Hillary Breaks Through

Plus, the most vocal opponent of torture is a republican. It's not a republican versus democrat issue. She can be opposed to the administration but it is not a partisan debate as Chandos seems to make it.

Also, Hillary should offer some explanation why her husband's admisistration did not do anything about the torture issue. It was happening back then, but Bill did nothing to prevent it (or outlaw it). The only administration I can recall that restricted the CIA in what they could and could not do was a republican admistration. Everyone else, including Bill, has chosen to maintain status quo and let the CIA operate the way it wants to. Now there is issue with (as there should be) such practices and the same people that perpetuated the status quo are speaking against it -- that's just hypocritical.

I'm somewhat conservative and I'm against the war in Iraq (but for the war on terrorism) and I'm in favor of ending torture (given reasonable guidelines). That's the way I'll vote. I really don't see any good democratic candidates out there right now (including Hillary after her speech).

If the democratic party wants to really have an impact -- fire Dean, make Hillary the party leader, and find a good candidate. Hillary and Obama are not reasonable candidates until at least 2012, perhaps not even until 2016.

 

Exactly. It would be naive to think that there was simply no torture being committed by any American troops on any combatants at any time throughout history. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. However, prior to recently, there has never been a policy that openly endorsed the use of such tactics. I agree that there is a big difference between looking the other way and openly supporting that postiion.

 

If only looking the other way wouldnt be an invitation for undesirable developments.

 

I think Chandos was just jazzed up to hear someone in a donkey suit not sound like Doug or Wendy Whiner.

...but...it was posturing...and empty words...never seen enough action out of Senator Clinton to support what she says. But then again, that's par for the course as we head into election season. Not just for her, but for politicians in general.

T2...you're spot on about her "Health Care Deform" plans.

 

Argh! People, I doubt anyone here owes me favors, but if you could tone down the personal attacks I'd be really thankful. I do think it's good someone on the US "left" - I use this term with great reservation - decided to refresh the political news coming from Washington by adding some more gusto to their arguments, and my political views tend more towards Mrs. Clinton's ideas than those of her opponents. Okay, now it would be nice if you could comment more on the speech, and less on each other. It may be selfish, but I'm counting on the people here for insights on various issues, especially US politics (which, sadly, influence many countries more than their own politics). I know my own record has hardly been spotless and I'm not a shining beacon of neutrality, but still.

So what's so incredible - or incredibly stupid - about Hillary's Health Reform plans? I doubt she'd radically change anything.

 

In that case, I hope you have good health insurance. Consider someone - especially a single mother and her children - who do not.

 

Phew. So glad we dodge the "health care deform" bullet. So now we enjoy the world's the world's most expensive health care.

Looks like the invisible hand spanked us on the @ss once again!

 

The Shaman, et. al.: A bit of history here.... One of the top priorities in Bill Clinton's first term of office was health care reform (it was a cornerstone of his campaign). Quoting from a online paper:

On 25 January 1993, President Clinton announced the appointment of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the head of the National Task Force on Health Care Reform. Commenting on her qualifications to lead this ambitious initiative, President Clinton remarked, 'She’s better at organizing people from a complex beginning to a certain end than anybody I’ve ever worked with in my life.'

The task force had been empowered with the creation of a plan to provide comprehensive and affordable health care to virtually all Americans, and was to present its report within 100 days. However, as the deadline came and went, no plan emerged. Furthermore, when the plan finally was presented to Congress near the end of the year, it was generally considered to be unacceptable and never made it to a vote. Not even the democratic party supported the plan.

The plan was over 1000 pages in length and was considered too complex. One of the chief criticisms was the lack of choice the patient would have. Another criticism was in Bill putting Hillary in charge -- it prevented those on the committee from speaking openly and honestly. Very few members of the committee or of the White House staff were willing to challenge the First Lady and incur the wrath of the President.

All in all it was a total fiasco and an extreme waste of taxpayer money. Perhaps it was more Bill's fault than Hillary's, but IMO she had the opportunity to make a difference and she blew it.

 

So have the welfare amendment she passed (I presume the committee did something every now and then) been amended, or are they still standing?

Anyway, if the state of the welfare system in the US is worse than in most other countries in the world, I'm surprised that there hasn't been an attempt to model it after that of... I don't know, Japan perhaps, or any other country ranking higher. Is it a national pride issue or just too complicated? In the last 14 years, the US has enjoyed stable government, all in all - 2-mandate presidentships offer enough time to get a reform done.

 

I think the problem is no one wants to pay for it. If you are going to have universal health care, that is going to have to come from taxpayer's money. As it currently stands, there is no mechanism in place that allows any type of medical insurance for people between the ages of 18 and 65, regardless of income. If you're under 18 you can get Medicaid, and if you're 65 or over you can get Medicare, but there's nothing on the books for people of working age.

So that means people of working age have two options available to them: You either get a job that offers some type of medical insurance, or you pay for it yourself, out of pocket. Now, most jobs do offer some type of medical insurance for a minimal employee contribution. For example, I pay $37.90 deducted from every pay check to insure myself. Now, the first problem is that fee is the same for everyone in the company. Regardless of whether you are a janitor making $15,000 per year, or a top executive making $1 million per year, your medical insurance still costs $37.90 every two weeks.

On the other hand, if you do not have a job that has a medical plan, you're in for even more trouble. While most companies are required by law to have some type of medical insurance plan they offer to employees, it usually only applies to full time employees. So a single mom who only works 25 hours per week because she has to get back home when her kids return from school may not be eligible even if the company she works for has insurance.

The biggest problem is the cost of medical insurance is astronomical. I have a friend who is privately employed and making good money. He is in good health, doesn't smoke, isn't overweight, and is only 29 years old. In other words, he's in a pretty low-risk group. His medical insurance costs him nearly $400 per month.

Since a great many of people that are not offered company medical plans are the part-time and lower-salaried workers, a cost of $400 per person per month is simply unaffordable. Furthermore, if we were to insure all of these people, that would necessarily mean a big tax increase to the rest of the population. So in a certain sense, providing insurance for the uninsured is not something that is going to make a politician popular, because there's no way to do it without raising taxes. A lot of people say it's terrible that so many Americans are uninsured, and think that it would be great to help these people out, provided it doesn't come out of their pocket.

 

From my limited knowledge of US politics, I would say that Hilary Clinton would romp home if she was up for election as President. I reckon the only thing that could stop her would be a well organised smear campaign that unearthed all sorts of dirt on her.

 

With "limited knowledge" being the key phrase. As you should be able to deduce from this message, there are a great many Democrats, myself included, who do not think that Hillary is the best choice out there.

Secondly, when was the last time that the Republicans did not implement a well-organized smear campaign to unearth dirt on opponents? Heck, they will even go so far as to spread falsehoods if it helps them win. Keep in mind it was Republicans who made Kerry look like a wimp, even though he served in Vietnam when Bush did not. More egregiously, during the Republican primary when McCain was actually leading Bush, the Smear Machine started spreading rumors (that were completely false) about McCain having biracial children outside of his marriage. So the smear campaign is a given no matter who runs for the Democrats.

 

Yeah, but your average unwashed Joe Schmo voter doesn't have a clue about anything to do with politics. Smear campaigns and gossip have much more impact on them than trivialities like policies.

 

A very astute observation of the effectiveness of Karl Rove, HB. Bravo.

 

I was talking to my wife about this. Her number one recollection of Hillary is from the President's address to congress following 9/11.

She was bored. She obviously didn't want to be there. She gave the impression the whole issue was unimportant to her. That Hillary was a representative from New York and gave that impression is unpardonable in my wife's mind. Everyone else was focused, both parties were on the same page -- except Hillary. She was shameful that evening.

 

Having Hillary run is a Republican's dream and nightmare. She is way too polarizing of a candidate. She may be the only Democrat that Republicans would never be able to accept after an election. If you look at all the Democrats that suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the raw hatred of all things Hillary. It could quite possibly tear the country apart.

 

I disagree, she would never make it through the primaries. Not enough people in the country are ready for a woman president -- not even the democrats. Perhaps in ~8 years, but not yet. As I mentioned earlier, I think she should be leading the democratic party instead of Dean. The candidate of the future for the democrats is Obama.

 

You see - that's one thing that DOES worry me. I think she has a shot at the primaries. I think Democrats are more inclined to vote for a woman for president than Republicans, which to me, says she has a shot. She'll also have a huge war chest ready to go for the election, and will likely outspend many if not all of her rivals. The natural problem with this scenario is that even though I think she has a chance at the primary, there's no way in hell she could ever win the election. I think there are many Republicans out there who would vote for a moderate Democrat for president in 2008. I don't know any Republicans who will strongly back Hillary.

Well, let's wait until he actually does something before we annoint him the Chosen One. He is great to listen to - I'll readily grant that. But you need more than oratory skills to win the presidency. (In fact, based on the current president, it would appear that oratory skills aren't a requirement at all.)