As an outside observer, why do you all hate Hillary?

[Tomfurbs]

?

She seems like a nice enough lady, who has weathered public storms with dignity. Her agenda also seems died-in-the-wool liberal.

So why all the hate? I honestly want to know because I am not aware of the ins-and-outs, being from the UK.

?

[Odelay]

Hillary is okay. I think many people in the Democratic Party are at peace with any of the 3 main choices in the election race for the Democratic nominee: Edwards, Clinton or Obama.

But Hillary is sort of polarizing too, as the wife of Bill Clinton. She's a good politician and smart too, but many people put all of the baggage of both Clintons on her. The American news media is attrocious too. We don't have anything like The Guardian in the states. We have no watchdog media from the Left except for the liberal internet blogs. So most people in the U.S. only get their perspective of Hillary from the Right side or Center of the political spectrum.

Hillary is tough, but probably not Maggie Thatcher tough. And since she's the first U.S. woman with a real chance to be President, she's taking more verbal shots than future female candidates will.

Oh, and it would be nice to have a Galloway here in the US. Everyone on the left walks on eggshells.

[thx1138]

Hillary is GWB in a dress. Besides do you really want Bill in the WH for 4 more years?

[chefmike]

I've never hated Hillary. She's certainly better than the GOP alternatives...and I'd love to see Bubba back in the WH again, it would be immensely entertaining.

[thx1138]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/ Hillary without tears.

[trish]

bill in the white house! lock up the interns!

actually i thought clinton did quite well by the nation in some areas. he did leave us with projected ten year surplus. he didn't give us a workable health care program. but now even the insurance companies can see the writing on the wall. something has got to change. i think hillary is extremely well informed, well connected, knows how to listen to advice and make decisions. she is in fact much more experienced now than she was two terms ago. my main problem with hillary is she's not the people person bill is and she is not the speaker bill. i think she can win the election but it will be tough. she polarizes the right and she just doesn't have the rhythm Obama has or Edwards has when they speak.

i'd be happy with any of the three (though Edwards is essentially out of it now). personally, i'm sending my money to Obama.

[trish]

i never ever put much stock into camille paglia, she's been a self loathing woman hater from the get go.

[RevolveR.]

If she gets elected there is a very strong possibility that because she's a woman, that has influenced the decision. I know she's a popular figure but there will be a lot of women voting for her for that reason alone. Then you'll get the people that don't have a clue about politics and vote her because they want to see the first woman president.

I wouldn't be opposed to her becoming president although I would prefer Obama elected before her.

[Tomfurbs]

Thanks for the replies everybody. I hear your point about women voting for her just because she's female, but then you can't really stop people from voting for bullshit reasons. That's where education comes in I suppose.

[El Nino]

Thoughts on the Vote Fraud in NH

http://splitbabyniblet.blogspot.com/2008/01/thoughts-on-voting-chicanery-in-new.html

[DJ_Asia]

Thoughts on the Vote Fraud in NH

http://splitbabyniblet.blogspot.com/2008/01/thoughts-on-voting-chicanery-in-new.html

Notice Ron Paul isnt listed in this picture??

Hillary is a novelty because shes a woman,take away the gender issue and its simple:More of the same bullshit that weve had to endure since GHB got elected...see a trend??

GHB 1988-1992
Clinton 1992-2000
GWB 2000-2008
Hillary ???

I wonder really what Americans are thinking?How bad does this nation have to become before yall wake up and see whats going on?

Living in Thailand im exposed to many Europenas and their thoughts on America and its current state...weve become a bad joke to the world.The economy is piling up a deficit of over a million dollars an hour,in debt for more money than the US actually has in existence!
The USD is worthless,worth less than the Canadian dollar and has lost 33% to the Thai Baht in 3 years...and that includes a friggin coup here!
Foreclosures are at a record high,with millions of families losing their homes and life savings.

Wake up people....for gods sake!!!!

[thx1138]

In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpoint.html?ex=1357966800&en=7888d7fea22e8c8a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[BrendaQG]

?

She seems like a nice enough lady, who has weathered public storms with dignity. Her agenda also seems died-in-the-wool liberal.

So why all the hate? I honestly want to know because I am not aware of the ins-and-outs, being from the UK.

?

I hate Hillary because she thought she was too good to wait and be senator from Illinois. I hate Hillary because of how she has ran her political career...it has all been about opportunism and not principles. I want Hillary to loose because it would be poetic justice for her to loose to the man who has a senate seat that was hers for the taking. That her rejection of her home state would result in her defeat would be just so sweet.

[flabbybody]

Brenda, I understand your preference for Obama over Hillary.
But my concern is if people like you are so upset if Hillary wins the nomination, you'll stay home in November (like many Democratic voters), and we'll be stuck with McCain or Romney which would be a defacto continuation of the Bush disaster.

I hope you'd support a Clinton-Obama ticket, because that will be a likely thing if Barrack doesn't win top spot.

[tsmandy]

I dislike Hillary because I loathe her and Bill's brand of corporate politics, I loathe her foreign policy, I loathe her commitment to class warfare top-down.

I don't trust her for a minute. I think she will continue business as usual, just putting a nicer spin on it all.

Those are not small issues to me. They are matters of grave importance for the entire planet, and just because I think she may be better for me as a woman, and as a gay woman, doesn't mean I turn my back on everything else that she has done and stands for.

She promised the American public universal health-care, then backs down and gets sweetheart treatment from the health-care industry, and eventually gets a shot at the presidency because of it. That means millions of people who were promised a shot at better health care, didn't get it. No question, many more people died from lack of health care in this country, when they didn't have to, then died from the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the resulting US casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

It's the same thing with Al Gore, Captain Planet, the son of Albert Gore close friend and business partner of Armand Hammer, owner of Occidental Petroleum. Gore's record while vice president, and while senator, was unabashedly pro-corporate when it came to the environment. Only now that he has given up on the big prize, has he developed some sort of conscience.

This is the problem I have with the entire democratic party in general, save for some laudable exceptions, that they bill themselves as the party of the middle and lower class in this country all the while pursuing the interests of the rich and powerful. They are Republicans in drag.
But then all politics is drag isn't it?

I do believe that Hillary will be less likely to round GLBT people up and send them to concentration camps, than say...Mike Huckabee, and for that reason I would hope she wins. But thats really not saying much in her favor.

[glenntinnyc]

actually Gores ant buisiness stance is what lost him the election in 2000. By signing ani tobacco legislation while in office he was the first person to lose his home state in a presidential race. of course the supreme cort put the final nail in the coffin . Also while it is true that both parties pander to special interests and big biz the dem's are for more involved in social causes. The promis of universal healthcare by Hillary was not so much a promise more than an idea, as being first lady does not allow you to pass legislation. And to compare the deaths due to healthcare to the deaths of 911 is actually offensive , especially to a NY'er. That being said i donot condone the Iraq invasion however Afganistan was totally justified, and are you counting the number of Iraqi and Afghani civilians killed during the war toward your argument? I think not

[tsmandy]

No question, many more people died from lack of health care in this country, when they didn't have to, then died from the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the resulting US casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, I was just stating my reasons for disliking Hillary.

I'm all too aware that the civillian casualty rate in Iraq is massive,
I didn't list Afghan, Iraqi, Kurdish, Turkish, Pakistani, Sudanese, British casualties etc because it doesn't pertain to what I was saying. The idea that making a simple comparison, is somehow off limits, is a real indicator of the level at which freedom of thought is limited in this country. To even mention 9/11 is somehow an inappropriate thing to do. Well, to anyone who has watched a friend die from a curable disease or medical negligence, I would think it highly relevant. Less than 3,000 people died when the twin towers were bombed, how many people die every year from lack of medical insurance? Try 18,000. A war that has cost the life of thousands of US soldiers, and at this point untold hundreds of thousands was started when 3,000 people died. Since that terrorist attack 125,000 Americans have died unnecessarily, their only crime being uninsured. As someone who has not had medical insurance since I was 17, it is something that I care alot about.

I think Hillary had a historic opportunity to use her prominence as the first lady to push through a healthcare plan that reflected the needs of American citizens. She backed down, and was rewarded quite handsomely for it.

[glenntinnyc]

I dont have a problem with people mentioning 9/11 when its mentioned in the in the context of an argument for invading Iraq etc, however to use it as a measure of fatalities to prove a point about insurance in effect diminishes the tragedy of both issues. By saying aonly 3000 people dies does disservice to those that did die, and those that lost friends. I whole heartedly agree that insurance is a major crisis and were it not for members of my family havig workd for city and state agencies and being provided with excepetional insurance several would have died. I myself have rather poor insurance and am worried on a regular basis., however while I do not know your finacial situation I make a broad statement inthat if you choose not to pay for insurance you are just as much at fault. I am self employed and pay for myself. While it is a drain finacially the choice is obvious to do what I need to do to protect myself in case of illness or injury. It is unfortunate that we do not provide universal coverage however to do so would mean a substantial tax increase which as has been proved countless times over is the one thing Americans will not tolerate. My point was simply not to use one tragedyfor comparative purposes to highlight another. BTW while she may have had influence in the white house she was not an elected official and she was dealing with an uncooperative congress. That being said I appreciate your views and understand your point and hope you realize that what I said was not based on limiting freedom of thought but rather on respecting people's feelings who were directly affected by 9/11.

[glenntinnyc]

pardon my poor typing

[Mr_Choc69]

Thoughts on the Vote Fraud in NH

http://splitbabyniblet.blogspot.com/2008/01/thoughts-on-voting-chicanery-in-new.html

Notice Ron Paul isnt listed in this picture??

Hillary is a novelty because shes a woman,take away the gender issue and its simple:More of the same bullshit that weve had to endure since GHB got elected...see a trend??

GHB 1988-1992
Clinton 1992-2000
GWB 2000-2008
Hillary ???

I wonder really what Americans are thinking?How bad does this nation have to become before yall wake up and see whats going on?

Living in Thailand im exposed to many Europenas and their thoughts on America and its current state...weve become a bad joke to the world.The economy is piling up a deficit of over a million dollars an hour,in debt for more money than the US actually has in existence!
The USD is worthless,worth less than the Canadian dollar and has lost 33% to the Thai Baht in 3 years...and that includes a friggin coup here!
Foreclosures are at a record high,with millions of families losing their homes and life savings.

Wake up people....for gods sake!!!!

All great points and very true. I am amazed at how Americans are viewed overseas.

DJ - How long have you been living in Asia?

[NewYorker]

She backed down, and was rewarded quite handsomely for it.

How was she rewarded handsomely for it? She was ridiculed and mocked for her failed proposal until Whitewater came along and made everyone forget about it.

[tsmandy]

She backed down, and was rewarded quite handsomely for it.

How was she rewarded handsomely for it? She was ridiculed and mocked for her failed proposal until Whitewater came along and made everyone forget about it.

Hillary is now the #1 recipient of campaign contributions from the health-care industry. Now tell me, did the health-care industry change its mind or did Hillary conveniently back down?

[eggbert]

Maybe if you knew the real Hillary...

[DJ_Asia]

Thoughts on the Vote Fraud in NH

http://splitbabyniblet.blogspot.com/2008/01/thoughts-on-voting-chicanery-in-new.html

Notice Ron Paul isnt listed in this picture??

Hillary is a novelty because shes a woman,take away the gender issue and its simple:More of the same bullshit that weve had to endure since GHB got elected...see a trend??

GHB 1988-1992
Clinton 1992-2000
GWB 2000-2008
Hillary ???

I wonder really what Americans are thinking?How bad does this nation have to become before yall wake up and see whats going on?

Living in Thailand im exposed to many Europenas and their thoughts on America and its current state...weve become a bad joke to the world.The economy is piling up a deficit of over a million dollars an hour,in debt for more money than the US actually has in existence!
The USD is worthless,worth less than the Canadian dollar and has lost 33% to the Thai Baht in 3 years...and that includes a friggin coup here!
Foreclosures are at a record high,with millions of families losing their homes and life savings.

Wake up people....for gods sake!!!!

All great points and very true. I am amazed at how Americans are viewed overseas.

DJ - How long have you been living in Asia?

Ive been over here for over 3 years unless you count my winter of discontent in NYC which I'd just as soon forget

[tsmandy]

I dont have a problem with people mentioning 9/11 when its mentioned in the in the context of an argument for invading Iraq etc, however to use it as a measure of fatalities to prove a point about insurance in effect diminishes the tragedy of both issues. By saying aonly 3000 people dies does disservice to those that did die, and those that lost friends.

Hi glenntinnyc, thanks for assuming a reasonable tone, I tend to regret every time I post in here due to the animosity that usually results.

It was certainly not my intention to diminish the gravity of 9/11, only to place it within a broader context of violence in this country. I don't really see how using a comparison does anything to diminish the tragedy of 9/11. I do see how using 9/11 to start a war under false pretexts (which were well known and understood, and supported by HRC), spying on Americans, ramming through regressive tax cuts, setting up secret detention centers, etc...does.




I whole heartedly agree that insurance is a major crisis and were it not for members of my family havig workd for city and state agencies and being provided with excepetional insurance several would have died. I myself have rather poor insurance and am worried on a regular basis., however while I do not know your finacial situation I make a broad statement inthat if you choose not to pay for insurance you are just as much at fault. I am self employed and pay for myself. While it is a drain finacially the choice is obvious to do what I need to do to protect myself in case of illness or injury. It is unfortunate that we do not provide universal coverage however to do so would mean a substantial tax increase which as has been proved countless times over is the one thing Americans will not tolerate. My point was simply not to use one tragedyfor comparative purposes to highlight another. BTW while she may have had influence in the white house she was not an elected official and she was dealing with an uncooperative congress. That being said I appreciate your views and understand your point and hope you realize that what I said was not based on limiting freedom of thought but rather on respecting people's feelings who were directly affected by 9/11.

Doesn't the uncooperative congress excuse start to seem a tad bit trite after the last 3 years? Something tells me, if it was something Clinton cared enough about, she could have convinced her hubby to ram it through, just like Bush has done over and over and over.
But like I said, Republicans in drag.

Besides which, the universal health care debacle, is simply part of an overarching pattern for HRC of kowtowing to corporate needs whenever they come in conflict with the needs of the vast majority of American citizens.

Plus, she knew damn well there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as did anyone with even the slightest bit of critical thinking skills. Yet she voted for war, and she has continued her hawkish posturing to this day. No small matter of importance.

[chefmike]

Neither Bill nor Hillary would've vetoed stem cell research...

[hippifried]

Bring on Hillary. It'll put the republicans into a total meltdown.

Now that's entertainment. Hehehe.

[NewYorker]

She backed down, and was rewarded quite handsomely for it.

How was she rewarded handsomely for it? She was ridiculed and mocked for her failed proposal until Whitewater came along and made everyone forget about it.

Hillary is now the #1 recipient of campaign contributions from the health-care industry. Now tell me, did the health-care industry change its mind or did Hillary conveniently back down?

She didn't conveniently back down though. Her proposal was a joke with no real hope of being workable. Now top of that the republican congress made it very clear that they would keep it from ever getting signed. It was viewed as a massive failure on her part and has been used against her both when she began running for senate and then the presidency. More likely, when she ran for office she did what most politicians do and got in bed with big contributers and then made them promises.

Before this gets any further I do want to make clear that I don't like Clinton in the least. I just don't believe that the conspiracy you seem to be imply actually exists. There are plenty of real reasons to hate her.

[hippifried]

Oh yeah. More comments from someone who never read the plan.

It drew heavily on a working model that's still going in Hawaii. The thing that got all the insurance companies & the AMA all worked up was the idea of using a single payer. That puts the entire billing system throughout the industry under scrutiny. With all the double billing, overcharging, underpaying, & fraudulent tax reporting, the industry ran scared & put together one of the most intense propaganda ad campains the country's ever seen. It was all bogus. Lots of lies & red-baiting. Typical.

When the report got published, I went out & bought a copy & read it. Kind of dry, but interesting & very detailed. There was actually several options on a course of action given. I wish I could remember the title of the book, but it's been 13 or 14 years now. I'm pretty sure I still have it buried in one of the crates in my storage locker.

[hippifried]

Oh by the way: Y'all do understand that since the report was shot down by the republicans, your insurance premiums have at least quintupled.

[Quinn]

Bring on Hillary. It'll put the republicans into a total meltdown.

Now that's entertainment. Hehehe.

That's one perspective. An apposing one arises from the realization that Hillary, for many years, had the highest negatives of any potential presidential candidate. Moreover, she has traditionally had real problems with independents, most of whom really don't like or trust her. From my perspective, running her is another give-me for the right Republican candidate – just like when the Democratic leadership ran Gore to the left (rather than to the center), and just like when they chose to back Kerry (an extremely weak candidate).

For the last few elections attracting the votes of independents has been the single greatest determinant of success. That rule will likely apply more to this election than any other in recent history. IMO, Hillary is a really bad bet.

-Quinn

[4ever_ngt]

The truth is America dosent hate Hillary..as a person but most of the voters would rather see a male ...even if he's a black male like Obama in office b4 they elect a woman & I think that says a lot about how this country really views women..sad but true

[glenntinnyc]

the Democratic leadership didn't run Gore to the left, and lest we forget he won the popular vote. His advisors made several blunders , first off was the distancing from Clinton, secondly was allowing him to caast a vote for anti-tobacco legilsaltion while still VP knowing full well he was going run and 3rd and of no less importance was demanding a complete recount in Florida.. I agree with the Kerry statement, he was a weak candidate. Clinto(Hillary) is afar stronger candidate and since the Republicans are not running anyone other than Romney that has a remote shot ,she is a very strong candidate. As to Mandy, I think many of your positions have merrit however unlike the congress that our current president had during his first term which was republican controlled , Bill did not have the same benifit to ram through Hillary's plan. On a side note this section of the board seems much more civil than the general section.

[tsmandy]

[
More likely, when she ran for office she did what most politicians do and got in bed with big contributers and then made them promises.

Before this gets any further I do want to make clear that I don't like Clinton in the least. I just don't believe that the conspiracy you seem to be imply actually exists. There are plenty of real reasons to hate her.

I didn't know that the Clinton's shameless corporate pandering was a conspiracy, I just assumed it was public record.

My take on the Clinton's, once again, is that whenever the needs of big business clash with the needs of the overwhelming majority of the American public, they will side with big business. That is the team they play for. That is not the team I play for.

I've been opposed to the war on Iraq since the Clinton administration imposed 8 long years of sanctions and occasional bombing forays designed to punish the Iraqi people for allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in office. Long before Bush ever sent in ground troops there was a world wide outcry over the brutality of the sanctions regime. Madeleine Albright a major supporter of Hillary gave an interview in 1996 that will perhaps serve to remind people how callous the Clinton administration was towards human life:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Since the sanctions were designed to remove Saddam, which they didn't, they can be judged an absolute failure. A failure that severely damaged Iraq long before the insurgency began, killing perhaps a million people and preparing the way for the nightmare that exists today.

My point in all this, is that Clinton is a hawk, she's a callous opportunist. Yes she does have some good qualities, most people do. It was nice to see her up on the stage at the big pro-choice march in DC a couple years back, and in regards to abortion rights I think she will be better than a republican.

[tsmandy]

As to Mandy, I think many of your positions have merrit however unlike the congress that our current president had during his first term which was republican controlled , Bill did not have the same benifit to ram through Hillary's plan.

It wasn't until 1994, after Universal health care was off the table, that the Republicans took control of the house and senate.

And the last 3 years has just been an unending nightmare where democrats rubber stamp the Bush agenda, despite a clear mandate from the American public in 2006 for change. Bush can do it without control of the senate or congress, so that excuse just wears thin.

[NewYorker]

Oh yeah. More comments from someone who never read the plan.

It drew heavily on a working model that's still going in Hawaii. The thing that got all the insurance companies & the AMA all worked up was the idea of using a single payer. That puts the entire billing system throughout the industry under scrutiny. With all the double billing, overcharging, underpaying, & fraudulent tax reporting, the industry ran scared & put together one of the most intense propaganda ad campains the country's ever seen. It was all bogus. Lots of lies & red-baiting. Typical.

When the report got published, I went out & bought a copy & read it. Kind of dry, but interesting & very detailed. There was actually several options on a course of action given. I wish I could remember the title of the book, but it's been 13 or 14 years now. I'm pretty sure I still have it buried in one of the crates in my storage locker.

You're right I never read the plan, I never even knew it was published or I certainly would have taken a look. If you can find the title I would be interested in.

However, unless you're including the NY Times as part of the insurance companies propoganda campaign I will point out that even they said that her proposal had major problems. They still say it today. They talked about it when she release her new proposed health plan as president.

From september 2007:

"Mrs. Clinton promised to cover everyone without big new bureaucracies, without a complicated reorganization of one-seventh of the American economy and without affecting people who are insured and happy with their coverage — all features that helped doom the Clinton administration’s plan 14 years ago."

[NewYorker]

[
More likely, when she ran for office she did what most politicians do and got in bed with big contributers and then made them promises.

Before this gets any further I do want to make clear that I don't like Clinton in the least. I just don't believe that the conspiracy you seem to be imply actually exists. There are plenty of real reasons to hate her.

I didn't know that the Clinton's shameless corporate pandering was a conspiracy, I just assumed it was public record.

My take on the Clinton's, once again, is that whenever the needs of big business clash with the needs of the overwhelming majority of the American public, they will side with big business. That is the team they play for. That is not the team I play for.

I've been opposed to the war on Iraq since the Clinton administration imposed 8 long years of sanctions and occasional bombing forays designed to punish the Iraqi people for allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in office. Long before Bush ever sent in ground troops there was a world wide outcry over the brutality of the sanctions regime. Madeleine Albright a major supporter of Hillary gave an interview in 1996 that will perhaps serve to remind people how callous the Clinton administration was towards human life:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Since the sanctions were designed to remove Saddam, which they didn't, they can be judged an absolute failure. A failure that severely damaged Iraq long before the insurgency began, killing perhaps a million people and preparing the way for the nightmare that exists today.

My point in all this, is that Clinton is a hawk, she's a callous opportunist. Yes she does have some good qualities, most people do. It was nice to see her up on the stage at the big pro-choice march in DC a couple years back, and in regards to abortion rights I think she will be better than a republican.

I'm not arguing with you about her being a Hawk. As I said, I don't like her in the least. I just don't think her failure at building universal health care is one of the strongest reasons. Yes, she and Bill are pro big business but they were pro big business before she came up with her proposal. Don't you think that if she was as in bed with the health care industry as you say even back then they would have had her kill the proposal before it even saw the light of day?

And for the record, her proposal was made in 1993 but didn't die until 1994 after the republicans took congress.

[Quinn]

the Democratic leadership didn't run Gore to the left, and lest we forget he won the popular vote. His advisors made several blunders , first off was the distancing from Clinton, secondly was allowing him to caast a vote for anti-tobacco legilsaltion while still VP knowing full well he was going run and 3rd and of no less importance was demanding a complete recount in Florida.

I guess it all boils down to perspective, glenninnyc. That said, the opinion of the overwhelming majority of political pundits was, and is, that Gore ran to the left during the 2000 presidential election specifically to distance himself from Clinton – a decision correctly regarded by most political historians as a mistake. In 2000, people wanted Clinton's centrist policies without the scandals and partisanship. The fact is that Donna Brazile and others did a disservice to themselves and the Democratic Party with this tactical blunder. (Candidates from both parties usually run to the center once the primaries are over in an effort to attract the independents necessary to win.)

Had Gore run to the center, there likely wouldn't have been a close enough margin to warrant a recount in Florida. And so far as any arguments concerning the popular vote are concerned, they're largely irrelevant as it's the Electoral College that counts (unfortunately). The Democratic Party shot itself in the foot in 2000 (and 2004) – and they have only themselves to blame for it. All of the weak-kneed scapegoating that is so endemic to the Party just helps the Republicans, which is something this country can no longer afford (quite literally).

Below is an excerpt from one of the many articles (a Los Angeles Times article in this case) citing what is now conventional wisdom:

Gore signaled his turn away from his party's centrists at the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, when he employed the phrase "the people versus the powerful." The message, however, largely failed to catch on.

"It had a contrived feel," Will Marshall — who along with Gore, Clinton and others helped found the centrist Democratic Leadership Council in 1985 — wrote after Gore's loss to Bush. "Gore's combative 'populism' was jarringly out of sync with a population basically satisfied with the country's direction and heartily sick of partisan warfare."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0308-06.htm

-Quinn

[tsmandy]

However, unless you're including the NY Times as part of the insurance companies propoganda campaign I will point out that even they said that her proposal had major problems. They still say it today. They talked about it when she release her new proposed health plan as president.

From september 2007:

"Mrs. Clinton promised to cover everyone without big new bureaucracies, without a complicated reorganization of one-seventh of the American economy and without affecting people who are insured and happy with their coverage — all features that helped doom the Clinton administration’s plan 14 years ago."

We are gonna go way back to 1993 with this one....

-------------------------------------------

Extra! July/August 1993

Health Care Reform
Not Journalistically Viable?



In an October 1992 editorial, the New York Times proclaimed that "the debate over health care reform is over. Managed competition has won." This outcome, the Times announced (10/10/92), was "delicious" and "wondrous."

In fact, the debate over health care reform still goes on, but you might not know it from establishment media. While the New York Times and other elite outlets have rallied around "managed competition" -- a system in which private insurance companies provide medical care through giant HMOs-- grassroots activists continue to push for a "single-payer" system, similar to Canada's, in which insurance companies would be eliminated from the health care picture and government would provide universal coverage. Single-payer proponents often refer to managed competition as the "Insurance Industry Preservation Act."

The media slant in favor of managed competition seen before the 1992 election (see EXTRA!, 1-2/93) continues. While the phrase "managed competition" appeared in 62 New York Times news stories in the six months following the 1992 election, "single-payer" appeared in only five news stories during that period -- never in more than a single-sentence mention.

The tilt toward the managed competition plan at the New York Times is so pronounced that it provoked a demonstration by single-payer advocates outside the paper's offices on May 12. Protesters pointed out a potential conflict of interest in New York Times health care coverage: Four of the paper's directors are also on the boards of health insurance companies.

The justification media managers give for the imbalance of attention is that while managed competition is supported by the Clinton administration, a single-payer system is not "politically viable." What this means is that news judgements are based on elite preferences, not on popular opinion: The New York Times' own polling since 1990 has consistently found majorities --ranging from 54 percent to 66 percent -- in favor of tax-financed national health insurance.

The way elite media can marginalize opinions -- even ones held by a majority of the population -- was demonstrated by a May 5 discussion of managed competition on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Robert MacNeil led a panel made up of three government officials -- a congressman, a governor and a state health commissioner -- who were mainly supportive of managed competition, and a representative of Physicians for a National Health Care Plan, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, who supports a single-payer plan.

After Woolhandler argued that managed competition would increase costs and bureaucracy, and the other three guests disagreed, MacNeil said to her pointedly, "Dr. Woolhandler, that's three against one on the cost reduction thing" -- as if this were a random sample of opinion, rather than a panel assembled by MacNeil/Lehrer.

Near the end of the discussion, MacNeil said he was asking the last question of Woolhandler "since you're in the minority" -- to which she responded: "Robert, I'm not in a minority. Polls are showing two-thirds of the American people support government-funded national health insurance."

MacNeil continued: "If this [managed competition] is the program that has apolitical consensus and the other one that you advocate [single-payer] is considered impossible politically at the moment, why are you then against the one that is viable and would produce a large amount of reform?"

Woolhandler responded by rejecting the assumption that managed competition would provide meaningful health reform. But the other assumption of the question -- that a proposal supported by up to two-thirds of the population should not be seriously debated if it doesn't have a "political consensus"-- speaks volumes about the health of American journalism.

[NewYorker]

What is "Extra!"? I've never heard of it and have no idea how reputable/trustworthy it is. As THX1138 has proved, you can find sources to prove/say anything (which is not to say your source isn't reputable, merely that I've never heard of it and don't know if it is). Several of the assertions made it in assume to know the motivations of people that clearly the writer did not but again, since I know nothing about the source I can not properly judge the contents.

However, even if the NYT did rally behind managed competition in 1993, they're 2007 article isn't criticism or propaganda. It's talking about how Clinton's new plan tries to avoid the very flaws that killed her original universal healthcare plan.

[hippifried]

Ok. I see a common problem here. The timeline is off.

Clinton didn't impose the sanctions against Iraq. They were part of the ceasefire deal that "ended" the gulf war, negotiated under Bush 41.

Bill Clinton assumed office in '93. He appointed Hillary to chair the healthcare commission later that year. It took the commission another year to publish their findings. It was scheduled for consideration in the '95 Congress. In November '94, republicans swept the congressional elections. They assumed control of the House & Senate in January '95. No democrat controlled Congress ever took up the Clinton healthcare proposal. It was removed from the agenda by the republicans.

The republicans retained control of the Congress for 12 years through 2006. Bush 43 assumed the office of President in 2001. For 6 years, republicans controlled all 3 branches of government in the US. ( A majority of the Supreme Court has been republican appointees for a half century.) Democrats won the 2006 Congressional election. They assumed control of the Congress in January 2007. They've been in control of Congress for 1 year to date.


Now that that's been cleared up, I'd like to reiterate something:
Right now, there is no credible analysis of the American mindset. Oh there's no shortage of speculation & high falutin' wild guesswork, but the punditry is 50/50 at best. A monkey could do that with a dart board. Personally, I don't think the general public gives 2 shits about anybody's pigmentation or plumbing. In capitalist speak, the Congress is the board of directors & the President is the GM. I don't think I'm alone when I say I want a competent manager in the Whitehouse. I don't want another ideologue. Been there, done that. I believe the reason Bill Clinton was & is so popular with the general public, even after impeachment & the most viscious & petty attacks any President has ever faced, is because he is a realistic pragmatist. The President is not a Pontiff, a king, or any other kind of dictator. The President manages the bureaucracy who handles the day to day business of government, relations with the rest of the world, & compliance with the laws of the land. The President is our face to the world, but all policy goes through Congress.

[tsmandy]

What is "Extra!"? I've never heard of it and have no idea how reputable/trustworthy it is. As THX1138 has proved, you can find sources to prove/say anything (which is not to say your source isn't reputable, merely that I've never heard of it and don't know if it is). Several of the assertions made it in assume to know the motivations of people that clearly the writer did not but again, since I know nothing about the source I can not properly judge the contents.
.

Sorry, I should have provided a link, so you could check it out yourself...Extra is the print edition of FAIR, here is some info gleaned from their website. In my experience working with them, and following their work for the last ten years, they are a credible source.

www.fair.org

FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

Uniquely, FAIR works with both activists and journalists. We maintain a regular dialogue with reporters at news outlets across the country, providing constructive critiques when called for and applauding exceptional, hard-hitting journalism. We also encourage the public to contact media with their concerns, to become media activists rather than passive consumers of news.

FAIR publishes Extra!, the award-winning magazine of media criticism, and produces the weekly radio program CounterSpin, the show that brings you the news behind the headlines. In addition, we have a thriving listserv through which we distribute regular Action Alerts to our international network of activists-- as of September 2004, the FAIR list has over 55,000 recipients, with more signing on every day.

For an in-depth explanation of FAIR's critique of the mainstream media, you should start with our overview, What's Wrong with the News? You might also check out the article What's FAIR?, by FAIR founder Jeff Cohen. And see what journalists, activists and scholars have to say about FAIR.



However, even if the NYT did rally behind managed competition in 1993, they're 2007 article isn't criticism or propaganda. It's talking about how Clinton's new plan tries to avoid the very flaws that killed her original universal healthcare plan

The reason I pulled the 15 year old article out of the dustbin, was to show the NYT stance when the debate occured during the Clinton presidency. Important to note that 4 of the managing editors at the New York Times worked in the managed care industry at the time. That along with advertising revenue of course skews the times perspective in favor of managed care. While I haven't been following the times closely of late, my guess would be that their same general bias in favor of the massive health care still remains.

[tsmandy]

Ok. I see a common problem here. The timeline is off.

Clinton didn't impose the sanctions against Iraq. They were part of the ceasefire deal that "ended" the gulf war, negotiated under Bush 41.

True, Clinton did not impose the sanctions. Clinton maintained them despite widespread worldwide opposition for 8 long years with regime change as the stated goal. 8 long years of cholera epidemics, and other nightmarish scenes well documented by groups like voices in the wilderness.

Sorry, I was only 12 when Clinton took office, you'll have to forgive me if my timing is a bit off.

[NewYorker]

What is "Extra!"? I've never heard of it and have no idea how reputable/trustworthy it is. As THX1138 has proved, you can find sources to prove/say anything (which is not to say your source isn't reputable, merely that I've never heard of it and don't know if it is). Several of the assertions made it in assume to know the motivations of people that clearly the writer did not but again, since I know nothing about the source I can not properly judge the contents.
.

Sorry, I should have provided a link, so you could check it out yourself...Extra is the print edition of FAIR, here is some info gleaned from their website. In my experience working with them, and following their work for the last ten years, they are a credible source.

www.fair.org

FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

Uniquely, FAIR works with both activists and journalists. We maintain a regular dialogue with reporters at news outlets across the country, providing constructive critiques when called for and applauding exceptional, hard-hitting journalism. We also encourage the public to contact media with their concerns, to become media activists rather than passive consumers of news.

FAIR publishes Extra!, the award-winning magazine of media criticism, and produces the weekly radio program CounterSpin, the show that brings you the news behind the headlines. In addition, we have a thriving listserv through which we distribute regular Action Alerts to our international network of activists-- as of September 2004, the FAIR list has over 55,000 recipients, with more signing on every day.

For an in-depth explanation of FAIR's critique of the mainstream media, you should start with our overview, What's Wrong with the News? You might also check out the article What's FAIR?, by FAIR founder Jeff Cohen. And see what journalists, activists and scholars have to say about FAIR.



However, even if the NYT did rally behind managed competition in 1993, they're 2007 article isn't criticism or propaganda. It's talking about how Clinton's new plan tries to avoid the very flaws that killed her original universal healthcare plan

The reason I pulled the 15 year old article out of the dustbin, was to show the NYT stance when the debate occured during the Clinton presidency. Important to note that 4 of the managing editors at the New York Times worked in the managed care industry at the time. That along with advertising revenue of course skews the times perspective in favor of managed care. While I haven't been following the times closely of late, my guess would be that their same general bias in favor of the massive health care still remains.

But again, the 2007 article doesn't show a bias. It compares the new health plan and the old one and points out that the new one removes some of the flaws that killed the original. That has nothing to do with managed care.

All I'm trying to point out, as I've said repeatedly, is that I believe that Hillary did try to get universal healthcare in place but her proposal was flawed and the republican congress refused to allow it to happen as opposed to her just selling out to the insurance companies and killing the proposal herself. I have no love for her and won't vote for her even if she gets the nomination (the advantage of living in NY is that I know I can make a statement vote and the state will still go to the democratic candidate. There are plenty of reasons to hate her, her failure to create universal healthcare isn't one of them.

[hippifried]

:x Well... As so often happens when I try to find anything factual on the internet, I can't seem to surmount the massive wall of opinion articles. Then I just get flustered & say "FUCK IT!!!". I'm no kind of researcher whatsoever. Sorry New Yawker, but I can't find the title to that task force report anywhere & my storage unit is 300+ miles away.

Mea culpa. My timeline & memory were a little off too. The taskforce was formed almost immediately upon Clinton taking office & took 8 months to complete its work. The report came out around the end of September '93. Congress put forth a couple of compromise packages & ended up tabling the debate till the next session. Sorry 'bout that.

The New York Times & other organizations started their harangue over healthcare long before Clinton won the '92 election or anybody knew this task force was going to happen. All the way to November '92, the odds were that Bush 41 would hang on for another term.

[NewYorker]

:x Well... As so often happens when I try to find anything factual on the internet, I can't seem to surmount the massive wall of opinion articles. Then I just get flustered & say "FUCK IT!!!". I'm no kind of researcher whatsoever. Sorry New Yawker, but I can't find the title to that task force report anywhere & my storage unit is 300+ miles away.

Mea culpa. My timeline & memory were a little off too. The taskforce was formed almost immediately upon Clinton taking office & took 8 months to complete its work. The report came out around the end of September '93. Congress put forth a couple of compromise packages & ended up tabling the debate till the next session. Sorry 'bout that.

The New York Times & other organizations started their harangue over healthcare long before Clinton won the '92 election or anybody knew this task force was going to happen. All the way to November '92, the odds were that Bush 41 would hang on for another term.

Its all good. Now that I know its out there, I'll see if I can find it myself.

[El Nino]

http://www.alternet.org/story/73782

[VictoriaJaye]

Hillary is GWB in a dress. Besides do you really want Bill in the WH for 4 more years?

it wouldnt matter if he was having sex this time.

[BrendaQG]

I do hate Hillary. For so many reasons but they all really come down to this.... She and her husband are Hypocrites.

Even Rush Limbaugh points it out that in hindsight the Clinton Years with a Republican Congress were better for the conservative movement than having Bush.

Hillary says that Barrack's speeches are full of fluff. That he has nothing but hot air and no ideas. In all honesty the same can and has been said about Bill Clinton. For example back in 96....

David Brinkley: "I wish to say that we all look forward with great pleasure to four years of wonderful, inspiring speeches full of wit, poetry, music, love and affection. More goddamn nonsense."

Which at the time was thought to be funny because it was very true. I mean con on "building a bridge to the future". :roll:

Those are my emoional reasons.

My reasonable reasons are that Hillary wants to socialize medicine. Half my family is in the medical profession in some capacity. If Hillary had had her way back in 1996 It would have broke us. She would like to socialize much more than that. Heck. I think that if she could get away with it she would have us using the French System of socialism.

I also don't like the Clintons because they are not good patrons of science. The reason a space shuttle flew apart rest mainly on their shoulders. The space program decayed so much that for the decade it had only one small success. The mars pathfinder and it's tiny rover. The cancellation of the "Super Conducting Super Collider" back in 92 or 93 set back US physics so much it has not really recovered. ( I knew even back then that event would make it hard to find a job as a physicist in America.) And a million other little things.

I don't like the clintons because all in all they got us into as much millitary trouble as Bush did and did so with less justification. Think about it. It was Clinton who made our mission more agressive in Somalia. It was Clinton who attacked an asprin factory in Sudan and a Village in Afganistan with Cruise missiles trying to kill Bin laden. (At that time Bin Laden was not yet even in Afganistan. Basically that made enemies the the Taliban where before the Mujahidin were our allies from when we helped them against the Soviets.

I can go on and on. Frankly Another Clinton or a continuation of Bush is not what we need. America needs a fresh new direction. That is why I hate Hillary and love Barrack Obama. 8 Years of Clinton followed by 8 years of say.....Jeb Bush would sink the USA!

[BrendaQG]

I hate Hillary because she thought she was too good to wait and be senator from Illinois. I hate Hillary because of how she has ran her political career...it has all been about opportunism and not principles. I want Hillary to loose because it would be poetic justice for her to loose to the man who has a senate seat that was hers for the taking. That her rejection of her home state would result in her defeat would be just so sweet.

Uh? What are you talking about? So she was born in Illinois, big deal. She's probably lived most of her life outside of Illinois. Hell, she never even held any kind of public title in IL. She was, if you remember, the First Lady of Arkansas, but she opted not to run for office from there.

Obama was born in Hawaii. Do you hate him because he "rejected" his home state and decided to seek office from Illinois? Oh and you know that Abe Lincoln was not a native of Illinois, right?

Sometimes, your reasoning is just a bit off Brenda.

ps: IMO.. Clinton or Obama, either one, I don't care. 8 years of one party in the White House is enough.

It's not because she was born here.

All during president Clinton's term She would come here to see almost every Home game of the Chicago Cubs. She was a big cubs fan. Then whe she ran for senate from NY she a yankee's fan. That and the fact that she could not put her personal ambition on hold for a while to run for senate here in Illinois say allot about her.

I hate Hillary because she is an opportunist who's only principle is to increase her vain power and prestige. Don't be fooled.

Give me more credit than the absurd thing you thought I was saying.

[trish]

I support Obama, though I don't hate Hillary and I'll be happy to support her if she gets the nomination. I happen to think Obama will make a better president than Hillary. I also think he has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary. Either one of them will hands down be a better president than good ol' "waterboarding just fine with me McCain" who will just continue the military and economic fiasco that Bush set in motion.

[BrendaQG]

He said he was fine with waterboarding now. After being so against torture, from having been kept in a cage and poked with a sharp bamboo rod. What a hypocrite!

[Cuchulain]

I'd prefer Obama. His progressive populist rhetoric seems more sincere, although Hillary's been laying it on pretty thick lately. Senator Clinton's health plan seems a bit closer to the single payer system like Medicare for all that I'd like to see. Both seem in favor of building more nuclear power plants, which scares me a bit. I'll loudly support whoever get's the nomination. Either would be much better than 'Bomb Bomb' McCain.

The Rethugnican election fraud and smear machines will be in high gear. We're gonna need a landslide to ensure a Dem victory.