home

A Corollary To Boehlert's Revenge

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

You might be familiar with my posts on Boehlert's Revenge. I am now adding a corollary to it - when you embrace, encourage and accept the narrative that Hillary Clinton is an atrocious person and public servant that no real Democrat could possibly support, you become open to this interpretation of electoral results:

[T]he implication of Judis's piece is that these voters don't simply prefer Clinton. Rather, they're anti-Obama.

When you argue, embrace, encourage or accept the argument that no one could possibly support Hillary Clinton for any reasons other than racism, you invite the logical conclusion that any vote for Clinton is in fact anti-Obama.

< More On The "Umbrella Of Deterrence" | The So-Called Liberal Media >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Corollary To Boehlert's Revenge | 221 comments (221 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Age (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    differences sure dropped.

    He casually says, Under 40......Obama......

    Over 40....Clinton.

    Wow, that's a big shift.

    The impression has been that Clinton appeals to those on their death bed.

    :)

    Obama's hold on the youth vote ... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    has only been consistent with the 18-24 demographic.

    He's won that group in almost every state.

    But he's actually lost people in their late twenties, thirties and forties in some states.

    [ Parent ]

    I said something to that effect earlier (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    accusing a sizeable portion of the electorate (without really hard data) of racism is not going to do you any favors in getting these people to reconcile to Obama.  The people he most needs to reach out to are given nary an ear from the Obama blogosphere.

    It is a simple but ugly world they live in.  And it is of no cost to them to make everyone else the ugly ones.

    That's exactly right. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    If you are a white voter, are you going to be happy with the way Obama's painted your voting patterns?

    How does he think people are going to feel?

    [ Parent ]

    The problem with this statement (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    Is that Obama didn't say this.  Too many times people have taken words out of bloggers or media members mouths and said it's Obama.  Now, bloggers should be smarter than that, but they aren't the ones running for president.  Let's not forget that they are two very different things.

    [ Parent ]
    I knew someone was going to say that. (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    The "BitterCling" remarks clearly referred to the voters of Pennsylvania as racists. Those remarks were in the context of someone asking him why he wasn't winning in PA.

    Obama's campaign deliberately painted HRC and Bill as racists. They admitted it in a memo that was widely circulated.

    I'm not saying Obama is responsible for the way the press interprets results. But you will never, EVER convince me that Obama and his campaign didn't play the race card to get his 90% of the AA vote.

    [ Parent ]

    The 'race card' has... (none / 0) (#213)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    has been played all along since the post-New Hampshire and pre-South Carolina primary very effectively by the Obama campaign. It has been corroborated on many occasions that Pres. Clinton's remarks were twisted around and misrepresented; yet it still sticks, when they want to win a point. HOWEVER, this subterfuge is quickly becoming an anachronism since we first heard his pastor's statements, his wife's, his OWN "BitterCling", as madamab has so appropriately called it, and see that the shoe is in the other foot, so to speak. Consequently, it is not as important that he said it (whatever it may be) or not, simply because he won't so that he can claim he did not know anything about it, as he has done with all of his associations' reprehensible pronunciations and/or actions.
    The campaign this morning tried with the tacit collaboration of the favorable media, to paint Senator Clinton's win in Pennsylvania as a racist vote on the part of the white voters, but I noticed it wasn't getting enough steam then.
    None of them however, have made a similar claim to the solid block votes of the blacks. 9 out of 10 voters for Obama and this are not scrutinized under the same prism? Why not?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama did say that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    when he explained to his Billionaire donors why Dems weren't voting for him - because they're ignorant racist gun toting Bible lovers in CA, FL, MI, TX, AR, OH, PA, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama constantly loses the blue collar (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    and they know this.  Where is the plan?  The attempt to connect?  After every state he doesn't win, someone in the media steps up and says it's because of racism.  If you really thought they were racist, wouldn't that factor into the way you campaigned, where, and how?  The media is happy to say, "let's wait and see if they're racist!  Won't that be entertainment!".  But that's both unfair and politically stupid, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    you would think (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:50 PM EST
    Obama would politiely ask them to stop saying it's because of racism.

    That can't make Clinton voters in Penn feel good about themselves or feel any empathy for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Haven't you heard... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    they don't need white, working class votes. They just go to republicans anyway.

    At least that's what Axelrod said this morning.

    [ Parent ]

    the Axelrod statement... (none / 0) (#214)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    should be distributed to as many people in Indiana and North Carolina as possible. It could be a costly lesson to learn for them.
    When you're in the race, you can't count ANYBODY OUT or you lose.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama uses gestures against Hillary (none / 0) (#168)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    and likewise her working class supporters.
    He confirmed his elitism by brushing her off his shoulder and shoes - and got tons of laughter from his supporters.
    The "finger" got more laughs.
    HAHAHAHAHA - Hillary is evil - HAHAHAHA!

    Obama's mannerisms are very elitist and arrogant -like an "inside" joke - and that doesn't sell well among blue collar voters.


    [ Parent ]

    Let's Not Forget (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    that Jesse Jackson Jr., a principle in Obama's campaign, blatantly and deliberately injected racism into the campaign the day after the New Hampshire primary.

    Throughout this campaign the media have implied and Obama surrogates have placed the blame for any off the wall statements coming out of the Clinton campaign at Hillary's feet.

    If that's to be the rule in this campaign then racism emanting from Obama's campaign must be laid at his feet.  It's not terribly difficult since Obama is rightfully condemned by his own statements.

    [ Parent ]

    Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    came damn close to saying it today with his remarks about white, working class voters. You can't say his campaign doesn't represent him.

    [ Parent ]
    That's called race baiting don't bite is the trick (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    his intended target I'm sure is to inflame turn out of black voters in NC by again exploiting this raical grievance, again fanning the flames before each southern contest.  I think what Axelrod may be in denial about, is it is now like also a whistle to every other demographic that will engage and beat it to the polls in mass as they did in PA representing the extended Base as well.  We shall see but the campaign code is on display in the Rev Wright videos unfortunately.

    [ Parent ]
    He Came Awful Close To Saying This In His Remarks (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    during his SF fundraiser.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he said it in those comments. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    guns, god, racism and xenophobia is the crude interpretation that X% of listeners will hear.

    [ Parent ]
    Part Of The Direct Quote Includes (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    antipathy toward people who aren't like them


    [ Parent ]
    I thought that was a code for racists. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    the anti immigrant sentiment I interpreted to mean Xenophobic.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought Catholic (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST
    was the code for White. Back six weeks ago, the press kept saying Penna is so so so Catholic. We would laugh and say, we know what they are saying.

    [ Parent ]
    My Interpretation too n/t (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:44 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I thought he was talking about... (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Blue collar workers who have the tendency to vote against their economic interests (republican).

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was talking about Dems (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:07:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    in a dem primary. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    NO. He was saying it (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    about the white working-class that was voting for HILLARY. He was NOT talking about them and how they vote against their own best-interests (ie voting Republican). He was talking about the working-class voters that were voting for Clinton and NOT him. That's another reason why what he said was so insulting to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    Remember this was a closed primary.  This applied to Democrats only.

    There's no fudging around Obama's "people who aren't like them" statement.

    No WORM can chase that one away.

    [ Parent ]

    it's also disturbing (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    that he painted Clinton a GOP substitute for Frank's theory.

    She's a rival --not the enemy.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahem.. that was NOT what he said. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    He was explaining why people wouldn't vote for HIM over Hillary, prefacing this explanation by remarking that some people would have a hard time listening to a 46 year old black man.
    Enough of that, however. I am all for letting people judge the remarks for themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    Not quite the same point (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    as BTD's, I think.

    The Armando Corollary, if I understand it correctly, is not that anti-Obama sentiment is the result of the media's demonization of Hillary.  

    Rather, it is the logical implication of Hillary's victories, if we accept the premise that Hillary is, in fact, awful.

    This Obama supporter denies the premise.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks AF (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    I appreciate your honest thoughts, we all do.

    I hate racism of all kinds, it's an easy out for unimaginative people, like all prejudice. Why explain why you don't like someone, when you can just yell epithets?

    Keep on keepin' us honest, AF. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Let's also not forget (none / 0) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    that it isn't just the mainstream media and parts of the blogosphere that have demonized Hillary Clinton.

    Obama's had a hand in that process as well, labeling her as divicive even before the first primary.

    [ Parent ]

    But, BTD, why do they ... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    find that more comforting?

    If half the Democratic Party is voting against Obama isn't that just as troublesome as half the Democratic Party voting for Clinton?

    I guess it undercuts Clinton's electability argument, but it even more severely undercuts his.

    If half the Democrats are voting (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    against Obama now, what will they do in November?

    Very bad argument for the OFB to make.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmmm... is it okay to be pro Clinton AND (none / 0) (#199)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    anti-Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, nobody could possibly like her (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM EST
    could they?

    That's an article of faith for the OFB.

    They hate her.  I mean THEY REALLY HATE HER.

    They are so infected with CDS they can't see any redeeming qualities in her.

    So any vote for her must be based on racism, stupidity or some ulterior motive.

    Wouldn't that kind of logic lead us into (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    dangerous waters?  I mean if by implying that the votes for Clinton are anti-Obama does not that prove that he is thus unelectable?  Have the votes if not more of a Democratic Primary Season are Anti-Obama?  Hmm I am beginning to think that it is not kool aid these people are drinking. Also if they really believe that Clinton lead by 20% a few months back they place to much credence to polls that have proven to be wrong time after time when the votes are counted.   Look at the final tallies and you will see that in real Democratic States with large diverse populations Clinton tends to win.

    It proves that they are BOTH unelectable (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    We don't want to go down that road.

    [ Parent ]
    We may be down that road now (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:01:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The media (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    has been bound and determined to make this about identity politics and thus it began. It hasn't helped that early on distintions were blurred and folks were told all our candidates are basically the same. When you are told they are basically the same what are you left with except identity politics. Do you want your historic first to be a white woman or a black male? Sigh.

    [ Parent ]
    They make it easy on themselves. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    The historic first would be UHC.

    But they can't really talk about that.

    [ Parent ]

    That would be an issue (none / 0) (#155)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    and issues are passe'. We lost alot of opportunities for debate on differences and IMO there were more than enough of them philosophically and issue wise that this did not need to break down into identity politics.

    I said it early on at the big Orange, it was a huge mistake to allow the narrative they are all Democrats so therefore they are all basically the same to be disseminated. Yes, they all want better health care but we missed an opportunity when we failed to discuss how each candidate wanted to get us there.

    We fell right into the media trap. Hopefully it won't cost us eight more years because people can't get beyond the idea that the candidate we have isn't someone they want to have a beer with(identity politics).

    [ Parent ]

    That's exactly (none / 0) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    what happened.  As soon as Obama announced, the media went after Edwards.  

    Their storyline deliberately became the historic duo.

    That 'little difference among the candidates' crap fed the storyline.

    There were important differences exposed in the details but the media and many in the blogosphere continued to peddle the 'little difference' line.

    [ Parent ]

    So how do we get off this road? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    Back to the old Unity Ticket idea? One or the other gracefully bows out before July? Pistols at dawn? Coin flip?

    [ Parent ]
    MoDo was doing her best to label both Dems (none / 0) (#215)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    unelectable, undesirable, and un-presidential.

    Her column was almost a paen to hatred of Dems.

    And it's what she does--even if occasionally she goes after R's, she always comes back to stabbing Big Dems in that back.

    [ Parent ]

    I know this is unrelated but.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    "Look at the final tallies and you will see that in real Democratic States with large diverse populations Clinton tends to win. "

    The problem with this logic is, she is not running for president of the large, diverse, democratic states.  She is running for president of the United States.  That includes even the small red ones.

    I realize that may not have been your main point, I just wanted to get that out.

    [ Parent ]

    Granted (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    We are in it to win it. Bringing the small red states into the good graces of Dem-it-tude is the next big step, and I think Hillary can do that too. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Problem is that we have only been able (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    to have Democratic presidents by winning those Large Diverse states with a lot of Electoral Votes including Fl.

    [ Parent ]
    but the only way youdo win... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    ...is by winning in ohio and penn and Missouri.

    if you redid Missouri Obama would not win it in the primary.  We also know he'll lose that state to Mccain in November.

    [ Parent ]

    someone call the CDC (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST
     to test that kool-aid. It could be dangerous.

    I heard this talking point on the MSM today. Some pundits have been pretty desperate to make PA an Obama win or shift to she can't win, time for her to pull out bit again. But when I heard that new meme I burst out laughing. With a straight face some said votes for Hillary were necessarily anti-Obama. Wow.

    You know, if they keep drinking it, maybe we can just put them in a corner and tell them Obama is president, and the fact that they see Clinton on TV a lot, acting like she's president is really a secret plan Obama came up with. And give them pacifiers. And a nice blanket and some warm milk.

    MSN (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    always "freaks out" after Sen Clinton wins a primary.

    And now, the aggression toward Clinton supporters will increase.... and there will be visitors to any Clinton Blogs that will harrass the users on the sites.... it hqappens after a Clinton win.

    And I have lost track of how many time I've been called racist.

    I've found the spins after the wins entertaining but really dislike the aggression that starts up.

    [ Parent ]

    What I love is how one gets called a racist... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    ...for all intents and purposes and then when you ask "are you calling me a racist?" they either back down or else try to prove to you that you are, in fact, a racist. How not fun that is.

    [ Parent ]
    You could be racist (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    ....you just don't know that you are racist!

    [ Parent ]
    Heh, I can beat that (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    According to one of Obama's supporters that I got into it with, it's part of everyone. The whole world is racist. We are born that way. I kid you not. I had to provide her links to prove it was a learned behavior.

    [ Parent ]
    But doesn't her assertion mean (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    that she herself is a racist?

    So I guess she's voting for Obama because she's a racist and hates white people?

    [head explodes]

    [ Parent ]

    Yep n/t (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's learned behaviour... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    ...but it appears to be a part of almost all cultures.

    [ Parent ]
    Our brains (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    are made in a way that makes it easy for us to compartmentalize. It may have helped us survive once upon a time. That said, racism isn't innate. It's a learned behavior.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Shall we count... (none / 0) (#165)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    ...the number of times it has been asserted that I am; a) anti-feminist b) "scared of strong women" and c) a low-information voter on this very blog simply because I have not accepted HC as my personal savior?  

    [ Parent ]
    Repent (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    Seriously, some of the supporters of both camps tend to be a little overzealous IMO when it comes to charges of racism and misogyny. Racism and Sexism are serious charges and calling someone a racist and sexist ought to be restricted to situations where there is proof that there is misogyny or racism and not as an excuse for a loss.

    [ Parent ]
    Similarly (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by eric on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    I have encountered people who feel that support for Clinton is not only anti-Obama, but it is anti-"the movement".  If you support Clinton, you are perceived to must be against progress itself.

    I've heard that a lot too (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    as in, you're preventing something historic from taking place. I'm thinking alien abduction is the cause. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    Its like having a woman president would be so non-historic.

    [ Parent ]
    my support for Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    is based on what I know of the candidates and how they performed. It so much easier to call someone a racist for not supporting Obama, but I find it both insulting and race baiting. I'm not going to feel guilty because Obama can't close the deal or present himself beyond his rhetoric. Clinton wins Dems. because she is one and no one has yet to distrust that point. Obama's problem from the get go has been that he has chosen to blur the lines thinking that its in his best interest but it only creates distrust in actually who he is. He has provided his own contradiction, is he or isn't he a Dem. I don't care one way or the other I'm an independent and his target audience primed for his unity propaganda. He couldn't sell it to me, what made him think could sell it to die hard Dems?

    [ Parent ]
    If this isn't about race (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    Well OK.  Seriously.  Purposefully speaking, I would like to think it does NOT.

    But if one must, out of sheer morality, be forced to conclude that every black person's vote for Obama has nothing to do with Obama being black (and Clinton being white), then I think it's fair to conclude that every white person's vote for Clinton has nothing to do with Clinton being white (and Obama being black.)

    Identity politics identity schmpolitics.

    Beings a woman and wanting to see a woman president in one's lifetime does not make a person racist.

    Being a black person and wanting to see a black president in one's lifetime certainly does not make a person sexist.

    Uh.  Now.  As far as the made up world of "Progressive" blogs is concerned, the idea that people are anti-Obama is hysterical.

    Obama's only appeal to them has only ever been rooted in anti-Clintonism.

    If you go back to when Edwards was still in the race, and you find bloggers saying "I still haven't made up my mind who to endorse, but I know I won't be endorsing Clinton," then it's only obvious that your eventual endorsement of Obama is made within that context.

    And if you add into the mix the simple fact that Clinton has tracked MORE to the left on a signature issue (health care), the anti-Clintonism becomes even more ugly.

    It has transcended the issues themselves.

    I know I will get cr*p for this but... (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    "And if you add into the mix the simple fact that Clinton has tracked MORE to the left on a signature issue (health care), the anti-Clintonism becomes even more ugly."

    I disagree.  I think a punitive approach to health care is more to the right.  And before I get killed for this, I would like to add that my mother, who has spent her entire career trying to expand public health care, agrees with me on this. Also, while there are plenty of countries that have a mandate, there are also ones that don't and it works - there's more than one way to cook a chicken.

    [ Parent ]

    A punitive approach (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    to the war on drugs maybe. Certainly not healthcare. You'll get cr*p for your statement only because it's false. It's absolutely false that it's more rightist to demand mandates.  It's absolutely imperative. And very much LEFTY.

    [ Parent ]
    I won't give you crap (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    but why do you think it is punitive to require everyone get health care they can afford?

    I hate to dust off the Soc Sec example, but that works for everyone too (at least until Obama privatizes it). People appreciate firefighters, police officers, etc, and they pay for them with taxes too. It's a matter of semantics and appropriate examples; in the end everybody who currently has insurance pays less, and everyone who needs coverage has it without breaking the bank.

    Besides, how much fun would it be to say to a cranky receptionist who says 'sorry, you're 5 minutes late for this appointment, you'll have to come back next month', say to her 'Hey lady, I pay your salary with taxes! You will fit me in pronto!' haha

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think mandates WON'T work (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    I just think there's more than one way to solve the issue, and it's not the only way, nor the MOST left way.  I do think Hillary's proposal is way better than what we've currently got, don't get me wrong.

    Also, how is punitive loaded?  I didn't mean to offend with that word...

    [ Parent ]

    Obama will reform nothing. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    NOTHING will be done regarding healthcare.

    NOTHING.

    [ Parent ]

    And you know this how? (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    Just to remind you, NOTHING happened with healthcare while Clinton was president either.

    It is a matter of the senate whether or not they succeed, but give me a break, he is running as a democrat, he has proposed a plan, what do you want, a crystal ball?

    [ Parent ]

    CHIP (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    Except the CHIP program.  That's not nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    Point taken (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    I was referring to the attempted national health care program.  But you're right, it's not nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    what I'd like to find out is of the Dems that (none / 0) (#148)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    were there then how many helped stop the effort by the Clintons to reform health care and if they are still around.

    [ Parent ]
    It isn't enough either (none / 0) (#136)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    If you aren't a child CHIP will do nothing for you. You are stuck out in the cold.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:11 PM EST
    at least HRC TRIED on health care. It was the first time in decades that anyone had attempted universal coverage in America. She was defeated by backstabbing Dems and 600 million in Harry and Louise ads (which Obama gleefully recycled to lie about her health care plan). Even in the face of those odds, she still managed to get millions of children covered thru S-CHIP.

    No one who attacks HRC on health care has a lot of credibility with me. Sorry.

    [ Parent ]

    I just want to make clear (none / 0) (#193)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    I am in no way shape or form anti-Hillary.  I like Hillary, I just like Obama better.  And trust me, its not cuz of the speaches.  Frankly, I don't even think he's that good of a speaker.  I like his policy bits a little bit better, I LOVE the fact that he taught constitutional law (in a time when our constitution is going down the drain), I like the fact that he seems to take time and think about responses.  He seems incredibly intelligent, and I agree with most (not all) his ideas about how to run the country.

    I am not attacking Hillary, or her health care proposal.  I'm saying, lets have a discussion about the merits, pros and cons.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    No kidding?  The CHILDREN'S Health Ins. Plan only covers kids?  Wow.  I wish I'd known that.  /snark

    In any event, the point stands:  it's untrue that "nothing" happened re:  health care in Bill Clinton's administration.  CHIP happened.  CHIP is not nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#162)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    I'm glad I could help you out then. Peronally, I want a President that addresses the healh care needs of ALL the citizens, not just the ones under the age of eighteen.

    [ Parent ]
    That is why I find that Obama mandating (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    health care for children but not adults IMO is an incomplete plan.

    [ Parent ]
    It a problem for alot of folks (none / 0) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    Broach it on an Obama leaning site though at your own peril. You'll get accused of being a policy wonk. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I want to know (none / 0) (#173)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    what CST proposes as an alternative.

    The fact that coverage would be mandated is certainly not a right-wing type proposal as CST mistakenly states.  I think CST has right - left confusion.

    I also want to point out that there is a government health insurance plan in Hillary's proposal (also in the Edwards proposal) that is missing from Obama's proposal. Perhaps a reason for Dodd's (D-Insurance Industry) early Obama endorsement.

    That government plan may just lead to single-payer and single-payer should be a goal.

    By the way blogtopus what you're describing is socialized medicine. Not that that is a bad thing.  I personally favor socialized medicine but getting that far is probably not possible at least in the foreseeable future.  Single-payer could be described as Medicare for everyone.

    [ Parent ]

    I am in no way suggesting it is right wing (none / 0) (#184)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    I think it is somewhat to the right on a very left idea.  Very different.

    I am also not attacking Hillary in any way (you didn't say this, someone else did).

    I am saying, lets have a real discussion on the merits of the plan and admit that there is more than one way to achieve a better healthcare plan.

    I would like a heavily regulated (i.e. mandates on what health insurance companies offer) industry with affordable options for low income residents paid through tax subsidies.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (none / 0) (#188)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    I would like a heavily regulated (i.e. mandates on what health insurance companies offer) industry with affordable options for low income residents paid through tax subsidies.

    Maybe I'm a low-info voter, but I thought this was exactly HRC's approach.  Am I wrong?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary (none / 0) (#195)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    Includes mandates on the buyer.  That's the difference.

    [ Parent ]
    So (none / 0) (#211)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    in your scenario, if someone decides not to buy health insurance, what happens if they get sick?  Are we going to treat them at taxpayer expense or just leave them to die?

    [ Parent ]
    this isn't feasible. (none / 0) (#220)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:36:54 AM EST
    you'd never get this sort of thing through congress, and even if it was by executive order, it would just get pulled by the next republican president.  let's talk about what's actually DOABLE here.

    [ Parent ]
    maybe your point is about being (none / 0) (#219)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:30:46 AM EST
    economically liberal.  in which case you're not so much left as you are libertarian.  in my mind, the word "punitive" immediately conjures up images of republicans and libertarians.  and if you're an obama supporter (which i'm guessing you are), this is just another indication that obama should get out of the dem primary and run as an independence party candidate.  the last time i checked, dems believe in shared responsibility and shared prosperity.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually she is right of my approach (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    but I would prefer One payer or socialized medicine.  It's the 40 odd years of public health work in me.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm with you (none / 0) (#176)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    Florida Resident.

    [ Parent ]
    There's only one way to doTHAT (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    Regulate the h*!! out of the insurance companies.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    But it is possible, and this is exactly what I hope they do.

    [ Parent ]
    Why in hell (none / 0) (#182)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    include profit making insurance companies? Why add to the cost?

    Good health care should be the right of every American.

    Medicare is vastly more efficient and far less expensive than private health insurance.

    Private health insurers have no reason for being.

    [ Parent ]

    Punitive is a loaded word (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    We can probably discuss the issue without resorting to such.

    [ Parent ]
    mandates (none / 0) (#76)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    Mandates aren't punitive.  Punitive measures to enforce mandates would be punitive.  But, thus far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe the Clinton will enforce mandates through punitive measures, such as I've heard is done in MA.

    Mandates are necessary to keep the system from going bankrupt.  Go look at Krugman if you want the details.

    [ Parent ]

    If your going to have a mandate (none / 0) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    then you are going to have to have punitive measures to enforce said mandate. That said, I think Obama goes too far when he attempts to pretend that Hillary is going to fine poor people or force them to buy health insurance instead of pay for food. She'll subsidize the poor and the rest of us will have to get used to paying for health care insurance in the same way one pays for car insurance or has money taken out of their checks for Social Security.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not punitive (none / 0) (#125)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    Nothing you've described HRC as doing is punitive.  Subsidizing poor folks is not punitive.  Requiring people to buy insurance, while capping insurance premiums, is not punitive.

    Fining people is punitive.  But you've said that HRC won't do that.  So, punitive is the wrong word.

    Perhaps the term you're looking for is mandatory participation, rather than punitive.

    [ Parent ]

    As someone who lives in MASS (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:14 PM EST
    The only state with mandated care, let me tell you, it is punitive.  I have no idea how else they would do it, but I was fined on my taxes until I could prove I bought insurance.

    How else do you mandate participation?

    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Fines are punitive.  I get it.  In Mass., you're fined if you don't participate, I agree, that's punitive.

    Other measures that are non-punitive:  subsidies to employers to provide healthcare; subsidies to folks to buy their own; tax breaks; capping insurance premiums; paycheck deductions for health insurance; and signing people up for health insurance whenever they a)interact with the government by, for example, getting a driver's license or b) seek healthcare.

    And, yes, more regulation of health insurance companies is necessary.

    [ Parent ]

    Mandates: State vs. National (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    You cannot extrapolate from a state model the mandates to a national model.  You have to compare nations.  Hillary's model offers three tiers:  one stay where you are, two the Congressional Healthcare options and a third one, like Medicare.  If the healthy people get to opt out, insurance does not work.  You have to understand that this is like SS and Medicare.  We are all in it.  We all pay.  It will not work if it's optional.  It's the last part of the New Deal and Great Society.  It is what all democratic developed nations offer their citizens.  

    [ Parent ]
    Mass (none / 0) (#143)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    plan does not have a public plan. Hillary has made it clear that her plan will offer a public plan that is based on the Medicare model that people will be able to purchase into. Basically, this forcs te insurance companies to COMPETE if they want to stay in business.

    [ Parent ]
    And (none / 0) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    private health insurers would gradually die out.

    And that is a good thing.

    And that's why the insurance insdustry is another big backer of Obama and possibly why Dodd endorsed him very early.

    [ Parent ]

    Can you please name the countries with (none / 0) (#216)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:52:55 PM EST
    successful universal healthcare programs which do not have mandates? Would that be the countries which automatically enroll every person into the socialized healthcare system? Ergo, no mandates required?

    I'm trying to think what countries you could be thinking about.

    Thnx for your info.

    [ Parent ]

    So the 10% of the AAs (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    that support Clinton are closet racists too or how exactly are they explaining that over in Obamaland?

    Seriously, I wish some of these people would take a step back from the ledge nd realize that charges of racism ought to be serious and limited to people that actually ARE racist not made as broad generalizations for those that disagree with who is best suited to run the Presidency.

    I voted FOR Hillary. (5.00 / 14) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    I voted on Super Tuesday and at that time I was not in any way anti-Obama. I am now.  The fact is: I am sick and tired as a woman of color being told that I am in fact, racist AND stupid.  How come we are not calling reverse racism since Obama gets 90% of the Black vote? What makes me so angry is the fact that it is assumed that if one were not racist and/or stupid they'd do the smart thing and vote for Obama.

    Hillary is by far more qualified, more Presidential and more of a fighter. Not to mention her ridiculous level of intelligence and competence.  THAT is why I voted for her. To claim that Clinton voters (all MILLIONS of them) are racist Democrats undercuts not only MY vote as an American, but every single vote Obama got as well.

    That's why I voted for her too (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    She's qualified and she's a fighter.  My husband says I'm supporting her just because she's a woman, which is ridiculous.  After eight years of Bush and Blue Dog Dems, I want a candidate who will fight for Democratic principles.  I don't see that in Obama, who's all about equivocating and reaching across the aisle.  His lack of experience is very troubling to me.

    I don't know anybody who's "against" Obama because he's black.  I'm sure there are voters like that out there, but I suspect most of them are not Democrats.

    Obama's supporters should realize that they're not doing him any favors by playing the race card against Clinton supporters.  It's possible to look beyond the color of a person's skin and make a judgment based on their ideas and experience.

    [ Parent ]

    The fact that she is a woman (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    is simply ICING to me. The fact that she's amazingly qualified, SO smart, willing to fight, winning over voters and generally being the best candidate of ANY sex or color I've seen in my lifetime is why I voted for her.  

    [ Parent ]
    God Bless (none / 0) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    you rooge04. Hammer strikes nail.

    I went from Edwards to Hillary simply because Obama is too conservative and has nothing of substance to recommend him to the office.

    I appreciate Hillary's policies, grasp of issues and strangle hold knowledge of the federal government.

    That intimate knowledge and understanding of the federal government is especially critical at the present given the serious damage done to government agencies by the Bush administration. A ruthless clean-up is necessary and that's part of Hillary's plan.

    [ Parent ]

    I tend to find (none / 0) (#210)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    that Hillary supporters know A LOT about policy and specifics. Some Obama supporters? Notsomuch. Kinda like Obama and Clinton themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    my favorite (none / 0) (#208)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    is a friend of mine in CA who is an avowed Obama Supporter, kool-aid stained mouth and all.

    After she let out a stream of vitriol against those in her State who just couldn't "see the light" of this wonderful man -- "What is WRONG with people?", she wailed "Clinton is a seriously troubled woman who is far too ambitious and is only in it to put her face on the money!" --, I revealed my support for Hillary and was met with a blank stare.

    "You just don't get it".  "Get what?" I asked.  "If I have to tell you, it isn't worth it and, besides, I don't know if you'd be good for the Team (as if we were being assigned shoulder-pads, athletic cups and helmets any day now) anyway"

    She seriously couldn't explain why she supported him.  Just that he had an aura that was unbelievable and would bring "Great Change".  I did my best to not smile as a waterfall of nickels, dimes and quarters fell from the sky in my imagination, but failed ... miserably.

    Needless to say, that brunch didn't end well.  She did question my intelligence after 10 years of constantly asserting I was one of the smartest people she knew.  Oh, and she didn't feel comfortable with me having a set of spare keys to her apartment (in case she lost hers, which she does ... constantly), so I gave them back.

    It's just weird.

    [ Parent ]

    and thus by extension (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    all Clinton supporters are white trash racist bigots. Randy Rhodes has already said this.

    Considering Randi (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    she should not be calling anyone else trashy. Not at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Randi Rhodes: (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    What Britney Spears wants to be when she grows up.

    [ Parent ]
    The ones voting for Hillary are not racist they (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    are republicans !!!

    Axelrod: Democrats Don't Win the White Working Class via NPR

    "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

    But wasn't it Obama who was winning the Obamacans?
    Also says it was a "home game" for Clinton except that s