How to turn a soft Clinton supporter into an Undecided in 10 minutes

I had dinner a couple nights ago with some friends. Someone was there with her mother (about 67/widow/Democrat/voter), who I had been warned was "very political". Cool, I thought. I love talking politics with others as long as it doesn't get into some shouting match.

Getting to the restaurant and getting seated, we all slowly started engaging in politics and the upcoming election cycle. We talked about the Iraq war. The mother, Mary, talked about how horrible the war was and even referred to it as an occupation. She talked about how she remembered the Vietnam war and even went back to talking about when she was a teenager dealing with the 1950s propaganda and "duck and cover" training in schools in case of impending nuclear attack. She talked about being a young woman who got to see JFK speak at an event in Milwaukee in 1960 and thought he was tall, tan, handsome and very charismatic.

We then turned to recent politics and the 2008 election.

She knew I was an Obama supporter and asked me why I liked him. I told her that he offers real change, has lots of great ideas and has a lot of leadership qualities I look for in a candidate. Plus he was against the Iraq war and on record saying so before the votes were cast for the Iraq War Resolution. He knew the war was set up to go wrong as it stood from where he and millions of people saw. It was also not politically popular at the time to come out against the war then either with all the fear and post-9/11 trauma we were all dealing with.

She said she liked him, but she was supporting "Hillary". I asked her why. She said she is strong and knows what to do in the World with her experience. I asked her to qualify her experience. She said she was First Lady and Senator. I asked her what she thought about how she failed at health care reform in 1993 and then did nothing after that and healthcare costs skyrocketed after that. She thought for a second and said that she never thought of it that way. I asked her why she thought it was a good idea to vote to authorize the war in Iraq. She thought for a second and didn't really realize the connection to the war. She said "Hillary wants to end the war now". I asked her to look at the voting record before you look at what they promise.

She looked at me and said she wanted a woman in the White House, but now was thinking that maybe it shouldn't just be any woman. I told her that the Republicans would love to run against not just one, but two Clintons. For whatever reason, many people don't like them and it certainly would inflame the Republican base which at this point is practically ready to sit out the election.

It dawned on her that her "default" choice was not thought out enough; she even admitted it in so many words. "I guess I'm undecided now", she said laughing. I had a couple extra tickets for the Obama event next Monday in Madison with me (I was going to give them to them anyway) and handed them to her. She seemed elated and said "Maybe I'm going to see the next President of the United States!"

I ordered some wine to celebrate.

what the heck! Congratulations!

But congratulations. You've made an unaware voter want to seek more information. Wait till she looks up Hillary's voting record.

The part where he told the person the candidate with the best chance of winning actually doesn't was especially rich...

Hillary was one who led the fight against Kerry/Feingold. She was not a leader in getting us out.

with this soft default support? They can vanish it in ten minutes or ten weeks, but work at it much more slyly and cooly and with big soapboxes they will. How to gauge the strength of ANY Dem in this kind of thoughtful poking at the soft supporter. I cannot go so far as to say only Hillary has a problem based on this. I think ALL Dems have this problem with galvanized steel getting into their supporters. The lack of centrist spine by fatal leadership philosophy much more than any soft-pedalling on liberlism itself is creating blowback in its own base.

Who will dare instill the steel? Who has earned it? No one gets the MSM teflon except the GOP.

I don't think she was every really given a chance.

Perhaps if they changed their diapers and actually tackled this problem, they would have remained in the majority. Maybe the result would not have been that HRC's commission proposed. I do know that the one thing that is better than nothing is anything.

SOMETHING.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts

Facts about National Health Insurance (NHI) You Might Not Know

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing, utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work (where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php



http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

Brief Summary of HR 676: “The United States National Health Insurance Act,”
Or “Expanded & Improved Medicare For All”

"Of all the forms of inequality,
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

· The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health status.
· With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non health care system.

Who is Eligible

· Every person living in or visiting the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards.

Health Care Services Covered

· This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permitted under this act.

Conversion To A Non-Profit Health Care System

· Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program. Exceptions to this rule include coverage for cosmetic surgery, and other medically unnecessary treatments. Those who are displaced as the result of the transition to a non- profit health care system are the first to be hired and retrained under this act.

Cost Containment Provisions/ Reimbursement

· The National USNHI program will set reimbursement rates annually for physicians, allow for "global budgets" (annual lump sums for operating expenses) for health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region; each region will administer the program.

· The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period. U.S. treasury bonds will be sold to compensate investor-owned providers for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care; payment will not be made for loss of business profits. Health insurance companies could be sub-contracted out to handle reimbursements.

Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:

· Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs. A modest payroll tax on all employers of 3.3%. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, repealing the Bush tax cut.

I said not medicare because it leaves too many bills. I am fully aware that single payer would be the best.

because it's been purposely underfunded by those who hate the People's Health Care...

I posted the entire HR676 not so much for you or in reaction to your post as for anyone who might come across it in this context.

I post the summary somewhere a couple times a week or so -- you never know who's reading.

I was at a local Democratic Party function the other night allegedly filled with "Progressive" Democrats and was again (I don't know why) "amazed" at how many people I talked to hadn't ever heard of HR676 or single-Payer... :grr:

It bears repetition...

:hi:

YES . .. . you have to ensure that they don't damage programs --
but that's been going on everywhere -- including with Britain's national health care
especially under Thatcher.

Yes, Repugs have tried to destroy Medicare -- but we have an already existing system which can simply be extended to EVERYONE. And, THEN, begin to monitor it to ensure that it is run fairly.

You'd have that same problem with any NEW system --
In fact, look at the disastorous new DRUG program -- what a joke!!!

Who the heck can afford a 992 hospital deductible and thousands of dollars in drugs per year? Plus you have what the doctor charges, what medicare approves (always less) and what medicare pays about of that approval after deductibles, which leaves you paying a LOT OF MONEY.

the system is being starved. Put Democrats back in charge and we can bring Medicare back to what it should be ---

Whose DRUG program are you enjoying ---??? Bush's --

Basically, your Medicare has been "Bushed" ---

and the DRUG program as well --

Democrats have to remove private insurance companies from the drug program --
and negotiate drug prices --

My neighbor had knee surgery -- new knee -- and paid nothing --
beyond some small medical expenses --- like for minor equipment --
I would guess below $200 --

gets the nod. Back then, the media wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party like it is now. Anybody that votes for hillary in the primaries is asking for a huge, nasty mess come election 2008. But my guess is that a great majority of them already know that, and are intent on making that happen.

Hell! It's already turning into a mess, and they're loving it.

and decided she didn't want her evening ruined. She probably handed the tickets off to someone else before she left the restaurant.

I think I'll be able to help her out. I'll post a picture of her shaking Barack's hand for you.

:hi:

This is pathetic.

But hey you probably don't believe him anyway.

I didn't even give the Full D.R.A.G. theory that turns any Clinton support into mush.

It was very easy. I think a lot of Clinton "support" is like her past support.

Shake the tree a little and the support falls to the ground.

:thumbsup:

He didn't even try!

Did you tell her that?

You can say honestly with a straight face that Obama has never tried to get universal healthcare. He's been trying to get healthcare reform working with some successes in Illinois as State Senator as well as while Senator. Check out the links or just read some of the snippets below...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm

Employers are going to have to pay or play
Employers are going to have to pay or play. I think that employers either have to provide health care coverage for their employees or they've got to make a decision that they're going to help pay for those who don't have coverage outside the employer system. So I think that's one important principle, & the second important principle is that we're going to have to put more money into prevention, chronic care management, & medical technology, because that is how we're going to accrue the needed savings
Source: SEIU Democratic Health Care Forum in Las Vegas Mar 24, 2007

Need political will to accomplish universal coverage
I will be putting out a plan over the next couple of months that details how I would approach the basic principles that by the end of my first term, that we're going to have universal health care for every single American. Some basic principles:

* that coverage has to be universal
* that we're going to have to save costs and get more bang for our health care dollar
* that employers, government and individuals are all going to have to put up something
* and that savings that we obtain from making a more efficient system can't be just obtained by hitting frontline workers.
* But in addition to those basic principles, we have to challenge ourselves: Do we have the political will and the sense of urgency to actually get it done? I want to be held accountable for getting it done. I will judge my first term as president based on the fact on whether we have delivered the kind of health care that every American deserves and that our system can afford.
Source: SEIU Democratic Health Care Forum in Las Vegas Mar 24, 2007

There are reasons to like Obama, but contrasting two candidates with essentially identical records on this issue seems disingenuous.

It will take a lot of effort to get universal healthcare. You don't just walk in a room and flip a switch. I hope you know that...

At least Edwards' and Clinton's respective plans could eventually translate to single payer.

Surely you can lay out how Clinton's plan would lead to single payer... I gotta see this.

:rofl:

Like the Edwards plan, the expansion of the fed health plans will allow more people to get healthcare being an attractive option because of its lowered costs. With its advantages of lower overhead these gov't plans will best the private insurers in the marketplace leading to defacto single payer.

Now this is of course the rosier scenario but as I said in my post these plans could eventually lead to single payer. These are not single payer plans which is something I would like to see.

Point out the "lies"...

:popcorn:

"Plus he was against the Iraq war and on record saying so before the votes were cast for the Iraq War Resolution. He knew the war was set up to go wrong as it stood from where he and millions of people saw. It was also not politically popular at the time to come out against the war then either with all the fear and post-9/11 trauma we were all dealing with."

Omitting of course that Obama has voted for nearly every funding measure and against various withdraw bills.

"I asked her what she thought about how she failed at health care reform in 1993 and then did nothing after that and healthcare costs skyrocketed after that."

Hillary was very involved with the creation of SCHIP.

So there we have an outright lie by yourself in addition to muddling what actually happened with Hillary care. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Lewinsky since you have a flair for the Hannity

"She thought for a second and said that she never thought of it that way."

Well its amazing when a friend lies to your face contradicting what you thought you knew.

"For whatever reason, many people don't like them and it certainly would inflame the Republican base which at this point is practically ready to sit out the election."

Here we have a fav talking point unsupported by evidence.

"I asked her to look at the voting record before you look at what they promise."

Good advice because apparently her friend can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Healthcare costs increased from the beginning to the Clinton era (the only one hopefully) to nearly 50% by 2000. After completely failing in 1993 and hence helping Newt and The Boyz trouncing Democrats in 1994, Hillary Clinton and her husband let the costs skyrocket. Sure SCHIP happened. I know Clinton fans want to say it was all her idea. It wasn't.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Obama has voted for supplemental bills for veterans benefits, protecting the troops and also for Katrina victims and other causes within those bills. It's hilarious for Clinton fans to try to point out his votes for a war she helped start in the first place. These same fans try to wince and tell you that her vote didn't count anyway or she didn't think we would go to war. That is not only a tragically misinformed excuse, but it usually becomes coupled with not accepting the idiocy of her support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

What is truly tragic with some Clinton fans is that they have to pull out the "Hannity" card if any dare put scrutiny on their precious candidate. It's so desperate and transparent. And yes, Hannity and other Republicans have stated openly that they want Hillary Clinton (and by proxy Bill Clinton) to run against to empower their base. That is so blatently obvious to anyone who can see clearly what is going on.

Go find an Obama supporter and see if you can change their opinion to Clinton. I dare you.

"What is truly tragic with some Clinton fans is that they have to pull out the "Hannity" card if any dare put scrutiny on their precious candidate."

No, that just gets pulled with you personally. And with good reason, just the other day you felt it necessary to bring up McCarthy in a thread about RFK JR's Hillary endorsement. You a slight step above Ethel and ILP who actually post rw garbage. You just act like them.

You took the RFK-McCarthy thing out of context. If you look at the post, it was showing how people such and RFK, Jr. and the Clintons are good friends. Maybe it's the Cape thing...whatever... And as an aside, I mentioned that RFK and McCarthy had worked together in 1953 as a point that in politics, there are sometimes strange bedfellows. That was the point. You can take it out of context if you want. I don't teally care what you do.

As for the Hannity Retread Tactic, that's an out of ammo argument from Clinton fans. I hate Hannity, don't listen to him, whatever... If someone takes the Clinton "possibility" under scrutiny here at DU and elsewhere, that seems to be a common ruse to try to change the argument or just flat out ignore what is being said.

See if you can turn someone who supports another candidate where you live to Clinton. Tell us about it.

I have not met one Clinton supporter. But maybe I should get out more. ;)

Just one zip code:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=C844E&txtState=(all%20states)&txtZip=92101&txtCand=clinton&txt2008=Y&Order=N

Maybe you know some of them!

http://www.opensecrets.org/ziplookup/index.php?zip=92124&Submit=Go%21

San Diego is a big city with plenty of "Corporate Donors" to contribute through employees.

Of the 11 Clinton donations in zip 92101 (downtown):
- a self-employed attorney
- an county airport employee
- a retired person
- a self-employed author (twice)

So 5 out of the 11 are clearly NOT "corporate donors", and some of the others might not be also.

Nice Republican talking points and in keeping with that they are false also.

That's a challenge I offer you.

As for the obvious sycophantic diatribe that putting Clinton under scrutiny is "a Republican talking point", it's vacuous as vapor. Nothing but vapor.

And I don't recall Obama using your talking point, but I recall lots of Republicans using it. Maybe you have more in common with them than him. If not, change your tactic.

She's not too popular in Berkeley. I wonder why... :shrug:

Not so much now.

I'm a TERRIBLE influence.

He'll still vote for her in the General, like myself, but... :shrug:

Hillary Clinton on Health Care

Voting Record

• Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate. (Feb 2001)
  
• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  
• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
  
• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
  
• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
  
• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
  
• Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
  
• Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
  
• Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
  
• Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
  
• Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
  
• Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
  
• End government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
  

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

After failing in 1993, the Clinton administration did very little to stop the increasing costs and reform that health care needed. Why do you think we are in the sorry state of healthcare now?

I understand her healthcare record since Senator. It's good, but so is Obama's.

Or did you leave at at she failed then has done nothing?

Do me a favor and send your friend this thread.

In 1997 (That's still the 1990s to you, correct?) The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was founded by Senator Ted Kennedy and First Lady Hillary Clinton.

This was huge.

In January 2001, when the corrupt Bush administration began its rape of our nation, my husband and I were paying $3,000.00/year for the same coverage we now pay $14,000.00/year, seven years later. The fact that you attempt to blame Hillary for this fiasco of Bush's could make some think your attack against Hillary was speciously deceptive, at best.

I WILL NOT support any candidate in the Democratic primary who voted for the IWR or voiced support for it. This includes all the declared candidates except Kucinich, Gravel, and Obama.

Edwards can offer humble mea culpas for his vote on a daily basis, but that doesn't change the fact that he showed abysmal judgement on what was probably the most important vote of his life, and if Hillary's eperience (including her Senate voting record) is being held up as a major criteria, then it is to her major detriment.

check out Hillary vote on recent Iran amendmend

the more people know, the less likely they are to vote for hillary...

Good job. :hi:

Good luck! :rofl:

NPR Poll - Dems lead by 13 -- Hillary drags us down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3603082

doesn't do any better than YOUR corporate candidate?

It sure as hell worked for me.

your dialogue is indicative of that

Name recognition, reputation (as a liberal). And the idea of having a woman for president IS really appealing. I, for one, wish I could more strongly support Obama or Clinton because of the big step it would be to have either one as president (and I may vote for Obama in the primary yet), but from what I know, neither candidate can be my first choice.

In my part of the woods, I have a different problem.
I live in a very rural area of a Red State.
No one here supports Hillary.

I don't have many neighbors, but those I have are: "Bush fights the terrasts and there hasn't been another attack blah, blah, blah", or they are Christian EndTimers "...blah...blah...blah."



Most of my few neighbors know I'm a Democrat, and automatically assume I'm for Hillary.
They are shocked that I strongly oppose her because she's way too conservative.
That statement puts them in shock, and opens a door to Issues of Economic Populism and Government by BIG Corpo. They seem to lap that stuff up....a common enemy.

I've been able to make some general inroads, especially on Economic Issues. I don't think any of them are ready to vote for a REAL Populist Democrat, but they are curious about the fact that there IS a Democratic Party beyond the Clintons. None of them had ever heard the name Kucinich before I mentioned it.

I do have a handful of Liberal friends who have moved back into these woods looking for a more sustainable, clean lifestyle. (There are more than I expected and I love running across them). They are very knowledgeable of The Issues (thanks INet), and NONE support Hillary.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

You don't know for sure who this woman will vote for.

"failed health care reform" is Clinton's fault? Apparently you were too young /too old / or have a lack of memory of what happened. She did all she could and more. Look back at history before you blame her for that...

And the idea that she is "polarizing" gives the Republicans the power. Because they will swiftboat her, we can't elect her? It is naive to think that she would be the only one swiftboated (look at Kerry and Cleland). That is another lie perpetuated by republicans--and apparently dems.