Bonior Goes After Clinton on Trade and Health Care

by david mizner, Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:54:29 AM EST

Yesterday on CNN Edwards's campaign manager, David Bonior, went after two especially weak spots in Hillary's Clinton record. During a preview of tonight's debate that featured spokespeople for the top three campaigns, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, speaking for Clinton, claimed that she had "delivered" on health care. Bonior was having none of it.

With all due respect ...They had a very important choice to make back in '93: whether to do the North American Free Trade agreement or health care. They implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement that put literally millions of workers out of work in this country and destroyed, basically, our good trading relationships we had around the world. And then in the interim, they lost any capital they had to get health care passed. ... The fact of the matter is it's been an absolute disaster on health care.

It's an interesting point, that Clinton spent political capital on NAFTA that could have and should have been used on health care. Bonior is well qualified to make such a statement: he led the battle in Congress against NAFTA. In any case, the failure of Hillary's health care reform effort is well known. Less well known is her dismal record on trade. Only recently has she begun to distance herself from her husband's orthodoxy on so-called free trade. In 1998 (the same year that Edwards ran for the Senate in opposition to NAFTA), she spoke at World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and praised corporations for mounting:

a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta...It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.

As an Edwards supporter, I'm thrilled to see the Edwards campaign condemn Clinton, and as someone tired of the politeness of the campaign thusfar, I'm glad to see good tough fair criticism.

But Obama spokesperson Rep. Arthur Davis found this discussion distasteful.

Democrats will not win the election in 2008 if we are frozen in an argument about who did what in 1993, who did what between 1993 and 2001. That's a stale argument for a lot of people




Tags: david bonior, john edwards, hillary clinton, nafta, barack obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 170 Comments :: Post a Comment


Thanks Bonior (3.00 / 10)

Debate is good.

More of this, please.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:59:08 AM EST

Re: Thanks Bonior (none / 0)

Obama shows he's not ready for prime time.

A rival is taking on the front-runner and you try to poo-poo it?  Geez, politics 101.  F.


Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 11:39:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think there are going to be real (3.00 / 4)

fireworks tonight in the debate.

The campaign really begins tonight.


by TomP on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:06:56 PM EST

John Edwards is setting the agenda. (3.00 / 5)

Christopher Cooper
The Wall Street Journal
Jul 20, 2007

John Edwards may be stuck in third place in the polls and fund raising in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. But the populist seems to be playing an outsized role in driving the terms of the party's debate -- generally to the left -- on everything from Iraq to health care.


by TomP on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards is setting the agenda. (3.00 / 3)

Yeah, definitely. He's the Dean of this year, in terms of shaping the race.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think there are going to be real (3.00 / 2)

I think the AFL-CIO debate will be very interesting.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I sense you might be right (none / 0)

I will be surprised if the candidates don't show more teeth this time around.

Edwards, Richardson, and Obama, in that order I think, need to show some strength and some fight.   They have to go after the leader.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question (3.00 / 1)

I thought that the reason why Clinton went with NAFTA over healthcare was b/c Bobby Byrd nixed the Clintons' idea to pass the healthcare reform package in the appropriations bill? Anyone know?


by ademption on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:07:34 PM EST

I'm not sure (3.00 / 2)

and to tell you the truth, this is the first time I'd heard anyone make the point Bonior made; in any case, his larger point is valid: on health care and trade, the Clintons were bad.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clintons concluded (3.00 / 1)

that they didn't have the 60 votes to defeat a filibuster so early in 1993 they decided to do a run around of Senate procedures and attach the healthcare proposal to that year's appropriations bill. They knew from past experiences with Truman, LBJ's efforts to pass a universal healthcare bill, they would need to get past a filibuster. They tried to come up with an alternative legislative route that would allow the healthcare plan to get through the Senate. Unfortunately, Sen. Byrd didn't like the plan. "Mr. Stickler for old Senate rules" wanted it to go through the committee process and get the healthcare bill marked up etc. While the healthcare logjam went on, Bill Clinton wanted to get other bills passed including his budget.

I think Bonior is leaving out some events from his story but hey, it's a campaign. I don't expect anything less. I would just ask Edwards' supporters, what part did Bonior play if any to getting the healthcare proposal passed on the House end? He also was on the Appropriations committee for the House back then, right?  


by ademption on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:56:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not sure (3.00 / 4)

Is everyone ignorant of how healthcare reform was killed?

Nonsense! Any trade bill will come with a generous dollop of Republican support. Passing NAFTA wasn't exactly a Herculean task. The fact that it passed doesn't mean that they went to the mat for it. I'm sure they believed in the benefits of NATFA and I know they believe in free trade more than most of the Democratic faithful. Conversely, any healthcare proposal comes with ZERO Republican support. Here's a Cliff Notes version of the 93-94 healthcare debate timeline from PBS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/ background/health_debate_page3.html). I'm not crazy about Hillary's candidacy, but it kills me when so called liberals impugn Clinton's commitment to healthcare reform. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either grossly ignorant or is someone crass enough to say anything to tear down a rival Democratic candidate. The Democrats lost Congress over this! Do you really think Clinton wanted to hand over control to the Republicans and be the recipient of a Republican witch hunt. Why do you think Hillcary became the target of Republican scorn? The woman has taken more hits than any politician in recent memory because of work on healthcare reform. Sheesh! Show  her at least some respect.  

Its really hard for me not to dislike Edwards supporters over ridiculous remarks like this. You have a good candidate, who is articulating a good message. Why on earth do you guys feel the need to whack HRC on the one issue where she has demonstrated real leadership (in the past, of course)? Do you guys feel the need to pile on her like the jokers who coined the term "Hillarycare"?


by crazymoloch on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's no (none / 0)

question that after being sold down the river on NAFTA, unions are other progressive groups were not as geared up as they could've been to fight for health care reform.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's no (none / 0)

No offense to unions, but A LOT more people care about Health care than they do about Unions. I have a hard time believe that progressives and unions were "so sad" after NAFTA passed that they couldn't muster up the will to fight for health care reform.

Also your comment implies that fighting for health care reform was doing the Clintons a favor. I'm going to assume that everyone here gets why this is true and just hope I misread your comments wrong.

Once again, I'm NOT trying to bash Unions but this claim is ridiculous


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's no (none / 0)

Well look, with the powerful forces arrayed against health care reform, the Clintons needed unions fully energized and committed and on board. They weren't because of NAFTA.

That's not how you lead the party, or a progressive movement. Imagine if Hillary, or anyone came in next year and said, okay health care reform in a little bit; but first, another free trade agreement! You can't cross an important constiuency on its core issue and expect them to them do be there 100 percent. That's not the way politics--or human nature--works.

All that said, NAFTA was not the main reason that health care didn't pass.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's no (none / 0)

To David and Clark

Once again your viewing this as the unions not wanting to help the Clintons out after NAFTA. Universal Health care GREATLY helps out union workers. Aside from ,um, you know being able to get treatment while they're sick, businesses are being crushed under the costs of healthcare insurance. Because of this they either fire workers,under insure them, or a deadly mixture of both. The fact is FIGHTING FOR HEALTHCARE WAS IN THEIR INTERESTS. Union leaders aren't stupid, this is obvious political fact.

This is why the AFLCIO spent millions of dollars trying to push for health care reform and its also why unions almost always push for universal healthcare.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's no (none / 0)

Well, a lot of Americans care about having a good job, not just people in unions.

Also, I had the impression that the Clinton health care plan didn't impress the unions at the time. Why should they have gone to the mat for a health care plan they didn't like when they just got slapped in the face by the administration?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's no (none / 0)

I'm not as up to date on the early 90's NAFTA fight as I'd like to be. Got any sources for me to peruse?


by crazymoloch on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's no (3.00 / 1)

This book, by the publisher of Harpers, is sitting in my to-be-read pile; it's supposed to be an excellent overview of the selling of NAFTA:

"The Selling of Free Trade: Nafta, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy"

http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Free-Trade -Washington-Subversion/dp/0520231783/ref =sr_1_1/102-9583805-8440940?ie=UTF8& s=books&qid=1185222709&sr=1-1


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please use brackets for links (none / 0)

Enclose your link in brackets [Link Title url] and you get the following result:

The Selling of Free Trade: Nafta, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy

Isn't that better?


by JollyBuddah on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yup, thanks (none / 0)


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:08:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's no (none / 0)

wow, I wonder what conclusion that book comes to.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (3.00 / 2)

There was a certain naivety to the way the Clintons put their health care plan together. They didn't build political concensus along the way and it landed with a huge thud.

They are both more experienced now, and more calculating - as one would expect after the kind of 8 years Bill Clinton experienced in the White House. Unfortunately, it seems the experience also resulted in a level of incrementalism that I'm not comfortable with.

That was then, the country was ready for dramatic change.

This is now, the country is crying out for bold ideas.


by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oops, major typo (none / 0)

That was then, the country was NOT ready for dramatic change.


by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I do not understand that (3.00 / 4)

comment.  Is it just spam?


by TomP on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:07:39 PM EST

Re: I do not understand that (3.00 / 1)

Cut and paste comments.  It's easier than thinking.


by rashomon on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Desperation City: Here We Come (2.00 / 2)

Can't the candidate fight his own battles?  I suppose we'll find out tonight.


by superetendar on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:08:17 PM EST

Yes - watch tonight! (3.00 / 2)


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you understand (3.00 / 9)

the concept of spokespeople? Or do you against the very concept of campaign staffs?


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes! Watch tonight! (3.00 / 4)

I am looking forward to watching John Edwards in action! Tonight he will be answering questions from real people, and that is what he is all about. Real people!

(And Bonoir wasn't "fighting Edwards battle" on CNN...he was answering direct questions asked by Wolfe Blitzer to representatives from the three campaigns. It isn't Bonoir's fault that the other two representatives could not keep up with him!!)


by bettync on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:02:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm and it looks like (3.00 / 8)

we won't hear any criticism about anyone's record (or just not Clinton's?) from the Obama campaign, at least not from 1993 to 2001. Really putting the gloves ON for this one.


by okamichan13 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:12:16 PM EST

Re: Hmm and it looks like (3.00 / 1)

Well Obama can't really comment since he is trying to play nice.  There needs to be a dispassionate criticism of the Clinton years.  The dot.com bubble covered up the disasters of the NAFTA agreements and the personal adventures of Bill distracted everyone. Reagan began the union busting attack on the middle class.  Clinton did little to make things better.

That is why we need someone who has distance from those years and is not tied into trying to make them sound better than they were.  They allowed us to get Bush.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting what Davis said... (3.00 / 3)

"The last exchange you've heard is exactly why Barack Obama's candidacy is so important. We've just spent two minutes arguing about who did what in 1993," Mr. Davis said. "Democrats will not win the election in 2008 if we are frozen in an argument about who did what in 1993, who did what between 1993 and 2001. That's a stale argument for a lot of people. As much as I admire the Clintons, people are hungering for a new discussion in this country, and they want to look forward."

Of course, it's OK to be frozen in an argument about who did what back in 2002.  Sometimes, it seems that this frozen moment is the main impetus of one's campaign.  So which will it be, forward or backward?  Maybe it's time to decide, then be consistent, rather than try to have it both ways.


by citizen53 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (3.00 / 2)

you can only review records so long as they're favorable to my candidate.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've got to love the convenient (none / 0)

cut off date....


by okamichan13 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:26:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary was 44 in the 90s! (3.00 / 8)

We need a Progresssive president now!
John Edwards leads on Progressive issues - WooHoo!
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:12:55 PM EST

Re: Hillary was 44 in the 90s! (3.00 / 1)

Amen sister!


The bold progressive leader is the most electable candidate. Reclaim the Democratic Party! Support John Edwards.
by Michael 4 Edwards on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Looks like a sign of things to come (3.00 / 10)

This may be an indication that Edwards is really going to come out swinging tonight.

The post debate webcast he's doing should be interesting too.


by NCDemAmy on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:14:02 PM EST

Indeed (3.00 / 6)

It was, after all, a debate preview. The timing was no accident.

Sparks tonight: I can feel it.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He'll likely (1.00 / 0)

He'll likely get a smack-down by Hillary in the face. Hilarious.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:14:38 PM EST

Re: He'll likely (none / 0)

Why would you think that would be funny?


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He'll likely (none / 0)

Because Edwards will get a big slap.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He'll likely (3.00 / 3)

Well- apparently it will be on his face - cause she sure can't do it on the issues.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He'll likely (3.00 / 4)

Booyah!!!


by nannyboz on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He'll likely (none / 0)

We'll see.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

areyouready, (none / 0)

can you comment on NAFTA?  have you met any families devastated by loosing jobs, wages slashed, working two/three jobs?  do you really think NAFTA has been good for the average worker?  do you support outsourcing all our jobs, will insourcing all IT jobs, reducing wages for AMERICANS already in these jobs?  can you confirm or deny that you were once masquerading on this site as carolinehanz, masaoda, kostner?  can you confirm or deny that your account has been deactivated, repeatedly here?  can you confirm or deny that the reason you can not post at dKos is because you were autobanned as carolinehanz?  be careful of what you admit to, IP addresses can be TRACED.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, (none / 0)

Icebergslim,

Are you implying that these "jobs lost because of NAFTA" would have stayed in America for sure/not been eliminated. If so I look forward to evidence of these claims.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, (3.00 / 1)

These were jobs in which many were unionized, held families together, gave Americans living wages, but the company bailed to pay someone pennies on the dollar, while the CEO's get paid in the double digit in millions?  I am on the side of the American worker.  These companies don't give a shit about us.  When was the last time you had to compete for a construction job, only to be overlooked because it was non-union, and an illegal is working the job for under 10 bucks an hour?  When was it the last time that you saw an influx of Indian workers come into your workspace, you train them, then you are removed from your job in IT only to find out they are making LESS than the person who was in this job?  Yeah, I personally WITNESSED that one.  Sorry, I understand free trade, but I am for AMERICAN JOBS, and workers making a living wage, not a poverty wage.  Don't throw this NAFTA crap on me or to me.  I was not for it back then, and vehemently against it now.  Look what happened to Enron?  WorldCom?  These companies do not care about workers anymore.  Many families that have two parents working can not even afford the HEALTHCARE.  Is this the America our parents invisioned for us?  No it is not.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: areyouready, (3.00 / 1)

Repeating a rant about why you think NAFTA sucks because "your friend lost his job" is not an argument nor does it respond to my simple question. I'll give you the chance to respond yet again.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards has been leading on the issues (3.00 / 4)

Let's see him lead the debate tonight.  I'm particularly interested in what his intro video will highlight since that may be where he really sets the tone.


by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:23:07 PM EST

Re: Edwards has been leading on the issues (3.00 / 4)

I think theses intro videos should be interesting, because they have had time to think about them.  If anything new is being done that should be revealed in these intros.

Yes Edwards has been leading and the msm is finally noticing.  Obama has been learning from Hillary and is trying to claim the same ground but it just isn't so.  I hear he now will have a rural poverty plan.  Hmmm I wonder why????  


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember what ACTUALLY happend (none / 0)

I'm suprised that SO many people seem to forget the history behind the healthcare debate.

Ummm healthcare reform lost for one reason...$100 MILLION CAMPAIGN AGAINST IT. Seriously people. Remember, the Clinton's HealthCare policy was praised when it first came out and then the giant insurance company campaign railled against it.

Remember the Ad's talking about how confusing the bill was, what bill isn't, or that made blatantly false claims about it. Then the articles claiming there was no health care crisis,etc. Lets be honest here people.

And uhh..last time I checked...the democratically controlled congress refused to pass the bill.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:23:40 PM EST

Well, then, let's (3.00 / 7)

talk about Hillary's health care plan today. Here it is:

-

-

-

-

-

What do you think? Do you like it?


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then, (2.60 / 5)

Hilarious.  Yes that is her plan, the same as what she delivered in 1993.

I like Hillary as a woman, but she is not a leader that has really delivered on anything substantial and has backed away from saying she would.

That is why a debate on issues is so important.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then, let's (3.00 / 1)

She's said she's releasing it in parts. And I don't blame her. If I were her I wanted want to keep my name away from health care until the latest I could during the campaign season. Why would she want to run on her biggest political defeat.

I think she's actually brought up the best point regarding health care when she said having these niffty plans is cute but its going to take political will power and savy to get health care reform pushed through.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then, let's (none / 0)

when did she say that? link?


by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:36:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then, let's (none / 0)

Last Friday:

Here's the video:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070714/VIDEO05/7072100 1/1056/NEWS09

I'll talk about coverage, but I think it's really important to recognize that this is not about a plan. It is about the political will and the strength of the political coalition you put behind the concept of moving toward universal health care coverage...


by hwc on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then, let's (none / 0)

And she said it at the last CNN debate


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's UHC plan (3.00 / 1)

>>>>She's said she's releasing it in parts

2010 - lst graders
2012 - 2nd graders
2014 - 3rd graders - plus a few boomers

Oops! time's up!


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then, let's (none / 0)

Also, I think its funny that you're trying to change the subject after I noted Edwards' claim for why her healthcare reform failed was historically incorrect. Your current reply...

-

-

-

... HILLARY SUCKS@!


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I actually (3.00 / 6)

responded by saying, okay, fine, forget 93. For the sake of this post, I'll concede the point--let's talk about today. Although it's not as if 93's not related to today. Should we really nominate someone who's so politically damaged on the most important domestic issue that she's afraid to run on it, that she has to release it piecemeal?

And she says she's gonna deliver health care by the end of her second term--that's way to late. We need it asap.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I actually (none / 0)

1. Obama said that we'll get health care reform towards the end of his first term. Hardly ASAP

2. I'm more concerned about what politicians will do in office rather than how they run there camapaings. That would be like saying I support edwards because he released his health care plan first


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I actually (3.00 / 2)

You may not care what Edwards is proposing - but Hillary and Obama do - and are FOLLOWING him on the issues.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I actually (3.00 / 1)

I actually think Edwards has a good to decent health care plan


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I actually (none / 0)

Yes - I like Edwards' UHC the best.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I actually (none / 0)

Indeed you should. Edwards has had a number of years to selectively appropriate John Kerry's campaign initiatives in 2004 including single payer UHC. Frankly, I'm skeptical that the electorate at large has the stomach for a single payer system. "HillaryCare" was far less cumbersome structurally than simply a massive government-administrated pool. I have a feeling that single payer will become the perfect Republican bogeyman in 2008.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I actually (3.00 / 2)

Why do you think she will get healthcare in her 2nd term?

Tell me what president was able to present and pass a major proposal such as healthcare in their 2nd term. Most presidents accomplish very little in their 2nd term. That my friend is the historical record.


by BDM on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously. (3.00 / 2)

What happened to the whole health care plan debate?  There was a lot of ruckus before Obama came out with his plan...whether you agree or disagree with Edwards' approach or Obama, they both have comprehensive plans to move the ball forward on Universal Health Care.

What, does Hillary get a total pass now?


by rashomon on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember what ACTUALLY happend (3.00 / 0)

They would rather rewrite history than remember facts. Their contention is ridiculous on the face of it. Bonior going after Hillary on Health Care is just stupid. And all these folks criticizing Hillary for not having a comprehensive plan out yet are just foolish. It's funny in a way that Hillary was the first politician in a very long time (before and since) that actually ATTEMPTED to create a universal health care plan, the only candidate with ANY EXPERIENCE. And now that she is running for President these lightweights think it appropriate to criticize her for her plan not passing. These same people are grasping at any straw they can in an attempt to distinguish the very thin real support their candidates have. And they somehow think that beating up on a woman for stuff her husband did is going to make them look more Presidential. Perhaps they should switch parties if they really think this.

If any of these other candidates think that they have what it takes to lead this country back to sanity and stability then let them stand up and make their case. This bullshit about tearing down Hillary is playing right into the Neocon's hands. Screw that! In other words, if ya wanna fight, fine. That is what the road to the primary is all about. But if you are going to fight let it be on ideas and not revisionist history and these ridiculous personal attacks.


by DoIT on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:54:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember what ACTUALLY happend (3.00 / 1)

This is not playing into any neocons hands, and please not that bullshit.  This is about one of these candidates getting the nomination.  Of course, the neocons or Republicans will tear down NAFTA, they are for big business, but many Democrats opposed it and we see the results of it right now.  Illegals running into this country faster than we can type.  Giving companies the go-ahead to move their operations south of the boarder, paying those workers pennies to the dollar.  People here having to work 2/3 jobs, unable to send their children to college, hard to hold onto their dream "home", wages cut in half with benefits nil.  So, go tell that to people who have been in this situation.  I know many.  NAFTA is a taboo, and if HRC is going to run on her "my husbands' administration" mantra, then she will have to address it as the "Clintons".


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember what ACTUALLY happend (none / 0)

and if HRC is going to run on her "my husbands' administration" mantra,

This is where you stray from the actual debate. Hillary has not played the 'my husband's administration' mantra. Yes, she has brought up what was good about it, most especially the surplus, the respect for the Constitution and our country worldwide and the booming economy. These are all valid points, as that is the situation our country was in BEFORE Bush and his Neocons overthrew the rule of law. It is a reason to put the Democratic party back in charge of the Presidency. And rather than agree with this you and people like you distort the message and attack Hillary. It's almost as if you are on the side of those trying to keep a Democrat out of the White House. Notice I said "almost" because I don't really think that is what you believe or want. And yet your actions make it appear as if it is true. It's like you have a no holds barred approach to seeking the nomination and don't mind a little Rovian character assassination to win it.


by DoIT on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember what ACTUALLY happend (3.00 / 1)

Yes, she has.  In debates repeatedly quote about her husband adminstration and policy.  She has.  Look at the debates again.  Look, I don't agree with anyone going after Clinton, because she was not "technically running the country then".  This right here with her husband has been that, slippery slope, to walk around.  But, if you are bringing up things from your husbands administration, then it does open the door, per se.  And don't think that the NAFTA hatred in this country is not going to be voiced, it is.  And don't think people don't remember who signed that treaty, they do.  And many are the same people who are struggling right now.  And again, this was not on Hillary Clinton's watch, but on her husbands.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember what ACTUALLY happend (none / 0)

If she runs on the Clinto administration accomplishments, then she must also deal with it's failures. You can't have it both ways.


by BDM on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bonior Goes After Clinton on (none / 0)

I think Obama will be more aggresive, but the problem is, this format is the same..60 seconds to answer question with no real face to face debate...This formats helps Hillary the most since she's the front runner...It shields her from debating the issue face to face against Obama.


by JaeHood on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:24:57 PM EST

True, to a degree. (none / 0)

these formats help Hillary, but there's plenty of chance to crticize other candidates, if you choose to.


by david mizner on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bonior Goes After Clinton on (none / 0)

Obama isn't going after Hillary. That would defeat his role.


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's nothing that says the candidates (3.00 / 2)

have to stick with the format AFTER the debate is over.  For example, I understand Edwards will have a post-debate webcast so he can go beyond the sound-bite format to really talk about the issues raised by the citizen-questioners.


by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's great! (3.00 / 4)

Good job David Bonior!


by nannyboz on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:26:45 PM EST

Re: He's great! (none / 0)

Yeah, he's great just like Edwards' bumpersticker description of WoT. Every Edwards supporter was hailing Mary, look what has he gotten from that blunder?

Surprise, surprise, he has stopped talking about this these days. And all Edwards supporters also suddently stopped.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards leads again! Woot! (3.00 / 4)

Actually the BBC reporter (R) on Chris Matthews show last night said Britain and other countries are BANNING the WOT phrase because it incites TERRORISM!
Our House Government Reform and Oversight Committee banned it soon after Edwards made his case against it.
So - your rightwing talking points are regressive - not Progressive.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards leads again! Woot! (none / 0)

they banned the word because it insites terrorism in Britian because of the tension among British citizens and British immigrants. The term War on Terror in the UK has often been used to justify anti muslim bills, much like the war on terror has been used to justify the repeal of civil liberties here. This is the part that Edwards gets right.

However the British government change is because of the rhetorical implications of the word, not because they disagree with the mission or meaning. Its the simple political tactic of changing the title of something to avoid its negative connotation. One of the most noticable examples being calling the Estate tax the Death Tax instead.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With your name... (3.00 / 1)

I suppose the War on Terror is not enough.  Perhaps a war on the world?

Of all the names one could choose, selecting world dictator is eye opening.

As for the GWOT, when it is abused by Bush & Co. as an excuse to do anything, why should anyone be in favor of keeping it?


by citizen53 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With your name... (none / 0)

1. References to screennames...ohh thats decisive analysis right there. You TOTALLY showed me.

2. Apparently you missed my comment where I agreed that you can't use political catchphrases to justify abuses. Here it is again

they banned the word because it insites terrorism in Britian because of the tension among British citizens and British immigrants. The term War on Terror in the UK has often been used to justify anti muslim bills, much like the war on terror has been used to justify the repeal of civil liberties here. This is the part that Edwards gets right.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You missed what I said, too... (3.00 / 1)

That the GWOT is used to justify Bush's abuses.  In addition, it focuses the actual problem much too narrowly.

As for your name, I think it's very silly.  That was not analysis, but a statement.


by citizen53 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You missed what I said, too... (none / 0)

Look you brought up a point in terms of a critism of what I said but really be both agree. Neither of us believe that we should use terms as justifications for attrocities. That was my only point in the above posts. And You haven't really done anything to disagree or disprove my point. You just latched onto the phrase "War on terrorism" and started complaining about it. But now that the previous point seems to be settled, why do you think the war on terror focuses the problem too narrowly?


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:42:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You missed what I said, too... (none / 0)

Damn that last replies were full of bad typos even for me.

The first sentence is meant to say "You used an argument to critisize my comment but in reality its something we clearly agree on."


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are other tools available... (3.00 / 2)

to do the job that are peaceful in nature.


by citizen53 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are other tools available... (none / 0)

such as?


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Use your brain... (none / 0)

You can do it.


by citizen53 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 06:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Use your brain... (none / 0)

Use your brain is not a response to a question. Its an acknowledgement that you don't have a good answer thus proving my point.


by world dictator on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have a response... (none / 0)

but no obligation to spell things out for you.

I don't give my kids all the answers either.


by citizen53 on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have a response... (none / 0)

So basically you response is "your wrong figure out why". Hahaha. Alright. Nice concession speech.


by world dictator on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 11:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your comments throughout this blog... (none / 0)

imply you know better than others, so find out for yourself and stop with the bullshit.

Or are you incapable?


by citizen53 on Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 06:17:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You missed what I said, too... (none / 0)

Why do you use the term world dictator as a blog name? What connotations are you trying to conjure up on the diaries with that name.?


by BDM on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You missed what I said, too... (none / 0)

that i'm an evil government official from the establishment hell bent on world domination...

its a blog name...really people


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards leads again! Woot! (none / 0)

LOL. So why does Edwards stop talking about 'bumpersticker' WoT rhetoric if this is so right?

I dare him stick to this rheotoric.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once Edwards explained why he wasn't (3.00 / 3)

using the phrase any more and what was wrong with it, why would he continue to talk about not using it?  And why would I, as a supporter, keep talking about what I'm not going to talk about?  Your criticism doesn't make sense.

But if you think the phrase is helpful for you and your candidate in framing the issue, please, feel free.


by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once Edwards explained why he wasn't (none / 0)

LOL.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once Edwards explained why he wasn't (none / 0)

I actually didnt seem him say this. But I believe you, and in which case I give Edwards props.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bonior if full of bullshit (3.00 / 1)

Here we go with the Clinton Health Care Plan debacle. Is this Edwards strategy?  First of all, in order for the Clintons to have succeeded with the plan, they needed more Democrats to support it and all of them jumped ship when the tough got going. Second, Hillary worked hard as hell to get her plan up and running, but the GOP went after her with all guns in hand on TV, in print and on radio. Therefore, the plan failed. Bonior needs to be honest about this issue. I expect this sort of tactic from Obama, but not Edwards.


by lonnette33 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:34:36 PM EST

Re: Bonior. No Bull. (3.00 / 4)

Congressman Bonoir stated a fact. In politics there are tough choices. He said that the Clintons had to choose between the NAFTA agreement and the healthcare plan. They made their choice.

We all know how things turned out with that choice. No Bull.


by bettync on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bonior. No Bull. (none / 0)

Do you know what an appeal to authority is?


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes! (3.00 / 2)

And I also know what Bullshit is! Bonoir does not need to use it because he is right in his facts.


by bettync on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes! (3.00 / 1)

I think Bonoir's claims have been clearly proven to be misleading or at least leaving out vital bits of information above. feel free to reply if you'd like


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all, (3.00 / 3)

the Clintons NEVER should have had HILLARY CLINTON be the lead on this.  Americans are very decisive on what the job of President and First Lady, is/are.  This image is still with the public.  Next, HRC was so polarizing, devisive, did not know or understand the workings of the Senate, spoke to senior senator with such dismissmal, that they killed this for her and put her in this light.  Why do you think Hillary Clinton is how she is now?  She LEARNED.  Bonior is putting that out there.  Clinton is running on the "my husband" mantra, then she will have to deal with it.  NAFTA is a back burning anger of many Americans.  Watch this fire expand.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bonior if full of bullshit (none / 0)

If Clinton put out a plan then we could debate it. The Clinton people criticize Edwards AND oBAMA'S PLAN THEN THEY SHOULD EXPECT THOSE CAMPAIGNS TO EXAMINE HER RECORD ON HEALTHCARE.


by BDM on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bonior if full of bullshit (none / 0)

I haven't criticized Obama's or Edwards' plans. Not once.


by DoIT on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bonior Goes After Clinton (3.00 / 2)

Team Edwards speaks for me !


by catchawave on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:35:51 PM EST

Bonoir was great on CNN (3.00 / 8)

I thought he left the other two guys in the dust! Bonoir seemed to me to have come prepared with full knowledge on all of the issues. He answered everything completely.

I was amused that Senator Obama's spokesman contradicted himself! At one point, in telling that Obama had spoken against the war before he was a Senator, the man said that "we must look at past actions, not at what candidates are saying." Later on, when Bonior talked about some things John Edwards has done in the past, the man said, "I don't think people are interested in the past, people want to know what a candidate says he will do in the future."

Let's turn John Edwards and David Bonoir loose and take it to em' from here on out!!


by bettync on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:36:33 PM EST

Re: Bonoir was great on CNN (3.00 / 4)

I caught that too.  So, are we supposed to look at a candidate's actions or words?  I think that campaign needs to figure that question out.


by edgery on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why I disagree w/Obama's spokesman (3.00 / 2)

In pursuing goals for this democracy, our best future in mind, we must pursue our past and let it be our guide. We should insist on having a past, for it is only then that we will have a future. Rather than thinking scornfully about the place from which our party has come, as filmmaker Ken Burns once said, "we could try cynicism's tried and true antidote, which is skepticism." Let's insist that we put our trade policy to a much-needed fairness test.


by iddybud on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:47:21 PM EST

Re: Why I disagree w/Obama's spokesman (3.00 / 7)

Ignoring the all-important debate on the trade issue, as Senator Obama's spokesperson suggests, is only denying our collective past, thus thwarting - perhaps even sabotaging - a potential future of fairness for all Americans, Red State or Blue. I appreciate Mr. Bonoir's candid comments and think the debate should be opened up wide... and kept honest. All political cynicism aside.


by iddybud on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Candid. (3.00 / 6)

I like your use of the word, Candid. That is exactly how Bonoir came across. He was talking straight, with no spinning. We need more of that! He was candid, and he knew his facts.

That is the kind of political discourse that we need in this country!


by bettync on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree with Artur... (3.00 / 2)

Ask people whose LIVES was interrupted by the NAFTA decision.  Many of these people have NEVER RECOVERED.  Bush has let the gate flood with outsourcing everything under the sun, even food.  Why in the HELL is China supplying, NOW, a real bulk of American food?  This decision was horrible for this country.  This is all about BIG BUSINESS.  Hillary Clinton, did not vote for this, but since she is on board with the "my husband" theme, she is going to be targeted as one who went along with this.  Again, maybe this is why she is not playing so well in Iowa.  Many union members there.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:42 PM EST

Re: I disagree with Artur... (3.00 / 1)

Its intellectually dishonest for you to say that people who believe in free trade are all about screwing people over in favor of Big Business. That's like Republicans saying democrats support government power because they think they can run your life better than you can


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with Artur... (3.00 / 1)

I can disagree if I want to.  Artur is wrong on this, FOR ME.  If HRC is running on the "my husband" mantra, it includes NAFTA.  And ask anyone who has been affected by this decision, they don't come out speaking nicely about it, do they?


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree with Artur... (3.00 / 1)

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing at all. I encourage good debate. I do have a problem with people taking soapbox stances and simplyfing it to where people who disagree are "evil".

I think I made this pretty clear above but if not consider this a clairification. Another example that many Americans use to slam liberals. If you disagree with the war you don't support the troops.

Thats bullshit. I disagreed with many people's stance on the war, republican and democrat, but opposing a war does not make you unpatriotic nor anti troops. Its just a legitment disagreement among most Americans.

Over simplyfing issues is intellectually dishonest and leads to bad policies being passed. I'm opposed when anyone does it. It's as bad as Bush's "You're either with us or against us" stance.


by world dictator on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 03:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]