Senator Hillary Clinton — right-wing thru & thru
Perhaps the most terrible legacy of the administration of President George W. Bush has been its utter disregard for such basic international legal norms as the ban against aggressive war, respect for the UN Charter, and acceptance of international judicial review. Furthermore, under Bush’s leadership, the United States has cultivated a disrespect for basic human rights, a disdain for reputable international human rights monitoring groups, and a lack of concern for international humanitarian law.
Ironically, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bush’s dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.
For example, Senator Hillary Clinton has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just…
Gary Edelburg:
It’s not just Hillary . . .
Monday, December 17, 2007
Why are Clinton, Obama and Edwards Backing Nixon’s Health Plan?
DAVID HIMMELSTEIN, STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER, info@pnhp.org, http://pnhp.org
Himmelstein and Woolhandler are professors of medicine at Harvard University and the co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program. They just had an oped in the New York Times in which they write: “In 1971, President Nixon sought to forestall single-payer national health insurance by proposing an alternative. He wanted to combine a mandate, which would require that employers cover their workers, with a Medicaid-like program for poor families, which all Americans would be able to join by paying sliding-scale premiums based on their income.
“Nixon’s plan, though never passed, refuses to stay dead. Now Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all propose Nixon-like reforms. Their plans resemble measures that were passed and then failed in several states over the past two decades.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15woolhandler.html?ref=opinion
The piece examines the promises and disappointments of the “mandate model” as versions of it have been instituted in Massachusetts, Oregon, Minnesota, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington State.
The piece concludes: “The ‘mandate model’ for reform rests on impeccable political logic: avoid challenging insurance firms’ stranglehold on health care. But it is economic nonsense. The reliance on private insurers makes universal coverage unaffordable.
“With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic presidential hopefuls sidestep an inconvenient truth: only a single-payer system of national health care can save what we estimate is the $350 billion wasted annually on medical bureaucracy and redirect those funds to expanded coverage. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama tout cost savings through computerization and improved care management, but Congressional Budget Office studies have found no evidence for these claims.
“In 1971, New Brunswick became the last Canadian province to institute that nation’s single-payer plan. Back then, the relative merits of single-payer versus Nixon’s mandate were debatable. Almost four decades later, the debate should be over. How sad that the leading Democrats are still kicking around Nixon’s discredited ideas for health reform.”
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
17 December 2007, 3:24 pmSam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167.
wafranklin:
I have thought that Hilliary is/will run to the right
of Nixon and attempt to rule like Mag the Bag Thatcher.
The “we can elect a woman and make history” has seized
far to many voters, natually mostly women,
So, the question is: should one vote simply for what appears
to be the very best candidate or should one conclude they are
all alike and lets make history with a woman. On that logic
it would appear the superlative ticket would be Clinton and
Obama — yuck. But that is a threefer: (1) woman pres, (2)
vp of colour, and (3) a break with past politics (Obama) or
so we are told.
STAN: Your attempt to engage the problem of gender-equality is undermined by your gendered attack on Margaret Thatcher. Clinton is fair game. So was Thatcher. But not using language like “Bag” that is typically only directed at women… as women. Think… please. This is the “enemy women” issue that De has brought up more than once. What it really says is that all women are still the enemy.
31 December 2007, 9:04 pmCharlotte:
No matter what the approach shes just notlikeable. From the start most people dont care where she stands, a large % just vote against her based on personality which is their right to do. And wen you #1 supporter and strong suit is having an impeached husband, you gatta wonder what people respect. How is the guy getting bj in the white house you #1 backer in the public eyes?
And then she says a Clinton has to clean up after a Buch again?
Maybe Obama or McCain has to clean the linens afer her husband?
25 February 2008, 9:31 pm