Exactly, like with every election. Put it this way - if Obama secures the nomination, he’ll steam roll over McCain - who is already starting to get negative issues thrown at him - and not even from the dems!
So, when she does it, it’s a calculated, conniving, calculated move to accomplish x, y, and z, but when he does it, he’s a “good guy”. Subjective much? I’m on your side as much as anybody, but to somebody on the fence, it’d probably do more good if you were just a bit more objective. (In other words, I don’t think this deserved its own thread, especially since he said the -exact- same thing.)
Since they said the same thing, one of them must be plagiarizing! :rolleyes:
Hillary Clinton is a tremendous asset to the country and to the Democratic Party. She will continue to be a very effective senator, and who knows what the future might bring in terms of future presidential chances. Right now, I am very thankful that it seems clear there is no chance she might try to pull a Lieberman (i.e., running as an independent after losing the party nomination) or anything else that might cause harm to the party. That much she made clear in her closing remarks.
Yep it was a simulplagiarism. Damn Simulplagiarists!
I get your meaning. He is just as calculating as she is, she may have him beat on the cunning part, but he at least leaves a good feeling in me when I hear him speak. She gives me a questionable feeling. The debate was a good one, and I give her huge Kudos for saying what she did in the end. I mean they are both on the same team, and I am happy she is showing people that she is thinking ahead.
But maybe Clinton is in fact conniving and lacking in principle and Obama is in fact principled and possessed of integrity. And I think their respective behavior in the primaries has demonstrated just this. So how is this just an example of subjective bias on the part of Phlosphr?
ETA–Oh, wait, **Phlosphr ** just agreed with you. I guess I’m on my own!
I gotcha, I see what your saying too.
A great question. When I heard her say that, the thought flashed by that “She knows she is sitting with the President-to-be”.
It was sad. I think she’s one of the better candidates to come along in a couple of decades, and she got to run against the best candidate to come along in a half century. Then I heard a policeman died on his motorcycle while serving in her escort in Texas. I think politics can be very very hard even on the best people.
I’m rooting for Obama and contributing to his campaign. But nonsensically I wish Clinton could win too. I anticipate she’ll continue to be a major positive force in the US, and who knows about future elections - or those miracles Huckabee is always going on about.
Some of you seem actually *offended * at the thought that she’d actually do or say something gracious. That doesn’t fit with the image you’ve built up, therefore she must be faking it, calculatingly and arrogantly.
Sad. Increasingly typical, but still sad.
How’s this for a hypothesis: Clinton knows that as of right now, she’s done. However, she’s just seen what the NYT article on McCain has done. Perhaps she is standing back from the fracas to see if there is an Obama smoking gun out there? If not, well she can go back to the Senate.
Being a Senator in the majority party with health care reform likely to dominate the first term of an Obama presidency can only help her future ambitions.
I agree. Seems like a lot of people are overly invested in Obama. It was just a remark. Who knows if it was calculated or gracious or whatever? These political threads are starting to remind me of my “Lost” threads, where we try to tease meaning out of the meaningless. 
[Completely off topic]There was a motorcycle cop who died escorting Bush in August near the Sunport in Albuquerque. I bought his personal motorcycle in November from his widow, and she donated the money to a cancer fund for another officer.[/Cot]
Regarding the police officer incident: I read that it was on the “Houston Viaduct”. How far was that from Dealy Plaza? Also, do any modern presidential motorcades travel over the spot where JFK was shot?
ISTM like merely a courteous thing for her to say in that setting. Have we got to deconstruct everything?
What’s nonsensical about that? It’s praiseworthy. We have all too rarely had elections where so many of us could be so happy with either result; where supporting one candidate has not been synonymous with opposing another. It’s what democracy should be about.
Absolutely. She’s devoted her life to public service, along with her husband, and there is no factual reason to believe otherwise, no matter what you may see or hear from the haters. As dalej42 suggests, look for her next to take the lead (whether as the public face or not) in getting UHC through Congress.
Do you think her UHC plan is the proper one benefitting the most people? I’m not touting anyone elses plan I’m just asking you what about her’s makes it the most appealing to the largest group of under/un-insured people in the country?
The actual plan that gets implemented is unlikely to closely resemble any current proposal, after the compromising and Harry-and-Louise-ing gets done, so I don’t place much importance on that at this point. The specificity of proposals in campaign platforms is, ISTM, mostly establishing the candidates’ credentials for seriousness, commitment, and ability to sling the ol’ policy wonkery. A decision to vote for a particular candidate out of a real expectation of getting the specific plans they propose put into action is too far a leap for me - at best they suggest the degrees of their priorities.
But, since you ask (and remember that this is an academic discussion comparing two abstractions, not a discussion of any candidates’ merits as leaders): My understanding is that Obama’s plan does not cover nearly as many currently uninsured. It makes the purchase of insurance voluntary, meaning the poorest people who need it most won’t have it. That is less generous than the Massachusetts plan, whose architect made the analysis Krugman quotes (even though the article doesn’t say that’s who Gruber is). Unless it gets subsidized on a sliding scale up to 100 percent, it isn’t universal.
As a communitarian, I value universality of guaranteed coverage most highly. I do agree with Clinton’s argument that giving that up right from the get-go is an absolutely wrong position to take entering a process of compromise.
I do not see how Obama’s proposal is any better than Romney’s, let alone Clinton’s. What do you have that says otherwise?
Phlosphr obviously I do not HRC as candidate or President, but if it could pass, a plan with a mandate would be better than one without. (IMHO.) Otherwise you have a situation in which those who are the most likely to need healthcare opt in and those who are least likely opt out more often. You need those lower risk ones as part of the pool. And if she could power it through Congress then I am sure he’d sign it. Running on that approach would however fail and we’d end up with no meaningful healthcare reform at all. Just like last time she was involved with this subject.
It has been pointed out to me that what I’ve been touting through the years is very similar to what is being done with great success in Israel.
The concept is[ol]
[li]An individual mandate for coverage of some minimal standard.[/li][li]The elimination of cherry-picking by insurers. They must accept all comers and no discounts to Big Corp. [/li][li]My original conception was to have a sliding scale tax credit to make it affordable but using the government as an intermediary as Israel does would be acceptable. In any case eliminate it as a pre-tax benefit. [/li][li]A safety net for the poorest among us.[/li][/ol]But I’ll take Obama’s plan. It can actually happen.
To the surprise of nobody, Clinton is being asked about those remarks today and is denying they were any kind of concession or acknowledgement that she won’t win. The New York Times quotes her remarks in full, and they don’t give her the courtesy of snipping the verbal tics-
I’m not suggesting this proves anything, because nobody will admit he has lost a race before he actually quits.
The problem with both UHC plans is that a mandate does nothing if people don’t have affordable premiums, I don’t see that in HRC’s plan and I only see slight progress towards that in BHO’s plan. I want to continue this conversation, I’ll be back…gotta try and make it home in this sludge…To be continued.
It deserves a different thread when you do get back into it.