Hillary Clinton on John McCain

Hillary Clinton gave the Democrats' weekly radio address today.

Hillary on John McCain:

"John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security and he's promised tax breaks for the biggest corporations instead of middle-class families. And in 2008, he still thinks it's OK that women aren't earning equal pay for equal work."

On why the presidential election matters: [more ...]

"The contrasts between us and the Republicans could not be starker, especially on issues that matter to middle-class families."


"I, for one, can't wait to watch President Barack Obama, with the support of a Democratic Congress, sign into law universal health care that covers every single American."
< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Palin On Pot, Civil Unions, Gay Marriage and Abortion >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Once again a fighting Dem (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    folks this is how it is done.  Go get 'em.

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    "I, for one, can't wait to watch President Barack Obama, with the support of a Democratic Congress, sign into law universal health care that covers every single American."

    She'll be waiting a long time, since he won't push for it and people like Kerry said it's DOA.

    I had the same idea (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    But I'm trying to have a better attitude about this.

    We can always....... hope and keep discussing ways to pressure Obama to make the right decisions.


    Sorry (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by cmugirl on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    I'm "hoped" out that "change" will happen with either candidate in office.

    Obama had the better plan in the primaries (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Johannes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    "Universal" health care is a hot button issue that alienates many voters.  Focusing on providing affordable insurance is a good first step that's more likely to succeed.  However, President Obama will support either approach after he takes office.  If Congress likes Hillary Healthcare better, he'll approve it.

    At any rate - Obama's proposal is infinitely better than McCain's, and that's the only issue that's on the table now.


    We'll need leadership (none / 0) (#39)
    by Manuel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    Without a significant expenditure of political capital from the executive, we won't get either Obama's or Hillary's plan.  

    That's true, but (none / 0) (#40)
    by Johannes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:23:50 PM EST
    the potential leadership is in position.  I have no doubt that health care reform will be the primary domestic focus of Obama's first term.  Working with a stronger majority, Hillary and many others, the best way forward will be found.

    The opposition (none / 0) (#52)
    by Manuel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    will be the Republicans and some conservative Democrats.  Given the emphasis on unity and cooperating with Republicans from Obama, I doubt he'll tackle health care head on early in the administration.  

    Universality/cost (none / 0) (#41)
    by Munibond on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:00:56 PM EST
    The cost of health insurance for those who need health care now it will not go down unless it is universal and healthy young adults cannot opt out.

    That's a moot point (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Johannes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    if Obama does not win the election.  Mandated health care would give Republicans a strong wedge issue.  If Obama wins, then we can decide the best way forward - working with Congress, Hillary, etc.

    The previous debate was a primary election issue, and the primary is over.


    That is one thing that has bothered me (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:50:19 PM EST
    about the democrats on universal health coverage.  Why should I trust them to achieve it when elected if they will not even openly support it during the election.  I think that it is time that dems step up and bring their point of view to the american people.  If  the american people vote it down then that is the result of democracy.  I would be deeply saddened but at least I would know that we tried our best.  If they are to afraid to run on it then they are to afraid to enact it.  

    Why should I trust ? (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Johannes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    Why should you not?

    Do you trust McCain more?


    No I do not trust McCain more (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    But why should I trust them if they are not willing to openly support it.  I know that most pols are just thinking about the next election, and if they are to afraid to run on it now why risk their reelection by enacting after being elected. Also just because i do not trust McCain to do something right why should that mean that I must trust the dems to do it.  That is in my opinion the wrong way to make a point about supporting the dems. And I am not sure why, but it kinda irritated me.  Not trying to argue, and not sure why, but it did irritate me the way it was asked.  

    This is (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:51:06 PM EST
    the problem I have with Obama. He approaches everything from the defensive "don't hit me" position on issues.

    He's already going to be attacked on his plan no matter what he does.


    Wrong (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Johannes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    He'll be attacked harder and more effectively if Republicans can characterize health care reform as evil socialism.

    Get elected first.  Work out the specifics later.


    He's (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    ALREADY being attacked as a socialist. I guess you don't realize that based on your comments. It doesn't matter what his policy is if he is automatically defensive the GOP wins the argument.

    Maybe not (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    This is a clever way for HRC to pressure Obama towards UHC.  I think the point is, let's give Hillary a chance to fight for it.  'Cos she does fight ... it's one of the reasons she has such steadfast supporters.  And she's asking for our help, once again.  

    Not to mention there's no chance (none / 0) (#56)
    by prittfumes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:13:34 PM EST
    he will ever become POTUS. (Not allowed? Okay)

    Cool (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    "I, for one, can't wait to watch President Barack Obama, with the support of a Democratic Congress, sign into law universal health care that covers every single American."

    Maybe with the right kind of pressure applied from his supporters, Obama will do that.

    I note she keeps on pushing this-Good (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    It is her baby and she will not give up on it. In a way, she is putting pressure on Obama to undead on arrival UHC. It will probably force him to address it at least.

    It is self-serving for me to say it (5.00 / 15) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    But I honestly believe it, so I get to say it.

    I honetly believe that if UHC passes (with mandates) and is signed by president Obama, that she will be just as happy for America as she would be if she signed it.

    The depiction of her as someone who was only interested in the presidency as a means to personal aggrandizement was tremendously offensive to those of us who know her differently.

    In any case, get it done.  Everyone's happy.  And everyone's a hell of a lot better off.


    Amen. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by eustiscg on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    I know she'll take the lead on this.  In fact, I think Barack and Hillary are going to have a very strong, very public partnership when it comes to healthcare.

    UHC's prospects are going up as time goes on. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    The Massachusetts try at it is showing what it does and what problems it has which must be fixed. I would personally prefer single payer, fewer administrative costs, and no real incentive to find exclusions that make the truly ill uninsured for their terrible illnesses as private companies do. But the power of the Mass experiment is letting people watch how it actually plays out in an American state. It may help answer the questions we have about the differences between the two D plans, since the Republs don't have any plan at all- their notion is private companies with all those exclusions and a 20% off the top rakeoff to private enterprise for inflated administration, and the American public or those who are not excluded out gettting 80% of the cash to cover all coverage. And poor Mitt got no credit at all for it when the VP chips came down. Geeeee.

    Apparently all of that power some people (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    seem to think Clinton now has is relegated to doing Obama and Biden's job for them.

    It reallydoes seem that way (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    I've seen this scenario play out in Corporate America countless times.  It doesn't happen so much at the lower levels, but once you climb the ladder a bit, this is what often happens.

    She's helping herself. (none / 0) (#21)
    by eustiscg on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    Let's be pragmatic here.  If Obama loses without her having become a full-throated advocate for him, there will be elements within the Democratic Party that will blame her and never let her live it down.  Whether or not that's comprehensible to the rest of us, it is the political reality.

    Now, this wouldn't matter if she just wanted to hunker down and become the Liberal Lioness of the Senate, but I think she's capable of far more.  At the very least, I'd say, she deserves to displace Reid, and she's going to need to maintain her party-wide support in order to do so.  Surely that's part of what's going through her mind ...


    wow (none / 0) (#25)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM EST
    >>>>If Obama loses without her having become a full-throated advocate for him,

    As stated here many times, it doesn't matter if Hillary and Bill campaign for Obama 24/7 from now until Nov. - it will be their fault if he loses.
    Yeah - keep promoting that narrative, then wonder why Dems are voting McCain/Palin.
    Perhaps you missed the Convention where Pelosi scrapped the usual roll call procedure and called on Hillary to officially fix the nomination for Obama.


    Why did you only read his first two sentences? (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    "Whether or not that's comprehensible to the rest of us, it is the political reality."

    He doesn't think it makes sense either.

    In any case, Hillary helping him out also helps herself in the long run, so just let it be.  If Obama loses, she becomes the Democratic standard bearer on Nov 5th, and if he wins she becomes one of the most powerful Senators while maintaining a national presence as powerful as him anyways.


    sorry for the misunderstanding (none / 0) (#36)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    I agree with your analysis.
    But don't we all expect the Clintons to campaign for Obama?  The problem is - there's no measure to discern what that means.
    After Kerry lost, we heard "if only he'd campaigned in Ohio more."
    If Obama wins, will we hear, "the Clintons really helped Obama"?

    Apology accepted. (none / 0) (#60)
    by eustiscg on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    It means no super-major gaffes on the trail that could be interpreted as grudge-inspired.  It means going to OH, PA, etc. when she's needed and acting like she owns a piece of this campaign.

    It does not mean that she has to become his biggest cheerleader.  If all she feels she can do is forcefully advocate for him as a Democrat, that's enough, to my mind.


    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    I doubt she will get the credit she deserves if Obama wins.  Especially now that she is being called upon to be VEEP2 to Palin, if Obama/Biden pull it off, they will owe a debt of gratitude to Hillary.  I doubt any of the Hillary-hating pundits will see it that way though.

    I'll be grateful and give her credit (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by democrattotheend on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:44:37 PM EST
    I can't speak for all Obama supporters, but I know this one is grateful for her and Bill giving such strong speeches in support at the convention, as well as her willingness to go out and stump for him. If he wins I will be very grateful to her for doing the right thing, and I could see myself supporting her for president in 2016.

    If the media continues ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by eustiscg on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:24:03 PM EST
    the way their going, her role as Madame Damage-Control will be indisputable.  (And I think the selection of Palin more or less ensures that the media will continue in the same vein.)

    Even if Obama lost (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    and the Dem can get like a 85 percent control of house and senate then it will not be four more years of Bush

    What makes a party's president successful is if he can get all his agenda passed and you can only do that if you have complete control of the senate and house.

    The opposition party can get all their agenda passed as long as they have a veto proof majority.  

    So to me it is more important to control both house then for your nominee to win the GE but has no control on the Congress.

    If one party controls both house with a 85 percent majority they can accomplish anything on their agenda and even control the Supreme Court nominees.

    That is why Johnson will go down in history as one of the most powerful presidents in history because he had complete control of both houses. Plus everyone owed him a favor and when he called in his marker you better deliver or you are political toast.

    Dream on. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by TChris on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:22:40 AM EST
    85 percent of the Senate?  55 seems likely, 57 a possibility, but nothing close to the 67 it takes for the Senate to override a veto.  Nice dream, though.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:18 AM EST
    but the point is that concentration on the Presidential election and not enough on the senate and house races where the real control is  is being ignored.  Without a control of congress McCain or Obama cannot get their major legislation passed.

    Control of the Executive Branch (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:29:24 AM EST
    We've seen what Bush and Cheney have done with the control of the Executive Branch.  And our Congress just doesn't have the will right now to exercise their Constitutional duties and to be a true check and balance.

    they also don't have legal leverage. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    As long as we are formally at war, and the Repubs today put forth something meant to extend that indefinitely, the Pres has executive emergency powers that he would not otherwise have and which may allow him to override the will of congress or beat them down as traitors as Bush has been doing. Once the war is over, legally, a different balance will then prevail. But we aren't there yet and won't be there ever if McC gets elected.  

    Democratic diversity (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Manuel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    Even with a majority in Congress, the Democrats have difficulty enacting a coherent agenda.  They act more like a federation of interest groups.  Without strong presidential and congressional leadership, UHC won't happen.  A president Obama, would have to invest significant political capital on the issue.  Will he?  Energy and economic policy seem like an easier place to start IMO.  I expect Obama to go into "study" mode on health care for the first two years of his administration.  

    you could be correct about health care (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    Obama Team Works With Hill Democrats

    By Jonathan Weisman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, August 28, 2008; A01

    Eager to avoid the missteps that plagued the first months of the Clinton administration, aides to Barack Obama have begun working in concert with top Democrats in Congress to craft a preliminary legislative agenda that would guide the senator from Illinois should he capture the White House in November.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has assigned her committee chairmen to begin with low-hanging fruit to build confidence and provide a new, young president quick legislative victories, then pivot to more challenging issues, from ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq to broadening health-care coverage. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said his policy staffs and Obama's have been working together for more than a month.
    ....Pelosi's priorities begin, in order, with ending the war in Iraq, expanding access to health care, rebuilding infrastructure and weaning the nation off oil.

    But with economic problems looming ever larger, she and other Democrats say providing relief could be their first target: "I'll just use a four-letter word," Pelosi said. "Jobs."


    Good point, but if we don't win the White House (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by democrattotheend on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    it's unlikely we'll accomplish anything for another 4 years. We may have enough of a majority to block the worst Republican proposals but we won't have a veto-proof majority, so without a Democratic president, there's no way we get any kind of meaningful health care reform passed, unless you count McCain's adviser's proposal to simply have the census bureau stop counting the uninsured significant healthcare reform.

    Obama (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    surrogate Kerry has already said health care reform is DOA. There's really no point arguing about this because it isn't going to happen whether Obama or McCain win the WH. And the way Obama dithers around about issues, he'll waste 2 years talking about it and never do anything about it and the GOP takes the house and senate.

    Why he would sign it. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    He'll sign it because it will have her name on it.

    If he's elected and he doesn't sign a bill titled "Clinton's Universal Healthcare Plan", he'd lose the next election in a landslide.

    So, he'll probably sign it; of course it's a huge assumption to even presume he'll be President.

    With Palin in the mix now, the whole thing is basically going through a shake up.

    I really don't think that's true. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:40:02 AM EST
    It's nudging season. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:37:59 AM EST
    Clinton is trying to nudge Obama towards dedicated action on UHC.

    In the coming weeks, a lot of voices on the right will try to nudge Obama towards completely abandoning Affirmative Action.

    If Obama doesn't make any serious commitments to those changes he is willing to push for in the first year of his presidency, and which changes he will oppose on every day of his presidency, there might be a lot of voters who will seriously doubt whether he is actually a serious candidate for the presidency.

    I suspect that this week McCain will hype a clear written "contract" for his agenda.  I think that Obama should do the same thing.  Adding some specifics to the often somewhat nebulous goals that he's stated so far.  Something clear and direct that's directly linked on page one of the campaign's website.  Something that can be easily linked to any :30 second commercial.

    I'd sure like to know when the (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:48:06 AM EST
    Dems. decided to have Hillary Clinton deliver today's radio address.  

    CNN reported it before Obama's speech (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    It happened after she gave her speech on Tuesday; Harry Reid asked her to do it.  Some time around Wednesday CNN had it on their site.

    Thanks for the information. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    Good timing.

    I like the fact the Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    keeps pushing for UHC, like he's trying to shame Obama into it. I hope she does.

    If more jobs are lost (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    along with healthcare insurance and fewer new jobs created offering benefits, the crisis should overtake the politics.

    In a sane world, anyway.

    It's not just Hillary. . . (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Tzal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    who is going to push UHC. As we saw during the primary, she developed a large number of supporters and surrogates in congress and the senate. I think Hillary will drive the UHC debate, but I do not think her primary supporters in congress and the senate will let her go it alone. There is a UHC caucus now, and this is our best shot to get it done, probably ever.

    As an aside, I really could not stand Debbie Wasserman-Schultz during the primary. I can't get enough of her now. . .

    disheartened (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by marian evans on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    What a wasted opportunity, America. I can't believe you let this real leader be shoved off the ticket.

    Hillary Clinton is that rare combination of political pragmatist, dedicated public servant, and  advocate for social justice, who really moves nations forward.

    I am disheartened by the pettiness and puerility displayed by so many supporters of Senator Obama (and even by the campaign itself), the arrogance and  disdain of the DNC for their base, the disturbing misogyny that has been condoned and enabled by so-called "progressives", and worst of all, the dreadful shallowness that this campaign has revealed at the heart of American political life.

    This has been a deeply depressing process to watch - and worse than the manipulability of so much of the electorate has been the abject failure of your intellectual "elite" to provide the kind of analysis of substantial issues that was needed. No, you just got media hacks with "tingling" legs, and baying bloggers (TL being one of the few places where reason still seems to hold sway). A grim vista.

    It is enough to make a Diogenes out of Pollyanna.

    I disagree with that (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by democrattotheend on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    It might not be his signature issue the way it is for her, but I do think he'll make health care reform a priority. My only concern is that he will make too many compromises in order to get something passed. Any president would have to make compromises to get any significant legislation passed, but at a certain point he/she has to decide how imperfect they are willing to let the legislation get before drawing the line. Hillary's record with the health care task force she managed as First Lady suggests that she might have drawn the line too soon and not been willing to compromise enough in order to get something done, even if it wasn't perfect. Obama sometimes has the opposite problem, being willing to compromise too much in order to get something passed. I tend to prefer his approach and believe that in most cases, if a bill does no harm then a weaker bill is better than no bill, but if there are significant drawbacks that would do harm then he ought to think long and hard before compromising.

    Are you guys serious? (2.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:11:56 PM EST
    With the exception of the botched attempt in 1993 which helped cost Dems the Congress for the first time in 40 years, the Clintons spent the next 7 years not pushing for UHC.

    Wonder why? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by blogtopus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST

    Oh yeah. Republicans.

    There's 16 years of difference between then and now, starting with the fact that medical costs have skyrocketed, the majority of the populace is heading into their retirement years, and hell, even Republicans are starting to realize it has to happen.

    Medicare for Everyone!


    you obviously (2.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    don't remember the past well. Healthcare was only one of the issues. Chicago corruption was another huge issue.

    True, but I think that was Bill's choice (none / 0) (#48)
    by democrattotheend on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    In Stephanopolous' book, he said that health care was like Hillary's baby...she poured over policy books and worked hard on it, but she had to compete for attention for it with a number of other priorities. So I think it's more of a priority for her than it was for Bill, and as an Obama supporter, I am glad she will be in the Senate to help push for it when he becomes president.

    One word: S-CHIP (none / 0) (#57)
    by BrianJ on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    After the original health care plan failed, Bill and Hillary got the "State Children's Health Insurance Program" passed in 1997, and they've continued to defend it against GOoPer defunding attempts.  It covered over 7,000,000 people as of 2006, and more now.

    So I'd be kinda grateful if the Clintons get the credit they merit.


    This is a good thing, right? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Iris on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    Hillary is creating the conditions for a mandate on universal health care if Obama gets elected.