Hillary’s bad debate performance was corporate-media hype.

At the time she looked good and then the CM feeding frenzy began.



Didn’t something like this happen to Al Gore in 1999??? YES!!! I just hope the American people don’t fall for this kind of crap again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711100004?f=s_search

Great article!!!

k&r

I recall a similar story that detailed how, immediately after the first Gore/Bush debate and into the next morning, pundits generally agreed Gore won. Then they starting harping on his "sighs" and such and by the next day, people were saying Bush won.

It's not buying the hype when you watch it with your own eyes and think it before anyone tells you to think it.I didn't follow anyone's opinion but my own.

The difference between this debate and Gore's was that Gore actually did great.Hillary didn't.

She answered all questions correctly including Russet potatoes DL question.

:shrug:

But many of us didn't, even though I thought she easily won the first two debates I watched, and was solid in the third one.

than you are now.

BTW - the debate afterspin is why it is so important for a Democrat to win debates DECISIVELY so they cannot be easily spun.

No wonder TeamClinton didn't want Kerry on stage with Hillary in 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

the entire event is digested and reconsidered. In this case, one of the reasons presented to make Senator Clinton our candidate is that she doesn't make mistakes and she can't be swift boated. Thus, if she can't kill the notion that she did badly in the debate, it calls into question her entire platform.

double talk. She brought it on herself. I didn't need anyone to tell me how she did. All I kept thinking was, "Matthews better not declare Hillary the winner THIS time. She dodged, evaded, and dodged some more.

And her driver license answer was correct. Last I heard the president dose not issue drivers licenses so the question was a dumb one to begin with.

because the federal government has dropped the ball. The point she was making (which most lying eyes did not pick up) has nothing to do with drivers license it has to do with the failure of the federal government to come up with a progressive immigration policy. The President dose not issue drivers licenses.

tasty.

notice how quickly you swallowed that.

and I thought her response was "on the one hand this, on the other hand that" which is,IMHO, not really equivocating. She just saw two sides to the issue. And you are right, she opened up the real question which is why both the Admin and Congress had failed to come up with an overall comprehensive immigration reform plan. And, as you so importantly point out, she showed sensitivity to a state issue (HER state, so shouldn't she be concerned?). I guess you and I are out of touch here, or maybe just me. Mostly, I try to avoid these threads but...

if that's what we truly are.
I just think that we are the only ones with excellent critical analysis skills.:think:

Some people I see here will say anything bad about Hillary just because she's Hillary and that has nothing to do with her skills and performance on that debate night.

They'll just gather some new dung to fling after the next debate.

she said she thought it (Sptizer's plan) was a good idea. Then she DENIED saying it was a good idea. Then she said it's a good idea.

She said in an article that it made allot of sense. Is that an endorsement of any specific plan? No. Her point is that it makes sense for governors to try and close the gap between federal policy and the reality with illegal immigrants in their states.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x66157

it made a lot of sense, then she said it made a lot of sense again.

Especially if you see things through rose colored, I mean Obama colored glasses. Its not the driver’s license plan that makes sense it’s the effort to deal with illegal immigration at the state level that makes sense. Get it?

Try watching it again.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x66157

She came out in favor of Spitzer's plan after saying she wasn't in favor of it. She was trying to have it both ways with her evasive language. Saying "it makes a lot of sense" does NOT mean she's for it...until the next day when she put out a statement saying she's for it. Got it.

The script for Hillary's Presidency has already been written. Even if she walks on water, you can bet no one will report it (other than Keith Olbermann). Meanwhile, the anti-Hillarites will be trotting over here every day, repeating the mainstream story--just as they repeated the one about Hillary's imaginary debate fiasco.

Drudge will have a new following.

.

:puke:

They keep giving new ammo., so people keep talking about it.

even those who, in the past gave her reluctant credit.

lol

that were liveblogged here. My point is that even those likely to give her credit for a good performance did not believe she performed well at all in the last debate.

Mix. The Socks the cat "being mistreated" just because the Clinton family got Socks a new home --that snafu disgusted me. When DU'ers headlined that story - I thought Socks had been the victim of some calamity. Not that Socks ended up in a caring home.

The thing about Hillary's laugh being a cackle. Etc.

And my review of this debate is mixed. I thought that she waffled a bit, but ya know, not all answers should be sound bytes of 30 seconds or less.

are you gonna listen to me or your lying eyes?

LOL

:)

I never missed a thing, and I saw her bad debate performance.

Since even she admits she wasnt on top of her game.

some times its best to roll with the punches and move on.

So what?

She doesn't deserve front-runner status - the mainstream media gave it to her. So now the Hillary-bots whine when the media tries to take it away. It's truly hard to feel bad for her about this. Maybe if she actually took meaningful positions on issues that aren't driven by her allegiance to corporations and AIPAC she could be a legitimate front-runner.

As it is, cry me a river.

If I wanted another Republican to be president, I'd just switch parties.

the far left nutcases, are republicans.
Or, maybe if they haven’t seen a UFO they are republicans. Or, if they don’t run from there record they are republicans.

The post is about those that did not see the debate (80% of voters) but will buy what CM is selling. Is that fare? “Her debate performance was a train wreck”? I think most reasonable people that watched it would not characterize it that way.

It was bad. :shrug:

The corporate media hasn't been overly fair to any of our candidates, but that doesn't mean that Hillary did well.She didn't.This is just spin well after the fact, imo.

The fact that the CM is not fair to all the candidates makes my point. Hillary’s is the target because she is in the lead. That’s boring to report day after day. A Hillary blow out will not generate ratings but a CM trash job will.

I don't reach my opinions through the consensus of strangers.That's for simpletons.You're trying to say the media is to blame for her bad performance, but it's not.Russert was a dick to all of them, but she's the one that stumbled.

It's not the end of the world, and Hillary supporters should recognize that and move on instead of trying to spin this as an unfair attack on her and her alone.Especially when many of her supporters have touted her toughness and ability to handle attacks.Judging by the response from them over this debate I think that's now a questionable assertion.

That’s your opinion. But it would be incorrect, in my opinion. I never said a consensus was how you reach your opinions. Although the way you reach your opinion seems flawed (in my opinion). My opinion is that she won the debate and that her debate performance was mischaracterized buy the CM. In my opinion the ones that lost the debate were mischaracterized as well. They were characterized the winners. Which in my opinion is false.

Opinionly speaking

Be something if we were both wrong, wouldn't it? :D

Yes, there was Clinton not doing a good job and being confusing on several responses...and Edwards...and Obama... but it seemed like the other candidates were called on every half hour...

On the subject of live-blogging a debate, I prefer being in a setting where supporters of several candidates are in the same room..since a lot of the responses are subjective for the most part.

What great work they do! It's a service to us all.

thought Hillary's performance was an absolute embarrassment. If a Repug had been that evasive and equivocating, we'd be all over him for a variety of good reasons. It amazes me to see so many people try to defend that performance, even on an all-Democrat site.

The whining about "piling on" was equally pathetic.

Hillary's debate performance was a joke, and if the corporate media is claiming the same then i'd say they finally got one right. I only hope that some of the other candidates, Obama in particular, rip her again for it tomorrow and score some points.

Please, PLEASE, someone knock her out of the race.

Not going to happen. She has a big lead for a reason. She is the best qualified. Period. No one will be able to get a progressive agenda pushed though congress except the Clintons. Any body else is in danger of a 4 and out.

She'll be a "4 and out."

I'm still trying to figure out how she is more qualified than Biden, Richardson, Dodd, and yes, Kucinich. I just don't see it.

Biden, no executive experience. Richardson, Iraq war plan and he is already running for VP. Dodd, no executive experience. Kucinich, UFO; shell I say more?

was the subject of an accusation like this: "his only international experience was eating at IHOP." Would you have disqualified him for that back then?

I don't see Hillary as any more qualified than Biden or Dodd, but I personally do see her as far less preferable than any other Dem running.

As far as Kucinich and the UFO, that's one big target, agreed - but Hillary has plenty of medium-sized ones which, when added up, easily cancel out the UFO horse which can only be beaten so far before the Repugs start to look unoriginal and desperate.

I think I get where you're coming from.

probably better than you wanted me to, but so be it.

That's the truth!

She managed a staff of 20 plus. She was also a law partner in the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., where she served some of the firm's biggest clients and was described as a "rainmaker" who found new clients. That gives her more executive experience then Dodd and Biden put together.

she can do it, either. I'd rather have someone in the White House that I like and trust than someone who can't answer a straight question, needs softballs planted for her and refuses to admit that voting for the war was a mistake.

The thing is that I don't trust or believe a word she says. I don't know that she'll even try to put forth a progressive agenda on anything except health care, and based on her 1993 plan (which I read cover to cover), I don't even want her trying that. sure, her new offering would have to be a bit different, but the draconian shit in her first plan shows me what she really wants.

I say again: someone PLEASE knock her out of the race. Hell, I'd rather have Lieberman in the White House than her. He wouldn't bring troops home, but I don't think she will either.

instead of running away from it. After being in the white house for 8 years her vote at the time made sense. There is no do-over you cant take it back, All you can do is live up to it and take responsibility. That sound like a leader to me.

Gorge Bush was trusted and liked as well but when it came down to governing he sucked. All of her answers have been appropriate and showed reason and common sense.

Tell me how these other candidates will be able to push their agendas through congress. How would you convince congress to scrap an entire industry to make way for government run healthcare. Social security took more then a decade. To think that all these other plans that sound great and grandiose and can be pushed through congress in 4 or even 8 years is foolish and defies common sense. The only way to make real change is in small steps.

To me, real courage is admitting you screwed up. John Edwards did that. Hillary didn't and never will.

Here's how "courageous" Hillary is: Just AFTER Eliot Spitzer scrapped the plan to give driver's licenses to illegals, she came out against the idea. (http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=D8STMI381&show_article=1&catnum=0) Wow, what a set of stones she has. :sarcasm:

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me, despite your repeated references to "sense" and "common sense." First no other candidate can get their agendas pushed through Congress, but then you go on to say that the only way to make real change is small steps. If that's the case, how would Hillary get her agenda pushed through Congress, especially her health care ideas? How does your paragraph demonstrate that Hillary would be better than, say, Obaama?

At any rate, if you truly think "all of her answers have been appropriate and showed reason and common sense," that's probably as far as we can go in a rational conversation.

Lastly, as an aside, I don't want universal health care. Increasing help to the poor would be great, but government-run health care would be a disaster. The government can't even take care of active-duty soldiers (let alone veterans), even though the number of active-duty soldiers is established by Congress and well-known. If the government can't handle that properly (not to mention the problems with Medicare and Medicaid), why would anyone with the common sense you repeatedly refer to want the government to run the show for the entire country?

after he didn’t show courage in his first run for the white house. And before that he showed courage or didn’t he with the original vote. I am confused as to when he did or didn’t show courage. I know one thing Edwards has shown courage in and that’s running from his record.

Here is the definition of “mistake” an incorrect, unwise, or unfortunate act or decision caused by bad judgment

I put to you that in October of 2002 the vote for IWR was the correct vote. The information available at the time dictated a yes vote. That being said, at the time, Hillary did not display bad judgment, therefore no apology is warranted. In my opinion it takes courage NOT to give in to the extreme left or to the republicans that will play that vote against you for political gain. If changing your mind and apologizing for some thing that you didn’t need to apologize for is courage’s. I have a bridge for sale. I assert that John Edwards’s change of mind for political expediency is in my opinion cowardice.

Concerning the driver’s license debate, there is no debate. The president of the United States dose not issue drivers licenses. The fact that she has said she is against it is consistent to what she said before. Her statement in Philadelphia was that Spitzers effort to deal with the undocumented workers in his state because the federal government has not; makes sense. Its not the driver’s license plan that makes sense it’s the effort to deal with illegal immigration at the state level that makes sense. Get it? She never indorsed the specific plan of drivers license for undocumented immigrants. Therefore her statement yesterday is a clarification to those who did not understand her answer in the first place.

I think Obama’s proposals have merit and he and Hillary’s plans are very similar. Her significant experience gives her the advantage when it comes to putting through an agenda.

Unlike you I feel health care for all at no charge is a right, a right that is written in to the declaration of independence.



Life and health is the same thing. Hopefully healthcare for profit will be eliminated. When you say the government could not run health care you are talking about the people. We live in a democratic republic were the government is the people. The screed that government is your enemy is right out of the republican playbook. I on the other hand think we can provide for our basic rights if done correctly and with common sense.

I've never seen anyone other than Hillary fight so hard to defend her war vote. No sale, but nice try - I don't really agree with what you said about Edwards changing his stance being "cowardice," but I admit I can see why some would take it as political expediency.

The problem is that this is exactly what I think of Hillary's refusal to admit she was wrong and of her vote to begin with. See, we're not going to agree because I completely disagree with your "the information available at the time dictated a yes vote." No, the political pressure, the non-stop flag waving and the timing did. I don't think Hillary though the war was the right thing to do at all - I think she was afraid to vote against it so soon after 9/11, and to me that's a classic example of political expediency.

As for your "life and health are the same thing," a line of reasoning that I couldn't disagree with more - shouldn't we start making organ donations mandatory? After all, what right does anyone have to take a healthy organ to his or her grave if someone else could use it?

The information available at the time did dictate a yes vote. Here is why. Saddam Hussein had shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, had done everything in his power between 1991 and 1998 to thwart weapons inspectors, had ended all cooperation with inspectors and the U.N. in 1998, and not one inspector had set foot in Iraq in the four years running up to the IWR vote. In addition, Congress was receiving very explicit and detailed information from the CIA that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical and biological weapons programs, and was pursuing a nuclear one. Even IWR opponents acknowledged this.






Excerpt of Hillary Clinton’s floor speech on the day of the vote



Hillary voted for the IWR to get inspectors back in to Iraq. This would have had to happen eventually, no mater who was president. Hillary, like most Democrats who voted for the IWR, has said very explicitly that had they known then what they know now, they never would have supported it. In other words had they known George Bush was lying about the reasons for the IWR, that the evidence for WMDs was being cooked up to support a predetermined policy, and that Bush had not intention of pursuing further inspections, they certainly would not have voted for it. In other words, they put the blame where it properly belongs…with George Bush. That being said, at the time, Hillary did not display bad judgment, therefore no apology is warranted.

Your analogy of organ donation is ridicules. The forefathers also provide for personal freedoms in our constitution. Life is health as far as health care is concerned. I suppose you think we should run our police and fire departments at a profit as well. How about running the military at a profit. There is profit in war but it’s not the taxpayer reaping it. Basic health care should be a right provided for and by the people.

You and I don't agree on anything we're discussing at all, that's for sure. If you think that Hillary's vote was correct at the time instead of political posturing (I certainly don't), the one thing I think we can agree on is that there isn't anything we could say to convince each other.

If you believe that the idea that health care = the right to life (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then the same thing applies.

My analogy of organ donation was basically a fishing expedition because I so strongly disagree with your Delcaration of Independence / life / health care notion that I just wanted to see where you stood. I wouldn't have been surprised with any answer you gave because I find the notion of the Declaration of Independence guaranteeing health care so bizarre, but I was hoping for something a bit more detailed than "Your analogy of organ donation is ridicules."

No such luck, but I'll ask ona couple more things just for the hell of it. Please note that these questions are not facetious.

1.) Assume for a moment that John Doe is horrifically ugly and grossly overweight - no chance of a significant relationship whatsoever, and tremendous problems getting a job. If health care = life, would optional surgery such as plastic surgery and liposuction = pursuit of happiness? If the answer to that is yes, should the taxpayers also be on the hook if the obesity was caused byown fault?

2.) Also, should sex change operations be covered by taxpayers if the patient is perfectly healthy? This wouldn't fall under your "life" bit, but it would certainly be a "pursuit of happiness" thing - something guaranteed in the same line as "life" was.

As far as Hillary, if you have anything else to add, feel free to have the last word on her - we're so far apart that I don't see the point in discussing her anymore. You believe what she says, I don't. I'll wind up voting for her if she wins the nomination because the GOP opposition is guaranteed to be worse, but I'll be holding my nose and carrying a bag to puke in just in case I don't make it from the booth to the basket. I wouldn't trust her to make change for a dollar for me, much less tell me the truth.

I'll check back on Monday at the latest to see if you wanted to answer. Obviously, no obligation, I'm just curious to see how you answer, if you do. It's been a long time since I've been so far apart with someone and still found the conversation interesting; usually my counterpart is some Repug who simply claims I hate America because I don't support the war and never have.

Have a good weekend.

- Z

As you may or may not know Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 at the urging of the continental congress “comity of five” (John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut) for which he was a part of. Several drafts of this document were written before the final document was adopted on July 4 1776. Thomas Jefferson in writing the DOI drew upon influence of renowned individuals of the day, Individuals like 17th century philosopher John Locke, Thomas Paine and his pamphlet called “Common Sense” Published in 1774, It was pain that Jefferson derived the influence to right in the DOI “Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” The intent of the preamble of the DOI was to proclaim the role of the new government by the people. Here is the next line in the preamble of DOI: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” The governed meaning you and me.

Before I answer you questions, lets deal with a couple definitions.

Life: “ability to take in food, adapt to the environment, grow, and reproduce.”

If you are sick and dieing and you do not have access to basic health care your right to life outlined in the preamble of the DOI is violated.

Liberty: “the freedom to think or act without being constrained by necessity or force.”

To a great deal we enjoy this right pretty much unfettered with the exception of people who are forced to act because their right to life is violated. Those that have their homes foreclosed because of medical bills or those that die because they did not have access to health care could be seen as having their right to liberty violated.

Question 1) & 2) are pretty much the same. Since 1) also deals with a life threatening medical condition I will address that one.



1) “Assume for a moment that John Doe is horrifically ugly and grossly overweight” First of all, ugly is subjective and would not apply because looks are in the eye of the beholder. That being said is John Doe entitled to life saving health care such as Gastric bypass surgery? Yes. Liposuction is cosmetic and voluntary and should not be paid for by you and me. The way you describe “= pursuit of happiness” dose not apply in the context of our rights outlined in the DOI. As I stated earlier, Jefferson derived influence from Thomas Paine. In his pamphlet Common Sense, pain coined the phrase “Life liberty and the pursuit of Property”. Jefferson changed the wording to “Happiness” but the meaning was still the same. The question of whether Happiness meant emotional fulfillment or economic vocation was setteld by the Supreme Court in 1884.



Therefore the desires for elective surgery in the pursuit of happiness (emotional fulfillment) dose not apply. The pursuit of happiness in the context of the DOI means the government will provide and maintain an environment conducive to commerce and economic vocation.

In the later half of the 1700’s the medical system was primitive to non-existent and not in the forethought of the fathers of our country. However in their wisdom and the way they worded the DOI, Constitution and Bill of Rights transcends time and provides for all of our basic rights including the right to life.

With that I leave you with a quote. Call it an investment strategy.

"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
Benjamin Franklin
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

Appreciate the answer.

Again, nice try, but a.) I still don't see how "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" means that health care is a guaranteed right, and b.) if you're going to stick with the definition you give of "liberty," I can can think of many ways in which we're being deprived of it.

The government, then, obviously does not let your choice of dictionary guide it. If your analyses of your chosen definitions had legal legs to stand on, I suspect we'd have heard them trumpeted by every prominent Democrat politician for decades by now.

Then again, you and I see things way differently to begin with. For example, you took my original words about universal health care some twisted way that I never would have seen coming and responded with this: "The screed that government is your enemy is right out of the republican playbook..." I wrote no such screed and yet chose to blow off your words at the time, but after your "investment strategy" remark I'd like to point out that even at only 53 posts, you should know better than to throw that lame old staple at someone who fails to agree with your every point. Is EVERY Democrat REQUIRED to want universal health care in your world? If so, am I also a Republican for being pro-gun even though I'm pro-choice and don't want religion anywhere near our schools? If so, what color is the sky in your world?

Lastly, I have to way of knowing if the quote / "investment strategy" you left me was some sort of hint - implying that I'm not educated enough to understand your lofty thinking, for example - but given the return we're getting on the billions we pour into public schools I would say that Mr. Franklin's use of the word "always" is as incorrect as it gets. Tell me, is that also a "government is your enemy is right out of the republican playbook" screed?

I am sorry, I did not mean to offend you. Your education level is probably higher then mine. The reference to the Franklin quote has more to do with thought process then it does with book smarts, plus it’s the only quote I could come up with. A bad choice? Probably.

I never said “Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” guaranteed us the right to health care. I said, “I feel health care for all at no charge is a right, a right that is written in to the declaration of independence.” Is it a constitutional right? No, but it is a right that there can be no debate. Not only is it an American right, health care is a human right. You may not think we have this right and you would be wrong. You may not think it’s guaranteed, and you would be right. Right now in America, the last super-power on the planet, health care is a privilege, a privilege only guaranteed to the rich. The only people that benefit from our current health care system are the ones that sit in the boardrooms of big insurance and big pharmaceuticals. You say you want to help the poor. That’s a good idea but how about helping the middle class as well. I don’t know what your financial standing is but for argument sake lets say its middle class. You think you have great insurance? Think again, because the company that is providing for your health care would do every thing in its power to NOT pay your claims in the name of profit, or NOT authorize that life saving procedure because they labeled it “experimental” in the name of profit. You would still have the procedure done but you would be paying for it the rest of your life. That is not the “right” that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine envisioned when they were formulating the declaration of independence and taking those first steps to lay down the seeds of our democracy.

Here is how it works for the poor of America. In a way every one is already guaranteed health care, by law. If you are with out any money and you are with out insurance and you become ill. It is against the law for you to be turned away for care. Who is paying for that? You and me. You see, in a way, we already have universal health care, a very inefficient and one-sided health care but universal health care.

As far as my comment on the republican playbook, that was my fishing expedition. Even though you didn’t respond to it then, I will respond to you brining it up now. The statement was not a dig but a point of observation. The Republican Party has made it a cornerstone of their platform that small government less regulation and lower taxes is good. The result is f*#k you to the states, less regulation for their corporate buddies and less tax for the rich. Not only that but the politicians that are elected from that party take over a government that they do not agree with. They proceed to break it then say, “See! It doesn’t work!” This all started with Ronald Regan and has been that way ever since. I feel government can undertake universal health care they just need the right people in charge and need to take it in steps.

Not sure what your point is on the education thing. Maybe you can enlighten me.

As far as the rest of your statements, “what color is the sky in your world?” A very funny line from Cheers. I loved that show. On religion and pro-choice, we can agree on that 100%. The point about being pro-gun. All I have to say on that is the second amendment to the constitution was speaking of a regulated militia not an individuals right to bear arms.

Have a great Thanksgiving!
B

If I were truly offended regarding the education remark, one of two things would have happened: you would have known immediately (when I'm offended, I'm not polite at all), or my post in response would have been deleted before you got a chance to see it. I simply didn't know what you meant - I had a logical assumption to work with, but we all know what happens when one assumes, which is why I brought it up. Thanks for clarifying.

In response to your "I never said 'Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' guaranteed us the right to health care," I apologize. I took it to mean you meant it was (or at least was meant to be) a guarantee.

However, in response to your "No, but it is a right that there can be no debate," this is where we disagree. I think providing health care to all is the decent, proper and compassionate thing to do (we can agree to disagree as to how it would be done; I think having the government run the whole show would be a disaster - remember, Republicans run the government every now and then), but I do not consider it a RIGHT. A "right," in my view, is something you have which in no way infringes on others - even financially. You have a right to freedom of speech, but not a right to a guaranteed (much less approving) audience - something that the Dixie Chicks seem to have forgotten (I personally approve of what they said, but booing and / or cutting off airplay is also freedom of speech, like it or not - and I admit that in this case I don't like it). You have a right to freedom of travel, but not the right to expect a free car or free tickets on Delta Airlines. Not perfect examples, but I'd bet you'll know where I'm going with this.

Similarly, health care is something that you SHOULD have in a decent society, but others still have to pay for it. Seemingly a small hurdle in a compassionate society, but I'll give you an example of my attitude on this: anyone who has clearly messed up their body with cigarettes (full disclosure: I'm a smoker), alcohol (full disclosure: I do like my beer) or drugs (no full disclosure necessary here: I'm a virgin when it comes to illegal narcotics) and / or has messed up their body by eating at McDonalds every day for years has no right to demand that you or I shell out money to bail them out for years and years of stupidity. Not the best example, but here goes: what if someone you love has liver cancer but has to wait behind someone who got on the waiting list first despite 30-40 years of hardcore drinking? Why does the lush have a RIGHT to a new liver first?

While I'm in full disclosure mode, you should know this: I'm 44 and I was a Republican up to 1991 or 1992. Bush 41 cleared up a shitload for me, believe me. Lots of things have changed since my misguided "Reagan is God" era for me, but there are some traces of fiscal conservatism that are still there (and the gun thing, of course, but that's another matter). If someone is ill through no fault of their own, they need and should get society's help - through a combination, in my view, of SOME government programs, some tax credits, some charity and so on (I will never sign off on universal health care because I have no confidence that the government could handle it, but you get the idea - basically, I'm on your side, we simply disagree on the way to attack the problem).

As for the "Republican playbook" thing, please note that I'm not saying the sort of "fuck 'em,, let charity handle it - and if that doesn't work, it simply means society has voted it down" thing that I hear so often. I never once said "government is the enemy," as I took your words to attribute to me - I simply say that in terms of universal health care, I do NOT trust the government to handle it entirely. My stance: more programs for the poor (which would involve the same government youseem to think I consider the "enemy") so that insurance is available to everyone in one form or another, but not one massive program that everyone is roped into. Government, as I said before, can't handle health care for active duty soldiers and vets, so why would I trust it to take care of 300 million people? Here's the thing: you may disagree with me on that point, but if we ever switch to universal health care and it turns out that I'm right in my notion that it would turn into a massive clusterfuck (as I'd bet anything I owned that I am), there's no turning back once the universal system is in place. I often wonder why people who advicate more social programs for the poor are so quick to want to jump to an all-encompassing program instead of a few new ones (you know all the old quotes about how change for the better has to come gradually, I assume).

You're right that in one way health care is universal given unpaid medical bills and all, but can you give me an example of how a program run by the same people who fucked up New Orleans rescue efforts would solve the problem? Go to my MySpace page, you'll see that I spent years in Canada. My parents moved here because they couldn't get seen by doctors. My father finally made the call after being told that he'd need to wait 16 months for hip replacement surgery. If Canada - a country far more progressive than ours - can't do the job with a tenth of our population, why would you want to trust our government to handle it?

Sure, if we had a guarantee that the government would be run by Democrats until the end of time, I'd be willing to at least consider it - but what happens when Republicans run it? Look at Bush and SCHIP and tell me you feel comfortable letting the feds run the whole thing. Think of this: Democrats win in 2008 and 2012, but while the universal system is still in some degree of growing pains mode Republicans take over. Might as well give up the idea of doctor visits completely at that point - can you imagine the cutbacks we'd suffer in the name of so-called "fiscal responsibility?"

Wrapping up, since it's miles past my bedtime:

1.) My remark regarding education was merely an aside reflecting my opinion on programs like NCLB. Throwing money at bad education programs like what there is in D.C. (basically in my backyard, I live in Laurel, MD) doesn't work if the decisions are being made by stupid assholes. This is what I meant when I said Franklin's use of the word "always" was misplaced. I have friends who have kids in the school systems in MD, DC and VA, and I can't begin to tell you how sad this is. The most money in the area per student is spent in DC, and their schools are a fucking disaster. The kids I'm referring to are in high school and can't calculate a 20% tip in a restaurant without using the calculators on their cell phones.

2.) The militia wasn't much "regulated" at all; the definition of "militia" in most states back then was "any able-bodied man between 17-45." However, if we're going to debate the Second Amendment it's probably best done in another thread or via PM. The one thing I know is that I spit upon anyone who wants my vote even though he or she openly states his or her intent to disarm me, and I scoff at those who claim "uh, golly, we don't want to disarm hunters." If you ever needed a good case for individual gun rights, look at what we've dealt with since January of 2001. Further, having lived in D.C,. for years - where there's a gun ban that I happily ignored for the entire time - I eventualy moved to Maryland after suffering my second armed intrusion (in a supposedly "crime free" area like Woodley Park). If not for being armed myself, we might not be having this conversation. I look at gun bans as victim disarmament (BTW, in THIS case if you want to accuse me of reading from the Republican playbook, I won't argue - this is one area where I actually agree with the Repugs) and a form of OSHA for criminals. If we're ever going to a gun ban, count on me not to obey that law.

3.) Kudos to you on recognizing Frasier Crane's remark to Cliff Clavin. After I wrote it I felt kind of bad because I didn't mean to be that snide, but upon reading my post a while later (seeing if you responded), I realized you could have taken it that way. Thanks for being cool enough not to do so.

4.) Religion and pro-choice - nice to know we do have some common ground :)

That's it, friend. I wish you a good Thanksgiving as well, and I should add that I'm really enjoying this coversation. Muchos Gracias.

R

Let's not rewrite herstory.

Does the media sensationalize? Does Dubya lie to Americans? But all of the candidates suffer from the idiot, dollar-hugging news media. Hell, I support Joe Biden, who is obviously the most qualified candidate running, and the media just ignores him. What does Hillary have to complain about, she's the front runner with the most money? Give me a break. First it's the "boys" picking on her, now it's the news media picking on her. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, because what the Republicans do to her in the general election will make this period look like prom night.

That is right on truth. Alot of people have confused that bs spin for the reality they themselves saw.


Thanks for this.


:kick:

the media that created her legend is now in the early stages of destroying it.

this or my own lying eyes?

I stopped doing that while watching the ramp up to Iraq. I'm not a Clinton supporter, and after watching, I think I can objectively say it was not her best performance so far, in this long and tedious debate season.

But man, CAN WE STOP EXPECTING TOTAL PERFECTION FROM ALL OF OUR CANDIDATES.

She was not "disastrous" or "shrill" or "largely emotionless and detached." Give me a break. That's what turned me off to the talking heads.

We might be smarter than that. Joe Sixpack is not.

MSM seems to pick the candidates now, and I believe they still want her. At least they are talking about her and it's not always bad. My guy can barley get a word in edge-wise, unless it's about how "angry" he is. (Remember what they did to the great populace candidate Dean?)

Any-hoo, a long way of trying to show a little love for Hillary, we may have to live with her and support her as the Democratic nominee. So keep fighting guys. Tell Joe Sixpack the media doesn't know shit.

Good luck guys.

I can't wait to see how she rocks the boat with John Edwards tomorrow night when she exacts vengeance upon him if he dares attack her again, which I doubt he'll do because he knows that she won't continue ignoring his feeble insults forever.

C'mon man, just between us buddies, you know she didn't "kick ass." Right?

I thought she did horribly when watching; in my post-debate writeup I said she was second-worst.

Anytime you want to raise issues here, please feel free. I think many Dems are not paying attention to the point you have raised, but it is very very important.

The last debate performance was (at best) stunningly mediocre compared to her previous showings. The media isn't looking at that single debate performance in a bubble- its all about comparison.

in every form possible.

Richardson. Kucinich could of done better if he was given the opportunity.

I remember when they did the same hatchet job on Al Gore after nearly ALL his debate performances. Some of the criticisms sounded eerily similar to the criticisms they had about Hillary.

Insincere
Wooden
Faltering
Overbearing
Lying
Dressed in "earth" colors to fool people.
Dressed in blue to fool people.

The pundits made so much fun of Gore that everything the media said was taken as truth and everything that came out of Gore's mouth was assumed to be a lie.

Wake up people! Media hype is not truth!

for a high school debate team.

so they will slime her as the B Word---shrill, emotionless, cold, harsh. They have been doing this all year.

Polls show people who watched the debate disagee with the corporate media's fawning over Clinton's recent mediocre performance.

The one upside for Hillary is that any perception that the tables have turned in Iowa puts greater pressure on Obama. The race is becoming increasingly a two way way race as Edwards is clearly slipping. So that puts added pressure on Obama likely increased coverage of what he says and does. In a mano a mano battle I think Hilldog will prevail. Obama does not seem nearly as sharp as her in his responses to the press and she is still in control of teh daily back and forth - i.e. today's spat over the economy started with her and she didn't even mention Obama yet he was forced to take time out to respond to her in name. This only pushes the perception that he is beneath her and I imagine the Hillary people will follow this tactic as long as they can.