I agree with this speech, too.

I still wouldn't vote for her though.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 09.29.06 - 10:12 pm | #

Is there any comparison? Talk about generalizing.
Tom | 09.29.06 - 10:32 pm | #

Watch out. She's a chameleon and changes to match her environment in order to protect herself. Ask her how she feels about torturing unborn babies and you'll get a whole different Hillary.
Mike | 09.29.06 - 11:42 pm | #

I agree with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I need a stiff drink.

Think of it this way, Mark: Hillary Rodham Clinton agrees with you.

Feel better.
Dennis Mahon | 09.30.06 - 4:43 am | #

But of course she is lying . You cannot actually agree with a person who will say anything in order to get more power...

Washington's order was not "unique in human history" of course. And note that Washington had Major Andre hung and would have hung Benedict Arnold also. We ought to be more like Washington - treat prosoners well and hang the traitors.
Michaelus | 09.30.06 - 8:54 am | #

If only we could strap Hillary Rodham Clinton in a chair and make her watch an abortion and publicize the event.
Carson Weber | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 2:11 pm | #

Could you people on the conservative end of the spectrum explain why you hate Hillary so much? On the all-important abortion issue, she is far better than the aver age Democrat. She's pretty centrist in general. Why does she evoke such hatred? And why is criticized for being an opportunist when her sincerity seems no more or no less than the average politician? This is something I fail to understand.
Morning's Minion | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 3:39 pm | #

well for a lot of catholics I think the abortion on demand issue stands out...
Tom | 09.30.06 - 5:09 pm | #

I think part of some folks' lingering distaste for Hilary (that gets fanned to flame at times like these) is not so much that she's currently acting like any ambitious, self-serving politician - it's the resentment still carried over from her time as First Lady.

Because of my experience in the health care field, I for one was extremely hacked off when, shortly after Bill Clinton was elected, he handed over responsibility for a major policy overhaul (the health care system) to his wife - who is a lawyer, not a doctor, and by all reckoning had no experience, background, or qualifications for public service in this venue, except for being connected to Bill - and she thus got a chance to dress up and play 'politician' with the health care delivery system in this country. The project went down in flames, as well it should have, because it was so clumsily and arrogantly conceived and pursued. It wasn't her overreaching as a woman, in my book - it was the overreach as to our democratic system of electing people to policy-making posts, such as the one she was just handed.

In watching this video, I can fully understand and agree with what she's saying, and I don't hate her, really. I'll never trust her, though - and I'll never support her candidacy for anything. Not even if she sends campaign literature to my home in Oregon, asking me to help fund her run for Congress IN NEW YORK (which she did - I still don't understand how I got on that mailing list).
Kathleen Lundquist | Homepage | 09.30.06 - 6:26 pm | #

who is a lawyer, not a doctor, and by all reckoning had no experience, background, or qualifications for public service in this venue, except for being connected to Bill - and she thus got a chance to dress up and play 'politician' with the health care delivery system in this country.

So true, but not just true, it's scary if she ever got that much power to again work behind closed doors with her special friends. How in the world anyone can believe that this woman is qualified for such power baffles me. Even as a lawyer, and one that was voted among the top in the U.S., she couldn't seem to do much of anything on her own. While in Arkansas she also needed Bill to stop off during his joggings to see some of his buds in order to ask them to throw a little work Hillary's way since she was concerned about their lack of income. And when they did so, even then she couldn't seem to handle it in any kind of experienced manner. And remember those files lying around the White House? Inept or so unbelievably arrogant? It's a good thing that the two have been paid by the taxpayers who have set them up for lucrative retirements - even though they didn't get the White House silver - or else they would appear to be at a loss in the real world. No, definately don't trust her. How many more harmed human bodies and psychies lying around those two does the country need - and that doesn't even include all the babies.
anontoo | 09.30.06 - 8:21 pm | #

"I agree with Hillary Rodham Clinton."

You mean you agree with what she said. Who knows what she really thinks or what she would do in office?

"She's pretty centrist in general."

Oh, my... MM, I have a bridge for sale that I am just about to list with a realtor, but I'm prepared to give you a very special deal on it.
Tim J. | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 3:13 pm | #

Oh, my... MM, I have a bridge for sale that I am just about to list with a realtor, but I'm prepared to give you a very special deal on it.

Many of the Clintons' views are actually quite a bit to the right of President Nixon. My how times have changed.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.01.06 - 10:01 pm | #

"You mean you agree with what she said. Who knows what she really thinks or what she would do in office?"

oh boy what a kind, thoughtful and very catholic response to someone!

as for her being a 'centerists' well, in terms of how she has voted and the overall nature of her rhetoric, I suppose it really is true that she is more of a centerists then she isn't.

as for 'Hillary Care'...look at the wonderful system of health care we have today! Good God! I have decent, middle class health care and guess what? It really, really, really stinks! the cost has shot up (in terms of premiums), and the out of pocket expenses have likewise shot up. Instead of paying for a gov't bureacracy, I am now paying for a private bureacracy that doesn't have to pretend to do things like pay for folks to have a living wage. Yeah what a relief that we use the free market to place a value on human life! yippie and very catholic also

pax ya'll
Dale Cebula | 10.01.06 - 10:07 pm | #

Many of the Clintons' views are actually quite a bit to the right of President Nixon.

Soo?? Then logic would suppose then that on the whole she shouldn't have worked so hard against that liberal back then?

And Dale, you could solve a lot of your complaints by putting limits on lawyers ... I doubt though if you'll get the Clintons to do that.
anontoo | 10.01.06 - 11:22 pm | #

She's pretty centrist in general.

Um, morning's minion, whatever it is you're smoking, why don't you pass it around so we can all get going?

however much she might be right on th is torture issue, she's still nothing but a political opportunist and this speech was just more of the same. I'm sure she doesn't apply these same lofty standards to babies having their skulls punctured with a scisors so their brains can be sucked out and their skulls crushed for the sake of a late-term abortion.

Hillary. Satan. Is there any difference?
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 10:27 am | #

I guess the reaction to her by some is similar to the reaction against GW by others. Again, it really defies logical explanation (the vitriol) other than some visceral dislike.

I trust her less than the average politician. She seems even more opportunistic than most (and that is saying something). Or perhaps, its just easier to see through it with her?
c matt | 10.02.06 - 10:45 am | #

She just seems to be the all-time reigning-champion-world-record-holder-for-eternity of bandwagon jumping.
c matt | 10.02.06 - 10:47 am | #

Instead of paying for a gov't bureacracy, I am now paying for a private bureacracy that doesn't have to pretend to do things like pay for folks to have a living wage. Yeah what a relief that we use the free market to place a value on human life! yippie and very catholic also

Well said. I just don't know how those poor CEOs of the insurance companies are getting by on the millions they earn every year. I really need to keep my chin up as we decide whether or not to buy groceries or medicine for the kids this week.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.02.06 - 12:09 pm | #

Econ 101: imagine that, in order to solve the starvation problem, the government ordered the taxpayers to pick up everyone's check who went into a restaurant. The moral argument is that poor must eat to live. Who could oppose such a program?

Well, the first thing that would happen is that the eaters would discover that a Big Mac and Prime Rib cut of steak the same to him: nothing, since someone else picks up his check.

The second thing that happens is that MacDonalds realizes they can charge the same price for a Big Mac as rib steak, and their income increses.

The third thing that happens is that the government imposes price controls and other rules to ration the goods being sold: so many people, based on need or other qualifications, to get the Big Macs, so many people to get the steaks. The government must and will DISCOURAGE building new steakhouses, because provided high quality food at high prices is now a loss to the government.

Rationing diverts goods from where consumers actually want it, into areas where political considerations determine. Factions calling the loudest for the goods, or with the most voters or campaign contributions, distort the market.

Rationing also increases the wait in line at every restaurant. If the line is arranged by first come, first serve, a guy who merely wants a snack is ahead of a guy who is starving and willing to pay more, the starving guy just has to wait. The market is prohibited from reacting to the customer's priorities.

The goods are now distributed at higher prices and fewer goods are lower qualities.

Substitute medicine or any other good or service for the food example given above, and you have a picture of our current medical system.

Advocating socialization of the system is tantamount to advocating more rationing, and giving customers even less control over their purchases. Then we can have the kind of medicine they enjoy (cough, cough) in England and Canada, the Land of Dying While Waiting in Queue.

It is curing a headcold with a headsman's axe.
John C. Wright | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 12:39 pm | #

Actually, my Canadian family loves their health care and can't imagine how we Americans put up with ours.

I'm not sure that complete socialization is the answer.

But neither do I buy the con's unwavering worship of "the market." Sounds too much like Mammon to me.

Neither do I buy the argument that private business bureacracy is somehow inherently more efficient than government bureacracy. Bureacracy is bureacracy and prone to inefficiency as soon as you hire human beings to push paper.

But the value of putting health care back in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of a few super-rich shareholders and CEOs is that if we feel we are getting short-changed, we can vote them out. Let democracy work here. I have absolutely no say as to the shareholders' decisions of Aetna or BlueCross or anyone else. They are an unaccountable minority, and my only recourse is to take my money to another unaccountable minority intent on profit before conscience.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.02.06 - 1:00 pm | #

Then we can have the kind of medicine they enjoy (cough, cough) in England and Canada, the Land of Dying While Waiting in Queue.

I've spent a wee bit of the morning exchanging messages with friends and family in Canada and the UK.

Your statement is untrue. Chalk it up to the urban legendarium.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.02.06 - 1:44 pm | #

Two years ago, my husband and I took a trip to Vancouver, BC. I picked up a local newspaper and read a fascinating article about how the folks in Quebec were ready to vote to make changes in the provincial health care delivery system because they didn't feel the national program was working as it should. There was a mention of those long wait times for certain procedures and authorization for certain high-tech/high-cost procedures.

Taking into account that the Quebecois don't much appreciate the rest of Canada in general and would throw off every sort of national regulation if they could, there were some important points made, including the fact that straight-up socialization of medicine has precisely that rationing effect, and then you get people of greater means who make deals to get a higher level of care than the average taxpayer - and then voila, there's an inequitable, two-tier (at least) system of health care.

A collective ethos (that values public health more than insurance company shareholders) as well as accommodation of individual needs and preferences both need to be in play in any overhaul of the American health care delivery system (and I agree changes need to be made). Hillary's plan was, basically, "The government will handle and solve everything! Give us all the money and power!" This would not have solved the problem. An informed, delicate, and balanced approach was needed, and she didn't have it. That's what destroyed her credibility in my book.
Kathleen Lundquist | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 4:39 pm | #

Our wait times in Quebec are still way too long -- no matter what amount of money the government may throws at the system. And, BTW. for the better part of this year, our federal government has been a Conservative one -- far from socialist, obviously.
Patricia Gonzalez | 10.09.06 - 7:38 pm | #