A Clark/hillary Ticket In 2004? - Page 3 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 02-09-2005, 07:08 PM

Buffalo Hillary
By Lisa Makson
Published 2/8/2005

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Hillary Clinton is meticulously laying the groundwork for a presidential bid in 2008, evident in her recent round of ambitious speeches. The media was too busy reporting on her illness last week to notice a revealing speech she gave in Buffalo the day she fell sick, a speech in which she essentially renewed her call for Hillary Care.

"The richest nation in the world should be able to find some way to provide every citizen with quality, affordable, health coverage," Clinton said , arguing that it is a "moral responsibility" of government to provide such coverage, one that is in line with "our morals and religious obligations to care for the sick." Speaking at Canisius, a Jesuit college libertine enough to host her, Clinton did not explain how this moral vision on behalf of the sick and vulnerable squared with her staunch support for abortion.

Clinton cited a litany of statistics to argue for refashioning the U.S. health insurance system -- none of which hold up. First, Clinton said that the ranks of the "uninsured" are 40 million and growing. This is not true. A May 2003 report by the Congressional Budget Office states: "In recent years, the number of uninsured people in the United States has been pegged at approximately 40 million, or about 16 percent of the nonelderly population. By CBO's analysis, that estimate overstates the number of people who are uninsured all year and more closely approximates the number who are uninsured at a point in time during the year. A more accurate estimate of the number of people who were uninsured for all of 1998 -- the most recent year for which reliable comparative data are available -- is 21 million to 31 million, or 9 percent to 13 percent of nonelderly Americans."

Second, Hillary found it "troubling" that the U.S. "spends more money than any other country in the world" on health care, yet "we don't have results as good as some of the other countries that do have universal coverage," saying that the U.S. ranks "37th in the world in overall quality." This is not true, according to Robert Helms of the American Enterprise Institute, who notes that this U.S. ranking is based on a "very flawed and misleading" United Nations' World Health Organization study.

Helms has written that the WHO "report exhibits a strong ideological preference for health systems that rely on direct government management, an emphasis on equality of delivery and financing, and an absence of direct payment for medical care," observing that the WHO report thinks "health care is a special economic activity requiring intense governmental involvement" -- exactly the type of system Clinton envisages.

Also misleading was Clinton's claim that the U.S. spends "50 percent" more per capita on health care than Switzerland -- "15 percent of GDP" compared to "10.9 percent" -- yet has fewer doctors and nurses than other countries. "We spend more for several reasons," Helms writes, "we are wealthier, our consumers have more choices so are freer to spend as they chose, we have more use of higher technologies (note that lots of Canadians and other foreigners come to this country when they can't get access to newer technologies in their own countries), etc. -- but it is extremely difficult to measure actual differences in medical quality and outcomes. Having more nurses is a symptom of the lower-tech care in other systems. We certainly have more specialized physicians and more access to them than in other countries."

Finally, Clinton said that the "number one reason for family bankruptcy" is due to the uninsured and underinsured having "medical expenses they can't pay." Not so, according to the Galen Institute's Greg Scandlan, who has said that the study which Clinton bases this argument on is "so biased as to be worthless" because it comes from two partisans for universal health care, Harvard doctors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, "cofounders of Physicians for a National Health Program," a group that has been pushing for a government-run system.

Clinton made sure to avoid any mention of European countries that are moving away from a national health care system. These countries, groaning under the expenses of "free" health care, are looking to the U.S. health care system as a model of reform.

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis writes that "Advocates of national health insurance would do well to look at how countries like Germany, Sweden, and Australia are choosing free-market reforms to alleviate the problems of their national health systems.…Through painful experience, many of the countries that once heralded the benefits of government control have learned that the best remedy for their countries' health care crises is not increasing government power, but increasing patient power instead."

Worried about the health of her career, Clinton is back to demagoguing health care, proposing Big Government remedies that will make Americans no healthier than she was the day she gave her speech.

Lisa Makson is a reporter based in Washington, D.C.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7737

Jolie Rouge · 05-26-2005, 11:15 PM

Poll: Mixed messages for Hillary Clinton
Thursday, May 26, 2005

(CNN) -- More than half of those responding to a new poll said they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton if she runs for president in 2008.

But those saying they are virtually certain to vote against her topped those virtually certain to support her by 10 percentage points in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

The poll found 29 percent were very likely to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton for president and 24 percent said they were somewhat likely.

Seven percent were not very likely and 39 percent said they were not at all likely. The margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The poll found her on stronger ground than in June 2003, when a similar poll had as its respective numbers: 21, 21, 12 and 44.

According to the latest poll, 55 percent of respondents reported a favorable view of her, while 39 had an unfavorable one. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

These findings were similar to the June 2003 poll that found 53 percent reacted favorably toward her and 41 percent unfavorably.

The pollsters also asked respondents their view of Clinton's place on the political spectrum.

Fifty-four percent of all those questioned said they consider her a liberal, 30 percent a moderate and 9 percent a conservative, with a 3 percentage-point margin of error.

Among registered voters, the numbers were virtually the same, with 56 percent considering her a liberal.

When asked how likely they would be to vote for a woman in 2008, 32 percent of registered voters said very likely, 41 percent said somewhat likely, 9 percent said not very likely, and 11 percent not at all likely. The question did not explore whether the political viewpoint of the woman would affect the voters' attitudes.

The results were based on telephone interviews with 1,006 adults, ages 18 and older, conducted last Friday through Sunday.

The release of the poll comes amid steps by Edward Cox, son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, to challenge Clinton for her U.S. Senate seat from New York. Clinton served on the staff of the congressional Impeachment Inquiry in the wake of Nixon's Watergate scandal in 1974.

A poll earlier this month by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found overwhelming support for her -- 67 percent -- among New York voters, if she decides to run for re-election next year. Among Democrats, however, 65 percent surveyed want her to pledge to serve out a full term if she runs, negating a 2008 White House bid.

Sixty-one percent also said they'd like her to run for president.

Asked by CNN whether she could pledge today that she would serve out her U.S. Senate term if re-elected, or whether she would pursue a White House run in 2008, Clinton declined to say. "I am focused on winning re-election," she said. "My view is that life unfolds in its own rhythm. I've never lived a life that I thought I could plan out."

Meanwhile, the former finance director of her ultimately successful 2000 U.S. Senate campaign is awaiting his fate before a federal grand jury. David Rosen is accused of underreporting the costs of a star-studded fund-raiser four years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/...ton/index.html

excuseme · 05-27-2005, 10:53 AM

Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton

By Susan Page, USA TODAY 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for
Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Clinton commands as much strong support - but more strong opposition - as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president
Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

"Over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated ... and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. In a Pew poll released this month, Kohut called former president
Bill Clinton and the senator "comeback kids" because of their rising ratings.

"This may also reflect that she has been recasting her image as a more moderate person," he says.

Spokesmen for Sen. Clinton declined to discuss the survey. "She's just focused on working and doing her job for New York," says Anne Lewis, a veteran Democratic operative working at Hillpac, Clinton's political action committee.

Clinton has been leading the field of Democratic presidential contenders for the 2008 election, still more than three years away. She is running for a second Senate term next year and has dodged questions about whether she'll make a White House bid.

In the poll, 29% were "very likely" to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24% were "somewhat likely." Seven percent were "not very likely" and 39% were "not at all likely" to vote for her.

Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.

In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.

Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.

No woman has been nominated for national office by one of the two major parties since Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.

Among those who were very or somewhat likely to vote for Clinton for president, there were:

•A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.

•Significant differences by age. Two of three voters under 30 were likely to support her, compared with fewer than half of those 50 and older.

•Strongest support from those with the lowest income. Sixty-three percent of those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less were likely to support her, compared with 49% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher.

•And big swings by ideology. An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.

Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...voteforclinton

llbriteyes · 05-27-2005, 11:20 AM

How about a Barbara Boxer/John McCain ticket?

Linda

Jolie Rouge · 04-09-2008, 08:13 PM

some of this makes for interesting reading ... with 20/20 hindsight, of course...