I defended Kucinich over Paul for VP, now he's lost me (even Hillary's more progressive than Obama):

[Tejanocrat]

Providing universal access to health care and protecting the middle class are the two reasons why I formerly supported Dennis Kucinich. By throwing his support to centrist Obama in Iowa, Dennis has caused me to sincerely regret that I gave him campaign contributions which I could scarcely afford.

On the two key issues of universal access to health care and protecting the middle class, Obama is far worse than Edwards and even somewhat worse than Hillary:

HEALTH CARE

Edwards offers a universal care plan which would create non-profit health care markets to set for-profit insurance companies in direct competition against a non-profit public health care option based on Medicare (which would evolve into public single payer universal care once the for-profits found they could not compete against the public non-profits).

Hillary offers universal coverage in a plan that doesn’t have non-profit health care markets to force for-profit insurance companies to compete against public health care but includes a public care option.

Obama's plan to leave 15 million uninsured is the worst plan of any major Democratic candidate.

MIDDLE CLASS ISSUES

Edwards has made protecting the embattled middle class a key focus of his campaign.

Hillary gets an "A" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

Obama gets a "C" on the Drum Major Institute's score for protecting the middle class.

Obama has moved well to the center since joining the Senate, and I’m disappointed in Kucinich’s lack of judgment in supporting a centrist who’s even less progressive than Hillary.

This is the last time I let Dennis disappoint me.

Count me as the newest member of the DU's progressives for Edwards.

[Mythsaje]

1. Welcome to the Edwards camp

Nice to have you aboard.

[helderheid]

75. DITTO!

[Maat]

2. I'm leaning your way.

One thing that influenced me is Obama allowing Donnie M. to emcee that event (obvious pandering to the more rightish religious bigots).

[Tejanocrat]

4. Obama's open embrace of the homophobic bigot Donnie McClurkin should have disqualified Obama from

Kucinich's consideration, and the fact that it didn't tells me that I have misjudged Dennis.

P.S. Link for those who don't know what a creep Donnie McClurkin is and why Obama disqualified himself for many progressives when Obama invited McClurkin to share a stage with Obama's campaign.

[sandnsea]

13. Hillary's embrace of a truck load of homophobes

doesn't matter. :crazy:

[Tejanocrat]

31. Which homophobes did Hillary provide a campaign platform to?

[sandnsea]

47. The co-chairs of the SC Campaign n/t

[Kucinich4America]

103. Uh, how about the DLC?

You don't see Al From and his pals ever saying a word in favor of equality, do you? And those are the ones writing Hillary's platform.

[cooolandrew]

70. Reality is america IS a conservative coutnry. Obama is trying to get us in the WH.

`

[Tejanocrat]

91. If we're going to elect a Triangulator in Chief, we already have a candidate who reflects that view

If I wanted a centrist, I'd go with the namebrand (she's better at what Obama is trying to do).

[Mythsaje]

96. Reality is, it is NOT...

Blind polls suggest that the vast majority of Americans support liberal ideals, but simply don't recognize it.

America's conservatism is a manufactured myth.

[kenfrequed]

117. absolutely!!

In matters of:
Labor
Eductaion
The environment
A working wage
Garaunteed child care
Proper sex education
Access to reproductive services and safe abortion



What are the mystical conservative issues that the "conservative majority" have that the majority shares?

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Not by sacrificing

the GBLT community.

[comradebillyboy]

3. You have sized up Obama pretty accuratly

and Dennis the Menace as well.

[maxanne]

5. puhlease

There's no appreciable difference between Clinton/Edwards/Obama's health plans. Each of them calls for taxpayers to subsidize insurance companies with our own dollars.

Edwards wants to give us two systems. Think they'll provide equal care?

How quickly ya'll forget that Edwards voted for the war (Spoke in favor of it on the Senate floor), voted (helped write) the Patriot Act, voted for Yucca Mountain, and has said that gay people make him uncomfortable. He's apologized for all those things, though - I guess that gives some credence to his newly minted progressive status.

[Tejanocrat]

8. Between Clinton/Edwards/Obama's health plans, only Obama's isn't universal, only Edwards' forces all

for-profit insurance companies to directly compete against a public Medicare-based system as a pathway to public single-payer universal care.

[sandnsea]

12. Yes there will be a new public plan

And there will be regulation to require private insurance to truly provide coverage.

"The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

[maxanne]

61. I think you mean to say

that Edwards plan will create two systems - one for the rich and one for the poor.

Anyone who is thinking clearly knows that we need a single payer system. This won't get us there - in fact, it seems almost to have been created to ensure we never get single payer.

[kenfrequed]

115. I agree

But Clinton and Obama's plans are no better and both are going to be big piles of corporate welfare for insurance compnaies. The Kucinich plan is the only one that makes sense to me.

That said neither Clinton, nor Obama (nor Biden, Richardson, or Dodd for that matter) are speaking up against corporate power and seem to be rather comfortable with it.

[Tinksrival]

6. Edwards is the biggest flip flopper on the Dem side

He has no experience, He's a professional candidate. He says exactly what you want to hear and there is no record to back it up.
He didn't even run again for his Senate seat cause he knew he would lose. He sucked in the debate with Cheney (F.P. lightweight).
He was a lousy V.P. candidate (where was he??)

[Bluebear]

18. "Flip flopper" - - any purple band-aids in your kit?

[Tinksrival]

27. What kind of argument is that..

Edwards never served in the military and has no purple heart.

Flip-flop is slang for changing your position for political purpose. In my opinion the Repubs have Mitt and the Dems have Edwards. If it makes you feel better I will state that the above is my opinion. But below is fact....

like his China Free Trade vote and support,
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...

and votes for Bankruptcy Bills,
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/2007/08/19/e... /

or Yucca Mountain as a depository,
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/200711...

and supporting "right to work" legislature,
http://www.joebiden.com/newscenter/pressre...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/unions...

while supporting to Expand HB1 visas as a path to citizenship
http://blog.noslaves.com/john-edwards-is-a... /

later in profiting from Fortress Hedgefunds in multiple ways throughout '05-'07, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...
while claiming no knowledge of what Fortress was actually doing in May,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...
and his decision in Mid August of this year to continue to keep his money invested in Fortress (read last sentence of first paragraph)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/us/polit...

not to mention confusion between Edwards' various "help to the poor" enterprises, and which ones did what and for whom - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/polit...
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1...
http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-139.html

Nor does Edwards not doing pro-bono cases while a practicing lawyer bothers .... http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921189.htm...

But of course, his Health Plan is "to die for"...or at least, kinda of maybe better than the rest, or not, or whatever....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/090...

meanwhile implying that his race and gender makes him most electable,
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.d...

but not mentioning the problems we will encounter due to his acceptance of matching funds,
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

While denouncing 527s as interests groups in '04
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/08/23/...
and using them now that he needs them
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/120...
including strange big money
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...


and who cares about his co-sponsorship of the IWR while advocating support for war and waiting 3 years to "apologize"?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...
nor the fact that he didn't do hi "due diligence" while sitting on the Intelligence Committee
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/few-se...
http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/for... /

plus calling out Iran and then changing his tune,
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=...

P.S. Thanks to FrenchieCat. :hi:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Tinksrival]

34. So stating my opinion and posting facts are troll like?

Just cause you don't like my opinion I am a troll?
I guess I should keep my opinions to myself.....ON A DISCUSSION FORUM!!!! :sarcasm:

bite me

[Tejanocrat]

38. If your opinion is a right-wing meme and you attack Democrats, you might be exhibiting trolliness

[Tinksrival]

52. It's not a right-wing meme!

It's my opinion based on facts. I don't have to agree with you to also be progressive liberal. I don't find much about Edward's record to be very progressive just his current political rhetoric (which has morphed over time). Instead of insinuating I'm a right-wing troll you might want to figure out how to defend your new candidate. He's not my choice but at least Dennis can stand on his record.

Sheesh! Thanks for the discussion. It's been fun.......NOT!

[Mr Rabble]

108. I dont think that was troll-like at all.

I dont happen to agree with you, even after reading most of the links in your post, but I dont see that as being troll-like.

That said, using "flip flop" is simply allowing right wing framing of a Dem candidate. Not a good idea. Edwards has clearly changed his views on many issues over the last four years which I have no problem with. Should we not wait until he does not deliver on his rhetoric, before we begin to throw him under the bus?

The is a very real possibility that he is going to find himself on the ticket again, and it would be foolish on your part to continue down this road with him.

Just a thought. :)

[LostinVA]

110. The term "flip-flopping" is a RW meme used against Dem candidates

It really started with Kerry. The term -- like "PC" and some others -- has no place on here.

[Tinksrival]

116. Well, ok then.......

In my opinion J.E. is a "flop flipper" (humor people!!!!!)


Talk about "PC" SHEESH!!! Way to strawman and not have a discussion on a message board!

Can't you see by just discussing my use of the term makes you PC police! :eyes:

Why don't you write a post on what phrases are not allowed and I'll be sure to bookmark.

[LostinVA]

109. Yup, you got it

You know Edwards isn't my first choice, but he's still a good choice.

:pals:

[dogishboy]

7. You are wrong about Clinton's health plan

"Hillary offers universal coverage in a plan that doesn’t have non-profit health care markets to force for-profit insurance companies to compete against public health care but includes a public care option.


It most certainly does "have non-profit health care". It allows ANYONE to buy into the plan that covers Fed employees. It's the same plan members of Congress get.

In addition, her plan expands Medicaid and Medicare, both of which are public

[Tejanocrat]

9. No, you misread. Hillary doesn't have non-profit health care markets. If you don't understand the

important roll of those non-profit health care markets, please feel free to read the link to the discussion of the Edwards plan.

This is a key feature of the Edwards plan and it is not a feature of Hillary's plan.

[dogishboy]

14. OK, so now I'm confused

You seem to mean something specific when you say "non profit health care markets". I originally thought you were referring to a non-profit option, but now I see you're talking about Edwards plan to create a nonprofit market consisting of those who don't get insurance from their employer.

And you are right that they are not a part of Clinton's plan. However, I don't understand the significance of this difference. My understanding is that by offering a non profit plan, Clinton's plan offers a similar way to "wean" us off of for-profit insurance.

Am I wrong about this? Why?

[Tejanocrat]

22. Here is what Health Care Markets do and why they are important

The non-profit Health Care Markets would use the bargaining power of a huge consumer of medical services to negototiate big discounts from health care providers (which is the same idea which enables Medicare to get much cheaper care than private insurance -- it's also part of why single-payer is so much more cost effecient -- it's essentially how Wal*Mart can negotiate cheaper wholesale prices from product suppliers).

Most importantly, while the Health Care Markets would benefit both for-profit private plans and the publicly run Medicare-type plan by getting better prices for the medical services, the Markets would also force private for-profits to compete head-to-head against the public non-profits in bundling these services to people acquiring health care coverage.

This parallel system where public non-profits and private for-profits compete asgainst one another, the private for-profit insurance will be at a handicap which will make it unable to compete with a taxpayer-funded system. Eventually, people will get tired of paying more for private for-profit insurance when the actual medical services are negotiated through the same Health Care Market.

Hillary's plan is actually pretty good (health care is an area where I'll defend her platform -- Kyl-Lieberman is not), and she offers a public option as an alternative to private insurance, but she doesn't have the Health Care Markets which essentially force the private insurance companies to offer services negotiated from the same pool as the public plan will offer.

[dogishboy]

49. Thank you very much

Everything you say about the HCM's makes sense to me. The part I don't understand is why Clinton's offering up FECHP (the fed plan) won't work in the same way. Couldn't FECHP's do the same thing and negotiate lower prices and more comprehensive coverage in the same way HCM's do? That's what my assumption has been, but I do admit that it's an assumption

[WillowTree]

87. You're wrong about Medicare.

They "negotiate" nothing. They determine their own prevailing fee schedules and pay for services based on those schedules. Period. Doctors must agree to accept a Medicare assignment of benefits (allowing Medicare to pay them directly) and thereby accept whatever Medicare deems to be their allowable fee amounts for their services as payment in full. By law, they can't bill either the patient or a supplemental policy for anything beyond the Medicare allowable. If they don't agree to that, they have to bill their elderly patients directly for the full amount of their regular fees for those services, but in most cases, they're not going to be able to collect more than Medicare paid in the first place, sometimes they aren't even able to collect that much from those patients, so it's in their best interests to just go with the Medicare flow, cash-flow-wise.

Trust me, the surgeon who performed my Dad's last surgery didn't "negotiate" a discount to Medicare of over $11,000 on a procedure for which the local R&C is in the vicinity of $13,000. Sad part is that Dad has an employer-sponsored supplement policy which would have picked-up at least most of the difference, but since he's agreed to be a Medicare provider, which almost all have for reasons mentioned above, he has to accept what they allow and write-off the rest.

Commercial PPOs and HMOs are a different story. Those fee schedules are negotiated.

[Tejanocrat]

94. The point is that Medicare sets its own rates and hospitals HAVE to pay it because Medicare is such

a big health care service purchaser.

Medicare does not set these rates in isolation. It sets the rates with input back-and-forth with the health care industry, and this is the negotiation process I was referring to.

[eridani]

104. Which is bullshit. As if people could afford that when they raise their rates to accomodate--

--paying for all the actual sick people. Private companies insure congresscritters and employed people because those are healthier demographics than the general population. Congress has subsidized for profit care--get a clue.

[Annces]

10. Thanks for the intelligent information

It is nice to see the comparisons like this.

[sandnsea]

11. Propaganda

I swear to god I don't know how so many people can just fall right over for the bullshit.

Edwards plan does not even mandate everybody until AFTER the rest of the reforms are in place. Precisely the same as Obama.

Mandates do not guarantee 100% coverage for anybody. Social Security isn't even 100%.

And every one of the candidates has votes I disagree with. Edwards has a whole truck load that he's constantly apologizing for. Building a case out of 7 votes is ludicrous.

[dogishboy]

15. Yes, your post is propoganda that does nothing to address the issue

or defend Obama's plan. Typically, all you can do is attack the others' plans.

No one is claiming that mandates will guarantee coverage, no matter how many times you repeat that untruth. However, many have pointed out that, all other things being equal, a plan with a mandate will get higher compliance than a plan without a mandate. That's why Obama's plan leaves so many uninsured, another point you have done nothing to refute.

[sandnsea]

16. NH Auto Insurance

More people have auto insurance in NH than in many other states, even though it doesn't have a mandate.

http://www.tiffanyinsurance.com/2007/11/two-states-dont-require-liability-auto.html

Mandates don't lead to full coverage, cost does.

The 15 million nonsense will be dropped like a hot rock on Jan 4 because NH is not going to support mandates.

[dogishboy]

17. Obama leaves 15 million people behind

and you have nothing to refute it with.

And Obama's plan has mandates

[sandnsea]

19. NH will reject that so stick with it n/t

[dogishboy]

20. Anything to win, even if it means leaving 15 million behind

More of that New Politics, I see. "Fuck 'em. We're going to win"

[sandnsea]

23. Nobody is being left behind, it's a lie n/t

[dogishboy]

24. Obama leave 15 million behind, and you've got is name calling

Anyone who disagrees with you and Obama must be lying.

Screw the uninsured

[sandnsea]

25. I've posted the info to you

You just ignore it and rattle out your talking points.

[dogishboy]

28. Be honest. All you posted was a link that agrees with the 15 million left uninsured

and two professors from Harvard who agrees with you. All you have is opinion. You have yet to post anythiing factual about the 15 million Obama leaves behind

[sandnsea]

29. Clinton plan leaves out 20 million

Based on Massachusetts exemptions and auto insurance mandates, her plan would leave out 20 million because she has no enforcement mechanism for her mandates.

[dogishboy]

35. Like I said, you can't defend your own baseless claims

Making new ones will not make your older ones true

[sandnsea]

41. I've proven all of them, all you have is denial n/t

[dogishboy]

44. Obama leaves 15 million people behind

and all you have is the opinion of two professors.

[sandnsea]

46. Clinton leaves 20 million behind

"The truth is that neither the Obama plan, nor the Clinton plan, guarantees 'universal coverage' for all Americans, although they both aspire to this goal. Let's look at the Clinton plan first. MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers, describes her plan as a 'universal coverage' plan, in contrast to the Obama plan, which he terms a 'universal access' plan. But he also acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include everybody. 'Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage,' he told me, when I reached him after the Las Vegas debate. 'But you can come very close.' ... The system proposed by Clinton is more analagous to the government-subsidized private insurance system in the Netherlands, where roughly one and a half per cent of the population is estimated to fall through the cracks.'

'Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, estimates Obama's plan would end up covering 5 percent to 10 percent fewer individuals than Clinton's. But that's assuming that it's possible for Clinton to require everyone to purchase insurance. Blendon suspects that it isn't. 'At the end of the day,' he tells FactCheck.org, 'it's not going to be everybody. We have no idea what the actual falloff would be.' ... Preliminary data from Massachusetts, which implemented a sweeping health insurance plan last year, is showing that many people would rather remain uninsured than purchase a stripped-down plan. 'People always say having some insurance is better than no insurance,' Blendon says. 'It turns out, in some of the focus groups in Massachusetts, people don't believe that.''

John Holohan, the author of a study conducted at the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, that gamed out various different models for health care reform in Massachusetts several years ago, does not believe that either the Clinton or the Obama plan will eliminate the problem of the uninsured altogether. 'We would all be very happy if we got down to one and a half per cent,' he said.

Speech to the Group Health Association of America, February 15, 1994.

Dembner, Alice, "Health Plan May Exempt 20% of the Uninsured"

"There's good evidence," Mr. Kingsdale said, "whether it's buying auto insurance or wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets, that mandates don't work 100 percent."

The state reports that 200,000+ additional people have acquired health insurance in Massachusetts in the last year. http://www.mahealthconnector.org. There are several different estimates of the number of uninsured individuals in Massachusetts in 2006 (prior to implementation of the mandate. The most commonly used estimate comes from researchers from the Urban Institute who concluded that the number of uninsured was around 500,000. The Census Bureau says there are 650,000 uninsured in Massachusetts. A different team of Urban Institute researchers estimated a number that was roughly 15 percent higher than the Census Bureau number.

[dogishboy]

53. BWAHAHAHA!! The 20 million is for ROMNEY'S plan

[sandnsea]

54. A mandated plan - they cover everybody, right? n/t

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

65. So how does Hillary get 100% coverage then? n/t

[dogishboy]

66. By insuring everyone

It's not that complicated. You get universal coverage by insuring everyone.

Obama doesn't even try. He gives up without even trying

[sandnsea]

67. Lay out the specifics n/t

[dogishboy]

69. Here you go

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

[sandnsea]

71. Oh, the mandates that leave 20 million out

As can see by Massachusetts and auto insurance - mandates don't work. She leaves 20 million people out.

[ProSense]

21. How is it that Kerry scored a perfect 100% (an A), but Clinton who

missed the vote on the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 also scored 100%?

Clinton also voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001.

Reid, who voted for the 2005 bill, scored 88% and got a B.

[Tejanocrat]

26. Please don't make me defend Hillary (ewww!), but she publicly opposed the Biden Bankruptcy Bill and

missed the vote only because Bill Clinton (you know, her husband) was having open-heart surgery on that day. Her position against the bill was clear and missing the vote to be with her husband during his heart surgery was irrelevant because Biden and his crew passed the bill with Republican votes by more than one vote.

With respect to the 2001 bill, it wasn't half as bad -- not a quarter as bad -- as the 2005 bill.

If you want to talk shit about Hillary, I'm all on board -- let's talk Kyl-Lieberman, let's talk opposing the Senate Office of Public Integrity, let's talk supporting tax cuts for the wealthy, let's talk her vote to build a wall on the border with Mexico -- but her health care program is OK and your attempt to conflate the 2001 bankruptcy bill with the 2005 bill which Biden loves so much is just bait-and-switch.

[ProSense]

36. Not at all:

March 10, 2005

Statement of Senator Clinton on the Bankruptcy Bill

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton issued the following statement in response to the passage in the Senate of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005:

"Our bankruptcy law was created out of recognition that the world is a competitive, unforgiving place, and sometimes bad things happen to decent, hardworking people. Our bankruptcy code has always recognized that America is stronger when, rather than burying responsible citizens in insurmountable piles of debt, we give them the opportunity for a fresh start, and allow them a second chance to be contributing members of our economy. Unfortunately, this bankruptcy bill places a thumb on the scales of justice against Americans who have done nothing wrong and who are simply the victims of a difficult economy or bad luck.

Nowhere is this bill more flawed than in its failure to recognize the devastating and growing problem of medical bankruptcy. I was unable to cast my vote on this bill because of a medical situation in my own family. For me, this makes the Senate's failure to recognize the crisis of medical bankruptcy even more striking. Fortunately, my family is well-insured, and we are not in danger of losing that coverage. I am deeply aware and profoundly grateful for the good fortune we enjoy in having access to quality medical care in the face of significant medical needs. But many American families are not so lucky.

I have long been concerned about the burdens placed on America's families by a lack of health insurance and by rising healthcare costs. In this bill, the Senate had an opportunity to take one important step to help citizens driven to the point of bankruptcy by unavoidable medical problems. Instead, the Senate rejected this opportunity to lighten the load on Americans dealing with the twin blows of medical and financial difficulties.

This legislation also fails to take into account the significant changes that have taken place in our national economy and in the lives of millions of American families since the Senate last considered it in 2001. Job loss, stagnant wages, cancelled pension plans and declining health benefits have plagued our country over the past four years and this bill simply doesn't keep up with the changing times. While many in the Democratic minority tried to offer amendments to address many of these changed circumstances, each one was rejected by the Republican majority. The fact that the majority refused to even address the needs of our troops in the context of this legislation is deeply disturbing.

Offering the amendments was the right thing to do, rejecting them out of hand was simply wrong. These amendments were not about removing personal responsibility, but about being fair and just. This legislation is anything but fair or just.

I believe that this legislation, with more careful and good-faith consideration, could have been a vehicle in which we could have thoughtfully addressed abuses in the bankruptcy process by consumers and corporations. It could have been a step forward to make sure that both large corporations and individual citizens are held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability. Unfortunately, it's not where this bill ended up. And that's a shame for all of us who want to see a bankruptcy system that promotes personal responsibility and upholds our American value of pulling one's self up by the bootstraps."

Yeah, I suppose like the 2001 bill did! n/t

[dogishboy]

40. Let me guess...You support Obama

Am I right?

I say this because your response, in typical Obamalogic, does nothing to support your original claim and it ends with a remark that suggests you think you made a point when all it does is make an unsupported claim

[ProSense]

45. Let me guess

you have nothing else to come back with, right?

[dogishboy]

51. You gave no substance to respond to

"Yeah, I suppose like the 2001 bill did!"

That's not an argument. It's nothing more than snark, and now you're complaining about snark.

Now I'm almost certain you're an Obama supporter. I notice you didn't respond to that point

[ProSense]

58. Here, for ease,

this was also included in my previous response:

March 10, 2005

Statement of Senator Clinton on the Bankruptcy Bill

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton issued the following statement in response to the passage in the Senate of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005:

"Our bankruptcy law was created out of recognition that the world is a competitive, unforgiving place, and sometimes bad things happen to decent, hardworking people. Our bankruptcy code has always recognized that America is stronger when, rather than burying responsible citizens in insurmountable piles of debt, we give them the opportunity for a fresh start, and allow them a second chance to be contributing members of our economy. Unfortunately, this bankruptcy bill places a thumb on the scales of justice against Americans who have done nothing wrong and who are simply the victims of a difficult economy or bad luck.

Nowhere is this bill more flawed than in its failure to recognize the devastating and growing problem of medical bankruptcy. I was unable to cast my vote on this bill because of a medical situation in my own family. For me, this makes the Senate's failure to recognize the crisis of medical bankruptcy even more striking. Fortunately, my family is well-insured, and we are not in danger of losing that coverage. I am deeply aware and profoundly grateful for the good fortune we enjoy in having access to quality medical care in the face of significant medical needs. But many American families are not so lucky.

I have long been concerned about the burdens placed on America's families by a lack of health insurance and by rising healthcare costs. In this bill, the Senate had an opportunity to take one important step to help citizens driven to the point of bankruptcy by unavoidable medical problems. Instead, the Senate rejected this opportunity to lighten the load on Americans dealing with the twin blows of medical and financial difficulties.

This legislation also fails to take into account the significant changes that have taken place in our national economy and in the lives of millions of American families since the Senate last considered it in 2001. Job loss, stagnant wages, cancelled pension plans and declining health benefits have plagued our country over the past four years and this bill simply doesn't keep up with the changing times. While many in the Democratic minority tried to offer amendments to address many of these changed circumstances, each one was rejected by the Republican majority. The fact that the majority refused to even address the needs of our troops in the context of this legislation is deeply disturbing.

Offering the amendments was the right thing to do, rejecting them out of hand was simply wrong. These amendments were not about removing personal responsibility, but about being fair and just. This legislation is anything but fair or just.

I believe that this legislation, with more careful and good-faith consideration, could have been a vehicle in which we could have thoughtfully addressed abuses in the bankruptcy process by consumers and corporations. It could have been a step forward to make sure that both large corporations and individual citizens are held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability. Unfortunately, it's not where this bill ended up. And that's a shame for all of us who want to see a bankruptcy system that promotes personal responsibility and upholds our American value of pulling one's self up by the bootstraps."

No I'm not an Obama supporter. Feel better? Now, got a better response than that silly question?

[dogishboy]

64. And again, no substance

Just cut and paste

You had your BS post that equated the 2001 bill with the 2005 version totally spanked, and so now you're trying snark without substance, as if your cut n paste is meaningful.

You got pwned and now you're just pretending to have a point

[ProSense]

79. Let me spell it out for you:

I believe that this legislation, with more careful and good-faith consideration, could have been a vehicle in which we could have thoughtfully addressed abuses in the bankruptcy process by consumers and corporations.

Hillary wanted to tweak a shitty bill to make it as good as the 2001 bill, which she approved of.

Pwned?

Now there is a rational argument!

[dogishboy]

82. Better, Too bad you had to move the goalposts

You originally chided Clinton because she scored a 100 just as Kerry did, even though Clinton did not vote against the 2005 bill and voted for the 2001 bill. Another poster explained why your complaint/"concern" was completely wrong, (so yes, you were pwned) so now you're trying to argue that the 2001 was "shitty".

However, you have yet to offer any reason to justify your "concerns" about the 2001 bill. Since you offer no reasons for the opinion you've expressed, I can only assume you have no reasons. Therefore, your argument is "irrational" (ie without reason)

[ProSense]

83. "However, you have yet to offer any reason to justify your "concerns" about the 2001 bill." Huh?

You think the 2001 bill was good?

Here, let Edwards explain it to you: his apology for voting for the 2001 bill.

[dogishboy]

85. You see? Was that so hard?

No, I do not think the 2001 bill was good, and disagree with Clinton's position on it.

So why did it take multiple posts just to get you to post something more than snark? Was it that difficult to explain yourself?

[ProSense]

86. "Was it that difficult to explain yourself?" Let me put it this way,

in your own words: You got pwned and now you're just pretending to have a point!

[dogishboy]

88. Nice try

but my original complaint was that your post was without logic or substance. Now that you have provided a bit of those, my complaint is now moot.

Nothing I've said has been refuted by you. All you did is demonstrate that you are reluctant to engage substantively

[LostinVA]

113. Just give it up, Dogishboy

It's like beating your head against a brick wall. You're 100% correct.

[LostinVA]

112. HRC publicly disapproved of the Bankruptcy Bill

God, what a meme.... no place here on DU.

[dogishboy]

37. Thank you

Your honesty is refreshing when so many are willing to lie (not including the poster you responded to here) so long as it makes Clinton look bad

[OzarkDem]

32. Something strange happened here in Cleveland

not sure what. But the GOP has been putting hard pressure on Kucinich through the local rag, Cleveland Plain Dealer. Then the local billionaire's club put money behind the incompetent lap dog city councilman Joe Cimperman to run for Kucinich's seat. Next, it was the George Wallace wing of the local Dem party (Bill Mason, etc.) who talked Tom O'Grady into running against him.

Next, Dennis' brother is found dead. He returns to town, stays after to be with family and the next thing we know, he's endorsing Obama. The last part is very odd and out of character.

Despite the Dem competition, Dennis' Congressional seat is safe. But some weird kind of pressure is being applied to him here by the national GOP through their local lackeys in the billionaire's club and the Plain Dealer.

Kucinich has been passionate about getting out of Iraq, impeachment and single payer health care. Obama has a poor record on all three of those issues. Really odd.

[undeterred]

73. Threats?

This makes me sick.

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. This is simply a repeat of 2004 when he endorsed the pro-war Edwards

[Stop Cornyn]

93. I think he's having some kind of a breakdown.

[stimbox]

33. this only pertains to the 2nd ballot of the Iowa caucuses.

"Kucinich did not fully endorse Obama, and said this statement only pertains to the Iowa caucuses, and only if he does not reach viability on the first ballot Thursday."

http://tinyurl.com/ywgevv

please don't make more out of it than it really is.

[PeaceNikki]

48. For next time.

Add a marquee
marquee

And maybe RED FONT

Or REALLY BIG RED MARQUEE IN CAPS

[Tejanocrat]

50. Bullshit! This is Kucinich asking his supporters to vote for Donnie-McClurkin-loving, 15-million-

left-behind-underinsuring, middle-class-disrespecting, Mexican-border-wall-building Obama.

My loyalty waivered over the Ron Paul nonsense. Now, I'm done with him.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[PeaceNikki]

57. .

[stimbox]

92. I guess you weren't very loyal or serious after all.

Just another fake Dennis supporter who turns against him again.

It's not like Dennis is dropping out and throwing his support behind Obama.
It's the 2nd ballot in a caucus, so get a grip.

[never_get_over_it]

39. I'm stunned and I'm with you

I have sent Dennis Kucinich more money than any other candidate ever - I have supported him whole heartedly since 2004....I have struggled with who to vote for in the primary - my heart vs my head - Dennis vs Edwards....well thanks Dennis you just made my decision for me - I'm completely on board with Edwards now.....

I'll be calling the campaign in the morning....

Holy shit I CAN NOT BELIEVE HE HAS DONE THIS

[Tejanocrat]

42. I want to know how we get our money back!

[eridani]

111. Why not try to change his mind on this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3926299&mesg_id=3926299

[senseandsensibility]

43. Obviously, you have a right to your own opinion

but after all Kucinich has done and stood for in his career, shouldn't we give him a chance to justify this decision? Has he explained this? I want to hear from Dennis.

[never_get_over_it]

59. Oh hell

I've calmed down now. I love Dennis dont' think until now I have ever disagreed with him. I don't regret sending him money - I just wished he had not made a comment one way or the other. The fact is I'm not FOR Edwards I'm against Clinton REALLY AGAINST Clinton, and only a tad less against Obama. I also happen to think Clinton and Obama are more likely to lose the generl election. Repunks are going to have a field day with Barak Huesin Obama's name - and the Clinton haters will rush in DROVES to vote against her - I do not think the repunks will be as motivated to vote AGAINST Edwards as they will be for both Clinton and Obama

The only candidate I'm truly for is Dennis and I just wished he had let his first round voters decide for themselves what to do in the second vote.

[senseandsensibility]

90. Emotions are running high around here

but I'm glad you've calmed down. :hi: Let's not give up on Dennis yet. I hear you about both Hillary and Obama and have the same concerns.

[LostinVA]

114. I'm not surprised in the least -- by either of them

But... it's still disappointing.

[LWolf]

56. I don't think that means he wants Obama to win the nomination, lol.

Frankly, I don't like this part of politics, and I don't mind saying it. I believe that Obama's much more conservative platform would be easier for him to campaign against later on, which is why he'd rather see Obama survive than Edwards.

Too many potential Kucinich voters have labeled Edwards "the electable progressive candidate" and while they may like DKs platform better, they are more willing to support Edwards for a "win."

I can't claim any real understanding of his thinking, but I'd bet that's what it is all about.

I'll be voting for DK on my ballot in May, if he is still there. If not, I'll vote for whoever looks to have the best chance of defeating Obama and Clinton. :shrug:

[ecstatic]

60. You know how your post sounds, right?

You say you defended Kucinich's choice of Ron Paul, a known white nationalist; but when Kucinich supports Obama as his second choice, suddenly you're so angry and have moved on to Edwards? How should one interpret your opinions?

[LostinVA]

62. Hillary's voting record is definitely more progressive than Obama's

She's my first choice. I'm also okay with Edwards and Biden. I'd have to hold my nose for Obama, but I'd still vote for him, if he got the nomination.

[cooolandrew]

68. I think there is probably a VP promise in his support. Obama Kucinich could be a good balance.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

74. LOL ... yeah, righhhhhhhhhhhhht...

like Obama would ever pick Kucinich for VP.

[helderheid]

76. No shit!

:hi:

[Hoof Hearted]

77. It would be a ticket straight to obscurity is what it'd be. n/t

[readmoreoften]

106. Sad. Hilarious. Correct. /nt

[Stop Cornyn]

95. More likely a Vilsack-Hillary-style agreement to pay off campaign debts

[undeterred]

72. I don't understand Kucinich's move, but no one is less progressive than Hillary.

It would have made more sense for him to throw his support to Edwards, but I suspect this is a strategic move.

[maximusveritas]

78. That Drum Major Institute score is based on just 8 votes from half a year

Talk about misleading.

By the better ratings systems (ADA, National Journal, Progressive Punch), Obama is well ahead of Edwards.

[Stop Cornyn]

89. Obama whole Senate record is hardly any longer. Was he in the Senate for a whole year before he

decided to run for office?

[DemKR]

81. Congrats! n/t

[debbierlus]

84. I am aghast at Kucinich. I guess it is Edwards.

Unless this is a deliberate ploy to get people committed to Edwards in some kind of reverse psychology......

Did Kucinich just sell out for a cabinet position?

[Le Taz Hot]

98. I'm there.

Edwards has my support now. Though I gave up on Kucinich after Ron Paul.

[Sultana]

99. .

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. How could ANY of you support a plan that would force me to contract w/ private health insurance

Whether I want to or not. That's the most disgusting
perversion of the idea of universal health care I've
ever heard of.

Edwards' truly universal health care plan will ensure that every American has health insurance. He will require proof of insurance when income taxes are paid and when health care is provided. Families without insurance will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or another targeted plan or be assigned a plan within new Health Care Markets.

Families who lose coverage will be expected to enroll in another plan or be assigned one. For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/20071128-health-care-mandate

This plan would "mandate" NO ONE but private citizens, NOT corporations.

I am SICK of the government creating MORE rules for how we live
our lives and saying that it's OUR responsibility to all chip in
for this conformist, corporatist society they want to establish,

Where corporate charters of for-profit insurance companies and
adjusters and credit card agencies are enshrined in our very
laws about how citizens are required to behave, while the
corporations live off the fat of the land.

Boooo! BOOOOO!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[Czolgosz]

102. NO one's plan does that, Edwards and Clinton both have public run options you can choose.

[Czolgosz]

101. recommended

[OneBlueSky]

105. yeah, he lost me too on that one . . .

while Kucinich has always been my first choice, my pragmatic side has recently caused me to accept the fact that he doesn't have the proverbial "snowball's chance in hell" and to switch my allegiance to John Edwards . . . Edwards is the only viable candidate talking about THE issue that undergirds all other issues -- war, healthcare, the environment, food safety, etc. -- and that is the influence and control that corporations have in Congress and the White House -- and the need to change that situation if we want to accomplish anything . . .

Dennis' effective endorsement of Obama is beyond puzzling to me -- it's unfathomable . . . and it certainly lessens my opinion of him . . .

[readmoreoften]

107. Thanks for this post, my fellow Texan... I'm with you 100%. Edwards is all I got now.

I'd still vote DK in the general if hell turned into a pumpkin and the SOB got himself the nod, but now I'm SOLIDLY Edwards in the primary all the way.

The way things are going, if Edwards isn't the nominee, I may do a write-in. I'm conflicted about it, but I don't see this shit ever changing unless someone does something to change it.

Let these fuckers court MY vote for once. I'm sick of begging for crumbs.

[Stop Cornyn]

118. Michael Moore and Ralph Nader agree with you.

[femrap]

119. I couldn't believe Kucinich and his

support for Obama.

Sometimes I think people assume just because a person is Afro-American, they are progressive and firmly fight for the Left.

That is NOT the case.

Go Edwards.