| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Warming up to Clinton |
Topic: Warming up to Clinton
| Author | Message |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 1:33:08 PM | show profile I've been livid at Hillary Clinton for her hawkish stance and not coming out against the Bankruptcy Reform Bill by actually voting against it, but the debates have swayed me a bi in her direction. One, in this meat & potatoes country; had Hillary voted against going into Iraq the Swift Boat people would have gone ape-s**t today. So in her situation I think it would have been very hard in this country -- with the hubris and jingo mindset of so many Americans -- to have not voted for kicking somebody's ass after 9/11. S Secondly, I am beginning to think that, as Paul Krugman states, health care should be the core of the progressive movement and, to put it bluntly, Barack's plan doesn't cover about 15 million numbskulls that will forego any insurance thinking they're invincible and then go whining to the taxpayer when they get hit by a car. The key to both plans is attacking costs. This HAS to work for a mandate and subsidies to work. But the difference is that Clinton's plan covers everyone. I'd prefer Medicare for all, like Canada or Europe or Japan, but perhaps a public/private system is a step in the right direction. So I guess right now I'm leaning toward Clinton, but would like to see Clinton/Barack. I now cede the floor to the right-wing blowhards to poison this thread with a bunch of crap about how Democrats support terrorists and homeless veterans are homeless because they choose to be addicts. |
| crimedog | Posted – 2/4/2008 1:44:05 PM | show profile Chucho - you can't beat the Canadian health care system even with the occasional quirk. If I had to go what I've been through the past two years in US I would be homesless. |
| catlondon | Posted – 2/4/2008 2:45:17 PM | show profile Chucho: Give poor Hillary a break. Bill was having follow-up heart surgery the day of the Bankruptcy vote--she was at the hospital in New York. |
| zftcg | Posted – 2/4/2008 4:20:32 PM | show profile One, in this meat & potatoes country; had Hillary voted against going into Iraq the Swift Boat people would have gone ape-s**t today. See, this is my biggest problem with Hillary. I believe that she believes that. And frankly, I'm sick and tired of Democrats basing their decisions on how the Republicans will attack them. Whether it's caving to them on the '02 Iraq vote or boasting about who can best stand up to the Republican attack machine today, the one constant is that she (and, to be fair, a lot of DC Dems) are dancing to the Republicans' tune. It's like the political version of the Stockholm Syndrome. I know Obama's critics like to complain that he's "naive", but as I see it, he simply doesn't orient his entire political persona around Republican opposition. That's not to say he ignores it, just that he is far more likely to pursue his agenda and stand up for his beliefs (eg, Iraq was a "dumb war") and then deal with the fallout of those beliefs. IMO, that bespeaks a certain amount of self-confidence that I want to see in a president. (And before anyone jumps in with the invidious Bush comparisons, let me just say that there's a big difference between self-confidence and stubbornness, and I don't see any of the latter in Obama.) The conservative movement is a spent force, and I'm done with being afraid of it. Hell, given how badly they've screwed things up, Republicans are the ones who should be afraid. P.S. Clarification: Hillary missed the vote on the 2005 bankruptcy bill due to Bill's surgery. However, she did vote for the 2001 version, then said she was happy it never became law. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 4:54:36 PM | show profile Cat - I'm trying, but it doesn't help that now she's saying she is against it. She can have a change of heart but she voted for it the first time it went around. The second vote is the one she abstained on. But speaking of: I can't find anything online referring to the heart surgery thing. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/4/2008 4:59:58 PM | show profile zft: This is politics. I don't like that she's trying to say "but we were lied to" -- it's true. The vote was aimed at pressuring inspectors back into Iraq, but Bush used the vote to skip that part and head straight to Rumsfeld's treacherous "light infantry on the cheap it will pay for itself in a few months" planning. I would much prefer her be honest and say that it would have been political suicide to have voted against it. (In that sense, the Dems that did vote against it were doing it on principle and not for political reasons, which is very admirable, but from a pragmatic standpoint I can see how a presidential aspirant -- especially a woman who has to deal with all the hubris -- couldn't have gone against the grain. I don't like it, but America is filled with people who would have politically assassinated her for not supporting the bill. |
| catlondon | Posted – 2/4/2008 5:06:41 PM | show profile March 9, 2005--The bankruptcy vote was that day as was Bill Clinton's follow-up heart surgery to remove scar tissue and drain fluids. She released a statement prior to the vote that didn't support the bankruptcy bill. |
| catlondon | Posted – 2/4/2008 5:15:35 PM | show profile I meant to say "that she didn't support the bill." I agree with you on the general lack of Dem spinelessness. I remember feeling a little queasy when I saw Gephardt standing (literally) shoulder to shoulder with Bush during that time. But I also feel there's some truth to the fact that Obama could be against the war because he didn't have to vote for it (or against it). Face it--it was a crucial test of backbone he didn't really have to take. I remember Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who did vote against it, getting very serious death threats and taking a lot of heat. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 2/4/2008 6:35:20 PM | show profile But cat, if the people we put in office don't stand their ground on the issues that truly matter to this country, they don't deserve that office. We have politicians and journalists and activists in countries aound the world risking their jobs, freedom, families and lives every day for what they believe in, and our politicians, in this case a boatload of Democrats in particular (not to mention a lot of "liberal" media) caved in on the most important issue of Bush's administration because they're afraid the rightwingnuts would call them names?!? They should be ashamed of themselves. |
| catlondon | Posted – 2/4/2008 7:08:42 PM | show profile Well, keltoi, I agree. But other than Obama, who wasn't in office to vote against the war, and Richardson, who was a governor, every serious Democratic candidate did--Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden. Hopefully, they've all learned something, but I think it's an issue we need to put behind us. What are they going to do about it now is the issue. And I still don't think Obama is tested enough to know how he would have voted. |
| keltoi2 | Posted – 2/4/2008 7:24:41 PM | show profile I agree, cat, that it's easier to be against something when you don't have constituents to answer to. But 23 Senators did have enough backbone to not cave in to the war frenzy. And after the fact, Edwards for one admitted he made a mistake in voting the way he did. I may have missed it, but all I've ever heard from Hillary are lame excuses about "not thinking George would use it". And I disagree about moving on. If votes with such a disastrous impact on our country's military, finances, and international standing (not to mention the personal devastation on the lives of US soldiers and their families, and Iraqis) have no real consequence for those who allowed it to happen, why pretend there's accountability at all? |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 2/4/2008 10:56:11 PM | show profile I believe Clinton would be a more effective executive from day one, but I am worried that she would lose to McCain. That's one reason why I think it would be a better ticket if it was Obama/Clinton. |
| arewrites | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:07:35 AM | show profile >>I know Obama's critics like to complain that he's "naive", but as I see it, he simply doesn't orient his entire political persona around Republican opposition. That's not to say he ignores it, just that he is far more likely to pursue his agenda and stand up for his beliefs (eg, Iraq was a "dumb war") and then deal with the fallout of those beliefs. << You mean like when he completely rewrote and repurposed the nuclear legislation he claimed he'd passed but actually never did in a way that completely supported the Republican view, rather than the one he presumably was trying to put into effect when the bill was first created? You mean like that? |
| arewrites | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:11:30 AM | show profile >>But I also feel there's some truth to the fact that Obama could be against the war because he didn't have to vote for it (or against it). Face it--it was a crucial test of backbone he didn't really have to take.>> And that, I think, is exactly what we can expect from Barak Obama. It's certainly all we've ever gotten in the past. Did anyone note, btw, the Salon.com piece yesterday in which they talked about his general reticence with the press? I thought this was the guy who wanted everything to be transparent. I cannot believe how hypocritical this man is. |
| keltoi | Posted – 2/5/2008 1:36:24 AM | show profile arewrites, hypocrisy is a requirement for higher political office in the US. So why the surprise? The key is to choose the least damaging hypocrite. Bush, for example, is an exceptionally dangerous hypocrite. He was a bad, bad choice. Obama? Not so bad. |
| chucho | Posted – 2/5/2008 4:32:35 AM | show profile >> You mean like when he completely rewrote and repurposed the nuclear legislation he claimed he'd passed but actually never did in a way that completely supported the Republican view, rather than the one he presumably was trying to put into effect when the bill was first created? You mean like that? << Yeah, right, like the Republican majority at the time would have ever allowed his original bill to pass. Some say that the bill at least raised the issue and afterwards nuclear power plants began voluntarily to communicate more with the communities around them. Barack may have misspoke, but I think it's unfair to place all of this on his shoulders -- it' the congressional Republicans that fought him on evil government regulations that would have made it compulsory for nuclear power generators to report leaks, which was, after all, the original bill that Barack submitted -- DESPITE receiving a lot of PAC money from one of the largest nuclear power companies. And, again, Arewrites, by your standards none of the candidates are electable. |
