As Clinton chances wane, old slights come due

WASHINGTON - When Democratic superdelegate Jim Cooper, a Tennessee congressman, pondered the choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, his thoughts wandered back to 1993. That year, Clinton was trying to change the nation's health system, and Cooper, a moderate Democrat, had a bipartisan healthcare bill of his own that, unlike Clinton's proposal, did not require employers to provide health coverage.

The president's wife, Cooper recalled, was determined to stop her fellow Democrat. "She set up a war room in the White House to defeat me," he said.

Like many superdelegates, Cooper insists that his endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination was driven by Obama's inspiring message. But the Tennessee lawmaker's past disputes with Clinton and her husband certainly made the decision easier.

For Clinton, holding one of the most famous names in Democratic politics has had both advantages and disadvantages as she has sought to persuade superdelegates to make her the nominee. Much of the Democratic establishment jumped to Clinton's side early, rewarding her and her husband for years of friendship and shared political struggles, giving the New York senator a large lead in superdelegates at the beginning of the campaign.

But the reality of the Clintons' relationship with fellow Democrats was always more complicated. As even some Clinton supporters concede, there are many superdelegates who have had issues with the Clintons. And now, when the New York senator most needs the loyalties of her Democratic colleagues, the checkered history of relations between the Clintons and Democratic officials is making the task tougher, say lawmakers and political analysts.

"The Clintons have a lot of enemies, even in the same Democratic establishment that embraced them," said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "Now that it looks like she's done . . . there's not a lot of reason to stick their necks out for her."

more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/18/as_clinton_chances_wane_old_slights_come_due/

...could it actually be that we're dealing with huge egos, not only Clinton's but ALL politicians who might be a tad jealous of never being in the limelight themselves?

I'm just posting an article from today's Globe....Thought it was interesting.

...I just think articles like this are BS...the writer has a theory and he can find plenty of people..since we're talking about DC and huge egos...who felt slighted, as if the sun shines only on them. We're not dealing with normal human egos in DC, and Mr. Cooper could be a major jerk. I don't know...I just don't put much stock in crap like this.

for an article from The Atlantic (?) about how bad their working relationship was. Nevermind, here it is: you'd do well to read it. Also a DU thread on Cooper and Clinton; it ain't pretty.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199501/hillary-clinton-health-plan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4659677

...Patty Solairs ( I think) Hilary's first campaign manager who did a bad job, but there were all sorts of articles about how loyal Hilary is to her friends, and kept Patty on too long blinded by friendship and loyalty. Sort of says the opposite of what this article is saying...both views can't be right...perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps I'm thinking of the awful movie with George Clooney!

had nothing to do with this bill. How about trying to do the best she could have for us instead of being blinded by her 'vision' and accepting no compromise.

Sorry, wrong answer and I'll just bet you didn't bother to read the links, unless you're really Evelyn Wood.

because the original poster's topic is not "cronyism" or "misplaced loyalty" or even "strangely, seemingly, loyal - for reasons unknown".

between 1994 and now can be laid upon his head. He is a totally worthless piece of garbage.

That's pretty harsh.

with facts, references and links. So, go ahead.


Waiting.

which lead to it going down.

But by June of 1993 one of the main market-reform legislators, Representative Jim Cooper, of Tennessee, made clear that he wouldn't buy off. He recommended seeing to insurance reforms first and getting around to universal coverage in a few years. The single-payer group, of course, was not going to agree to that. "At that point," Magaziner said, "we knew that the only way we could try to bridge the chasm was to start a little bit left of center and try to negotiate toward the center."

"Left of center" meant proposing a benefits package a little more generous than what the Administration really wanted, setting the employer's share of total costs a little bit higher, making the limits on insurance premiums a little bit tighter. When the Republican Party lost interest in negotiating, this strategy became a liability, because it made the Clinton plan look more extreme than it was meant to be.

wouldn't. She is the one who deserves your scorn, not Cooper.

But by June of 1993 one of the main market-reform legislators, Representative Jim Cooper, of Tennessee, made clear that he wouldn't buy off. He recommended seeing to insurance reforms first and getting around to universal coverage in a few years. The single-payer group, of course, was not going to agree to that. "At that point," Magaziner said, "we knew that the only way we could try to bridge the chasm was to start a little bit left of center and try to negotiate toward the center."

"Left of center" meant proposing a benefits package a little more generous than what the Administration really wanted, setting the employer's share of total costs a little bit higher, making the limits on insurance premiums a little bit tighter. When the Republican Party lost interest in negotiating, this strategy became a liability, because it made the Clinton plan look more extreme than it was meant to be.

yep he wouldn't compromise not her. Your very own link.

your gal is not what you think she is. So sorry to be the bearer of bad news...


Did you miss the mention of Cooper being demonized by Clinton? From the DU link I provided...

Jim Cooper Was Demonized By Hillary Clinton As Was Anyone With Alternative Health Care Proposals

In 1992, Jim Cooper came up with a health care reform plan that attracted wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House -- 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.

But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.

For that, he was demonized by Hillary Clinton.

much more at the DU link...
*********************************

And then there is, of course, this article, the one I meant to post originally. Very interesting article, and reinforces the notion that it was either Hill's way or the highway.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary/3

big snip...

One Saturday in late September, Schneider, Cooper, and Bill Clinton set out for an early-morning round of golf at the Army-Navy Club. Discussion soon turned to health care. Ever the deal maker, Clinton started probing Cooper for the possibility of a compromise. “Clinton was an artist at negotiation,” says one member of the group. “There was a lot of common ground there, and he had a good sense of the public mood about health care.”

It started to drizzle, so Clinton invited the group back to the White House, where the talk continued into the afternoon over beers. Cooper canceled a trip to Tennessee and kept listening. By the time he left that evening, says the source, “it was very close to a handshake.” Clinton’s parting words were, “Look, I think we can make this work. But Hillary’s leading this, and you’ll need to have a meeting with her.” Cooper agreed.

But when he met with the first lady shortly thereafter, it was as if the golf outing had been just a dream. “She was looking for Jim to surrender 100 percent,” says one source with knowledge of the meeting. “It was brutal,” Cooper told me. Things collapsed quickly, and no deal was struck. Hillary Clinton’s major initiative died ignominiously many months later, without even coming to a vote.

lots more...

I guess? Using your logic.

his sunk health care.

But by June of 1993 one of the main market-reform legislators, Representative Jim Cooper, of Tennessee, made clear that he wouldn't buy off. He recommended seeing to insurance reforms first and getting around to universal coverage in a few years. The single-payer group, of course, was not going to agree to that. "At that point," Magaziner said, "we knew that the only way we could try to bridge the chasm was to start a little bit left of center and try to negotiate toward the center."

"Left of center" meant proposing a benefits package a little more generous than what the Administration really wanted, setting the employer's share of total costs a little bit higher, making the limits on insurance premiums a little bit tighter. When the Republican Party lost interest in negotiating, this strategy became a liability, because it made the Clinton plan look more extreme than it was meant to be.

he had a health plan, she had a health plan, in her zeal to shut down his, neither got through.

even so, I would never dream of blaming Hillary for all the deaths since 1994... that's just looney.

From the other posters very own link

But by June of 1993 one of the main market-reform legislators, Representative Jim Cooper, of Tennessee, made clear that he wouldn't buy off. He recommended seeing to insurance reforms first and getting around to universal coverage in a few years. The single-payer group, of course, was not going to agree to that. "At that point," Magaziner said, "we knew that the only way we could try to bridge the chasm was to start a little bit left of center and try to negotiate toward the center."

"Left of center" meant proposing a benefits package a little more generous than what the Administration really wanted, setting the employer's share of total costs a little bit higher, making the limits on insurance premiums a little bit tighter. When the Republican Party lost interest in negotiating, this strategy became a liability, because it made the Clinton plan look more extreme than it was meant to be.

It was he who wouldn't compromise with her. And, as pointed out up thread, it was directly due to his financial interest in hospitals.

I say you are.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But by June of 1993 one of the main market-reform legislators, Representative Jim Cooper, of Tennessee, made clear that he wouldn't buy off. He recommended seeing to insurance reforms first and getting around to universal coverage in a few years. The single-payer group, of course, was not going to agree to that. "At that point," Magaziner said, "we knew that the only way we could try to bridge the chasm was to start a little bit left of center and try to negotiate toward the center."

"Left of center" meant proposing a benefits package a little more generous than what the Administration really wanted, setting the employer's share of total costs a little bit higher, making the limits on insurance premiums a little bit tighter. When the Republican Party lost interest in negotiating, this strategy became a liability, because it made the Clinton plan look more extreme than it was meant to be.

He had financial interests in hospitals and medical offices, which he didn't disclose and then shut down health reform. He deserves to be hated.

:bounce:

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

:kick:

:kick:

Thanks for posting!

I don't wish bad or harm on the Clintons in general.

However, if they have been throwing their weight around within the Democratic Party and shutting down ideas they don't agree with WHAT DID THEY EXPECT?

Did they smooth over hurt feelings as Clinton supporters are requiring BHO to do? Or did they plow people under who disagreed with them for little or no regard for them?

My favorite quote is this one:



It is what it is.