For all of you who argue that Hillary is unelectable and "conservative" ...

[WorldResident]

Let's visit the real reason that Hillary Clinton was demonized in the public policy arena ...

Answer: she supported universal health care and came the closest to actually instituting universal health care in this country.

Now what about Senator Clinton's opponents points of view on universal health care? Let's start with John Edwards ...

John Edwards says he supports universal health insurance, but his plan "requires every American to purchase health insurance".

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

Interestingly enough, there's another presidential candidate who believes in a market approach to provide "universal" health insurance. His name's Mitt Romney.

In fact, Edwards' position on health care was actually even more conservative in 2004.

"In 2004, John Edwards was just another Democratic presidential candidate offering just another incremental plan to help make health insurance more affordable. It was a perfectly laudable plan--one that would have made life better for millions of Americans struggling with the cost of medical care. And for that, surely, he deserved plenty of credit. Still, it wasn't as ambitious a scheme as the ones several of his rivals had put forth. Indeed, it would still have left some 10 to 20 million people--up to half the uninsured population--without health coverage. Doing more, he suggested at various points, was simply not feasible given financial and political constraints. It was, perhaps, an apt metaphor for his campaign--a campaign long on lofty rhetoric, much of it about inequality and the struggles of working people, but not so long on policy proposals that brought similar dazzle.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070205&s=cohn020607

Well OK, so John Edwards is more conservative than Hillary Clinton on health care. Well what about Barack Obama?

It may be somewhat hard to talk about Barack Obama's positions on universal health care, since he hasn't actually proposed a detailed plan like Edwards and Clinton.

Indeed, receiving kudos from Paul Krugman and other for his own health care plan, John Edwards recently asked of Obama: "have you seen his? I haven't seen one."

http://garala.typepad.com/garalog/2007/02/obama.html

Furthermore, those that do comment on Barack Obama's health care positions note its failed market-based approach.

Since his days in the Illinois state legislature Barack Obama’s position on health care has consistently devolved. Once a bold champion of medical care as a human right, Obama has become an advocate of “market-based” health care solutions – which do not serve public health, but line the pockets of insurance and Big Pharma executives. Taking his lead from the private health insurance industry, Obama is unwilling or unable to expose even the most fraudulent policies and claims perpetrated on behalf of his campaign contributors.

http://www.virtualcitizens.com/articles/Barack_Obama_Hypocrisy_on_Health_Care

The simple fact is that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most liberal candidate on health care and this is why she has been unfairly branded as being unelectable. The Democratic Congress was wrong in 1994 to kill the Clinton health plan and Democrats today are wrong for parroting this "unelectable" line today. Is Hillary Clinton considered the most liberal candidate out of the top three Democratic candidates? According to Rasmussen, which was the most accurate polling firm in 2004 and 2006, yes by a long shot.

53% view Hillary Clinton as liberal.
43% view Barack Obama as liberal.
42% view John Edwards as liberal.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Favorables.htm

However, all three candidates lose against Rudy Giuliani and all three candidates beat the rest of the Republican candidates with mixed results with John McCain that have been volatile over the past six months. So essentially, this ruse about electability is hogwash and it is just a front for saying we want a less liberal candidate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Then again there is this voting record thing

:-)

[wtmusic]

7. Oh go ahead and rain on the parade

Can't we just make believe for once? :D

[BlooInBloo]

9. You mean scoring over 91%, ranked 16th out of 100?

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=35&y=7

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Specifically IWR Vote

Credit Card company give away
The Supremes
Medicare

Sorry, C-SPAN addict here

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

21. Thanks for reminding me of the bankruptcy bill jackass-er-y!

[still_one]

25. don't forget a few weeks ago said she sees keeping some U.S. troops in Iraq

for some time

Polls mean nothing at this stage

[Sapphocrat]

55. And then...

...there's this whole not-supporting-equality-for-gay-people-thing... and, oh yeah, that spineless non-answer to the question of whether homosexuality is immoral thing...

P.S. The OP asks, "Well what about Barack Obama?" I ask: Why do so many Hillary supporters feel the need to compare her to Obama? I don't like either of 'em, and for all the same reasons. I don't need a lesser-of-two-evils hammer over my skull; let each stand on his or her own merits. If you are compelled to make one look better by comparison to the other, then something is wrong with both of them.

P.P.S. I never thought John Edwards would look so good to me, among potential viable candidates, but doggone, if I can't have Kucinich, and after Kucinich I can't have Gore, Edwards is looking better by the hour.

[kenny blankenship]

2. Never thought of (un)electable and conservative as linked in Hillary's case

I think this is a red herring. Thanks for your page long attempt to confuse these two issues however. You really put some work into that: solid A for effort!

If she's unelectable, it's because people don't like her. That is, they don't like her as a person. They've seen her for 8 years already, so it's not a first impression type of thing.

It has nothing to do with her alleged liberalism or alleged closet conservatism.

[DIKB]

3. And what if

we find the "Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton" Dynasty/Aristocracy Style Government too distasteful, and desire some new blood?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Hamilton would be tickled pink

trust me, he had the brilliant idea of President for Life

;-)

[BeyondGeography]

4. Come back when Clinton and Obama have actually announced their health care plans

Edwards is the only candidate with a detailed plan right now. Here's a more objective summary:

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- John Edwards was the first presidential candidate to get one. Mitt Romney signed a Massachusetts law creating one that he now distances himself from. Barack Obama promises one. Hillary Clinton had one in 1993 and won't talk about it now.

<...Clinton, 59, knows first-hand the difficulties of changing America's health-care system.

<In 1993, her husband named her to lead a task force on providing medical coverage for everyone. The effort crashed a year later amid accusations that ``Hillary Care'' would create a new government bureaucracy and decimate middle-class health care.

<Campaigning for president, she says she won't lay out a plan until she hears what people want.

<``This time, we're going to build a consensus first,'' she said at a campaign stop on Jan. 28 in Davenport, Iowa.

<...Obama, 45, the first-term Illinois Senator, has promised to get everyone insured by the end of his first term as president. He hasn't said much else.

<Avoiding specifics is a smart move, said Stuart Butler, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

<``Politics is littered with people who have come up with great health plans,'' Butler said. ``They sound great in eight- second sound bites, and then people ask how it will affect them. Once you talk about specifics and big change, people get cold feet.''>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTRXYw70pl_4&refer=home

[ComerPerro]

5. Ok, fine, you wanna know why I think Clinton is unelectable? I'll tell you

She is inconsistant. I don't know where you were in 2004, but since you obviously weren't anywhere in the US let me fill you in on something about Republicans: They like calling people flip-floppers, they like accusing people of "letting polls dictate policy", and they like to accuse people of pandering for votes.

Senator Clinton can be attacked on all three of these fronts, possibly more vulnerable than any other candidate thus far in those areas.

Flip flop? Like Kerry, she is what they call "pro-war" Dems, who approved of the IWR in 2002. Granted, they were lied to and the vote was forced right before an election, it looks bad to have "voted for it, before voting against it" (to paraphrase).

Polls dicate policy? Bill Clinton has been accused of this for over 14 years now, even to this day his example of "taking a poll first", true or not, is used by Bush sycophants to justify why they like Bush (supposedly, because he does things whether its popular or not, which is really just a nice way of saying he doesn't give a fuck what the people want, he is the emperor and he will do as he pleases). While it is unfair to compare Hillary to Bill, because they are obviously two very different people, in the eyes of most Americans, they are one and the same.

Pandering for votes? This is Hillary Clinton's signature. She will speak to liberal voters about rights and freedom and whatever else, but then turns around and caucses with Joe Lieberman on non-issues such as video-game violence to try to appeal to moderates and even conservatives. This especially happens when she speaks to suburban SUV moms, dubbed "soccer moms" by the media.


Its true that each candidate on either side could be found guilty as sin for each of these crimes, but Hillary Clinton's record is very public, and she has been under scrutiny from the left and right for years. She is one of the most closely watched persons in the Senate (maybe Obama is now, with his almost rockstar status).


Add this to the most important point against her: Republicans have been building and building upon attack after attack on her for fifteen years. Fifteen. Fifteen years of attacks. She is a polarizing figure, and even moderates and the apolitical have come to doubt her sincerity. Moreover, Republicans have been foaming at the mouth since 2000 at the prospect of her running for president, and they have been ready for her.

[wtmusic]

8. Bingo CP

Hillary is not a leader, plain and simple. We need a leader now more than ever.

[ComerPerro]

10. "I'll leave that to others to decide"

nuff said

[Bucky]

16. And don't forget how she responds to criticism. She panders.

That anti-flag burning law she wrote. UGH! What the heck was she thinking? I don't have a huge problem with Clinton as a senator. I think she's a real national asset. I just don't find her to be an inspired or consistant or confidence-inspiring leader. She's Chris Dodd in a dress and a lot less experience. She's a player in this race because of who her husband is. She's good on a range of issues, but I hear no compelling vision of where the country needs to go from her. It's just a list of pretty good ideas.

[ComerPerro]

17. Her polling now is mostly name recognition alone. And wtmusic is right

she's no leader

[More Than A Feeling]

6. Yes, that's right, the liberals who complain about her want a less liberal candidate.

That makes a lot of sense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Kucinich... conservative?

You must be shitting me

[More Than A Feeling]

20. I thought perhaps I didn't need a sarcasm tag.

oops.

[BlooInBloo]

27. You didn't. Sarcasm tags are only useful to idiots.

[Bucky]

18. Who, Clark? Edwards?

My preferred nominee is Clark. He's pretty clearly standing to the left of Clinton on most issues. I'm probably closer to Clinton's views politically than I am to Clark's. But there's other matters to consider besides issue formulations. There's character and there's marketability. On both of these counts I find Sen Clinton close to last among the available candidates.

If she's nominated, I'll work my ass off for her. But don't ask me for help a day sooner.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. I'll never ask you to help Hillary.

I'm an Edwards supporter. Sorry, should have used the sarcasm tag.

[Bucky]

30. If she gets the nomination, you won't have to ask. I'll ask you. I'll demand it.

I pretty sure I won't have to ask you, tho.

[Zensea]

11. After 2004 I was hoping to never hear the word electable again

A forlorn hope obviously.

I'm also tired of hearing the word liberal unless it is in a serious philosophical historical political sense.
Both words have essentially become meaningless in the present discourse.

No one agrees on the definitions and they end up just being labels. Labels are useless.
I'd rather hear discussion about what the policy is, how someone voted on an issue, not the silliness of what it is called.

I end up being very suspicious of the use of labels, they end up being obfuscation most of the time.

[BlooInBloo]

13. My complaints about Clinton are primarily three...

1) Refusing to acknowledge her mistaken position on Iraq. I could give two shits about an *apology*, but the mistake needs to be acknowledged. Otherwise, there's absolutely NO reason to believe her behavior would be any different in the future.

2) It took her like 345,654,677 tries to get the words "homosexuality is not immoral" out of her mouth. That's not cool.

3) She voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, and has been a longtime supporter of it. That's just plain evil.


Other than that, I don't have a big problem with her. She's smart, and has a 91%+ progressive voting record. My gripes are why I don't see myself voting for her in the primary, but the good side is why I wouldn't hesitate to vote for her if she wins the nomination.


EDIT: Added 3rd gripe, good side, and conclusion.

[eridani]

19. Kucinich supports universal health care

The only candidate who really does. n/t

[ComerPerro]

22. Kucinich is an amazing man and a true, visionary leader

but, unfortunately, he will have an uphill battle in today's media.

Is he running again? I will do whatever I have to for him.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Kucinich is weird - I'm mean seriously....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/23/113236/176

"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self. The energy of the stars becomes us. We become the energy of the stars. Stardust and spirit unite and we begin: One with the universe. Whole and holy. From one source, endless creative energy, bursting forth, kinetic, elemental. We, the earth, air, water and fire-source of nearly fifteen billion years of cosmic spiraling."


I'm a long way from being a single-issue voter or whatever, but I have a hard time seeing myself helping to put HIS finger on THE BUTTON.

[ComerPerro]

28. It only gets weirder. Get this:

An invisible man who lives in the sky created the entire universe, including this world as it is now, 6,000 years ago. He made man out of dirt, and made woman from man's rib. They were God's children and lived in a magic garden of unending bloom, until a talking snake convinced them to eat an apple. The invisible man got angry, and cast them out.

Well, they went on breeding, and through history the invisible man has always been watching. He sometimes interferes, like the time he killed the entire population of the earth, save for a drunk man and his family. He had the drunk man build a boat that would hold a male and female of every animal in existance today, and they all lived on this boat for months while the world was underwater.

The invisible man is harsh, and as if destroying all mankind except for one bloodline wasn't enough, he also destroyed two large and notable cities, asked one of his messengers on earth to offer his son as a sacrifice, encourage another to have intercourse with his daughters, and even created a Son here on earth so he could be whipped, tortured, mutilated, beaten, and eventually crucified at age 33.

This invisible man still exists today, and is always watching and always guiding and controlling our every action.




Yeah, real sane. Can't imagine wanting someone who believes all that with their finger on "the button".

Real whack-job, nutso kinda shit, right?

[BlooInBloo]

34. Need a link for it to be real.

[ComerPerro]

37. can't believe you're serious, but ok, here's your precious links

Granted, my post was just a summary of the beliefs. But you will find them in these links:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4380943
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4760421

[wtmusic]

29. Yipes

That's just freaky. About 10° removed from some fundie shit.

:scared:

[ComerPerro]

31. I dunno, man, sounds to me like it was taken out of context

[BlooInBloo]

32. LOL! Good one!

[ComerPerro]

35. read it yourself

http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_DKucinich6.12.html

[BlooInBloo]

39. Yah - that's why your "he was taken out of context" was such a hilarious joke!

[ComerPerro]

40. You are so biased that you can't see how it was twisted out of context,

and how the section quoted in your posting was the opening of a speech, using images of the Universe, specifically a nebula, as a metaphor to express unity and inter-connection among all humanity.

Either that or you simply don't understand.


Either way, I don't give a fuck. I said my piece, and even provided concrete evidence to back up what I said. If you want to refuse it still, then I don't care. Believe whatever the hell you want. Just know that you are going from being simply ignorant to willfully dishonest if you continue to spread your misquote around.

[BlooInBloo]

42. Oh shit - you were serious. LOL! Um, it's NOT a misquote. It's a DIRECT quote.

[ComerPerro]

43. misquote because it was deliberately taken out of context

I showed you the actual source. You still wanna spread lies, like I said, just know now that you are willfully lying and aren't just ignorant of the facts.

[BlooInBloo]

44. It's not a misquote if it's exactly word-for-word what was said. No matter how much you wish it was.

[ComerPerro]

45. you're grasping at straws here. But at least I know now you have no liberal values

[BlooInBloo]

46. ROFLMAO!! That's an even better one than your first joke!

Oh - wait - are you serious again? Or as serious as you're able to be, at least?

[ComerPerro]

47. well, consider this passage, which you consider to be dangerous and weird:

maybe you can elaborate as to what part of this you find objectionable and creepy:


Our leaders think the unthinkable and speak of the unspeakable inevitability of nuclear war; of a nuclear attack on New York City, of terrorist attacks throughout our nation; of war against Iraq using nuclear weapons; of biological and chemical weapon attacks on civilian populations; of catastrophic global climate change; of war in outer space.

When death (not life) becomes inevitable, we are presented with an opportunity for great clarity, for a great awakening, to rescue the human spirit from the arms of Morpheus through love, through compassion and through integrating spiritual vision and active citizenship to restore peace to our world. The moment that one world is about to end, a new world is about to begin. We need to remember where we came from. Because the path home is also the way to the future.


...

As we aspire to universal brotherhood and sisterhood, we harken to the cry from the heart of the world and respond affirmatively to address through thought, word and deed conditions which give rise to conflict: Economic exploitation, empire building, political oppression, religious intolerance, poverty, disease, famine, homelessness, struggles over control of water, land, minerals, and oil.

...

As citizen-activists the world over merge, they can become an irresistible force to create peace and protect the planet. From here will come a new movement to abolish nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction. From here will come the demand for sustainable communities, for new systems of energy, transportation and commerce. From here comes the future rushing in on us.

[BlooInBloo]

48. Please point out where I made any claim, of ANY sort about what's actually in your post...

... If I didn't, then you're simply making shit up.

[ComerPerro]

49. well, you contend that your posting was not taken out of context.

and, you wrote off the speech as weird and crazy.

And, well, since you obviously read it (Because, lord knows you don't just say shit without having a clue what you are talking about) you were aware of those passages.

Therefore, if the passage you cited was not out of context, and DK's sentiments are so weird and off-putting, then logically the rest of the speech is just as disturbing to you.

[BlooInBloo]

50. So you claimed I said a passage was weird & disturbing, and now you admit...

... that I didn't actually say ANYTHING about said passage?

:rofl:

[ComerPerro]

51. I did no such thing, but believe whatever the hell you want, becasue you despise facts

Whatever. Maybe if you'd do some reasearch from time to time, you wouldn't look like such a novice.

Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

The Department of Peace will also address human development and the unique concerns of women and children. It will envision and seek to implement plans for peace education, not simply as a course of study, but as a template for all pursuits of knowledge within formal educational settings.

Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift of peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children from fear, from harm, from destruction.



Thank God we don't have a crazy weirdo like that with his finger on the button, eh?

[BlooInBloo]

52. Here's a screenshot, in case your post happens to get "altered"...

[ComerPerro]

53. are you missing the point on purpose, or are you just that bad at logic?

whatever the reason, I don't care. All I know is, it took ten seconds on google and three minutes of reading to refute your "Kucinich is weird" nonsense.

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. BlooinBloo, maybe you can explain to me what is wierd about this Kucinich quote.

Excessively poetic, perhaps, but certainly no different from what you
learned in physics class. Dennis Kucinich believes in the sanctity of
life on some level (not speaking of abortion here). You believe that
all existence is mundane. MAD was created by people who felt that
existence is mundane and without inherent value or worth separate
from that imputed to it. Flowery? Perhaps. But nothing nutty about it.

Of course you'd probably label Lincoln nutty for using similar
sort of language -- Biblical language -- to justify the
abolition of slavery.

[BlooInBloo]

58. I most certainly did NOT "learn" anything remotely resembling that McClaine (sp?)/Casteneda/LitCrit

... babble in any of my physics classes - either in high school, college, or graduate school.

If you did, then it just means that the American (assumption) educational system is even worse than *I* thought it was - and believe you me: that's sayin somethin.

It is of course completely asinine that Kucinich is to be compared, either in word or in deed, with Lincoln.

I have no problem with the McClaine (sp?)/Casteneda/LitCrit (litcridiot) folk in the sense of their simple existence - live and let live, think and let think, and so on. I do have a problem (theoretically overcome-able even) with advocating that such a person be placed in a position where (imo) practicality can be comparable in importance to ideals.

Brainstorm: Possibly you're thinking of physics, better: "physics" classes in which items such as the following would be taken seriously:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Yeah... not.

In the certain-to-be-dashed hope that it'll have an effect, it's worth noting what should be obvious, but by experience is clearly not: to assert that one has a problem with this-or-that aspect of a person is, in and of itself, NEITHER to (a) assert that one has a problem with *all* aspects of the person, nor (b) imply that one is a republican or any other stripe of evil person.

I really don't know why I bothered with that last - you've already clearly identified you rhetorical proclivities in concluding I'm a Lincoln-hater by virtue of my discomfort with combining new-age-y-osity and the Presidency. It doesn't get any more tenuous than that.

[oasis]

26. Thanks for the info. k&r

[mahina]

36. Hey Oasis. Hows Mrs. Oasis?

Good to see you!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=siSe8Qb91wQ Aloha Obama!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2dDAySUywko Obama's pastor kicks the crap out of Fox 'News'
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u-TytRU "Bill Clinton also kicks the crap out of Fox 'News'

[oasis]

38. Hey.

We're fine. We moved to Nevada last year. Hope everything's fine in Alohaland.:hi:

[mahina]

41. WOW!

Everything is just exactly the same. Except there are like 5 republicans left in the Senate. Gary Hooser and Les Ihara are in positions of leadership in the Senate now:) Clayton Hee just embarrassed himself recently but other than that all is well. Take care, aloha no, a hui hou!!

[mahina]

33. Today I had the sad experience, listening to the NPR piece on our candidates,

of hearing a Democratic woman candidate speak and feeling the same feeling I have when I hear W on the air. I just had to turn it off.

Every cell in her body transmits a message that is scripted and kind of condescending. I won't help her, I won't give to her, I don't like her and I'm a woman democrat. Whoever her fans are, they aren't anybody I know.

She is just a creepy person. All other things being equal, likeability is a factor in electability too. It's not ONLY about the money.

[w4rma]

54. She gives me that feeling, too. (nt)

[yurbud]

60. I think she must have hired those same "angel of death" consultants like Bob Shrum

that kill everything they touch.

I've heard her be personable, relaxed, and honest in interviews in the past, but once democrats start running for president, they start getting the robot advice and follow it right into the ground.

[MadHound]

56. She's not the only candidate out there who favors universal health care

It's more that her stance on the war, and her pro-corporate mentality that seal the deal for me. No way in hell will I vote for that woman. If she gets the nod, she will not get elected, for the anti war movement will not vote for her, they will vote for somebody else, or stay home in droves.

This is her major handicap in this race, not her health care record.

[yurbud]

59. she thinks she can make the LBJ deal with the Wall Street devil: she gives them their war overseas

and they give her the Great Society at home.

People forgot to be grateful for the Great Society when all the body bags and broken soldiers started piling up.

Since Hillary will be coming into this war in the middle, any domestic good she does will be eclipsed by the dead soldiers and Iraqi children sacrificed to a handful of corporations that should be in the dock as war criminals.