And yet, oddly enough, the major health insurers were in favor of her plan, since it was an extension of the existing employer-based systems and meant guaranteed revenues for them. It was killed by Republicans for solely political reasons:
Your claim merely serves to demonstrate the pervasiveness of the right-wing propaganda machine.
Most politicians crave power. HRC is no different. I’d be surprised if ANY sitting Senator would demure from running for prez if (s)he thought (s)he had a chance of winning. Currently, HRC ranks #1 for the '08 nomination among democratic voters who have an opinion (check out the Gallop poll, 5th from the top). Granted, it’s awfully early in the cycle, but the data available now indicates HRC will be a leading Democratic candidate for president in '08. A lot could happen between now and then to lessen or strengthen that probability, but the facts are what they are. Anyone dismissing this as “Republican porn” is simply ignoring the facts.
It would make a big, big difference if the woman were at the top of the ticket.
Hey, but at least I got you to read 'em! 
In this year of grace, I feel inclined to view that as a major achievement.
What? The only reasons I’ve read on his thread are:
Her politics are “polarizing” or “socialist” or so on. Pure bullshit. She’s aligned with the DLC, the most conservative, probusiness wing of the party.
She ruffled too many feathers by trying to be Clinton’s “co-president.” An objection that made no sense at the time, and how can it be relevant now?
She’s “smug,” “condescending,” or “bitchy.” Not true. Care to argue the contrary, with specific examples? Besides, all successful politicians have bloated egos. A humble politician is like a cowardly soldier.
She’s a “northeastern liberal.” In fact she is neither.
She reminds people of Bill. But nowadays, he’s remembered fondly even by many Republicans.
But this thread is about her chances of winning in the general election – and most Americans favor socialized health care, I think this has been pretty well settled as far as this thread goes.
What on Earth are you talking about? All she says is that children need to be socialized and nurtured by more than just their own families. A statement not only obviously true, but so completely middlebrow and Rotarian in tone that I cannot conceive of how the most radical Libertarian would raise the mildest objection to it.
Now that’s part I’ve been trying to figure out for twelve years no. Political opposition I can understand, even personal distaste I can understand, but why on Earth would anybody hate Hillary Clinton?
BG:
Your problem, you see, is you’re attempting to convince the Hillary-bashers with actual facts. Sadly, I think it’s a waste of time. Hillary is hated because, well, she’s Hillary, husband of Bubba Blowjob. People bring up all kinds of speciously salient things, like her association with NE Liberals and Socialized Medicine, and so on; but when their points are picked apart one by one, you’re still left with the reality, which is these folks simply can’t stand her. They can’t figure her out, and really, aren’t all that interested in trying, since their straw-woman suits their purposes much better than the person Hillary actually may be. It’s not fair, and it’s not right, but I don’t think she can prevail over this hatred. This thread alone ought to support that. She’s not a swing-vote magnet; she’s quite the contrary, in fact. Hence, while she may get the nomination, I’d be absolutely shocked to see her win a Presidential election. That’s a cold-day-in-Hell scenerio, in my mind, and I shudder to think what a Hillary-for-Pres. campaign would do to an already bitterly divided country. I must agree with some of the other Hillary Skeptics (though I do not share the disdain and hatred some of them have for her): The Dems likely, perhaps desperately need another male, Christian, Southern populist who, this time around, can keep is fly zipped up (or, at the very least, can be more discreet about his womanizing than Bill was). It’s a sad commentary on the general electorate, but an accurate one, IMO.
You do realize, don’t you, that you just proved my point 5 times over?
Again, do you want to know why people dislike Hillary Clinton like they do, or do you simply want to argue with or dismiss their reasons? I have no particular dog in this fight myself. I’m perfectly content with my dislike of her, ranging from her extraordinary smugness and apparent sense of superiority (probably my main gripe against her on a personal basis), to my perception of her as a devious and willful socialist wanna-be who has the arrogance to deliberately try to go behind our backs into closed room sessions with parties whose identities are kept secret in order to try to hammer out a huge social program which she knows the citizenry would neither like nor approve of, and then try to cram it down our throats. What fucking arrogance!
And that, my friend, is why I don’t like Hillary. Others have their reasons. But be that as it may, you continue to profess confusion as to why people don’t like her, only to respond with criticism and dismissal when you hear their reasons.
So what is it? Do you want to know what people around the country (of whom we here at the SDMB are only a small percentage) so dislike about her, or do you want to engage in arguments as to whether their reasons are valid in your opinion?
…and also because she appears so aggressive and pushy that she’s percieved as Bubba’s husband, even among her supporters!
Yikes. The meme has hijacked part of my brain. I meant wife of Bubba Blowjob, of course.
Of course you did, but still…
You were inquiring as to people’s sentiment towards Hillary, not to her actual electability. Actually, I think you were commenting on both, and I chose to response to people’s sentiment.
I object to the ‘village’ statement. I believe child-rearing is not the responsibility of society, but of the parents alone. They can enlist help should they so choose, but it is not necessary for them to do so, nor should it be expected or required of anyone else. The Village statement imputes responsibility on society, individuals, to take part in the raising of other people’s children. I see no such responsibility and reject any attempt to put that burden on my shoulders. It also implies a certain necessity of sociatal participation in the raising of other peoples’ children, where I see no such necessity.
You may not agree with that position, but it is what it is. If you refuse to acknowledge that, or cannot conceive of that position, I do not think you will gain the understanding you are apparently seeking.
I really don’t get it myself. “She’s cold”; “she’s arrogant”; “she’s a socialist”; “she’s an elitist”; “she has betrayed the American wife”; “she’s a ballbreaker”; “she’s a man-hating lesbian seperatist”; “etc.”. Are any of these even remotely accurate? I’ll admit, she was a tad awkward publically; but so was Bush Sr., big time. The health care plan was conceived and vetted poorly in political terms; but I don’t think it was ever really convincingly argued against in terms of its own benefits or deficits. As rjung mentioned above, the Plan was simply killed dead as a kind of punishment for uppityness, and there was no attempt to salvage anything from it. For all of Hillary’s political faults at that time, her opposition was all the more egregious for using those faults to score political points through demagoguery without even the pretext of a good-faith effort to reform health care somehow. Hillary should have included all parties in the discussion more, though the results would have been mixed. I think the Republicans showed incredible selfishness by simply destroying the effort for political gain.
And as for all the sex-related bullshit: I must admit I’m as mystified by Bill and Hillary’s marriage dynamic as the next fellow, but I really don’t see the relevance. How these bizarre notions of her lesbianism, etc. come up, I have no idea (and who cares if she is a lesbian, for that matter?), but it seems to me, like the article I cited suggests, with Hillary, it’s a lose-lose scenerio: Come across as too much of a feminist, and you’re man-hating dyke. Come across as too little of one, and you’re a sell-out. Sadly, I think somewhere near a majority of women in American actually prefer the apparently contradiction-free persona of Laura Bush: A nice, above-average gal who knows her place, and is happy and content in it. She doesn’t threaten their egos, or make them think too hard about their own compromises in life. Can you imagine if Teresa Heinz-Kerry had become First Lady? What a trip that would have been. Maybe Teresa, Hillary, and Martha Steward could have their own reality show, and call it “The Bitch Is Back”.
What do you think of Cheney’s energy task force?
Wait. What does a rye cocktail have to do with any of this?
Your newfound admiration and respect for the viewpoints of major health insurers as to what is the right thing to do is duly noted, but I think you may be misconstruing the Harry and Louise commercials.
Your “cite” mentions that this memo has surfaced. I was unaware of that – I had thought it was something that the Clintons had talked about, both contemporaneously and in their respective biographies, but that it hadn’t been proven to exist. Since it has surfaced I look forward to you citing the full text of the memo and I thank you in advance for eradicating my ignorance on this point.
Quote:
Thank you for your fine contribution. You must feel great that your trenchant analysis is now preserved in perpetuity and that future archaeologists may come across it and remark, “wow, that rjung is such a smart fellow. No wonder no one could argue with him.”
It has? Where?
See annaplurabelle’s post #46 – highly persuasive, and to this point in the thread never contradicted, let alone refuted.
WTF? I’m familiar with the “lesbian Hillary” meme as a hoary political joke, always good for a cheap laugh on SNL during the Clinton years. Are you trying to tell me there are Americans who actually believe it?! :eek:
Well, it’s an extreme view, but yes, I knew some people who really did believe it, and the tabloids certainly had a field day with stories about Hillary’s lesbian affairs for a while. A Virginian uncle of an ex-g.f. proclaimed Hillary was a “fuckin’ ugly dyke”, and meant it; and oddly enough, one of the women I knew who thought Hillary might be a lesbian was herself a lesbian, who disliked Hillary because she was clearly riding a man’s coattails to the top. Not representin’ and all that. Talk about ironic.
Oh, and here’s a fun little blurb. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that one.
Pfft. A poll that only includes the government and your boss? Seems to me like that forces people to choose among unpalatable alternatives.
It’s true, unfortunately, that Americans basically want a pony as regards health care. But in fact, only 31 percent of Amercans believe that the government should “own, provide or run” most health insurance, and lesser numbers believe that of other parts of the system. 90% believe that small employers should be able to pool experiences to negotiate and 75% believe in tax credits for private insurance. What jumps out to me is from the first poll, where so many people believe that non-government non-profits ought to be doing so much. Like I said, I want a pony. The weird part is that in some respects, Americans are getting one, of course. There are lots of non-profit institutions providing health care. I suspect that many Americans may not fully appreciate just how much profit is being generated at such places by parties other than the institution itself.