Primaries

Remove all ads!

Simple. It's because, in the USA healthcare isn't driven by doctors or medical practicioners, it's driven by insurance company executives. These folks have something far, far more important to be concerned with than that ordinary citizens are kept healthy - ROI. The primary goal of any public company is to produce a steady income stream for its investors, after all.

UHC smacks too much of socialism, and the US has yet to wrap its collective brain around the idea that there actually is a degree of morality when it comes to business, and that some aspects of life simply shouldn't be subject to the almight profit margin. Until that happens, we'll struggle along, slapping band-aids on the sucking chest wound.

 

Yes, I've wondered that there might be something like that in American public mentality - there being something of an "S-word," as it were. However, I think that it might not be as impossible as it's often conceived. All that has to be done is that the state takes a more active position in the field, and that does not need to be automatically . After all, all that a UHC involves is that everyone gets an insurance, not where it comes from. Actually, it would probably mean they get clients that now can't or won't afford their services. It may involve slightly higher oversight standards, but even then it would imo still be a net gain for the companies.

Sure, it does involve some public-private partnerships, and that is a situation with its own problems - but it could still imo be a significant improvement. As for it being more expensive, that I could agree on - it probably would involve some extra funds, which should either come from other programs or from a tax increase. The question is, will it be worth the price? IMO the answer is yes - if done half right.

 

I think Hillary is all done. I think reality has set in, and she realizes the black vote has abandoned her. Now she is trying to scramble for the female vote

 

It's still premature to count Hillary out, unfortunately.

However unlikely, she can still get the nomination if she takes both Texas and Ohio by 65% AND succeeds in strong-arming the DNC into reversing their decision to unseat both Michigan and Florida (which all candidates agreed to, including HRC). Polls show Obama ahead or tied in both states now, but the polls in this campaign have been notoriously unreliable. Her campaign is also threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party over the state's goofy rules should she lose, which will drag this out beyond the 4th if that happens. It's a long shot, and remarkably desperate for someone who's "ready on day one." It'll also take an unprecedented amount of scorched-earth backroom deal making to come to fruition. But HRC's campaign has made it clear that they're more than willing to pull out the brass knuckles to win this, no matter what it does to the party. Even if she and Obama merely tie in all states on the 4th, I don't see her conceding gracefully. I see her going nuclear, which is incredibly disappointing.

So it's still possible. I'd wait another week before framing her obituary.

 

I really agree. I've made this point before and while the biased against women is not obvious, and quite subtle, nevertheless, it's there. I'm glad to see that you have had the subtlety to recognize that bias, TGS.

The only point that we disagree on, TGS, is that Hill never has had to "scramble for the woman vote," since that has been her main support anyway. She would have never had a chance without the women voters.

 

I'm sorry I have such a problem with this line of thinking, but I really do. I think it lets Hillary off the hook too much.

Hillary started this campaign as the odds-on favorite. She entered the race as the overwhelming frontfunner. She had a huge pile of money, enormous support from the party and the Democratic establishment, and the biggest star power by far. She had the "Big Dog" in her corner. She got undue credit for presidential experience by virtue of her being First Lady, despite having no security clearance, enacting few meaningful initiatives and her signature issue failed disastrously, by her own doing (just ask T2). She then carpetbagged to New York (why not be an Arkansas Senator where it would make more sense?) to become a high-profile Senator for the purposes of gaming a presidential run out of it (nothing wrong with that, let's just not call it something that it's not). She then proceeded to spend 7 years in the senate where her only major accomplishment was preventing us from seeing boobies in video games. The rest of the time she spent voting with (or capitulating to) the Republicans where it counted (Obama is guilty of this as well, though to much less of a degree). Not that she was a bad Senator, far from it - but if a distinguished senate career was really that important Chris Dodd or Joe Biden would have sewn this up months ago.

Why do I bring these things up? Had she not been HRC, such an undistinguished senate career (relatively speaking) would never have been enough to vault her to instant frontrunner status, even before she announced she was running. She had every single advantage, and has still been out-spent, out-campaigned, and outplayed by a relative newcomer with big ears and a funny name. She's also insulted every state that didn't fall in line behind her, and about a dozen other things we've covered in this thread. She claims the press is against her, yet we've not heard a peep about Whitewater, Vince Foster, or any of the old 90's pseudo-scandals that could have bogged down her run. I'm sure I'm missing something, but I think I've made my point.

Chalking this all up to sub-conscious sexism* gives her the mother of all free passes. Hillary Clinton is responsible for her own downfall. The reasons she's in the spot she's in have nothing to do with her gender. In fact, I find the mere implication - that she's losing because everyone else is a sexist - to be what's really sexist about all of this. You're effectively making excuses for her on account of her gender. That's just as sexist as opposing her for the same reason.

EDIT: Something else just occured to me as well (in the men's room, heh). My basic argument is NOT that sexism hasn't been working against HRC, but rather that she's overcome it. But you also have to account for the fact that all the other major candidates have had their own "isms" to deal with as well. Obama? Racism (even from Dems) and xenophobia. McCain? Agism. Romney? Anti-mormonism. Even Edwards has had to deal with misdirected homophobia (he's the Breck Girl, and a "faggot," after all). The small-minded among our populace have more than evened the playing field this time around. IMO, of course.

* Please correct me if this misrepresents your argument, but the frequency with which you bring it up seems to suggest otherwise.

 

I did not "bring it up," but TGS did. The fact that you are uncomfortable with my "bringing it up" with such "frequency" suggests more than you think. If you go back and count how many actual posts I have directed at this point about Hill, you will find it to be not all that "frequent." Unless you wish to count my responses to the points made by others, such as TGS.

All the points you suggest, were made in the great wisdom of the mainstream media before the primary season even started. The Hill, despite all the conventional "wisdom" within the mainstream media, did not even make it over the first hurtle, Iowa. That seems an odd thing to me. I would suggest, as you also did, that the Clinton name brand was what Hill had at the beginning, and with many Dems, that's a lot of name branding. The fact that she has postioned herself to run a general election as a moderate has been lost in the Democratic debate over who seems like the "real Democrat."

As you rightly point out, neither of them have very strong liberal credentials within the context of their Senatorial voting records, which for someone like me, is a problem, and hence the reason why I have had a hard time embracing either one of them as the "Changeling" of this election season.

But to target the specific point about Hill, it seems to me that O has gotten a free pass for being quite luke-warm regarding his voting record, while Hill has been hammered for hers. But that's just really beating-around-the-bush, so to speak. The real issue is that Hillary has behaved "unwomanly" throughout the primaries, and indeed she has; for she has been playing a "man's game" with the best of them, and it's just not acceptable within the context of her "womaness" that she has been just as much a political turd as the next "man."

Look at McCain's people calling O, Barack "Hussian" Obama recently in the news. How's that for down and dirty? So you think that won't resonate with the "small-minded populace" you mentioned? You bet it will. And McCain "condemns" such comments made by his Republican cronies, after the fact. Yes, well, it's all already out there, all hanging out. And now he "rises" above such nastiness. Oh, yes, please, let's all just forget the suggestion that O may be a closet Muslim, which for the "narrow-minded" is something like two-degrees (if that) removed from calling someone an Islamic fanatical "terrorist."

Well, no. The big rap on her from the Clinton years is "UHC." And like the narrow-minded populace, it is suggested to, she is one degree removed from a socialist-totalitarian-autocrat. And, yeah, she's been a "Big Beach," and a very annoying one at that. But she's no different than all the other bastards parading around as our would-be next prez.

And this really is the best group of "wanna-bees" we've had in a long, long, time. How's that for irony?

 

Chandos, McCain condemned the tactic of using "Hussein" when referring to Obama. He really laid into that talk show host (the one that claimed McCain threw him "under a bus").

There are times idiots in both parties do things that are unethical -- often without the consent of the candidate. People get overzealous about their candidate -- and often those people get thrown "under a bus." I believe all the main candidates have dismissed campaign personnel for such indiscretions.

 

Clinton lead the polls. She had a huge advantage in fund-raising. She had (and still has) a huge advantage in the party's establishment (i.e. superdelegates). These are easily verified; I'm curious how her seemingly insurmountable advantages were somehow a product of media 'spin'.

The only reason Clinton's campaign won't be noted as an epic failure in the '08 season is that Guiliani managed to take similar advantages and collapse even faster.

I'm a politics junkie; as such I've been watching a lot of election coverage. Clinton has been hammered on one vote, and one vote only: the authorization for the Iraq invasion. Obama has been doing that, not the press, and it's been Clinton's failure to satisfactorily explain her reasoning or simply apologize for being wrong that has hurt her. As for a comparison of their Senate records, I happened to like this (admittedly amateur) comparison of the two.

No, the real issue is that for '35 years of experience', Clinton has spearheaded two major efforts--UHC in 1992, which failed to such a degree that it's cited as a contributor to the Democrats losing both houses of Congress in the subsequent 1994 elections, and her '08 campaign, which is doing its best to match '92 UHC.

 

No, sorry. That's just not true. She has also been hammered on her vote more recently regarding Iran.

I don't agree here either. Clinton's campaign is already being noted as an "epic failure" by many in the mainstream press - please, check it out.

And sorry, but those "advantages" you list were mostly before the primaries started. Thusly, they really were just "vapor," since it's the real thing that counts, as has been demonstrated in the "real" primary season.

So now you are blaming Hill for the Republicans gaining both houses of Congress in 1994? Did you borrow that line from Rush or Savage? If there were "contributors" to the Republican sliming of Hill over UHC it would be the large insurance companies who spent Zillions of dollars hiring phony mom and pop would-be actors to read their bogus "lines" over every media outlet known to mankind. The insurance industry's "epic" campaign was certainly a success - the best all their money could buy.

 

You're correct; I generally lump the two together mentally as pro-war votes and it's my mistake for omitting this.

The problem is not her votes but rather her lack of satisfactory explanations for them. First she tried misdirection, attacking Obama as being inconsistent on Iraq instead of justifying her vote--didn't work. Then she cited the faulty intelligence argument--this didn't work either. Then she tried to argue she didn't realize Bush would use the vote to actually start a war--this also didn't work. It's taken the 20th debate to actually hear her start to talk about regretting the vote. Had she done that from the start it wouldn't be the huge albatross that it is now.

Obama's record has been attacked, and rightfully so, on re-upping the Patriot Act and the identical record on Iraq war votes since joining the Senate. He's done a better job explaining his votes which is why they don't have nearly the traction against him.

A huge starting money edge is not 'vapor', nor is a huge advantage in name recognition. It wasn't until recently that we've finally start to see her support in the party leadership and superdelegates start to waver. These advantages most certainly did not go away once the campaign started.

However, if you want to argue that Clinton's name recognition was a disadvantage instead of an advantage because of her high negatives, now you're getting somewhere. If you wish to argue further that those negatives may be based, to some degree, on sexism, then you can build a valid line of reasoning.

Note that I said it contributed; in no way did I say or imply anything to this degree. UHC was used, quite successfully, by Gingrich et al. as a big wedge issue in 1994 to fire up their conservative base--whether or not you feel it was a legitimate knock or was fairly portrayed (I'd say no on both counts). The right is trying to do it again this year (socialism! health care like the DMV!) but is having far less success.

I'm not claiming you're getting talking points from brainless idiots. I'd appreciate the same courtesy in return.

 

Point noted, Camdawg. And I was not trying to portray you as one of those "brainless idiots." I was making the point that, as you noted, the same argument has been used by the ultra-conservatives...with glee, I might add. My apologies for any perceived slight to you on my part.

You are right of course in your criticism of Hill's meager attempts at explaing away those votes. Her overall voting record is actually quite moderate. And I made the point earlier that that was where she has been positioning herself all along. Her intentions were to run as a moderate with a sprinkling of government programs for "kids and moms," which, of course, is death for her politically, because they typify her as a "woman politician," the tag which she has been dreading and running from since the beginning.

I believe that underneath the hard-hearted, manipulative, hawkish, political exterior, is really a compassionate, warm and engaging person, whose real fault is being too much of a politician, and too insecure to let her real self be seen by a rather cynical media and skeptical public. I also believe that she is a poor loser, accustomed to winning, at almost all costs. I think she's been a more than capable Senator, but unfortunately for her, she appears to be the huge loser this time out.

 

I think you're spot on. Clinton's best moments on the campaign have been when she has, for lack of a better term, gone off script. In particular I feel her "I'm honored" closing comments at the close of the debate before last was probably her best, most genuine moment of the campaign.

I guess the point I've been (poorly) trying to make--and I believe DR as well--is that she can and should shoulder the blame for the failure of her campaign. While I think a credible case can be made that her gender may have worked against her I personally feel that it pales when compared against the litany of her other mistakes.

 

Cam, I would appreciate it if you stop insulting brainless idiots everywhere by lumping men like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh in with them. Not all brainless idiots are insensitive, ignorant, bigoted partisan hacks. Most brainless idiots are just stupid.

 

Hey, some of my best friends... nah, forget it. Anyway, how are the forecasts about the Texas primary?

 

To get back to Snook's point, apparently there is more sexism than racism. A recent poll conducted found that 12% of those surveyed would be disinclined to vote for a woman, while only 8% would be disinclined to vote for an African American.

I'll save everyone the time of pointing out a flaw with this type of polling (other than things like sampling error that effects all polling). When asked that question, anyone with half a brain in the head is going to equate the question to a comparison between Hillary and Barack. And since Barack has been trending much better in polls nationally than Hillary has, it's no small wonder that a question worded in this way is going to get the results we see here.

While I think it is impossible to quantitate how much of a role sexism played in Hillary losing front runner status, I do not think it was a lot more than what Barack had to overcome being an African American. From my personal perspective, I see a lot more of a problem in this nation with racism than sexism (then again, that's also kind of Chandros' point - that sexism is more subtle and not as easily noticed).

One thing I think everyone can agree on: This election is being touted as the first time either an African American or a woman has had a real chance at winning the presidency. The thing no one is mentioning is that whomever loses the nomination isn't getting another shot for a long time.

And I don't just mean the individual canidate - I mean anyone from that group. If Hillary loses the nomination or the general election, then I don't see her running again in 2012. Generally speaking, you only get one shot at this. The last president I can think of that lost an election only to run four years later and win to become president was Richard Nixon. (Note that this plays against McCain as well who lost the nomination in 2000 to GWB.) Granted it's much more damaging if you lose a general election than lose a primary, but neither one is good. My larger point, however, is that if Hillary loses there isn't another woman in the pipeline of either party that I can see running any time soon. If Hillary does not become the first female president in 2008, then my six month old son may be old enough to vote before we see another woman with a realistic shot. I'd say the same thing goes for Barack. If he loses I don't see another African American getting another shot for a long, long time either.

So while I agree in principle to the thought that this is the first real chance for this nation to elect a woman or African American, whichever one (or potentially both) does not happen is going to be waiting a long time before the opportunity arises again.

 

OK, that's pretty funny.

Again, take a look at the Gallup poll I posted a few pages back--rated lower than women included Hispanics (Richardson), Mormons (Romney), married three times (Guiliani), and 72 years of age (McCain). McCain, especially, looks like he has a huge disadvantage here--42% wouldn't vote, compared to 5% for an African American and 11% for a woman. This hasn't hurt him much so far mainly because most people don't realize he's that old.

 

Good catch Montresor - the point I was making is that do-overs typically don't give different results. The three exceptions you refer to had extenuating circumstances that allowed it to occur. Especially Jackson's loss to Adams. That year, there were four major canidates (William Crawford and Henry Clay were the other two), and Jackson lost despite receiving a plurality of the popular and electoral votes. That's because a majority of the electoral vote is required, and Jackson's 99 of 260 was the most of any candiate, but not a majority. The Constitution stipulates that in such a case, the House of Representatives votes to decide on the president, and Jackson lost when Henry Clay gave his support to Adams. Clay knew he would not win in the House of Representatives, but he hated Jackson, and by giving his support to Adams (who finished 2nd) it screwed Jackson out of the presidency (but only for four years).

As much as I'd love to continue with this, I'm getting way You can read this for more info though.