Senator Clinton Doesn't Trust You

[djAdvocate]

www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775420/hillary-clinton-doesnt-trust-you

i think this is a very interesting article on Clinton's tactics and how they are working against her:

"Do you disagree with single-payer as a goal?" Maddow asked.

"No. I agree with universal health care," Clinton replied, subtly changing the subject.

Maddow tried again. "No matter how we get there?" she asked.

"No matter how you get there," Clinton replied.

This statement almost certainly isn't true. It's easy to imagine awful ways to achieve universal health care — financed through a tax on the poorest Americans, for instance, or built atop regulations that stifle medical innovation. A thoughtful, serious argument about why single-payer isn't the best path forward would have won Clinton more fans than this kind of obvious pandering.

Clinton went on to reprise her argument that the real problem with Sanders's plan is that it would try to get states to administer the health care programs, though, again, she never mentions the federal fallback in the scenario where states refuse to build out their plans.

The result is that Clinton argued in one breath against Sanderscare, which works like a supercharged version of Obamacare, and then in the next breath called Obamacare "one of the signature accomplishments, not just of this president but of the Democratic Party," and said she was running to defend it.

All this, though, is Clinton's attempt to obscure the big picture: Sanders supports a single-payer health care system, and she doesn't. The technical arguments she's making about past legislation he's proposed could all be addressed if the bills moved forward. That's not the real disagreement between Clinton and Sanders. The real disagreement is he thinks we should move forward on single-payer, and she doesn't.

interesting read.  well worth your time if you are looking for a thoughtful analysis both of Clinton and the Democratic side of the debate.

[zibazinski]

The feeling is mutual about trust.

[dondub]

I might watch the debate tonight to check this out as I'm sure it will be a topic of the conversation.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 17, 2016 13:55:33 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

The feeling is mutual about trust.

that was a predictable response.  did you read the article?  it has to do as much with the primary as it does Clinton.

[zibazinski]

I don't trust any politician but she's one of the worst if not the worst.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 17, 2016 15:47:55 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I don't trust any politician but she's one of the worst if not the worst.

right.  did you read the article?  just curious.

[formerroomate99]

It sort of dovetails with the 'power at any price' and 'You're either with us or against us' narrative of her.  She supposedly has all this knowledge but instead resorts to dishonest attacks because she thinks they are simpler for the primary voters to understand.  She could beat Sanders in a debate, but make sure there aren't many debates and they aren't seen by many because she wants to ride in on name recognition instead of having the best ideas.  

[djAdvocate]

Jan 17, 2016 22:09:10 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

It sort of dovetails with the 'power at any price' and 'You're either with us or against us' narrative of her.  She supposedly has all this knowledge but instead resorts to dishonest attacks because she thinks they are simpler for the primary voters to understand.  She could beat Sanders in a debate, but make sure there aren't many debates and they aren't seen by many because she wants to ride in on name recognition instead of having the best ideas.  

what this article overlooks is that this attitude is actually prevalent in DC.  they are the republican guard, and we are the thundering herd.

in other words, she is very much part of the "tradition".  but it is kind of revolting to see it so plainly as it is shown in this article, isn't it?