I know that Booman is strongly in favor of Obama, and strongly opposed to Clinton. And he’s stated his reasons many times over. For myself, I was a Kucinich or Edwards supporter, lover of lost causes as I am. I have many doubts about Obama, but he clearly has the momentum at the moment. He’s not only winning, he’s winning by large margins against an opponent who was well funded, had the support of most of the Democratic establishment when she began her campaign, has a popular former President as her spouse to hit the stump for her, and (except for MsNBC’s band of merry sexists) the tacit support of much of the media who told us she was inevitable last year, and who continue to tell us she will still likely end up as the nominee.
It’s no secret I’m not thrilled with either Obama or Clinton. Neither of them is progressive enough for my taste. Both have taken money from big time lobbyists. Both propose solutions to the health care crisis that I find inadequate and which underwhelm me. But they are the last two standing. So I have to decide at some point who I want as the Democratic nominee, no matter how flawed I personally perceive both of them to be.
So, here’s your chance. Make your case as to why I or any other voter with doubts about both of these candidates should cast my lot with Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama. What strengths does she bring as the Democratic Party’s nominee? What policies does she propose to implement if she becomes President? Who will be her advisers and cabinet members and why are they the best choices to help her lead this country? What will she do to improve the economy, fight global warming, end the war? And what does she propose to do about all the criminal activity that the Bush administration has committed?
Here’s your forum to sing her praises and convince those of us on the fence that she’s the one. Have at it.
Please try to do it without disparaging Sen. Obama.
What Bill Clinton did shouldn’t count.
JUST IN
TPM
Clinton Campaign staff ShakeUP- Campaign Manager Out
Preliminary results in Maine Caucus:Maine Democratic Presidential Caucuses
Candidate Votes Percent Winner
Hillary Clinton (Dem) 168 48%
Barack Obama (Dem) 175 50%
Uncommited (Dem) 4 1%
Write-ins (Dem) 0 0%
Precincts Reporting – 69 out of 626 – 11%
Why shouldn’t Bill Clinton count? He’s a major part of my personal calculus, he has campaigned for her and would be the most powerful presidential spouse in history. I think he’s part of the package and considering Hillary in isolation doesn’t make sense to me. Nor is it realistic to think he wouldn’t have a major impact on her presidency, for better or worse.
And Bill Clinton’s role and effect in a supposed Sen. Clinton WH is extremely worrisome. You know this is why I thought the current president of Argentina shouldn’t get elected. Her husband was vastly popular when he announced to forgo reelection and she won. I often wonder how much pull he has in her presidential affairs.
During the last few debates, whenever Sen. Clinton brought up her “experience” it was mainly 90s related. She’d talk about policies and note, she always said ‘we’. Meanwhile, Clinton supporters, also do that AND try to weasel around the fact that this means, this run is for a 3rd term. I would love to meet a Clinton supporter who can give me something without resorting to the 90s.
I like the way she wants to force me to pay taxes to the villian of ‘Sicko’. I like the way she uses fear of ill-health and personal economic destruction to promote a sweatheart deal for the for-profit health system that essentially defines fascist enterprise. I like how she is habitually unable to see what is going on in front of her eyes, from her hubby getting his joint smoked to the next President lying us into war and then poses as a victim, and calls that experience and the ability to fight. I like how she is more likely to lie than tell the truth, yet is lauded for transparency. I like so much about her, I think the country needs a double scoop!
Steven D,this post should be interesting. It’s easy to say why you should cast your lot with Obama.
1. It is said Mrs Clinton is smart. Has she ever been shown to make wise decisions?
Given the head winds ahead, we need wise decisions not more of the same smarty pants types.
2.Mrs Clinton will not admit she was wrong, that she made a mistake by voting for the Iraq war and follwed that vote by empowering Bush to strike Iran.
3.She promotes herself as an advocate on children’s issues, yet chose not to vote to ban cluster bombs.
4. she’s been endorsed by Bush..his legacy will not only be safe but will be continued.
Dear Clinton supporters: come out, come out ..
Frankly, I’m interested in these answers too.
there all at the left coaster by steve soto..
this is supposed to be a platform for PRO-clinton arguments, so I’ll throw in a few.
One thing we know Clinton will do is fight back against right-wing smears. She’s already shown she knows how to throw a sharp elbow or two. And unlike her competitor, Clinton voted NO on the move-on condemnation.
Ok, that’s all I’ve got. Honestly, I don’t like either of them all that much.
Obama didn’t vote at all. Frankly, that kind of endeared him to me. I didn’t read it as chump move, I read it as someone who who wasn’t willing to participate it stupidity. But that could just be me. I think everyone who participated in vote is moron.
Clinton fights right wing smears when the smears are levied against her and her family. She’s not so good at fighting right-wing smears when levied at Democrats in general. In fact, her triangulation strategy adopts right-wing framing as a central strategy.
For example, Hillary is willing to appear on Fox News–an outfit that routinely defames liberals. Also, as Glenn Greenwald notes today, her campaign promises to cede the “tough foreign policy” vote to John McCain. She will not fight John McCain’s insane warmongering but she will fight anyone that accuses her husband of philandering or treats Chelsea unfairly.
I actually view Clinton as the worst possible Democratic candidate because she refuses to fight right-wing framing and even worse, the right-wingers will successfully label her right-of-center moderate conservative policies as “liberal”.
Hillary will not fight for liberal ideas–she will set them back for decades.
thought i am not overjoyed about either clinton’s or obama’s health plan, clinton’s is slightly better.
(i am actually supporting obama, because his foreign policy, particularly his iran policy, is clearly better than clinton’s)
Are mandates ‘better’? Please explain. I have yet to hear the argument for mandates, yet it is a core principal of her health plan. Usually her supporters just go into denial:
‘There is no Mandate’
‘It’s a bargaining position.’
Really?
Will any Clinton supporter please stand up and support mandates in detail?
What is good about forcing me to pay ‘taxes’ to a corporation?
i don’t really like mandates, but any system that gets you universal coverage (or at least close to it) is better in terms of slowing the rising costs of health care.
as i said, i’m not really interested in defending clinton’s plan. i’m not for it, i just think it’s better than obama’s plan that doesn’t get everyone health care, which lets people opt out. as long as there are uninsured health costs will continue to climb when something bad happens to them and hospitals cover the costs of people who can’t pay by raising prices.
the only real solution is single payer. but both clinton and obama seem intent on keeping those useless insurance companies around.
The uninsured are affected punitively either way, but in the case of the Clinton plan punitive measures become governmental policy, whereas currently, punitive measures are industry policy.
As far as I can tell at the moment, the Clinton policy basically joins government to industry more firmly than it’s already joined; if this seems the proper way to go in general, then her approach would seem correct.
Any new universal or semi-universal healthcare program will come out of Congress. So how good a plan we get will depend more on how many Dems are in Congress than which candidate wins the nomination. Any program that allows people to opt into Medicare will push most private medical plans out of business in five years.
i guess you could see it that way.
the bottom line is that both obama and clinton’s plans are too wedded to the insurance industry. if you’re gonna talk about that problem, it’s a strike against both of them. while it is true that without mandates, obama’s plan would let people opt out and not be wedded to the corporate insurance industry, that’s only at the cost of being uninsured. if being wedded to the industry is evil, then obama’s plan forces people to choose between that evil and the evil of being uninsured.
the difference is clinton’s plan approaches universality better than obama’s, which means that her plan is more likely to address the problem of rising health care costs than his is.
and once again: i support obama. while i think clinton’s health plan is better than obama’s, i don’t think either has a good plan (except they are both better than the status quo, but that’s really not saying much). and obama is better on other issues, particularly foreign policy
The term ‘Universal Coverage’ is a red herring. What’s good about Universal coverage if the coverage sucks and it is at the cost of an essentially fascist bargain.
What you want is single-payer. Universality doesn’t imply anything about the quality or affordability of coverage. Mandated Universality just means we are ALL insurance company bitches now. I’d rather cover children and let the parents figure out if the gamble is worth it for themselves. For profit insurance is a gamble with terrible odds of paying out. Would you like a mandate that requires you to play $800 a month at the 3 card monty table?
They both have mandates. Clinton is just more upfront about it.
Obama has a backdoor mandate. If you opt out of insurance, then get sick, there will be some sort of fine/back-insurance to pay.
Either way, it’s a windfall for the insurance companies. They’re both nuts if they really believe they can make health care more affordable without taking out the insurance companies.
She’s the crony of Mr. Bill Clinton, former president who allegedly had a very successful administration in which she ruled as co-president. What more could anyone wish for?
allegedly had a very successful administration??????????????
which didn’t you like, the peace or the prosperity?
The giant sucking sound of jobs and the manufacturing base leaving the country.
The only good think that Clinton did was balance the budget. Everything else he did hurt more people than helped. Everything he promised, besides that budget was tossed aside while he worked within the GOP framework.
the balanced budget was a crock, which prevented the government from investing in public works during economic downturn.
government doesn’t work like a business or like a household.
I was feeling magnanimous!
Prisons overfilling with minorities and the poor because of draconian criminal justice positions. Families ripped apart because of draconian immigration positions. Easier death penalties. Loss of American manufacturing jobs. DADT. DOMA. Telecom Act.
what prosperity? that was an illusion. It ended in a bust…How many millions did you pile up?
Under Clinton, the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed enabling the financial meltdown that’s unfolding. In the trillions – with no practical solution.
what peace?
we went into Bosnia, it was to be for 6 months. We’re still there…still simmering The Rwanda genocide…. Clinton looked the other way.
Lambert put this better than I ever could.
Clinton was not my first choice, but the longer this goes on, the better she looks.
Is there anything concrete beyond emotions? I think that’s what Steven is asking for. We’re all aware of how much Clinton supporters feel about her having a 3rd term, but what about evidence? Again, without having to even mention Sen. Obama.
Lambert:
I trust HRC to deal with the right wing attack machine. She has beat them three times before and I think that she can beat them again.
How much time and energy will that siphon away from dealing with the extensive urgent problems we have right now?
… a significant problem.
In fact, I’m not sure you can solve any of the other ones without dealing with that one. It’s like trying to think clearly when your perceptual system is totally scrambled.
When was that? She’s only run for office once and it was a cakewalk. Even the GOP didn’t fund their candidate against her. And then with her re-election, another cakewalk, Pirro imploded beautifully, then stepped aside.
Right. Bill’s experiences shouldn’t count as “her” experiences. Bill was a gifted politician who was very likable and compelling and could give a really good speech.
Hillary Clinton ain’t no Bill Clinton.
Curious. How has she beat the right-wing attack machine three times before?
Again, the Clintons beat the right-wing attack machine in that they personally survived the attacks. They Clintons did nothing to fight the right-wing attack on liberal ideology. In fact, the Clintons helped make liberal a dirty word.
The one liberal policy issue the Clintons chose to fight on–health care–they were soundly vanquished by the Republicans. The rest of the Clinton political victories were when the Democrats adopted Republican policies (welfare reform, getting tougher on crime and immigration, “free trade”, etc.).
AliceDem I commend your bravery. I must say I will vote for her if she gets the nomination. I cannot and will not tolerate another Republican as president.
Hillary is the machine now but in their time and what the Clinton’s were up against (taxcuts and interventionist crap)they arguably steered us clear of the reef for eight years. We did not understand how dangerous that reef was until Bush stole the 2000 election.
Yes. I had been watching Lambert gradually lose his mind since things started looking bad for Edwards. Then when Edwards dropped out, I had to stop reading him altogether because it seemed that he really had lost it completely. I hope he recovers when all of this is over, whichever way it goes because he’s a good writer and I used to enjoy his stuff. It’s just gotten too ugly over there for me lately.
Hey, can’t you pretend I’m a Republican or a low information voter, and not insult me?
When I read Frank Rich today, I learned what a great PR person Hillary is. Just like our current Leader – Bush. Just imagine being selected to attend one of her Town Hall events – just like like the ones Bush had on Social Security – but this time only Democrats will be invited! We’ll all be able to pat ourselves on the back and praise our powerful Leader for all of her brilliance without any dissenters around.
She knows how to run a free country. You gotta keep ’em all in line using the best PR available, just like the Republicans do. Perception IS reality.
Go Hillary!
Part one, two, and three.
Hillary bashing SUCKS.
Especially the style that claimes she has no substance oither than as an adjunct to her husband.
These three posts should be required reading for ANYONE who is rabidly anti-Hillary Clinton.
Thank you.
AG
Anyone willing to look up anything knows Clinton’s resume already. Post two, once again, delves into First Lady-dom. Post three only reminded me of stuff she did as a Senator that I was not happy with at all.
I’ll give Alice credit for giving it the old college try, but I read the three diaries, and my sentiment was, “Are you serious, that’s it?”
Let’s talk about the final diary which deals with her Senate record:
“She supported military action against Afghanistan”
My response: who didn’t
“She wanted to increase the size of the military”
My response: Supporting a withdrawal is the answer, not increasing the military.
“Clinton voted against Alito and Roberts”
My response: Obama voted against them too.
“She pushed for a political war room”
My response: It’s good I suppose, but this is kind of peripheral.
“Clinton voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment”
My response: So did Obama.
“She opposed the troop surge”
My response: So did Obama.
“Clinton called on Gonzales to resign”
My response: So did Obama.
“Clinton has high approval ratings in New York”
My response: So does just about 90% of Senators in their home states.
The conclusion in the third diary is laughable: “She has delivered real change”
Um, no. Many times she took a general liberal stance. But she supported the Military Industrial Complex on others. That ain’t real change.
As far as I’m concerned, your final point is the crucial one.
.
Through the decades of husband Bill Clinton’s service as a governor and as president, the two formed a powerful political partnership, and became lightning rods for the opposition.
TIME – two biographies
For me personally, I won’t vote for Hillary because her lack of insight and courage on American foreign policy. Too damn close to the Bush policy over the past 7 frustrating years. She will bring no vibrance and renewal, but more of the same lackluster view: “keep the status quo” and don’t rock the boat. America should kick butt of some of our “friends”: dictator Musharaf, King Abdullah and loser Olmert. American foreign policy is designed by commerce, military goods and fueled by oil.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."From CommonDreams:
“Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Virtually all were strong supporters of the invasion of Iraq and some – such as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon – also supported President Bush’s “surge.” Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, however, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
“Her most influential advisor – and her likely choice for Secretary of State – is Richard Holbrooke, who prior to the invasion of Iraq insisted that that country posed “a clear and present danger at all times,” insisted that Bush had “ample justification” to invade Iraq, and has written that those who protested against the war and foreign governments which opposed the invasion “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein. Holbrooke has been severely criticized for his role as Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines and supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, as well as his culpability in the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.”
Ugh.
Yep, there’s her advisors.
And Hillary gets the most money from defense contractors.
And Hillary blended 9/11 and Iraq in her statements in the run up to war.
The foreign policy difference is stark.
Hillary’s “Experience” Lie If that’s her selling point, put me down for Obama.
Re:
Can you answer these questions for Obama?
I’m not an Obama supporter yet. I’m asking what Clinton would do that would convince me and others like me she’d be the better choice.
My point is that neither one has any clear agenda that I’ve been able to discern.
I’m not going to endorse Hillary – I’ll hold my nose and support the party’s nominee. But I will say one thing that impressed me about her. When she was first elected to the Senate, I was surprised at how many stories popped up about her ability to charm the opposition into supporting legislation. I mean, think about this: She had NEWT GINGRICH singing her praises.
I remember thinking at the time that I wouldn’t even be able to walk past those horrible people without spitting on them. Clearly, she has amazing self-control.
Well, quite frankly, I don’t have a dog in this fight; that is, I think each candidate has “their” strengths and weaknesses, but both are better than the Republican alternative.
But I’m rather interested in how this “challenge,” the first rider of which is not to disparage Obama, is framed. Point me to one of Booman’s endorsements of Obama wherein he didn’t disparage Clinton. Obama gets a pass on the Reagan remark (yes, yes, I know, he didn’t say he endorsed Reagan’s policies), but Booman parses Clinton’s every word, assigning some nefarious motivation to each.
Furthermore, the presumption is that Clinton has to be defended and/or championed, but not Obama.
Finally, I think Booman’s remark regarding sitting out the election if Clinton is the nominee is wildly irresponsible. I understand that policies are important, but they’re not the only thing at stake here. Judicial appointments, specifically, Supreme Court ones, are in the balance here too. Does Booman want McCain or Huckabee making those choices? Does any progressive?
After the “not voting” remark, I decided to approach Booman’s posts with some skepticism, and since that remark, posts have been a constant barrage of anti-Clintonism. Clinton is not the “enemy”; Republicans are.
So, I challenge Booman, you, and anyone else. Tell me why I should vote for Obama. And please try not to disparage Clinton while doing so. Tell me what Obama is, rather than just telling me he’s not Clinton.
You’ll never get a perfect animal..find a dog quick. Adopt one.
If you don’t, the Supremes will be happy to select one for you.
Do you recall year 2000? Oh, that’s so long ago but just look at the damage. A few more votes could have made a difference. But many like you said:
“I don’t have a dog in this fight”
Good to read that Obama and Booman supporters have a major problem with reading comprehension. I seem to recall mentioning the Supremes. Was that not clear?
I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004. Nor did I sit out either election, which Booman said he would were Clinton nominated.
Do tell. Who’s going to have more war blood on their hands.
Hillary Clinton is the only democratic candidate whose election would guarantee there would be no reduction in the liberal blogosphere’s shrill-and-vituperativeness.
I can’t believe there are any Clinton supporters visiting here anymore given the amount of poo that “Rush” Booman slings at her.
.
See my diary – HRC Fires Campaign Manager Patti Doyle
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’ll answer this as a Clinton supporter, though it’s sort of a misnomer. I prefer Clinton to Obama, for the reason that I’ll give, but it’s a lesser of two evils sort of support (which is how I have felt about most of the candidates that I end up voting for), so it’s hard to couch it in terms that don’t involve saying anything negative about Obama.
In terms of voting, I’m not participating in the primary here, nor do I intend to vote for either Democrat in November. The Democrats failed the nation in its hour of need by failing to be an opposition party in any real sense of the word for the last eight years. I don’t feel inclined to reward them. Nor do I intend to vote for any incumbent of either party on the federal level, as they are all part of the problem, though I suppose Kucinich and Feingold can be given a pass on that.
I prefer Clinton because she is a pragmatic at a time when pragmatism is needed more than idealism. I support her precisely because she is not offering a message of hope, when I think such a message at such a moment must be either delusional or cynically dishonest.
Given that it will take substantial tax increases just to keep the country afloat in the next four years, any thoughts of a progressive flowering in the next Administration strike me as absurd. Remember too, though nobody seems to, that this is the Administration when, come 2011, the country begins paying the bill for the boomer generation to collect on social security and medicare.
There are progressive things that the next Administration should do that will not cost money, like ending torture, putting an end to spying on Americans, and restoring habeas corpus. I would like to endorse the candidate who promises such things. But I haven’t been hearing that message.
That’s the best non endorsement of Clinton I’ve seen.
“I’m not participating in the primary here, nor do I intend to vote for either Democrat in November.”
I guess that that means you’re not a Clinton supporter.
I agree with you, Steven. I don’t care for either of them. But I’ll give my slight preference to Obama because his suppor is a bit broader. That’s all I’ve got.
Earlier today I posted a diary asking policy questions of Obama and poking some sharp sticks at the bullying Obama zealots that I call “Obama-lama-ding-dongs” that haunt Daily Kos, if you are one of them Booman, you need to take a chill pill.
I dropped most of the invective as a favor to “Bumblebums” who is someone who has opinions I tend to trust. However, I am appalled at the almost religious fervor that surrounds the Obama faction. These people are so wound up in Senator Obama that I wonder if they remember that the enemy is the Republican, and that this business is by no means settled. I am sickened at the stupidity of vicious attacks directed against those of us who supported Mr. Edwards, and those who support Senator Clinton. It is hurting the party I think.
Booman, I supported and worked for Hillary for Senate in New York, I don’t regret that choice due to her ability to quickly establish good constituent services which is the hallmark of a successful politician. She has been good for both Downstate and Upstate. However, I was among the first to say that a Hillary for President campaign was not a good idea.
You would have thought I had stepped on someone’s cock with all the screaming and noise! I was attacked by Kos himself for noting the national electability issues that Senator Clinton has and in light of the way Senator Obama has been able to exploit this distrust of Senator Clinton on the national stage, I feel quite vindicated. Then there is the dynastic succession issue. Cripes Booman, it’s like Greece with the Papandreau and Karamanlis families! I don’t think this is good for the country.
As a Senator, Hillary is going to be Madame Majority Leader one day soon if she will stick with it. I think she should. She is good for New York and good for the nation. But, I don’t think she should have run for the Presidency.
Booman, Obama will need all the support we can give him if he becomes the nominee. The wingers are luridly salivating and licking their filthy chops at the thought of wadding Obama up like a piece of tinfoil. I have heard winger braggings that Obama will collapse at the first concerted wingnut/corporate media joint attack. I expect these attacks to be vicious, and mean beyond all reason. Rezko is just the beginning!
Let us not burn bridges to the Clintonistas because we are so overawed, or is it overheated, in our support of and desires to see Senator Obama as the Democratic candidate. We will need one party and one driving force to get through the hurricane of winger/corporate media/Republican bullshit and lies. I don’t think anything less will be able to overcome the horror of the coming Republican counter-attack as it desperately attempts to cling to power in its death throes. We have a chance to kill the beast here, lets not lose this chance by alienating nearly half the party who support and admire Senator Clinton. Tone down the attacks on fellow Democrats.
I used to be a daily Booman reader, ever since this site became part of the on-line “Obama lovefest and Clinton as evil” network, I only tune in once a week or so. I already know how things are going to be framed.
I voted for Kucinich in the Michigan “primary”, as his policies, priorities, and House voting record most mirrored mine of any of the candidates. I didn’t care that he has big ears, is short, married a young beautiful red-head, or even saw UFO’s. After eight years of Bush these things seemed trivial.
Then I became an Edwards supporter, not because his record was better than the others but because I thought he was pushing everyone towards more left positions.
I am trying to decide now between Clinton or Obama.
Let me give a go at some of the things I like about Clinton.
Lets look at a few highlights of that fight:
Spring 1991 – Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, in a private discussion about long-term Republican political strategy, predicts that the “next great offensive of the Left,” as he puts it, will be “socializing health care.” Gingrich declares the need for hardline Republicans to begin positioning themselves now to keep Democrats from winning in the future.(Repubs=The Party of Ideas)
April 30, 1993 – Hillary Clinton meets behind closed doors with Republican and Democratic senators. She implores them to tell her what she is doing wrong and tells them she is having trouble meeting with Republicans. It is common knowledge among many of those present that the staff of Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole has told Republicans they are not to meet with the First Lady.(What was that about working across the aisle with these guys?)
November 1, 1993 – Hillary Clinton launches a scathing attack against the insurance industry to counter the highly damaging “Harry and Louise” ads. She accuses the industry of greed and deliberately lying about the reform plan in order to protect its profits. She specifically denounces the ads’ claim that the Clinton plan “limits choice.” Rarely, if ever, has a First Lady publicly attacked any American industry or industry group — and certainly never in such strong language and in such a furious manner. Her assault makes front-page newspaper stories, network TV news shows, and calls more attention to HIAA’s role and message.
December 2, 1993 – Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to “kill” — not amend — the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the “Contract With America,” Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America’s majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol’s strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.
December 19, 1993 – Stories about a new Clinton scandal — “Troopergate” — and Whitewater continue to chip away at the reserves of political capital the President and First Lady will need when Congress returns in January.
March 1994 – Democrat John Dingell approaches Carlos Moorhead of California -the senior Republican on his committee — to raise the possibility of working out a health bill together. According to Dingell, Moorhead responds: “There’s no way you’re going to get a single vote on this [Republican] side of the aisle. You will not only not get a vote here, but we’ve been instructed that if we participate in that undertaking at all, those of us who do will lose Our seniority and will not be ranking minority members within the Republican Party.” Thwarted on the Republican side of the aisle, Dingell turns back to his Democrats — and once again finds Jim Cooper standing in his way.
March 4-5, 1994 – Senate Republicans caucus privately in Annapolis, Maryland, in a retreat organized by Republican John Chafee, whose bill nominally has more support than any other from the Senate GOP. Going into Annapolis, Dole and Chafee still hold the view that public opinion and political prudence require Republicans to come up with an alternative to the Clinton plan. They view the erosion of public support as an opportunity for the Republicans to steal Clinton’s thunder, not to block any change.
At Dole’s invitation, Newt Gingrich comes to the meeting. He implicitly warns GOP senators that any Republican concessions will be met with more Democratic demands. Phill Gramm also weighs in against any Republican compromise on health reform. The original list of speakers expands to include business lobbyists and consultants suggested by conservatives. Chafee — who had hoped to discuss areas of agreement — finds himself listening to speeches of opposition. This meeting becomes a crucial step, not in forming a Republican alternative to the Clinton plan but in demonstrating to Dole how dangerous it will be for him to be part of any compromise.
If you want to follow all the sordid details go to PBS at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html
Here is Obama’s quote concerning this fight:
“When I hear her say it was a lonely fight, I have to disagree. Eighty percent of the American people wanted universal health care at that time. It wasn’t that lonely,” Obama said, greeted with applause from over 700 attendees at the Cedar Rapids community college where he spoke. “The reason that it became lonely was that she made a decision to close the door and to work just with her people.”
Either Obama’s is uninformed or making stuff up.
3. When the whole health care thing fell apart Hillary did not tuck her tail between her legs and go back to redecorating the White House. Check out the story of SCHIP in Wikopedia : “As a part of the fallout from the failed 1993 Clinton health care plan, both Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and the Clinton administration were looking for smaller health care initiatives that could gain bipartisan support.[2] In December 1996 First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton examined several possible such initiatives and decided expanding health care insurance to children who had none was the one to advance. (Indeed, a different variant of this approach, dubbed “Kids First”, had been envisioned as a backup plan during original 1993 Task Force on National Health Care Reform meetings, as a way of gradually implementing universal health care.
Now I don’t know about the rest of you but I have always been too poor to have health insurance. However my kids had MI Child, Michigan’s SCHIP program. This has made a HUGE difference in my life and theirs.
Good idea, tough politician, huge fight, unscrupulous adversary, major defeat, doesn’t give up, important victory. Sounds like a winning story to me.
I will quit with this to keep the post from being too long but I this gave me one good reason to support her.
I was reflecting on my last post and thought how naive in must sound to HRC Obama’s talk about “working across the aisle” with your opponents. I must admit from everything I have seen over the last two decades with these guys I don’t believe it either. A leopard doesn’t change its spots. This is probably my biggest objection with Barack.
Just on a human level — watching the two of them — do you think that she has been weepy in public of late because:
a) She thinks Obama’s talk about “working across the aisle” is naive?
b) She, like Bill, has narcissistic tendencies, and she sees her ego-trip run at the White House imploding around her?
c) It polled well when she first tried it, and now it is part of the political strategy?
d) She really cares?
e) She’s emotionally too unstable to be in the oval office?
f) Some combination of the above?
g) Other?
For me — my human instincts tell me that the answer is f, b, and c. She strikes me as a very insincere, selfish, clueless candidate for office. That’s just what I get from the woman. On the other hand, from Obama, I get a guy who is sincere about wanting a new way. I was so disinterested in politics prior to his campaign — and now — I may vote for the guy. For me, people who answer the above multiple choice question, and say they think Hillary is real in her campaign/crying/etc. — we are experiencing a very different reality. She is not a unifying force. She is toxic. That’s what I see. I don’t mind saying it. Because for those who are missing it — who think she is sincere and she will win if she just gets the nomination — well, I want to make sure for those folks, they understand the depths of some of us out here, who really can’t line up on her team in the fall. I’m not a party flak. I would say I was more likely to not vote than anything, before Obama became a viable option. Just letting you know. Because when I read the whole “Democratic unity” message — to try to rally Obama supporters — I want you to understand you are not getting it. He is forging a new power base I think. Including Independents and disaffected voters. She — not so much.
I’m surprised no one has laid out the case for Obama. Allow me. Just give me the next half hour, at least, to complete. I’ll post as a reply to this comment.
Let’s start with Obama’s background. A key reason the press has been falling all over him is that you really couldn’t have invented a better story for a candidate at this point in time.
Barack Hussein Obama was born to a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya. He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia. He was not a product of wealth. His father left them when Obama was only two years old.
In high school, Obama was one of only three black students, so he learned in a very personal way about racism, and its affects.
He refused to let anyone tell him “you can’t”, and worked his way up from a local Los Angeles college (Occidental) into Columbia University in New York.
After a short stint in the business world, Obama worked as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago.
Five years later, he entered Harvard Law School, and became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most pretigious posts in the legal world. He graduated in 1991. He could have worked for any law firm or clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. But he returned to Chicago to practice civil rights law and to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
In other words, this is a guy who was not running for office at every turn. He was an organizer. An editor. A manager. A teacher.
When he finally did run for office, he earned the role of State Senator – a high place to start at in the political world. But people who knew him believed in him.
In the State Senate, Barack passed a landmark campaign finance reform bill. He managed to expand health care in his state. He passed a law requiring death row inmates’ confessions to be taped, in the hopes of preventing the wrong people from ending up on Death Row. He accomplished all of this by working with, not against, the Republicans to achieve bi-partisan legislation (which, given that the Republicans controlled the Senate for six of his eight years there, was a remarkable achievement!)
He spoke out against the rush to war in Iraq in 2002, saying that while Saddam was a “bad guy,” that Saddam posed no direct threat to America or his neighbors, that the case for war had not been made, and that “an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”
After two terms in the Illinois State Senate, Obama was encouraged to run for the United States Senate. He won with 52% of the vote even while facing a multibillionare. This is a guy who knows how to win elections, and he has proved multiple times during the primaries.
Then, he gave that great speech at the 2004 convention, where he first talked of something no one else in our party was talking of even considering – reaching out to disillusioned Republicans, and offering them a different future:
Enough of his background. Look at his campaign. As Clinton is replacing her campaign manager this very day, Obama got it right the first time, proving the truth of his retort that it’s not enough to be ‘ready’ on day one, but ‘right’ as well.
I think it’s absolutely important to judge a candidate in part by how well they run their campaign. They are the chief executive of their enterprise.
I don’t think anyone can make the case that Obama does not have a superior campaign organization, Clinton’s many years in the party notwithstanding.
In California in the lead up to the primary, not only was I being called by the Obama campaign, but so was nearly everyone I knew. None of them were ever called by the Clinton campaign, even though several of them were Clinton supporters.
And look who is already leading? Obama’s speech has remained largely unchanged his entire time on the road. Clinton’s, however, is slowly morphing to match. She’s reaching for broader themes with the recent injection of “the America I see.” She’s tried to position herself as the candidate of “change” in a nod to Obama’s success with that meme. Today, I see she’s even working in “yes we can” to her speeches. Obama leads; Clinton follows.
I think one shouldn’t go by proposals. Those will change and be worked on by many more hands before they approach introduction as bills.
I think it IS important to look at what each has already done. And Obama did it entirely on his own, without the aid of an elected husband at his side. I say that as someone who thinks Hillary may well have been a better president than her husband, but I feel the time to find that out is now long behind us.
The country has been through some very dark times. A lot of activists I know have literally been on the verge of clinical depression. One candidate offers them hope, and a record of change. The other candidate offers a return to ‘better days’ which many activists do not really consider better days. NAFTA? I supported Dick Gephardt’s run because he was one of the few Democrats to stand up to his party’s leader, Bill Clinton, and lay out the case why a free-trade agreement without protections for labor and the environment was dead wrong.
My last two points both relate to the same point? Who can win BIG in November? We want someone who will not only take over the White House, but who will bring a tsunami of Democrats into office with them. Obama has already proven his ability to bring many more democrats into the process. Clinton has not shown the same ability. She turns out her base. But I don’t hear Republicans say wow, I want to vote for her. But I have heard many Republicans now saying they really like Obama, and might even vote for him.
Lastly, there’s a reason Obama has won nearly every major newspaper endorsement in the nation, sans Clinton’s hometown NYT. Read a few of his endorsements and you’ll quickly see the common thread. And we can’t overlook the passionate support of Ted Kennedy and one of the country’s most consistent progressives, Senator Patrick Leahy.
In summary, he’s smart. He’s compassionate. He’s got a solid record of getting difficult, progressive legislation passed. And he generates unprecedented enthusiasm.
Okay. If you want more – please see my post “Why I’m Voting for Obama.“
Thanks for asking!
Well, this thread has been up a few hours.
Maybe Clinton supporters have nothing. much.
Well, there seems to be a dearth of Clinton support here, which is no surprise.
I personally will support either one, whomever becomes the nominee I will support. At this point I am a very slight HRC supporter over Obama and it has no logic at all. My slight leaning is due to the endless Hillary bashing here and at other blogs that are supposedly progressive, liberal or democratic. I have no problem with people stating their preferences or enumerating the proposed policy differences between the candidates. I do take exception to unjustified and meaningless name calling and insult hurling. We seem to be very accomplished at doing the Republicans work for them. I have no doubt they are gleeful at our assistance.
With all it’s problems still, I do slightly prefer Hillary’s health care proposals over Obama’s. However, dear fellow progressives and liberals, you know as well as I do there is no plan or proposal either one of these candidates may put before the house and the senate of the US that Democrats will line up and pass without dissent or massive changes. Unlike the Bushies and the Repugs, Dems tend to think on their own and have their own ideas and agendas about everything. So no policy or plan or proposal will sail through the congress intact. You all know this. So whatever our next President hopes to accomplish, you better hope and pray and work for a congress that will be mostly supportive of their goals. That is where these Health Care Plans will or will not become reality. That is where all of the changes will or will not come about.
To pretend otherwise is dishonest and really naive at best.
So continue on with your bashing and hating. It will help the Republicans greatly and you will eat from the table you have set.
JMO
The bashing may be caused by an internalized understanding that Clinton in many ways is no progressive. Neither was her husband.
I haven’t heard much progressive or left wing liberal from Obama either.
It hardly seems a reason or justification for the endless bashing and hatred by those on either side of the candidates.
There has not been a great progressive or liberal candidate yet that is any where near where I am. Kucinich had the most to offer what I would like to see. But then, he wasn’t worthy of media mention or much support from those who say they are progressive or liberal. We each see what we feel best supports our positions. Nothing wrong with that. But how that produces Hatred of someone with different suggestions or stands is beyond me.
Go figure
of why you should support Barack and not Hillary, ask one of the most respected attorneys in the progressive camp, Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig. I’m afraid to say, he is infinitely more disciplined about this sort of thing than I could ever be, and he is widely respected as an honest broker. I can’t compete with that. Here’s an excellent slide presentation that he recorded as a podcast, for occasions such as this:
Larry Lessig’s Blog
Thanks for the link, legolas, the professor is extremely persuasive.
I highly recommend this article, re Obama’s time in the Illinois Senate, from the New York Times of last year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
and canvassed for Jesse Jackson back in 1988. Go with Obama. We need serious change and a a Clinton restoration just won’t take us down that path.
I’m with you, I don’t like either of them but I recently did a deep research when I realized Obama fever was taking off and frankly I was shocked, shocked to discover that Hillary is more progressive on trade, health care, subprime, mortgage crisis, labor. It’s pretty extensive
on a comparison contrast to Obama.
The Economic Populist post with many articles on these economic advisers plus the lack of anything to deal with our impeding economic tsunami called the financial sector.
I’m sure you’ve seen Paul Krugman and many other health experts on the health care plans and are screaming about how Hillary is the way to go. (they are upset).
Then, I just pulled as many trade quotes I could find and posted them on here.
I think we should use this moment to pressure Clinton to add a few more issues, such as I want her to endorse S.1035 (Durbin) but seriously dig and avoid the hypnotic effects of mesmerizing the masses.
It’s really policy and the ability to pass that policy.
Hillary was already chewed up on health care so she probably knows first hand about trying to get such policy passed through congress.
Paul Krugman is the court Jester for the Duchy of Princeton – home of the Big Pharma-owned Liberal. He’s got a lot to say, but he also know who pays his bills and keeps him famous.
I just wish he’d give back Booman’s beard when he’s done with it.
voting for either one is good
demonizing either one is bad
I think emotion enters into all human decisions, but my choice of Clinton (explained at length here) was not driven by what is characterized above as “feelings” or a sentimental desire for a return to the 90s.
Universal health care and Social Security are my two main drivers. Obama’s plan is not truly universal; and, as covered at the time by Atrios, Obama really had no reason to put Social Security in play in Iowa (especially after all the work we did to get privatization put back in its box).
If either candidate were questioning America’s imperial role, I’d be behind that candidate; but that’s not the choice on offer. I agree that Obama gave a good speech on Iraq in 2002. But then he had no skin in the game, so the judgment talking point doesn’t do all that much for me. In terms of concrete results achieved so far, I don’t see Obama being all that different from Hillary. (And he had plenty of chances as head of the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over NATO to look into Iraq, had he wanted to.) And I think Iraq is just screwed up so badly we can’t know what will happen or what will need to be done when we finally get to know what’s really going on there.
In addition, Obama’s talk of unity strikes me as completely unworkable, whether naive or Machiavellian is hard to say.
Finally, Obama’s soaring rhetoric leaves me completely cold (especially when it’s laced with right wing dogwhistles, see links above). The buzzwords — which seem to have shifted from “Unity” to “Change” to “Transformation” over the past few weeks — strike me as vacuous. I prefer Clinton’s substantive approach.
And shit like baiting Digby — who’s been fighting the good fight for years, like Somerby and Krugman, who also seem to have made the enemies list for the fans of he Unity candidate — having to close down her comment section could be accidental; or it could be part of a very old story that always ends badly.
In summary, I know what I’m getting with Hillary. Obama is a risk I am not willing to take — especially, considering the nature of his rhetoric. If there’s anything we’ve learned during the dark years of the Conservative Ascendancy, it’s that language really, really counts.
“disclaimer” 1: I’m not American
real disclaimer – the dog I have in this fight is quite simple: for a Democrat to win the White House. And I’d just like to politely say that if you’re thinking of not voting or voting McCain if Hillary gets the nomination you haven’t been paying attention for 8 years.
So, what’s good about Hillary compared to Obama?
She’s far more pragmatic, and she’s not stupid enough to think she can reach across the aisle without getting a fat turd kindly placed in it for return.
Her voting record is outstandingly progressive with of course the most significant exception being her endlessly lamented/over-analysed and scalpelled to death vote on the AUMF. In fact on this and several other progressive rankings she outranks Obama’s voting record.
You can make sly comments about her time in the White House etc etc., but any way you slice it she’s got more political experience, and more experience at the very peak of American politics, than Obama, and it will count.
She didn’t co-sponsor a bill that would have seen billions of dollars go to the big oil end of town for the roundly debunked liquification of coal into gas / oil, as Obama did, showing he’s either too stupid to realise this has been totally condemned and has no merit towards combatting climate change; or because he’s bought by those industries.
Despite her hawkish rhetoric at times, the
substance of Hillary’s foreign policy is actually from a non -American’s point of view much more realistic and grounded than Obama’s “poetic” rhetoric. Her policies on assisting with the fight to end global poverty, fight HIV/Aids, stabilise the Middle East (with the usual glaring exception of the approach to the Palestinians, a test that Obama too fails), and nuclear non-proliferation, unlike Obama’s, are much more detailed and go far beyond some feel-good statements. Perhaps even more critically, Hillary has far more experience and understanding of the international instruments the USA will need to engage, rebuild and support to achieve her goals. No matter how bright he is, Obama will be on a learning curve.
Hillary’s policies on energy independence and global warming are outstanding, and IMO, better than Obama’s, with the greater emphasis on energy efficiency, realistic measures laid out to assist business with the transition, including the building industry.
And finally, as someone who lives in a country with (allegedly) free medical care paid for by a levy on every tax payer (Australia), I completely agree with Hillary that mandates are necessary. The experience here in Australia has shown that the only way to ensure that everyone contributes to a healthcare system is through a government mechanism. While obviously, Americans should have, and deserve, a government run public health system that any levy would go directly towards, it will take significant time to re-tool your current system that way, and you need some intermediate steps. If you follow Obama’s model, the lack of mandates will simply mean that the fiscal impetus needed will be lacking, and people will opt out, not opt in. I am also far more confident that Hillary’s scheme can be modified by Congress to ensure it’s not unduly harsh on the poorer, and note that she has already stipulated that there would be a means test to ensure that there is greater assistance for those in need.
All up, Hillary is a formidable progressive politician who deserves far better than the daily crap hurled her way. I don’t deny for a second that her campaign tactics have been questionable, but Obama has hardly been squeaky clean (Harry & Louise ads anyone?), and the noise to signal ratio often seems deeply skewed when it comes to measuring Hillary and Obama’s perceived flaws.
I also don’t deny what I think is the most cogent argument Booman has made against her – that the Clintons represent the politics of Democrats at a time of Republican dominance, whereas Obama offers a chance to reframe. However there is a large element of trust required to believe that Obama will bring that about, and while I find the movement around him compelling (unless I read Kos diaries), I’m really not sold on Obama as a leader – I find him marginally more sincere than Hillary, which is hardly compelling stuff. Where he does have the edge is his spouse!
Which is a good final point to make – a win by either Hillary or Obama will be of enormous historic and symbolic importance, and not just to the USA. And I find a quote haunting me on that front – this is a paraphrase, so you’ll have to forgive me, but basically during the civil rights movement in the 60s, a group of women in the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee presented a paper entitled “The position of women in SNVCC” – to which Stokley Carmichael replied “the only position for women in SNVCC is prone”.
I find it hard to think of a better snapshot which encompasses all the cogent argument that can be made as to why a woman – even a white one – in the Whitehouse for the first time may well be more revolutionary than a black man.
I’ll end by saying that if I was an American Democrat participating in the primaries, I’m really not sure who I’d back out of Obama or Hillary. But I know for damn sure that whichever gets the nomination, I’d be voting for them and doing whatever I could to support them.
Leaving emotionalism and outrage off to the side, the chief reason NOT to support Clinton is because she married into the throne!
No more sons, wives, nephews, or daughters thinking they are ENTITLED to rule simply because of their famous wowie-zowie last name.
NO MORE DYNASTIES!!!!!!
America is not a dictatorship with rulers inevitably inheriting from family members. Yet.
Look at Pakistan with Bhutto scouting around and eventually breaking, the 2-term limit to ruling. Clinton admired and supported that?!? WTF????? Why should Bhutto have held the Prime Minister’s job at all? Why should her son get it? Why should her husband have the regency?
We do not have royal bloodlines with insanity and in-breeding. Yet.
Do we want 8 more years of Clintons, followed by George P Bush (currently being groomed), followed by Chelsea Clinton or whomever she marries? Hell, no!
Nobody is entitled to the job of running this country. The Presidency is not personal property to be passed via will or marriage contract.
No dictators.
No emperors.
No presidents-for-life.
No, no, noooooooooo dynasties!