In all seriousness, this post looks like a fervent supporter creating a quick laundry list of reasons to support Hillary without much policy detail.

Why should this nebulous goal of universal health care coverage be the top priority?

Shouldn’t the rising cost of health care be addressed before any discussion of how coverage will be provided?

What is the enforcement mechanism for it?

John Edwards readily admits that wage garnishment was a definite possibility. Hillary sort of admitted that about a month ago but stopped short of providing any detailed explanation.

Hillary’s experience argument has fallen on deaf ears throughout the primary season and I don’t see that changing. But all that her time in the political arena has earned her is passionated hatred on the right. How could she possibly think of working in a bipartisan manner as President?

How can you say Hillary has the “most efficient and humane plan” for withdrawing US troops from Iraq when she doesn’t really have a plan?

Obama can institute change (not change I’d ever endorse) through his speaking skills and the like-ability factor that is currently winning over so many voters. Reagan instituted plenty of change using this play book. And by the way, so did Bill Clinton to a certain extent. “I feel your pain..”

*************

Ignatius speaks to the quintessential conventional wisdom of *bi-partisanship* that brought us the sub 50% electoral backing and triangulation of the first Clinton administration. The idea that we MUST compromise, because we lack a true mandate, to achieve forward action.

Obama’s skill set does not suggest compromise of basic progressive/liberal ideals. It suggests recognizing we are a nation of 300 million with divergent ideas, but the basis of those ideas are more alike than different. If we stop demonizing our differences, we can find those basic tenents we all agree on to work our way forward with a more inclusive agenda.

I think the assertion of “long forgotten leadership skills” may be a little shaky. It’s one thing to be able to motivate a populace by words and inspiration and another to work in a bipartisan manner to implement policy. Obama keeps insisting that he’s the one to “bridge the gap” but is there really evidence of that in his record?

David Ignatius of the Washington Post writes an interesting piece in which he discusses Obama’s record. He brings up the point that for a self proclaimed “bridge builder” he does have a history of vote-skipping, and has no strong record of standing up to the special interests. It’s definitely worth a look: read it here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784.html

The main domestic job of the President in our form of government is to present their *plan*/agenda/list of wants to Congress and then TRY to persuade that same Congress to go along with them. It matters not what *plan* the candidate has, it’s how good a job they can do to get ANY *plan* through a recalcitrant (they have to stay elected too) Congress.

So rather than taunting a particular candidate’s *plan*, why not characterize how that candidate is likely to get ANYTHING done within our government system?

Do they get it by fighting? Is being in love with your own *plan* a good way to approach the vastly divergent body that is Congress?

Will working the levers of government get your *plan* through or does it get you the infamous DLC triangulation? Doesn’t the very phrase mean to find the power players and make them happy to get what you want? To make the power player happy, compromise or trade offs are essential…the bigger the agenda, the bigger the compromise/trade off. Is that getting the job done?

Isn’t the very essence of our form of government driven by the people electing people that they feel will speak for their ideas, to resist an executive agenda contrary to their ideas? Isn’t the recourse of the people if those same elected ones DON’T speak for their ideas to un-elect them?

The basics of Obama’s *plan* is to get the people off their couches to reclaim their most powerful position in our system of government. Yes, it’s to inspire the people to believe they can play a part in their governance…that of driving their elected representatives to back the people’s ideas, not the politically expedient DC ideas. A motivated populace is an entrenched elected person’s worst nightmare. It’s a governmental accounting method that’s been too long used for radical right ideals or not tapped at all.

That motivated populace is exactly what is driving the Obama wave which has all the media pundants, DC establishment scratching their heads. They have all forgotten what the unwashed masses look like, and most certainly have forgotten what sort of power the masses wield.

It’s frightening them. They’ve labeled it cultish. They’ve warned of disillusionment.

As Obama will be the first to say, the only disillusionment will come if we, the masses, settle back on our comfy couches and disengage again. He is not the force behind us, we are. He is the one who tapped into us, motivated us, gave us an avenue to pursue, but we are the ones who will do the heavy lifting of keeping our ideas and ideals in the forefront.

This is a primary. The candidates have no more than a gnat’s breath of difference in their *plans*.

The difference is how to get their…or any for that matter…plan implemented.

The Clintons, working the levers of government, will take care of us with their ideas.

Obama, using long forgotten leadership skills, will enable us to insert ourselves back into our process of governance to insist on our own ideas.

I know which I prefer.

And he is spinning again – for a list of polls he missed and/or ignored check out
Spin It Lanny!
http://www.intoxination.net/node/8805
Original source for the polls cited:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2rdjgr

And if you want to see a very low key serious analysis of the issue check out Larry Lessig’s
Blog.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3bwz3o

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/recent-polling-data-shows_b_89094.html

She most definitely has a plan. It hasn’t been operationalized yet, and obviously meetings with various leaders are important in forming the details, but you’re referring, I assume to this press release:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2354

,in which it does say that she would have a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, but you left out the other parts of the plan – she talks about how she would direct aid to the Iraqis, and there’s a whole paragraph discussing her diplomatic initiatives!! How is that not a plan? It’s a plan that began in february 07 when she introduced legislation in the Senate to end the war: The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction act – read details here:

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/record.cfm?id=269481

My characterization as best and most humane is based on my understanding of both candidates plans as they exist now. But there is definitely foundation to believe she HAS a plan, there’s a legislative record of it! Obviously neither candidate can flesh out the details of how the actual reduction of troops would proceed until he or she is actually elected and can met with the necessary parties. But that doesn’t negate the PLAN for that reduction, or for those meetings, and it doesn’t remove the possibility to judge both plans in their formative stages.

As to the health care issue, again, I did not say she didn’t lose the “big fight,” I simply rejected the idea that no “results” had come from her healthcare policy initiatives, which is simply not true…

As to experience – they said Bill Clinton didn’t have adequate experience – he did pretty fine job. So I don’t find the experience issue compelling in the least.

As to the health care issue – she did lose the big fight. The bill that ultimately passed was written in large part by Ted Kennedy. Its success was also due in part to Orrin Hatch’s involvement. Without Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch – would she have succeeded – I don’t know.

Your statement that she has not only a plan to bring the troops home but the “BEST most efficient and humane plan to remove troops from Iraq, starting within the first 60 days of her presidency” is most troubling to me because her position statements demonstrate no such thing.

She has a plan to convene a meeting to get a plan if she is elected. Her web site says “As president, one of Hillary’s first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.”

She doesn’t have a plan, she has a plan to direct people to draw up a plan. How you got from that to the “BEST most efficient and humane plan” is beyond me.

It simply is not true.

Hillary is a well established politician – her rhetoric is no less no less rhetoric than Obama’s.

And by the way – giving a tax credit to people who already can’t afford the basics is not going to enable them to pay for health care. And insurance companies are not going to give up profit. Again, it just looks like a plan.

Obama’s plan will face the same battles.

The fact is for both candidates they will propose and build and hopefully succeed. it will not be easy.

What I saw when I watched this last debate was a statesman debating a politician. Hillary simply got louder and angrier – visibly – when she felt she wasn’t being understood.

Obama was a statesman; he listened, he did not attack, nor did he become in the least bit ruffled.

I want that kind of presence negotiating with Russia, China, North Korea. It isn’t his rhetoric – it is the entire package.

All that being said – if she is nominated I will vote for her – a McCain presidency is not something I wish for.

“Well what I think is absolutely true is when Senator Clinton talks about her experience, she’s talking about the eight years she served as first lady and you know often says, here’s what we did, here’s what we accomplished. Which is fine, I’m not in any way saying that that experience is not relevant and I don’t begrudge her claiming that as experience.”

I would also be hesitant to count out her time as First Lady of Arkansas, and her time on the board of the Children’s Defense Fund…but if you must concentrate on years specifically in elected office, you still do not acknowledge the relative importance what was accomplished during those years. I would say that your claim that Hillary was all fight and no results would be significantly refuted by the following, a simple sampling:

I would encourage people to look at her history of fighting for health care, AND getting results. It’s erroneous to state she had “one fight on health care – which she lost.” It’s simply not true. In 1997 she led the FIGHT which RESULTED in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provided support for families with children that did not qualify for medicaid. It was the single largest expansion of coverage for children SINCE medicaid began in the sixties. I would also point to her involvement in heath insurance coverage for mammograms in older women, and research funding for the NIH.

She worked to secure funds for families affected in the 9/11 attacks, including funds for small businesses to rebuild, and funds, especially, for the HEALTH CARE (there’s another RESULT on healthcare) of victims and their families. She introduced legislation to get funding for resources for first responders, and, just to hammer home the healthcare thing….She was the co-sponsor of legislation to increase healthcare benefits to members of the National Guard.

Hillary has served on five Senate committes, including the Armed Service Committees. This during her Senate career that began in 2001, compared to Obama’s which began in 2005. In her involvement in these committees she has worked with members of both sides of the aisle, so “pressure on Congress” would seem to be more of a burden to a senator who’s served less time and has not formed the same relationships that Hillary has formed.

Hillary’s legislative accomplishments and her accomplishments during 35 years of public service are irrefutable, and I can continue to hash them out, but people can just as easily look at her record. We know what she fights for – she fights for children and families, and human rights. And she gets results. This election is critical because the nation is hungry for results, hungry for change that is real, and doable, and works for our families. Obama says “Yes we Can – ” but can WHAT exactly? I’m moved by his charisma and am awed by his speeches too, but Hillary had a point when she said “Let’s get real.” Let’s look at who’s ready to actually MAKE this change we so desperately want. I’m sure everyone has seen this video, but it’s worth a second look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o