that mandating coverage through private insurance companies is going to be anything but a nightmare. As if as long as health insurance is a for-profit business that it will ever be about health care and not profit, by whatever underhanded means they can swing it. I will give her that she's not triangulating in this case though. Not so much what Brooks was trying to do here - I think all he wanted was a vehicle to get those icy, ice cold, ruthless, kill, evil memes out there once again about Hillary on the big primary day.

    The Edwards plan, while a bit more enlightened, was doomed to a different sort of failure. Allowing people to choose public subsidized healthcare insurance and expecting that it will out-compete the private insurers is OK as far as it goes. But if you don't couple it with a long-horizon phase-out for the private form, you'll still end up with two-tier care, cherry-picking, and an overburdened underfunded public system with no forceful advocates, because the well-off are happy with their private coverage and not interested in higher taxes.

    I could go on...