Since the primary battles have been reopened in the healthcare threads, I'll just say it

[Ken Burch]

No, the healthcare bill would NOT be better if HRC had been nominated.

For one thing, she'd have won by a smaller margin, if she won at all.

For another, we would not have had any real gains in the Congressional races, because all the enthusiasm created in the Obama movement would have been extinguished had HRC been our nominee. The fall race would have been a cold, dreary, Mondale/Dukakis-style "eat your spinach" campaign, and those races proved that "eat your spinach" campaigns don't work for us.

For a third, HRC is just as compromised by corporate connections as Obama. Once you're serving on corporate boards, you've checked your social conscience and your class awareness at the door. For life.

Yes, things could and SHOULD be better. But no, nominating the MORE conservative and less-inclusive candidate wouldn't have made them better.

What would have made things better, barring the nomnination and election of an actual progressive, would have been if this administration had simply stood up and fought for the spirit of the progressive activists who did the work of electing it.

We're where we are because of a triangulating, corporate-deferential approach that would have been used by the runner-up in the primaries just as much as it was used by the person we elected.

If you reduce the problem to personalities, rather than to strategy, courage of convictions, and unwillingness to challenge the real power structure, you're completely missing the point.

It's about systems and choices, not who won.

[Sherman A1]

1. Agreed and Well Said.

[PBS Poll-435]

2. Please don't be a dick by using HRC. Her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton

She was First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, a United States Senator, and nearly became the President of the United States.

It would be way less dickish if you would just call her Hillary.



And I totally get your HCR/HRC "teehee" moment.

[Ken Burch]

3. That wasn't intended.

BTW, the reason I've always used "HRC" instead of "Hillary" is that I always thought it unpleasant that our current Secretary of State had to identify herself by her first name exclusively in her campaign materials. That won't be expected of the first former president's HUSBAND that seeks the office himself.

I was showing RESPECT, not disrespect.

I hope someday that we'll nominate an actual feminist(which would also mean a candidate that wasn't a hawk)like Barbara Lee or Sheils Jackson Lee. World War II was the last war that had or could have any positive consequences for women, other than a revolutionary uprising against a police state somewhere. Attacking Iran could never work to the good of Iranian women.

Now, would you actually disagree with the content of the OP, or are you just going to quibble endlessly about word usage?

[PBS Poll-435]

6. For supporters and detractors alike, Hillary seems to be nearly-acceptable.

You could have used Senator Clinton or even Secretary Clinton.

Instead you attempted to reduce her to three consonants.

[Ken Burch]

7. It wasn't reduction

And why are you so hung up on the name thing? It's trivial.

Any thoughts about the actual argument in the OP?

[PBS Poll-435]

8. Disrespect isn't trivial.

And your OP is nearly 100% biodegradable. So you have that going for ya.

[Ken Burch]

10. You can't provide any reason to think that Hillary(I'll call her that for your sake, even though

it doesn't matter and is actually LESS respectable than calling her Secretary of State Clinton) would have been good on healthcare. You can't be more progressive in office after you ran the more conservative campaign to get in office.

[PBS Poll-435]

14. But you didn't call her "Secretary of State Clinton." You reduced her to three consonants.

And I honestly don't know 100% if there would be a difference between the outcomes of a health care/insurance reform campaign after gaining office.

And we will never really know.

[Ken Burch]

15. It's been a meme on here recently

There's been tons of "This proves we should have gone with Hillary" posts. Why would anyone think that?

The issue is corporate control of the party, which would be the same if your candidate had won.

And I said I was GOING to start calling her Secretary of State Clinton. It's disrespectful to call her by her first name when no male senator or Secretary of State would be treated like that.

Now, can we please give the nomenclature issue a rest?

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Teddy

Yeah.


Please give it a rest with the reduction(sexism.)

[Ken Burch]

19. I wasn't being sexist.

There's no differnce between saying "HRC" and saying "JFK".
You're derailing the thread over something that doesn't matter.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. I think it does matter

And please don't accuse me of "derailing" your thread with your thinly veiled attempts at primary nastiness.

[ima_sinnic]

24. I admire your tolerance of tedious low-grade heckling

I will be sure always to say Martin Luther King, Junior every time now after reading the "lashing" you got for "disrespect"

(it couldn't possibly be because the, er, "premise" of your OP did not agree with somebody?)

[Ken Burch]

25. Oh, no, nothing like that

Nothing like the heckler not wanting to admit he had no argument against the OP, either.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. Your OP was bullshit. Same All-or-Nothing insanity that has become typical from you.

I am convinced that you are not a Progressive. I don't think you are a Liberal. You are a cry-baby cynic that wants 100% or nothing.

And your rants are so tired.

[Ken Burch]

27. What I actually am is a person who wants the party to deal with reality

And the reality is, the problem is corporate control of politics, something your candidate is just as comfortable with as the person we DID nominate.

To fight that, we have to stop taking all money from corporate PAC's(since this week proved that that money just sabotages us)and learn how to make ourselves, finally, into a fighting people's party that works from the bottom up and fights for the powerless and the country's Rainbow working-class majority.

Can you agree that it's silly to think that things would be better if only the other main candidate had been nominated?

[PBS Poll-435]

32. My entire point was that I hate pejoratives.

HRC = BO = BHO, etc.



And, honestly, I think that the bills that came out of the House and Senate would be pretty close if my "candidate" had won. The bills don't really bother me all that much. The reconciled bill from Conference will be far better that the status quo.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Is FDR disrespectuful? How about JFK, MLK jr., or DK? Using a politician's

initials is very common. HRC is perfectly acceptable.

[girl gone mad]

35. FDR, IKE, JFK, RFK, MLK, LBJ...

WTF?

[PBS Poll-435]

39. What do all of those historical figures have in common?

[KrR]

4. She would have lost her cool many times and

probably would not have been able to pass the current bill. Specter would still be a repuke and would be doing what Snowe is doing now. Franken would not have won in Minn with smaller turnout, Hagen also possibly wouldn't have won in NC.

No one could have gotten Nelson to agree to the public option and everyone knows it but pretends they don't so that they can bash Obama. This is a good bill and Obama helped to get it. All the naysayers will look silly in a few years.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Ms. Clio? Is that you?

"No, the healthcare bill would NOT be better if HRC had been nominated.
For one thing, she'd have won by a smaller margin, if she won at all."

Your crystal ball tell you this, or was it the Tarot cards?

Your entire post is nothing but your "guesses" and have nothing based in fact.

[Ken Burch]

9. She was always a weaker candidate than Obama in the head-to-heads against GOP candidates

Therefore, she would have done worse in the fall. The candidate who's weaker in the polls is always the less-electable choice.

The rest is based on her history, which has always been about the abandonment of progressive ideas and the non-wealthy part of the Democratic coalition(such as her passionate love of Bill's "punish welfare mothers" bill).

She wouldn't give a damn about LGBT people if they didn't have big checkbooks, either.

This is a woman who has never taken any risks at any point in her career. She did nothing to defend your constituency with "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA were inflicted. You never had any reason to feel loyalty to her.

And there's also her long-service on corporate boards across the country. Everyone who serves on a corporate board checks her or his conscience at the door.

None of her history gives us any reason to think she'd be better on this than Obama. She'd be the same or worse. Why even bother pretending elsewise?

The answer is to kick corporate money OUT of this party.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. LOL

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

12. She was weaker than Obama in all the polls against GOP candidates

This is simple fact.

She'd have lost, or just barely won. YOu know this as well as I do.

Why even bother to claim otherwise?

The more conservative candidate can NEVER be the more progressive officeholder.

And why would you laugh about the idea of taking corporate money and corporate influence out of the party? Neither does us any good.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. You know this!!1! Why bother to claim otherwise!1!!11!?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104962/gallup-daily-obama-clinton-equally-matched-vs-mccain.aspx


And I will find more links for similar data throughout the campaign in the morning when I don't have to use this dreadful touch-pad.

[Ken Burch]

20. One poll that shows them in the same position proves nothing

The point is, she was never the stronger candidate and even THAT poll proves it. And if we couldn't ELECT our nominee, things were already going to be worse.

[PBS Poll-435]

23. Assuming that the undecideds fell 60/40 to McCain, both would have won in a hypothetical match-up.

Senator Clinton just polled a little bit better against McCain after he secured the nomination.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Nothing more than "crystal ball" accusations.

I love how you "attack" a person. In this case, it is my sexual orientation.

"She did nothing to defend your constituency with "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA were inflicted."

You mean when she was "First Lady?"

"None of her history gives us any reason to think she'd be better on this than Obama. She'd be the same or worse.

If that is the case, then why the comment? You base your "proof" on speculations, not fact.

Why do you pretend you know what would have happened, when we don't even know what will happen?

[Ken Burch]

22. I wasn't attacking YOU at all, and you know it

And whatever you may think of me, I would NEVER attack your sexual orientation. I've been against homophobia for as long as I knew what it was, which has been at least 35 years now(I'm 49).

I was pointing out that she didn't fight for you(and when she was First Lady, she could've fought behind-the-scenes against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" AND DOMA. Having silently gone along with both, how can you think she could've been on your side in future fights?

She never took ANY risks for LGBT people. Her position on the issues was indistinguishable from Obama's. The fact that she might not have let a couple of wackjob preachers give speeches doesn't make up for that.

The larger point is, a different nominee wouldn't have changed the situation, as long as corporate power remained unchallenged. And it's a waste of time to focus on personalities rather than the structure of the system. That's what I'm saying.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. Oh my...telling me, AGAIN, what (BOLD) I (BOLD) know.

"And whatever you may think of me, I would NEVER attack your sexual orientation."

And, yet you did. I put 'attack' in quotes because it wasn't an "attack" in the purest sense (hey faggot), but rather, "you don't agree with me, so I will change the focus and shine the light on your (whatever, in my case, sexual orientation). It was an attempt to "shame me."

"I was pointing out that she didn't fight for you(and when she was First Lady, she could've fought behind-the-scenes against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" AND DOMA. Having silently gone along with both, how can you think she could've been on your side in future fights?"

So, she should have done more? In a position of NON-elected power? I am all for people making a stand, and you have NO IDEA if she did (and I have no idea if she DIDN'T) because it was "behind-the-scenes."

" The fact that she might not have let a couple of wackjob preachers give speeches doesn't make up for that."

"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble." What does the broth tell you?

"The larger point is, a different nominee wouldn't have changed the situation, as long as corporate power remained unchallenged. And it's a waste of time to focus on personalities rather than the structure of the system. That's what I'm saying."

If your predictive powers are to believed, then why should it matter if it was Obama or McCain who won? (Oh course, only ONE claimed to be a "fierce advocate" for us queers). It would have been the same. What is a waste of time is posts like yours which claim one thing which can NEVER be proved. It is as pointless as those who say SOS Clinton would have made all things better.

[xultar]

30. ROFL!!!!!!

[xultar]

29. +100000

[Wardoc]

34. Heh :)

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. What cracks me up is the people who are now denying Hillary was ever pushing corporate mandates

It was the foundation of her health care plan, for fucks sake!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20819827/

[FrenchieCat]

31. I personally don't give a shit.

The bill is the bill that we got,
because that was the bill we were gonna get.
It's better than status quo,
and it will do a whole lot more than people even know.
Naw, it ain't perfect, but then neither are we.

[leftofcool]

33. Can I borrow your crystal ball?

Sorry, but Secretary of State Clinton would never have caved in to the like of Lie-berman and would have spit in the face of Republicans. Obama is a sham, but hell, you got what you asked for.

[Mimosa]

37. Nothing wrong with HRC for feminists.

Dumb nitpicking over a non-issue.

The senate health care bill is horrible. It won't help us, IMO. It will help the insurance corporations. Hillary couldn't have possibly done worse and probably would have done far better to help the American people. After all she has had more experience knowing where the minefields were.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. Sorry, Ken. Couldn't make it two sentences in

"For one thing, she'd have won by a smaller margin, if she won at all."

Not just false, but bizarro-world false.

Obama won by 7%. That is a shockingly weak number given the circumstances of 2008.