I have a feeling that, some time during the Repug convention, Obama will announce

[hisownpetard]

that he has asked Hillary to accept the newly created position of Healthcare Czar(ina),
to be the person in charge of bringing universal healthcare to fruition.

Wouldn't that be a good idea? It would also be THE topic of discussion on all the networks,
instead of talking about the Pukes.

[mnhtnbb]

Not a good idea given her failed attempt last time.

[Jakes Progress]

4. Get a little history

under your belt before you parrot the msm meme.

[washingdem]

11. Please educate us.

[mnhtnbb]

12. I suggest YOU get a little history. I'm a retired hospital administrator; hubby is a physician.

We are both supporters of single payer health systems.

Hillary tried to work a deal (behind closed doors) with HMO's. She failed. Miserably.

Get a little history yourself. We watched the whole thing VERY closely.

[Jakes Progress]

16. A little too closely and

from one perspective. What Hillary tried to do - and failed - is to work with all parties. She tried to work across the aisle, tried to be bipartisan, tried to bring the neocons on board. The reason she failed is that you cannot work with those people. She was young, filled with fire about ending partisanship and all working together. She was lied to and blindsided. The republicans agreed to things in meeting, then reneged. So did big insurance. So did the AMA. They all protected their turf and served her up as the goat. She really blew it.

But she blew it by doing all the things that Barack says he will do - getting along, working with everyone, bringing the republicans in. That is why she should be the one to lead this. She has learned that you can't shake hands with the neocon devils. Back then she was looking for the broad, optional choice methodology preferred by the insurance companies because she thought that would make them go along, the same plan Obama offered in the primaries. Hillary now knows a weak, toothless, pay-if-you-feel-like-it plan won't work. Obama has his heart in the right place. So did Hillary eight years ago. We need someone who has been kicked about by the lying corporations and country club doctors to head this up.

I would like a single payer plan too. You think we're going to get one? Just what candidate running is offering to spearhead that dream.

[Raksha]

20. Absolutely right...I truly hope she learned from her mistakes.

Re What Hillary tried to do - and failed - is to work with all parties. She tried to work across the aisle, tried to be bipartisan, tried to bring the neocons on board. The reason she failed is that you cannot work with those people. She was young, filled with fire about ending partisanship and all working together. She was lied to and blindsided. The republicans agreed to things in meeting, then reneged. So did big insurance. So did the AMA. They all protected their turf and served her up as the goat. She really blew it.

Meanwhile the health care situation is even more broken than it was in the '90s, with even more uninsured. It's obvious that SOMETHING has to be done, and the Republicans have no interest in fixing it. Hillary would be a great choice for health czarina if she has learned from her previous mistakes.

[Jakes Progress]

28. One would hope she has.

I followed that "game" with a lot of hope. The neocons have as their primary tenet that government cannot work. If the Clintons had gotten us a working universal health care program, they would again be proven wrong. The put everything they had into that campaign. America want health care so it is a tribute to both their greed and their ability to manipulate us that they stopped it. A true low point in America's history.

[mnhtnbb]

21. Hillary Clinton "young" at 46? Gosh, I'd like to be young again, too. Naive is a better word

I think.

Check out this PBS timeline and note the players.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

I also think Obama is naive to think the Republicans are going to work with him. The only way
we are going to get the change needed in this country is by having a MASSIVE win by Dems.

Look what happened in 2006. Think things were going to change? Half (or more) the elected Dems are bought by the same folks controlling the Repubs.

Follow the money. Use the health care fiasco as an example for what is going to happen to "change"
unless Dems absolutely control the WH and both houses of Congress. The oligarchs are not about
to give up feeding at the trough of government. They've concocted a great scheme of privatizing
profits and socializing losses.

And btw, insulting fellow DU'ers with a different perspective and view of the process isn't exactly
Obamaesque, is it?

[Jakes Progress]

26. Really curious as to what you think

a discussion forum is for? One of the sillier statements I have read here is:

"And btw, insulting fellow DU'ers with a different perspective and view of the process isn't exactly
Obamaesque, is it?"

So having a different perspective of the political process is insulting? Try again. You don't even recognize a different perspective. From your timeline, just what exactly differs from my account? And yes, 46 is young in the world of national level politics. How is it you don't know that? And yes, she was naive. That is usually implied by referring to someone as young when you talk about them being fooled.

But you knew that, didn't you. Just wanted to put in a 2 cent shot at Clinton, but lacked anything substantial. Listen to our candidate and get over this petty crap.

[mnhtnbb]

33. Go back and look at your post #4 in response to my post #1

The OP asked "Wouldn't that be a good idea?"

I responded with my post #1 that I didn't think it would be a good idea.

That is discussion with a different point of view.

You insulted my knowledge of the process and my opinion without regard to where or how it was formed, inferring that I was simply "parroting" the msm meme.

You may think 46 is young; to me it is middle-aged. Naivete can be demonstrated at any age; it is not confined to the young.

I'm not interested in a $.02 shot at Clinton; I am interested in not seeing history repeat itself.
I would prefer to see someone tackle the health care who doesn't have Hillary's baggage on the issues.

That is a difference of opinion. I did not insult the OP. You did insult me. And you insult
Obama when you pretend not to understand the distinction between difference of opinion and personal
insults.

[Jakes Progress]

34. Stop making it about you.

Every time I disagree with you, you say that I am insulting Obama.

If you have a problem with post #3, reply to post #3.

I take it to believe it was insulting that I suggest you get some history on the subject and that I jumped to the conclusion that you lacked knowledge of that situation. My suggestion was curt, but not insulting since I really believed, because you leapt in to attack Hillary, that you did indeed lack knowledge of that situation. That opinion was not assuaged by your claiming to be in the medical field.

History will repeat itself if the people who are in charge have no knowledge of what happened. Hillary does know. She also has the right attitude and the right concepts. Who do you believe would be better?

My statement was not meant as an insult. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

You may not believe that you insulted the OP, but maybe the OP would think so because you disagreed with her as you seem to feel because I disagreed with you. Your post implied that the OP was not well informed, that the OP didn't know enough to have an opinion. You didn't ask why the OP felt that Hillary would be a good person for this. You simply stated that it would be a bad idea because she had failed before. In your statement, you failed to indicate that you had any knowledge of why that failure took place, that you understood how the Health Care attempt of the Clintons was a watershed event in neocon misinformation and manipulation. You still haven't explained why my version of events differs from the information you cited. I could find it insulting that you used a link that agreed with me to try to obfuscate the issue.

My premise is that Hillary and Bill failed to pass universal health care because of a consortium of neocons, big business, and doctors. She was blind sided by liars. She lacked experience. She was too young for the game. We have that situation coming again. The parallels between Bill and Barack are numerous. Obama could not do better than ask Hillary to take another run at it because she is the only person in government who has had experience with the formidable forces that will be arrayed against such an effort.

What part of that do you disagree with?

[mnhtnbb]

36. "What part of that do you disagree with?" Hillary. Period.

I'd prefer to see someone else who didn't try to "fix" health care with fuckin' managed care
systems the first time. I want someone who supports single payer systems to take a run.

Who's that going to be? Probably nobody, given Obama's original stance on health care. I don't like his position, either. I'd rather see a serious overhaul of the system than band-aids applied to the mess we have now.

I disagreed with not only Hillary's approach last time, but also her goal. Managed care provides
incentives to NOT provide appropriate care. I want to see people given appropriate care--including mental health care--not a system run by corporations (including MD's that think medicine is a business)
focused on shareholder ROI.

[Jakes Progress]

37. Oh, well.

Since you don't have any solutions that you think can happen...so long and thanks for playing.

I'm happy I was able to give you an outlet for no practical reason.

Elect Obama/Biden

[knixphan]

29. we're working here in CA to get single-payer

...to be an example for the other 49. States should all start that fight.

http://onecarenow.org/

[Jakes Progress]

31. Good idea.

The neocons think everything happens in their back yard. If half the states have it, the rest will demand it.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. I think she learned a lot from that failure

And that she knows much more now about how Congress really works.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. And that he's paying off her debt. n/t

[TheWraith]

3. He can't pay off her debt. Campaign finance law doesn't allow it. nt

[demwing]

14. I've heard the opposite

can you point to anything that supports your statement? I'd like to clear that up, either way :)

[AZ Criminal JD]

19. A federal campaign has the same limits as an individual

Obama's campaign could contribute $2300.00 but that is it.

[demwing]

25. But it wouldn't have to be a straight contribution

for instance, Obama could make an appeal to his donor base to donate to the "Bail Out Clinton" fund, or some such measure.

Same result, different delivery method.

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. Yes, he could and supposedly he had

But his donors have not responded to the appeal. If he really wanted to help he could turn over his donor list to the Clintons so they could use it to raise funds. He is not going to do that because he isn't interested in actually helping. He just wanted to give an appearance and the Clintons know that.

[TheWraith]

32. He's done that, but it didn't give her a lot of traction.

The Obama donor base is clearly directing all their efforts to feeding the Obama campaign.

What I don't get is why Hillary doesn't just write a book about the campaign if she wants her money back. I'm sure it'd sell.

[madura]

22. lol! thats like someone attacking you and breaks their baseball on your head,

then insist you pay for the broken bat!

crazy people with crazy idea, whaddya do.

[SteelPenguin]

2. They'd be saying he's presumptuous

Creating, ie Expanding and growing the government, before he's even elected. They'd call him presumptuous for doing it before he's elected, and pompous, and then point out that it's an obvious new bartering chip to seal the rift between him and Hillary.

ie he can't win with the MSM.

[Liberal Gramma]

5. Agreed

They have multiple sets of talking points to use, for whatever action he takes. He's going to be slammed on cable TV no matter what he does. The only remedy is quick response to the lies.

[SeaLyons]

6. Obama has already said that Hillary will play a big role...

he said it when they had their unity campaign in Unity, NH. I think the Pukes are scared shitless. They should be.

Democratic Party Rules!!!!

GOBAMA!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[hisownpetard]

8. mainly because half the people I was with believed it until I explained the situation to them

[NatBurner]

13. this reply cracked me up

and i don't even know why :)

[JerseygirlCT]

9. In some form, yes. I don't think we really want to lose her in the senate

But asking her to take this on as a special job while she stays in the senate - of course. She's going to ride this issue regardless. He'd be smart to give it his approval.

[speedoo]

15. Not going to happen.

Healthcare is clearly a priority, and Hillary can play a major role in the Senate. So can Ted Kennedy and several others. And Joe Biden's experience in the Senate make him very much a player.

Other than some short term PR, there is no point in naming Hillary or anyone else a "Czar".

[Cha]

17. Too soon..we have to

win first.

[Virginia Dare]

18. I think Hillary can do some good work on health care in the Senate..

I just don't think that Hillary and Obama are a good fit right now. They still need some time before they work together in the White House.

[madura]

23. I thin thats too important a job for her kind of personalty and history

and by her past efforts, she shut the public out of the discussions and met behind closed doors and the whole thing flopped.
it would be horrid if it went that way again - how many more years would it take to retry it again, again?

also, i think most everything Hillary would be doing would have Bills input and the two fo them together would be hell to work with - they would want things Their way, to put Their personal stamp on it for their own benefit.

They aren't team players (i'll catch heck because of her speech last night, but we have a long way to go, I still say: Watch Her - she is doing this nice stuff because SHE HAS TO, she has no choice right now, but give her the opportunity and she'll stick that knife in and twist it)

[loyalsister]

24. No way

There are dozens of candidates running on health care as their strength. That would take it away from them. They'd be left with nothing. The states are going to have to be heavily involved in the decision making. If there is a single person heading it up they will need experience close to the issues on the ground at the state level.

[Faygo Kid]

27. She's still a United States senator, and can push health care from inside, not outside.

Not a good idea. She can accomplish more inside the Senate.

Besides, she kind of functioned in that role in 1993, and that didn't work out. No single person should be "czar" of this issue. It will take a village.

[ruggerson]

35. She wouldn't take it. She's a sitting US Senator with a safe seat

for as long as she wants it.