Hillary is already on the Left.
Yesterday presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton repeated her stance that we would reform Obamacare with a Public Option or Medicare Buy In. From Bloomberg:
At a campaign stop Monday in Northern Virginia, Hillary Clinton reiterated her support for a government-run health plan in the insurance market, possibly by letting let Americans buy into Medicare, to stem the rise of health-care costs.
“I’m also in favor of what’s called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age,” the Democratic presidential front-runner said during a roundtable with local residents at the Mug’N Muffin coffee shop. “Which will take a lot of pressure off the costs.”
While Clinton long has supported including a public option in the insurance market, her campaign said she was floating the idea of letting Americans not yet of retirement age buy into the Medicare system as one way of accomplishing that. She’s also open to creating a separate government-run option on the Obamacare exchanges.
The idea of a government-run insurance option long has been favored by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, but it was stripped from the final version of Obamacare legislation in the face of firm opposition by Republicans and the insurance industry.
Clinton has endorsed a public option on her website, though it seldom comes up on the campaign trail.
In favor of, floating, supports, endorsed… but what will she “fight for?” And what will she campaign on?
….and the goalposts are moved again….
What will she campaign on?
SHE IS CAMPAIGNING ON IT.
At this point, it is becoming clear that Hillary is not being opposed on ideological grounds.
….and the goalposts are moved again….
False. Puck decoded all of that Clinton speak a month ago.
Sorry, I missed the context. Yes she did name-check Medicare buy-in at a campaign stop, prefaced by “in favor of.” The rest of the report was all backfilled, apparently by campaign staff.
One issue does not put someone “on the Left.”
The presumptive nominee is about to get her butt kicked in West Virginia by somebody who will fight for Medicare for all. It is no wonder this report turns up now.
She’ll get her butt kicked in West Virginia because that state’s idea of a “minority voter” is someone who has all their teeth.
A WSJ columnist wrote today that a Clinton presidency could be survived by conservatives, but a Trump victory would destroy movement conservatism for a generation. (It’s currently headlining HuffPo.)
If I thought that were true it would be a compelling anti-Hillary argument.
Why don’t (some) of you guys admit that even her moving left isn’t enough – that she could adopt Bernie’s entire platform and you’d say she was lying or inauthentic or used the word “support” instead of “fight”.
I no longer believe all this talk about the goal being moving Hillary to the left, sine she gets zero support/credit when she does it.
This isn’t exactly a hip-hip-hooray moment. It’s incrementalism at its finest.
Tinkering at the edges is not going to make Obamacare wonderful, or even good. It’s better than nothing, and that’s about it. I’m willing to acknowledge that bigger steps will be much harder to achieve.
But I reiterate, if that’s all you ask for, you’ll never get any more than that.
Isn’t the campaign the place to make promises, and in office the place to explain that this is all you can get? This is the first campaign I can recall that asks people to settle for incremental change before anyone has even voted.
On the question of her sincerity, that’s the problem with having changed your mind over the years. Nobody can be sure you won’t change it back.
What changed about the TPP that made her support it under Obama but reject it now? Do you really believe she’ll reject it? I have no idea on which side she’ll come down. That’s why her “moving left” is taken skeptically.
She’s really ‘moving left’ on her donors. She’s chasing every Bush donor she can. From Politico:
“One person close to Clinton said supporters of the former secretary of state drew up a list of Wall Street donors who supported Jeb Bush and other unsuccessful Republican candidates months ago but wanted to wait until Trump locked down the nomination before beginning to make the calls.
“When you think about it there is no downside to making these calls, including for Hillary herself to make then,” this person said. “They may say no but they will talk to her for half an hour about their view of the world and probably say nice things when asked about her publicly. And they might stay away from Trump.”
‘There is no downside to making these calls’. Unless you mistrust where Hillary would take the country. In which case, this reaffirms our concerns. Already moving left, my ass.
The reason why Progressives have not had as much success as activists on the right is that progressives tend to attack newcomers and/or allies upon their arrival in the coalition.
This thread and others on DL recently are evidence of it, and it is why you all fail, time and again.
This thread, like most other threads you’ve started during this cycle, is propaganda masquerading as commentary.
Nice to know what you think of progressives, though.
Um…you clearly don’t follow conservative politics if that’s your understanding of how it works.
Conservatives welcomed newcomers and they ended up with a bunch of mouth-breathing Trump lovers. Right-wing “activists” succeed because they are actually working with the wind — the money, the corporate support — at their backs.
Liberals, meanwhile, have to fight that power, plus they must cope with a “realist” group who tells them that their goals are pipe dreams that should be put aside because we have an election to win.
Now let’s talk about “tone”. ElSom pointed out that she’s wooing Republican donors, and DD responded by explaining why progressives always fail.
Sounded like mansplaining to me, but since it was man-on-man, does it have a belittling name?
Nope, not mansplaining. Neither called out “how” someone said something. They called out what was actually said.
(neither comment was very substantive, however. 😉 )
@pandora
she could adopt Bernie’s entire platform and you’d say she was lying or inauthentic or used the word “support” instead of “fight”.
True. But I think you draw the wrong conclusions from the observations if you limit it to anti-Clinton Bernie supporters. There’s a reason that Clinton’s negatives are so high–and whether it is the fault of the media, or sexism, or just fatigue, it doesn’t matter so long as it does matter to many voters–and that’s because she is perceived as competent but not trustworthy.
She’s exceptionally vulnerable on that point, to the extent that it harms her effectiveness when calling out Trump for his massive loads of bullshit.
It’s difficult, for example, to hit Trump on walking back his comment about taxing the rich, when in about the same week she walked back her own comments about eliminating the coal industry.
Clinton has a “trust” issue, even with many Democratic voters. I doubt it is significant enough to cause them to vote for Trump, but it may be significant enough to keep them from campaigning zealously for her, or even to keep them home on Election Day.
Every candidate now has higher unfavorable ratings than favorable ratings (PPP poll released yesterday). Every single one.
And I get the trust issue. I have concerns (and have stated them in the past). What I’m having a problem with is the claim that “We need to push Clinton left! Get her on the record!” Well, we’ve succeeded with some of that and she still doesn’t get any credit from the crowd setting this standard. I just question the honesty in their demands of her.
A public option only at “certain age” and near retirement. Right before they go on Medicare anyhow. Lol. Oh, how bold of her! Let’s do it at a time that won’t significantly impact private healthcare and won’t encourage them to reform their abysmal practices. This is called tokenism.
Here’s a move to the left I’ll celebrate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-child-care_us_57313fd7e4b096e9f09275b6
I complained about this the other day and she’s already responding! 😉
Here’s where there is a certain amount of truth to the criticisms that Hillary is not really moving to the left. Let’s parse this article:
“I’m also in favor of what’s called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age,” the Democratic presidential front-runner said during a roundtable with local residents at the Mug’N Muffin coffee shop. “Which will take a lot of pressure off the costs.”
Contrary to what is implied lower down in this article, there is nothing on her issues page about it. “Medicare” in fact is only mentioned in a sentence regarding tele-medicine.
She’s also open to creating a separate government-run option on the Obamacare exchanges.
The idea of a government-run insurance option long has been favored by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, but it was stripped from the final version of Obamacare legislation in the face of firm opposition by Republicans and the insurance industry.
Clinton has endorsed a public option on her website, though it seldom comes up on the campaign trail.
This one could indicate why there are a lot of trust issues. Most people interpret references to a “public option” as a government-run insurance option along the lines of Medicare and (this is important) in most contexts it is meant to be a health-insurance option run by the Federal government.
That’s not what Clinton calls for on her Issues page. Instead, the blurb is this:
As she did in her 2008 campaign health plan, and consistently since then, Hillary supports a “public option” to reduce costs and broaden the choices of insurance coverage for every American. To make immediate progress toward that goal, Hillary will work with interested governors, using current flexibility under the Affordable Care Act, to empower states to establish a public option choice.
Get the distinction? She’d like a Federally run public option, but what she’s promising to do is only work with interested governors to to empower states to establish a public option choice.
That’s not, arguably, what progressives or even liberal Democrats have meant by favoring a public option–an option that only exists in some states and has to be mostly funded by the States themselves. Moreover, it is disingenuous. As the single-payer bill that keeps coming up in Delaware points out (as badly as I hate that particular bill), and as the reality of Massachusetts (and eventually Vermont) also verifies, there never has been a structural reason forbidding States from doing so, even pre-ACA. Therefore the phrase on her issues page, using current flexibility under the Affordable Care Act, is misleading to say the least.
This is why lots of people on the left don’t see Clinton as being there: in the single article she “floats” a position that isn’t on her website, gets favorable press for items supposedly on her website that are not there, and on the website itself there are very few items that are really pushing the envelope.
The one exception to that last statement, I think, is her willingness to extend Medicaid and CHIPs to undocumented pregnant women and children, and to allow undocumented workers to purchase health insurance on the ACA exchanges. While I won’t argue that such plan does not make sense, it’s one that I’m waiting to see the Trump people notice. (He’s already disliked by 82% of Hispanics so I doubt there is much harm to him in stoking his base over her promising to increase “welfare benefits to illegals.”)
“Clinton has a “trust” issue, even with many Democratic voters. I doubt it is significant enough to cause them to vote for Trump, but it may be significant enough to keep them from campaigning zealously for her, or even to keep them home on Election Day.”
And if the cumulative effect is inaugurating President Trump on Jan 20, I will have zero sympathy for any single one of them. As I said before, barring catastrophic events like a world war, a President Trump, will have zero impact on me personally, or any of my immediate family. So those who insist on being in a snit and cutting off your nose to spite your face have at it. You will deserve everything you get.
Pack your bags, we’re going on a guilt trip if you don’t get out there and do more than just vote for Hillary.
Shaming people to action, good plan.
No shame at all. People are responsible for their actions (or inaction). I could care less whether they feel guilty, but I will take some pleasure in rubbing it in since it will be a target rich environment. I’m past the point of trying to convince anyone of anything, but I’m not past the point of reminding them that decisions have consequences.
Delaware is going to go for Hillary. If Carper can win in all three counties and Wilmington, I think we got Hillary covered.
This race is Hillary’s to lose, and Delaware will not factor into that. At. All.
I trust you will be leading by example and taking action by driving up to Pennsylvania (or some other battleground state) on weekends for GOTV.
Virginia
I do GOTV in PA. Where will you be, SussexAnon? PA is probably a hike for you.
Get the distinction? She’d like a Federally run public option, but what she’s promising to do is only work with interested governors to to empower states to establish a public option choice.
Um, no. This reading pretends that the state-based insurance exchanges don’t exist. The public option was always meant to be a choice on the exchanges. The option that was most often discussed was a government run non profit insurance plan that would compete with the private insurers. The easy way to get this (I thought it was easy) was to let people buy into Medicare. Even if this would be created at the state-level, this makes no sense, since it couldn’t compete with anything on the state exchanges. There were plenty of questions about whether the government run non profit could complete at the time — which was why Medicare Buy In got floated. The Feds have to create it, but the exchanges have to choose to include it.
So think about our local excuse for an Insurance Commissioner. Do you see her approving a (theoretically) cheaper public option that would compete with her buds at Highmark? That’s the work at the state level she is talking about — getting this option included to exchanges even though the traditional insurance companies would fight this at every level.
She’s chasing every Bush donor she can.
And of Barack Obama did this in 2008, this would be have been a brilliant troll of the GOP. Remember when Obama was opening up field offices at the end in Red states? Including Arizona? He didn’t win in those places (may have helped a Dem get to congress in AZ, tho), but it sure did rattle the GOP powers that be. This looks like *exactly* the same kind of thing to me — whether or not any money comes from it isn’t material. The fact that she and her campaign are rubbing GOP noses in their own disarray is the precise point of this activity.
@cassandra This reading pretends that the state-based insurance exchanges don’t exist.
No, I didn’t read it that way. In fact, I read it exactly the way you put it: The public option was always meant to be a choice on the exchanges. The option that was most often discussed was a government run non profit insurance plan that would compete with the private insurers. The easy way to get this (I thought it was easy) was to let people buy into Medicare.
But here’s the key, as you say: The Feds have to create it, but the exchanges have to choose to include it.
Now let’s look at what Clinton actually says: Hillary will work with interested governors, using current flexibility under the Affordable Care Act, to empower states to establish a public option choice. There is literally no mention in her website of a Federally designed program for public option, Medicare or otherwise. The plain sense grammatical reading of her sentence is for the states to have their own public option.
This reading is supported by the fact that her mention of a Medicare buy-in option is described in the Bloomberg piece as being “floated”–which commonly means introduced at a trial balloon rather than as part of your established position.
My point is that States have ALWAYS had the option to create a State-organized public option, with or without the ACA exchanges. The exchanges are a marketplace for selling existing products that meet their qualifications, not a mechanism for generating them.
So, no, Clinton is not already there, she’s inching there and trying to make it sound like she’s going a lot further than she has. And the fact that her supporters have to jump through these contortions of readings is the best evidence of why there is a problem.
to empower states to establish a public option choice.
This is pretty plain — a public option choice. The only thing that is missing is “on the exchanges”. She’s been talking about this for a few months now — and it is very clear that the public option she is reviving is the Fed government run one — the one she ran on in 2008.
The ACA was meant to include a public option. Joe Lieberman killed it. No governor is going to set up their *own* non-profit insurance. They could never compete with the established companies.
The only problem here, really, is the need for the over-strained critiques that rely on not remembering recent history, not remembering current policy in order to get to one more post that pretends Hillary isn’t where she needs to be on a topic. She’s good here — she’d be better with single-payer, but that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
From the article you just linked to: Whether it would do much to advance the cause of health reform is hard to say—state versions of the public option would enroll fewer patients than a federal plan and thus would have less power to negotiate with health care providers and save money. But progress is progress.
Let’s read that again: state versions of the public option would enroll fewer patients than a federal plan and oh yes this: would have less power to negotiate with health care providers and save money.
The only straining is your attempt to make the Bloomberg story look like substance.
Since I’m apparently wrong, then tell me exactly what state versions of the public option would be since they are NOT a Medicare buy-in.
I was in PA for 2012. I wasn’t all that enthused about Obama then, and I am even less enthused about Hillary this time. So we’ll see.
I guess you could say I have “half-assed centrist incrementalism vote for me because the other guy is crazy” fatigue. There’s still a lot of time, though.
state versions of the public option would enroll fewer patients than a federal plan and oh yes this: would have less power to negotiate with health care providers and save money.
Which is why no Governor does it now — as I noted.
state versions of the public option
An insurance non-profit. The same thing that was originally proposed as the public option when we started this thing.
The Bloomberg story does two things — reminds us that she was always for the Public Option, and tells us that she’s thinking about the smarter way to get a public option, which is Medicare buy-in.
“reminds us that she was always for the Public Option”
Even Tom Carper was for some wacked-out version of “the Public Option.” It’s a cheap claim and the devil is in the details.
“The ACA was meant to include a public option.”. “Meant?” Lol. The idea was floated by some members of the Obama administration and as soon as some Congress persons caught wind of the floated idea by some people, the discussion was dropped immediately–using that establishment Democratic logic that it’s best to enter negotiations with Congress with half a loaf (rather than a full one) and compromise down to even less from there. You know, that logic that was hilariously used to suggest that Hillary is the “realistic” candidate on how to best negotiate with Congress over Bernie’s whole loaf negotiating stance. (What the half loaf strategy is really about is conceding *in advance* those matters that won’t tick off your superpac campaign contributors while selling it to sheeple as realism.)
“No governor is going to set up their *own* non-profit insurance. They could never compete with the established companies.” Um, yeah. And therefore it magically follows that Hillary intends to set up a Federal program because she is only focused on what’s best for the American people? Lol. There’s a lot of kool aid guzzling here. When it’s not unambiguously clear that she intends to set up a Federal buy in, when people can debate it citing different facts on the record, it should be obvious that the ambiguity is intentional. It creates the sound of progressivism for electoral purposes but leaves an escape for governing purposes.
With regard to the public option saga, I assume Obama assured the insurance industry there would be no public option, a deal with the devil that unfortunately was probably necessary to pass ACA. The question is, will Hillary still honor that deal?
“The question is, will Hillary still honor that deal?” In spades.
Just a reminder about the math as we discuss history… A couple of things sound like they were forgotten in the heat of political discussion today…
First: The Republicans were the party of “No”… A unified bloc that blocked everything the Obama administration put up…
Second: The point of blockage was the Senate. House was pro-Obama and had erased all Republican gains since 1994. So the Senate it was. The balance was Democratic 58- 41 because of the unresolved Minnesota race involving Al Frankin. With Arlan Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party and Al’s swearing in, the total briefly stood at 60-40. Then when Scott Brown was elected to fill in deceased Ted Kennedy’s seat, the balance was 59- 41…..
Filibuster proof was at 60 when Obamacare finally moved onto the floor. 15 attempts were towards cloture until finally it was tweaked enough so 60 votes pushed it over. The bill then passed 60-40… and went to the President’s desk.
That is the history. Today… to argue we should have passed a more solid single payer bill and didn’t for whatever reason, means one has a poor memory or wasn’t around to understand the reality of moving the bill through the Senate.
What we got, call it half a loaf if you will, IS better than what the Republicans came very close to giving us… which was nothing….
The other history that seems to have been forgotten here is that Obamacare/Romneycare was first introduced by Republicans (Heritage?) as the conservative counter to Hillary’s original proposal for universal coverage.
I’m sort of amazed that we are arguing about where Hillary is on this issue. It is practically the reason that people on the right hated her in the first place. It’s also a great example of how Hillary is damned no matter what she does.
I think the left has grudgingly accepted Obamacare despite the extent of privatization, but is not impressed with Hillary’s incremental improvements and especially not the weak way she offered them.
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/lobbyists-dnc-2016-convention/
The Host Committee’s finance chair is Daniel Hilferty. In his day job, Hilferty is CEO of Independence Blue Cross, a health insurance giant that covers nine million people. In December, Hilferty became board chairman of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association of America, a trade group that lobbies for the insurance industry, and he serves on the board of directors of America’s Health Insurance Plan’s (AHIP), the insurance industry lobbying group that spearheaded the campaign against the Affordable Care Act. Lobby registration documents show the BCBS Association is actively supporting a number of Republican bills to roll back provisions of the ACA.
…
Hilferty has also donated heavily to Republicans this cycle, giving $10,000 to Prosperity for Pennsylvania, a Super PAC supporting the reelection of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.; $1,000 to the PAC supporting Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah; $1,000 to Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; $2,700 to Chris Christie’s presidential campaign; $25,300 to the NRCC, a GOP committee designed to re-elect House Republicans; and $2,700 to Jeb Bush. Hilferty also gave $2,700 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
…
Allyson Schwartz, a former Democratic lawmaker, is a co-chair of the Host Committee. She was recently named head of a new advocacy group for the health insurance industry called Better Medicare Alliance. The group, according to the Center for Public Integrity, was set up by APCO, a lobbying firm for health insurance companies, to push to expand Medicare Advantage plans, the privately managed programs that were curtailed with the enactment of the ACA.
I’m not arguing that Obamacare is all that it should be, but Obamacare was the conservative response to Hillary’s plan. It was literally the first national public policy thing that she did in her career. And still some question her motives.
I find it hard to understand how some can say that her Iraq vote (which she has said was a mistake) is all we need to know about her view of war and peace, but her extensive work on healthcare (under withering attack from the right and business interests) should be ignored because she changes up her action verbs on her website.
Just a quick comment on the link and article. Some people will care about this information (like me and people who think like me), and some people will not care (other people). I share this to simply demonstrate one reason why the former type person may be disgusted and embarrassed by the latter type person. It seems like there’s a great deal of confusion about this.
The health care issue is huge with middle class folk. From anecdotes I have heard, about couple working with 2 kids making 35K each- they end up with no subsidy and having to pay close to a 1000 a month for a plan with a big deductible. No one in that income bracket would be comfortable or happy with that. My anecdote may be invalid though?
Will she burn political capital and prioritize siding with middle and lower income people over the wealthy and connected on economic issues is my concern.
“What we got, call it half a loaf if you will, IS better than what the Republicans came very close to giving us… which was nothing…”
It’s entirely possible that more than one thing can be true at a time. Yes, Obamacare was better than nothing. It added millions to the insured. Nothing to sneeze at. It’s also true that the public option was never anything more than an idea discussed within the Obama administration, just like many ideas get floated within governments that never see the light of day. Obama gave a plan to Congress that had no public option. It wasn’t even something that he was willing to give the pretense of going to the mat for. I’m sorry, but that’s a terrible way to begin a negotiation. And if that’s what Hillary’s offering as a negotiating strategy (the half a loaf approach), don’t expect universal health care, even private care, by the end of her second term. Don’t expect the elimination of massive amounts of bankruptcies being filled because of health expenses not covered but any or by paltry health insurance.
“because she changes up her action verbs on her website.”
We learned our lesson when Obama claimed “I never campaigned on the public option.” Hillary has a lot of issues that are checked off by way of weasel words (“action verbs,”) but she never campaigns on them.
We also learned our lesson on Dec. 7 2010 when AP’s Ben Feller asked,
Now, Obama eventually did stiffen up and move left, but it was a very fair question at the time. And Hillary is not Obama, but she is implicitly campaigning on a pledge to be just as willing to compromise.
There’s a third type of person that will look at what you pasted up there. That person will click on some links and see that Hifferty is a CEO that sits on a board with basically another dozen health insurance company CEOs. (cue scary music) And they support legislation that benefits their companies. Shocking.
He is also a CEO that employs a lot of people in the host city, he lives in Ardmore and he previously worked in the administration of Democratic former governor of PA Bob Casey (Father of fellow DNC committee member Bob Casey Jr.).
Schwartz is a former Democratic US Representative that served on House Insurance committee (she was also on the Education committee, but that is less scary).
I get it. They are all in the 1%. They are doing fundraising for the DNC among their friends. It’s all quite terrible.
Meanwhile, I’m seeing people complaining on my Facebook feed that delegates to the convention have to pay their own way. “Why can’t the party pay for it like (insert convention here)?” This is why. Because if you want someone to help foot the bill, you will have to deal with people with money and/or power. And that makes you dirty.
Yeah, man. Totally get it. CEO on many corporate boards, lobbies for the interest of the company. I accept this. It is not shocking. I’m not a communist.
What I’m saying is, and in the context of this Obamacare discussion, what are you trying to say to me putting him on the Host Committee? Welcome the Clinton’s nomination party! These people lobby against healthcare… Fundamental difference in government philosopies, us.
Hey, look, she has to build a coalition. She’s making it clear where she’s at. You don’t mind it. I oppose it. I’m just trying to put the difference here in starker relief. Many seem unclear.
Whenever I read these threads three things strike me. First, when I go out into the real world people don’t foam at the mouth over Hillary, and second, I have never seen such future predicting ability. It’s amazing how so many people know what will happen. Third, everything said here about Hillary should apply to Obama – and it should have been said for the last eight years, complete with the vitriol. And yet, it hasn’t. In fact 95% of you have been quite complementary of Obama, and even when criticizing him have been quite measured. Not sure why your behavior is so different with Hillary.
That’s not me being snarky. The nastiness and conspiracy theories are over the top. Sheesh, you guys weren’t this harsh on Cheney. That’s not an exaggeration, btw.
Obama gave a plan to Congress that had no public option.
This is dead wrong.
My, Pandora is defensive. 🙂 But in an opposite scenario, if Jeb Bush had better controlled events leading up to his run, had stacked his favorable primaries in the opening blocs, had installed a party chairman willing to go the distance to get him elected, and then found himself beset by a stubborn populist Donald Trump, I’m sure the same defensiveness would now be expressed by his supporters on the other side, instead of the wimpy-ness that establishment now oozes out their every orifice.
My position is that no one has to be snarky or apologize for appearing snarky, because the reality is that if you live in Delaware, your time for action has passed. You can still give to either candidate, (as of yet I’ve heard nothing about either refusing to accept your donation). You can still try to persuade others far, far away who still might make an impact, but bottom line, is that what is done, is done… So arguing which is better now of the two Democrats is as pointless as arguing which of the 27 original candidates for the Republican side, would make the better candidate regardless of who actually won…
That said, now policy is a different story. Knowing the lobbying industry well, I’m am perturbed by Hillary’s and the Old Democratic’s embrace of it. This is rather huge. and contrary to what Pandora above said about Obama, this marks a huge difference between the Clinton’s occupation of the Office, and the Obama’s.
It is one more warning that Hillary is not what she purports to be which in the end, is also pointless; because unless Superdelegates all shift their allegiance away from her, the November choice appears to be Trump or her. A choice which inside this reading audience, makes all such morally purifying points completely mute…
But it should bother the conscious of the party that the ban on lobbyists’ contributions, was quietly allowed to lapse. Simply because, now every action will appear, whether legitimately or not, to have been enacted because of corruption…
That was something upon reflection, from which we have been spared these past 8 years.
Why would super-delegates switch from the candidate with more pledged delegates and actual votes? Are you advocating this?
Why wasn’t Obama’s Wall Street donations, among others, treated in the same fashion – why isn’t it now? Seems to me you should be attacking him the same way (and should have been all along), but you didn’t.
Josh Marshall sums it up:
@pandora
Why would super-delegates switch from the candidate with more pledged delegates and actual votes?
There’s only one obvious answer to this … because their job is to select the candidate who will win the General, regardless of the outcome of the primaries. Thus, if the case can be made that the person is Sanders … I’m not saying it’s realistic but it is his plan.
“In fact 95% of you have been quite complementary of Obama, and even when criticizing him have been quite measured. Not sure why your behavior is so different with Hillary.”
It might be because Obama represented himself as a moderate on most matters and has governed as one. He didn’t stand next to Bernie Sanders and declare that he was predominantly progressive as Hillary has done.
Cassandra, thank you for educating me on the public option during the Obama administration. That’s contrary to what I’ve read before, but I believe you.
“It might be because Obama represented himself as a moderate on most matters and has governed as one.”
Bwhahahahaha!
BTW, Obama was a “moderate”, but the idea that progressives (here and elsewhere) labeled him that in 2008 is… Bwhahahaha!
@DG “It might be because Obama represented himself as a moderate on most matters and has governed as one.”
To be fair…
On his numerous executive orders and USSC picks, he’s been quite consistently a liberal. These have driven the GOP nuts … and not because they are steps of a “moderate”.
On the deals he’s made with the Republicans… THAT’s where he’s been a real moderate (at best).
In my view, he’s still a liberal who has done about as well as he could with the cards he’s been dealt. I’m giving him a pass.
Agreed, LE, but he fails today’s purity test set by these guys. If their concerns about Hillary are sincere they should have been going after Obama (with the same level of vitriol) as they do Hillary. They didn’t, and still don’t. I’d be interested in knowing what the difference is.
Cassandra’s account of the public option debate is accurate as I recall, but does not reflect Obama and Biden’s maddening unwillingness to fight for it. For example, instead of threatening Lieberman with removal of his committee chairmanships (or anything else), the bastard retained his chairmanship of Homeland Security. Joe Biden of course was the willing broker if not the protagonist for all these capitulations. That, along with the Bush tax cut extension, was responsible for the (at least my personal) enthusiasm gap in 2010.
“BTW, Obama was a “moderate”, but the idea that progressives (here and elsewhere) labeled him that in 2008 is… Bwhahahaha!”
I don’t what others have done, but I have said that he is a moderate. And for the most part he’s be one. He wasn’t my favorite candidate running in 2008 because of it.
I guess I’m among the 5%, and I think that number is more like 25%. Plenty of progressives were disappointed to learn how centrist Obama really was. He campaigned further to the left than he governed — or, rather, he allowed liberals to believe he was further to the left than he really was.
My misreading Obama, I must confess, is part of the reason I’m not buying Hillary’s turn to the left. Fool me twice, etc.
Danagaretts point is a great one as it relates to a when people age into Medicare. It points to the vacuous type of spin that she puts in everything. What she’s actually accomplishing is minutia at best, marketed into something so spectacular you think it’s practically universal health care. But it isn’t, but her legions will say it is