Amid a tense battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders over competing visions for health care, a leading Wall Street analyst has put out a report saying that Clinton would be the best candidate for health care investors.
In a report titled “Healthcare: Our 2016 Outlook,”Jeffrey Loo of S&P Capital’s IQ Healthcare Equity Research writes that Clinton should be the preferred choice for the industry because she will preserve the Affordable Care Act and be unable to pass meaningful drug reform legislation:
Overall, we believe the best scenario for healthcare investors is a Democrat, presumably Hillary Clinton, winning the Presidency, as we anticipate the Republicans retaining control of Congress. In this scenario, in spite of Clinton’s numerous “threats” to rein in drug prices, allowing the re-importation of drugs, and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, we believe it is highly unlikely Clinton will be able to pass these initiatives through a Republican controlled Congress. Conversely, the Republicans’ efforts to repeal Healthcare Reform, would be thwarted by a Clinton veto as we do not anticipate the Republican obtaining the 2/3 votes to override a veto.
The report makes clear that it views the gridlock created by a Clinton administration paired with a GOP Congress as the rosiest picture for the health care industry.
Clinton has frequently boasted about her record during the 1990s. “I fought really hard,”she said at a Democratic town hall earlier this month. “The insurance companies and the drug companies spent millions against me. I know what it’s like to go up against the status quo and special interests.”
But now, it appears, they’re rooting for her.
When Bill appointed her to head up Health care. Sanders and Dr. Himmelstein of Harvard paid her a visit. they told her how a single payer system (established in every civilized country in the world) would cover every citizen and was cost effective. Medicare is administered for 3.4%. Insurance companies steal 45cents out of every $1 premium (your money) to pay for their millionaire CEO’ s and shareholders. When Hilary understood their single payer plan would get the for profits out of health care, she stood firmly against it…When Obamacare was established (a republican plan supported by Mutt Robme in Mass) single payer lost by one vote. Nurses and doctors came from around the country to have a seat at the table to establish a common sense single payer plan, they were arrested. Meanwhile so Obama could get his ACA supported, he sent David Axelrod to meet with Big Pharma. He told them the government would not go after regulating the drugs or support buying them in volume to save money. Now Big Pharma is charging 3000 to 5000% more for drugs that everyone uses….Hilary Clinton has been bought and paid for by these insurance/big pharma countries and NEVER ever supported single payer. We did a single payer bill in Delaware…850,000 citizens spending $8.5BILLION for medical only. We proved going to single payer would pay for mental, dental, optical, long term you name it and STILL save the State $3.5BILLION. Delaware the corporate state was inundated with lobbyists who put huge campaign contributions into the pockets of legislators who refused to hold a hearing on the issue…that’s how much the corporations are stealing from the American people….all that money is OUR money.
Senator Bernie Sanders has the qualities and abilities of a true leader! Bernie is fair, kind, honest, humble, energetic, authentic, intelligent, experienced, and passionate about helping every child succeed in this country, thus collectively building a stronger and brighter USA for future generations! Bernie’s health care budget will save the average family $5,000 a year! Bernie is democratic (by the people) socialist (for the people). These democratic socialists programs built this country including our schools, our roads, our national parks, (which saved the buffalo), our US Post Office, social security, our fire depts, our military, etc etc Bernie is not communist. Bernie is Jewish the opposite of communist! Bernie’s goal is to raise the min wage to $15 an hour which is fair and long over due and will also grow the economy. When people make more they contribute more to small business and competition keeps prices down which creates more balance within the economy. Check out Bernie’s long record of helping ordinary people on you tube. The veterans of foreign wars recently gave Bernie the highest congressional award for his fight for veterans. 170 top economists say Bernie’s budget will save the middle class and grow the economy. Get involved! Pass out fliers and make phone calls. Go to berniesanders.com for more information and contribute $5, $10, what you can afford! Check out your voting laws in your state today and remember every vote counts in this very important election. Vote smart! Vote Bernie!
I didn’t realize how long that last comment I wrote to rrheard was.
Rather than add on to that specific comment, I’ll just put them up here.
Can Sanders withstand the GOP attack machine?
“The GOP’s opponent will not be treated just as a rival candidate — but as a target to be eviscerated. The assault will be multilevel — from right-wing talk shows, news outlets, and super PACs spending hundreds of millions.
We have no way to know whether Sanders can handle such a full-throated and coordinated assault. He has never remotely been tested at the national level. To date, he has campaigned effectively in two small states. Addressing the entire country with an actively engaged and hostile opposition is a very different — and daunting — task.
And make no mistake: A Sanders nomination would offer the GOP a target-rich environment. His self-proclaimed socialism, his support for higher income taxes, his policy toward Iran, and his trillions in proposed new spending are ripe targets for attack — and distortion. Nor will the GOP attack machine limit itself to ruthless and unfair criticisms of Sanders’ policy prescriptions. It will go after the man himself — aiming to make him look weak, un-American, old, and incapable of dealing with a dangerous world.”
——
Its a legitimate question which will be important during the election and after because the attacks aren’t going to end.
“We could not only lose the presidency, but also hand over the entire government to an increasingly extreme Republican party. And having Congress, the president, and ultimately the Supreme Court under Republican control would make this a vastly different country.”
And they already have way too much power.
“Chomsky: I’d ‘absolutely’ vote for Hillary Clinton”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192
The GOP attack machine is somehow more vicious than the Clinton attack machine? Please. Have you been paying any attention to the slime they have been oozing lately? Or the trip down memory lane this has provoked of their 2008 attacks?
Anyway, voting around who you imagine is least likely attackable is about the lamest “strategy” there is. This sort of brilliant thinking brought the Democratic Party the candidate John Kerry in 2004.
i think he will have a better chance of bringing out the democratic base then Hillary who will just try to use a watered down republican strategy .The media will likely all side completely with the republican candidate but sanders honesty and conviction are rated highly even by republican voters and media single sided attacks on his character could be used to
demonstrate just how bad the problem has gotten.one thing is certain a sanders democratic nomination would truly reflect a historic crossroads.
Democrat attack machine, my ass. Are you aware that a common criticism of the democrat party is that they compromise too often with Republicans?
Are you aware of how Obama has been treated by the GOP? Unless the motivation is race, ( I think its only that he’s a democrat) do you think they would treat Sanders differently?
What I quoted (link added and showing up further down the thread)
is saying that the attacks are going to arrive no matter who democrats choose. The concern stated was that Bernie was not battle tested and Hillary is. I am sympathetic to that concern.
I think Hillary is better suited for whats coming from Republicans during the election and if she wins while being the president. Also I think the dislike for Hillary or the lack of dazzled worship is to some healthy. I can imagine people, outside of the traitors in government, willing to protest foreign policy decisions made by her but not so sure with Bernie.
And anyway, the election season is young. I’m not too interested right now only have some irritation that a site I’ve been spending time on has become one sided election central. Boo. I’m not sure who I’m voting for only that its not a Republican.
AG Michael Mikasy spoke on MSNBC that Hilary CANNOT be president. She violated federal law which prohibits her from taking the presidency or holding any seat in our government in the future. When she was on the Watergate hearings, she was fired and not given a letter of recommendation. She has been a corporate supporter, who didn’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964…she was a Goldwater girl at that time. Hilary has a foreign policy problem. Everything she did as Sec. of state has been a fiasco…Honduras: overthrew the democratically elected prez and installed a drug lord making Honduras the murder capital of Central America. Libya now a failed state. Syria, Iraq, etc….are failed states because of her foreign policy belief in Regime Change…she is no progressive she is a regressive who most naturally belongs in the republican party.
dang, I didn’t leave the link for the first part of what I was quoting.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials
/2016/02/18/clinton-can-withstand-gop-attack-
machine/Mw3Mo9wowxfaslFKHRXm4L/story.html
I should probably shorten that but I know for myself, I never trust urls I can’t see.
Sorry for any confusion.
The interesting discussion rrheard started below is getting to be a lengthy scroll, so I’ll post this up here. You know what else is going on the DKos site too, open rebellion and civil war. I’ve never seen this kind of thing there before (admittedly, I quit reading it for ten years, until I was curious about the atmosphere this year).
People are PISSED about that chanting-English-only lie, the latest example of the blatant dishonesty of Hillary Clinton’s supporters and their willingness to support any tactic by their campaign. And the lie is still out there, being repeated, barely if at all retracted by the media, despite having been discredited almost immediately with video evidence.
I’ve never seen so many obviously longtime Democrats saying they’ve had it and are ready to leave the party if this stuff continues.
So, here’s one MORE reason I’m glad that the Sanders challenge is happening in the Democratic Party —- it’s shined a klieg light on how rotten the insides are, not only of the leaders of the party but of the tired sad souls of so many of its everyday apologists. At this point there’s no going back, either the party is going to change and succeed or it’s going to double down and sink.
And we would not have reached this, to me, quite welcome state if Sanders had just run third party. This is where the action is.
I just saw that piece on DKos re: the chanting-English only and my response was, seriously? Why the hell would Sanders supporters ever respond that way? It makes no sense. Do you have a link to the video evidence?
Try Susan Sarandon’s twitter, she actually did a lot to get the word out quickly after Huerta kicked the whole thing off with a tweet – Sarandon had been there at the event, too.
Snopes.com rated the story false in record time, I think they put the video up too.
Chris Hedges at truthdig:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_i_support_dr_jill_stein_for_president_20160221
I’m sure she’ll be the best President money can buy.
Read Bernie,s book; he has been consistent and has won by being what he is. Now look at the picture of him being dragged away by two cops in Chicago as he fought for integration while Clinton was a Goldwater girl to become a Ford supporter as he and killinger overthrew the government of Indonesia and then worked for Nelson Rockerfeller and lately she was instrumental in overthrowing the government of Libya creating chaos and killing. They have that much in common, they are consistent but only one lies to win. Yes, it will take more than Bernie, it will take millions of Americans in the streets taking the country back.. It will take strong real Trade Unions for the majority of Americans and on and on BUT, Bernie is a good start.
To make significant real positive change for the working class of the USA will require two things. First, election of Bernie Sanders…highly doubtful with 700 super-delegates in the fixed Clinton bag. Second, tens of millions of Americans in the streets demanding real change…… Americans get together, haaaaaaaa. Get ready for the same old, same old. Black people voting for Hillary makes as much sense as white working class males voting Republican….dumbbbbbbb!
Here is an interesting video/article about Hillary Clinton at Truthdig:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_should_applaud_hillary_clinton_20160220
Which is why I will never vote for her.
Did the report state that gridlock created by a Sanders administration would be problematic for health care investors?
The title of this article could’ve just as easily been about the wall street analyst stating how a republican controlled congress is best for health care investors , or more accurately he could have named all of the republicans in congress plus a democrat president as best for health care investors. So why not?
The endorsement was for gridlock. The wall street analyst believed republicans would continue to control congress so he advised voting for a democrat president because both sides would stop each other from doing what he thought again: wasn’t good for health care investors.
The quote by Clinton in this article is just another lie by her. She IS the status quo and special interests.
Women for Bernie Sanders 2016 (Facebook)–
‘Although her campaign appeared to panic in the past few days, in the end Clinton got the win she needed to stay alive and in front. But Sanders also proved that, even with the deck stacked heavily against him, he can come pretty close to beating the house. Clinton is expected to do much better in South Carolina (and if she doesn’t, expect more panic stories). Either way, Sanders now has the funds, and the ability, to carry the fight to states that Democrats actually need to win in November—like Massachusetts, Michigan,
Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—where Sanders’s economic message and enthusiastic support among young voters (a group he also apparently won in Nevada) may well tilt the odds in his direction.’
?#?Women4Bernie? ?#?FeeltheBern? ?#?NVforBernie? ?#?AmericaTogether?
Count on 4 more years of intense republican obstruction if she becomes president. They’ve had 8 years to perfect their skills and will put them to use with joy..
I lived in VT a long time and voted for Sanders many times, and have spoken with him at a spaghetti dinner/forum he threw in my former town. My impression is that he is a very careful politician, considering everything he says for the impact, and accuracy of his statements. Some might criticize this, but for working with Republicans and overcoming their obstruction, I consider it a positive trait.
I think that the Clintons, although more like moderate Republicans than true Democrats, are hated by the right for their successes, both in office and in picking the pockets of the rich for their “foundation”. Clinton will work with the Republicans to further erode the rights and financial lives of the majority of the population, just as Obama is working with them on TPP. She’d be a disaster for the majority of us.
This is a ringing endorsement, not for Mrs. Clinton, but for gridlock.
It will be ironic if Sanders is elected and then stymied from dismantling Obamacare by the Republicans. President Obama preserved George Bush’s legacy, so it will be only fair that the Republicans preserve his.
I’m not sure I understand your next to last sentence. Sanders helped pen the ACA, and at his rallies, he touts it as a major victory, so it’s not likely he’ll attempt to dismantle the ACA. He may alter it in some way, but I would think some form of it would remain.
Sanders dismantling Obamacare is a Clinton lie, and a smear (thanks Chelsea, daughter of privilege who will never have to worry about making her insurance premium/deductible in her life).
A transition to Medicare for all, or single payer, would amount to just cutting out the insurance companies, who provide nothing of value, and moving people to the Medicare system. In fact, the insurance companies could be involved in the paperwork transition, with many of their lower level employees moved to the Medicare system to help process the increased paperwork, and their executives moved to where ever they were planning to go with their ill gotten gains. The private company fees to be gradually eliminated as the transition is complete.
I am on Medicare, and I can tell you that it has many flaws and is far from an advanced European style single payer system. I find it ironic that Republicans want to destroy it when they, through the supplier companies and Congress mandated inability of Medicare to negotiate prices, are probably the ones most profiting from it. Special bandages I needed are charged to Medicare at $20 each, while I can buy the same ones for $7.50 each on Amazon. I called the supplier and asked if I could return the $400 worth I did not need and they told me that the insurance rules do not allow it. So they will hit me with an $850 co-pay for over delivering too many bandages, because there is only a 10-day return window, and one cannot accurately decide if one’s medical condition would need the amount of supplies ordered and sent to me by the local hospital. The system needs massive change, and the first change would be to allow the huge system to negotiate pricing with suppliers, pharmaceutical companies, equipment suppliers, etc. The second change would be to strengthen criminal fraud enforcement, with draconian penalties for those who do defraud the Medicare system, both users and providers. And it has to start soon, as the ACA is proving to be, as acknowledged in the article, an unsustainable system, crafted for the insurance companies to profit from.
Hillary supporters and the Republicans are the victims of a nationwide affliction- STOCKHOLM SYNDROME.
If you guys want to have some serious belly laughs go over to DKos and read some of the Pro-Hillary partisan’s defenses of her (pragmatism, LOTE, you are immoral if you don’t hold your nose and vote Dem to keep GOP out arguments).
Read the piece by RETTIII today and then look at the comments.
Hillary Clinton partisans (and many “mainstream” dems) simply don’t get it. When push comes to shove, and despite unconscionable flaws in Hillary Clinton’s record, character and policies, they nevertheless believe they are entitled to registered Dem voters votes based on a LOTE theory and that anyone who doesn’t cast their vote in that manner is immoral and to blame. Thankfully it appears some others are setting them straight, not that they’ll ever “grock” what they are trying to teach them.
As many commenters rightly respond–“fuck you–you want my vote, earn it.” The LOTE appeal is simply losing its effectiveness. The idea of “party solidarity” is losing its luster because the vast majority of regular Americans realize that both the Dem and GOP elite in America are nearly 100% aligned in their economic worldview even if they differ in advocating no regulation vs. tepid ineffective regulation. Americans are rightly perceiving neoliberal economics as a failure if not intrinsically immoral and despite there being wildly differing opinions on what to do about it.
I’d argue that Americans wherever they are on the political ideological spectrum are wising up, finally, after decades. The proper frame for American politics at present (and I’d argue normatively that it should always be the case) is: the economic elite’s “interests” vs. middle-lower working class “interests”; oligarchy/plutocracy vs. people powered democracy; economic neoliberalism vs. economic social democracy; empire vs. military non-interventionism (except in rare case of ongoing genocide); “free” trade vs. “fair” trade; military/intelligence/medial/FIRE/big fossil fuel/big pharma/congressional complex vs. human rights/environmental rights (i.e. effectively combatting climate change); voting rights vs. voter suppression; unfettered immigration vs. fair immigration and path to citizenship for resident undocumented immigrants . . .
It’s about up vs. down not left vs. right. Social issues are important (racism, sexism et al), but none of those issues, IMHO, ever have a chance of being meaningfully resolved, until there is “economic justice” in American society (and arguably the world i.e. until the neoliberal “free traders” are brought to heal so that the race is to the top for all the world’s working class people rather than a race to the bottom pitting them against one another).
Like I’ve stated repeatedly, Bernie Sanders is far from ideal in many ways, but he’s opening up the political space for people to start considering prospective alternatives to the status quo–particularly economically. And that’s very valuable in my humble opinion and rarely if ever been the case in my lifetime. He needs to do better job in connecting the dots between domestic economic policy and our foreign policy. He needs to draw the proper contrast between non-interventionism/anti-empire vs. faux humanitarian interventionism/economic-military hegemony. But I think he can be pushed in the right direction on the latter if elected although that’s a very difficult task given the power of the status quo forces, domestically and globally.
But the national Democratic Party better figure out this reality right quick like or it is going to watch its membership rolls hemorrhage registered voters for the next couple of generations or more (unless of course the party is taken over by “economic progressives”) unless it revamps its policy orientation.
Whether moral or immoral, at least for most Americans, it is always about the “domestic economy”. The American political party that can articulate that, and actually act and produce results in that sphere for the vast majority of Americans will have a lock on domestic politics for generations. Just as FDR democrats did for the most part before and after the “civil rights” rights movement caused a rupture in partisan alignment. Now that could shake out in electoral victories for right-wing nationalist/populists or it could shake out for social democracy. But it appears the status quo is crumbling before our eyes. At least I hope it is even if things have to get worse before they can get better. But America his hungering for clear alternatives to the economic status quo and that’s what’s driving the present election and I believe future ones as well.
Man, that guy (gal?) sounds just desperately hysterical. Demanding that we cease any thought processes and follow instructions to the letter like the sheeple that he/she apparently thinks we are.
@ avelna2001
Yeah it really is disturbing. But I think it is indicative of an ideology and way of thinking that is in its death throes. When fear of “the other guys” is all you’ve got to sell your partisans, or “vote for us we are incrementally better than the other guys” you shouldn’t really expect, assuming you are rational, that your “fear the other guy” strategy is really going to attract a lot of hard-core motivated partisans willing to do the hard work to keep you in office.
For me personally, and for my political worldview, I’d rather the Dems be in the vocal effective minority (i.e. doing what GOP does to Dems when Dems are in power) so long as the Dems exercise a little ideological consistency and solidarity and fight hard for their beliefs.
Decades of being sold down the river and stabbed in the back by your nominal allies who you elect to fight for their partisan voter’s policy preferences (and in the case of liberals/progressives worldview, I think the more moral, socially tolerant, and economically correct or sound principles than the GOP’s), just isn’t really cutting it for a lot of liberals/progressives any more.
I think we all understand we will lose battles along the way, and that it takes time to shift public opinion and that we should always subject our own ideas to critical scrutiny from whatever source, but “compromising” with bad ideas or morally bankrupt human beings just for the sake of our elected officials being able to claim “we got something done” (particularly if it isn’t the right thing or inconsistent with the policy preferences of those who elected you) simply isn’t good politics and never makes “good policy”.
And that’s not about “purity” and unwillingness to compromise, that’s about standing up for what you believe and fighting for it. But we need clear political choices in terms of policy. We need it so that we can distinguish between “cause and effect” of any particular “policy” or group of policies so that we are capable as citizens of discerning which policies are superior to others and to possess the capacity to have meaningful electoral accountability. There simply isn’t any getting around that.
But when two parties, in intent or effect, blue the lines so badly and refuse to stand for anything on principle (mostly Dems unfortunately) it yields bad policy in the name of getting things done (or by intent) and it makes accountability nearly impossible.
At least the T-baggers understand that political reality even if I fundamentally disagree with their worldview. And national Dems better wise up pretty fast or like I said I think they will hemorrhage supporters for several generations.
I’m agreeing with and enjoying your comments. The first term & a half of the Obama administration was an eye-opener for me, but not because I expected him to be all that left of center. I was much more disgusted with his everyday supporters than I was with him, frankly. These everyday people, including a number of friends, did not have some stake in the establishment that necessitated the kind of interference they ran verbally for all those years. Having known some of them during the Bush years, it was suspicious how all of a sudden they never talked anymore about war, or civil liberties abuses, or even issues of the poor.
They didn’t have to drop all their values just to protect their imaginary friend in the White House. They didn’t have to suddenly stop criticizing warmaking and erosion of civil liberties — but they did. They didn’t have to smear anybody who dared to criticize the shortcomings of this administration as racists, secret Republicans, libertarians (the horror!), racists again, and worst of all, “purists”. They didn’t have to claim everyone who wanted more wanted “ponies” and “unicorns.”
But they did. Memories….remember how “he’s only been president for three months, what do you expect?” Then six months, then a year, then two years, then it was…..once he’s re-elected, he’ll really be able to do what he wants. And all that working with the Republicans, well, that was 11 dimensional chess and he’s outsmarting them and anyway they are so mean, what can he do? Etc. Very sad.
Anyway. I am pleasantly surprised by this year’s developments.
Bernie is far from your ideal and yet you’re still voting for him?
Why aren’t you voting for Jill Stein?
“He needs to draw the proper contrast between non-interventionism/anti-empire vs. faux humanitarian interventionism/economic-military hegemony. But I think he can be pushed in the right direction on the latter if elected”
Who will be doing this pushing? Are these the same people that pushed Obama?
As far as Bernie opening up political spaces, that’s a service not a qualification. And anyway the conservative empire that brought us “Obama the Muslim Socialist from Kenya” is not threatened by support for Sanders (or Trump) Seems pretty obvious to me that’s only being allowed and encouraged right now because he/ they are going after Hillary.
If Bernie wins the political space you believe he’s opening will close and quickly. If she wins his supporters and arguments will recognized and used ONLY as the Muslim socialist Kenyan gift for Republican obstructionism.
So with that in mind, will the same people that you think could push Sanders in the right direction mentioned earlier (if elected) be willing to try to push Hillary, Republicans or do any pushing (in directions you would support) in LOCAL elections?
@ Candace
I voted for Jill Stein in the previous election. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee I will vote for her again. I will vote for Bernie Sanders if he is the nominee because he has a legitimate chance to beat every Republican and I don’t believe Jill Stein does.
Well the voters who vote for Bernie Sanders, and operating under the assumption Bernie Sanders if elected wouldn’t stack his Cabinet positions, advisors, Department of State staff, and regulatory appointments with Clintonites, I think the voters and his own appointments at least have a chance to push him in the correct direction. The minute Pres. Obama was sworn in and started appointing people like Rahm Emanuel I knew the game was up.
Any politician’s willingness to talk directly about the flaws in capitalism, at least as America is practicing it now, is both a service and a qualification to me. Others are free to disagree on that.
Possible. Maybe even likely. But it will be interesting to see how Bernie Sanders given his track record fights that fight, if at all.
I suppose it depends and that’s your opinion. I’ve willing to give him a chance by giving him my vote and then we’ll see what happens. I’m not a big believer that the past is always determinative of the future.
Not sure I understand what you’re getting at with that statement well enough to respond.
The people I think could push Bernie Sanders in the right direction, won’t be any part of a Hillary Clinton administration, but any voters who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton I’m sure will be vocal critics from the left of her administration although I don’t think they will be successful because Hillary Clinton isn’t really a liberal/progressive and could care less what they think. Hillary Clinton represents her ideological worldview and the people who will have paid to put her in office. And there won’t be much overlap there vis a vis Bernie Sanders supporters.
The concept of “pushing Clinton to the left” has no basis in reality. Because she, Like Obama before her, can make all the promises she wants to appear to be moving less, and then give Progressives the back of her hand just as Obama did. Best to give up on the Democratic party if she wins.
Personally, I am too old to try to change that party, which is rotten to its core, but am voting for Sanders to see if there is a chance at having a Progressive candidate who can actually make an impact on this sad country. If Hillary is the candidate, I will vote for Dr. Jill Stein again, as I did in 2012. Because like many Hillary supporters, I feel it is time for a woman president–but an ethical and honest one.
@ Mass Independent
In case the above wasn’t clear, the “her” I will be voting for again is Jill Stein. Although I obviously didn’t include that I might write-in Bernie Sanders instead, which I might. I like Dr. Stein’s policy positions even more than Bernie Sanders, but as of yet she has been unable to attract the citizen small dollar funding that Bernie Sanders has (at least so far) to make her a viable national candidate. That’s my only knock on her as a politician.
I asked you about Jill Stein because of your criticism of voters who support of Hillary over Bernie and your arguments for accepting defeat if Bernie loses to Hillary or which ever Republican candidate emerges (I think it will be Jeb) Seems like you are arguing for ideological purity and a lesser of two evils approach at the same time.
You are more aligned with the Green Party but a democrat has the best chance of beating a republican so you’re choosing the LOTE?
Also I was saying that if Bernie wins the nomination or the presidency, the political space you believe he’s opening will close and quickly because I feel its pretty obvious that the only reason its being allowed right now because its criticizing Hillary, their opponent. When they dont need him and his supporters that space will be gone.(We never heard the end of Obama the socialist but now we have one claiming to be and the response is crickets.) You can see it on this site. My guess is the Intercept needed money and got it or it was offered from someone that made a compromise that there was to be no criticism of Republicans and they wouldn’t criticize Bernie, or maybe its just an strange and meaningless pause during election season.
—
If she wins his supporters and arguments will recognized and used ONLY as the Muslim socialist Kenyan gift for Republican obstructionism. Candace
Not sure I understand what you’re getting at with that statement well enough to respond. rrheard
—
Of the money she received in the election and the rest of the Sanders supported criticisms they will be recognized and used as only one example Republicans clung to about Obama to argue that this president is not a legitimate representative of the people and they can and should oppose everything this danger to American society and the world tries to do –if they allow Bernie to get that far – their response to Scalia’s death about waiting for the next president to appoint a replacement reminded me of when GWBush said that he knew he got Florida – or suspiciously confident that they’ll win – because there is no way they would offer that soundbite to Bernie or Hillary.
In short: questions about legitimacy for obstruction but nothing will be allowed to change
—
Who will be doing this pushing? Are these the same people that pushed Obama?Candace
Well the voters who vote for Bernie Sanders, and operating under the assumption Bernie Sanders if elected wouldn’t stack his Cabinet positions, advisors, Department of State staff, and regulatory appointments with Clintonites, I think the voters and his own appointments at least have a chance to push him in the correct direction. The minute Pres. Obama was sworn in and started appointing people like Rahm Emanuel I knew the game was up”rrheard
—
That is what I’m talking about. If Bernie gets elected and does something unpopular, the voters feel betrayed and that’s it? You know that is some of what happened with Obama. And if Hillary is elected boy just forget about even making an effort!
Once voters step into the background in disgust there is nothing that can balance or overwhelm the influence of the insiders in the everyday world of the president.
for example:
—
The lobbyist, R. Bruce Josten, said in an interview that the powerful business bloc “is not going to tolerate” what it saw as a “backdoor attempt” by the White House to silence private-sector opponents by disclosing their political spending.
“We will fight it through all available means,” Mr. Josten said. In a reference to the White House’s battle to depose Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, he said, “To quote what they say every day on Libya, all options are on the table.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/politics/27donate.html?_r=1
—–
That’s quite a threat. What did or can we do? We got signs, petitions and angry posts, What options does this guy have?
I think democrats including Obama , Bernie and Hillary are more receptive to the will of the people if they can hear us but we have media serving the conservative, status quo empire that will make it very difficult if not impossible. If a republican is elected count on it moving to being criminal.
Did multimillionaire Hillary offer up any of her millions to Flint? I’m calling out all the multimillionaire and billionaire “Democrats”.
The governor is worth 300 million.
Clinton will say anything or support criminals in order to get elected. And the very powerful corporations counting on it. She behaves like a teen aged girl trying to wrangle the star quarterback. Move along everyone, nothing to see here, just another shameless and whorish politician. Follow the money.
Ironically, as Clinton’s newfound populism was spun from whole cloth only as a campaign PR measure, once Sanders started taking hold, nothing she’s said she “stands for” can be taken seriously, anyway.
This should tell the American people all they need to know about which candidate they should support if they want affordable health care.
Between this, the fact that she won’t disclose the speeches she gave to all the big firms endorsing her coronation, and her love of Kissinger-style world politics- the reasons for supporting Sanders keep piling up.
“we believe the best scenario for healthcare investors is a Democrat, presumably Hillary Clinton, winning the Presidency”
I am not exactly sure how the author jumps from this statement to the conclusion that healthcare investors believe Clinton would be the “best” candidate for them. Their wording makes very clear that they believe either Democrat would be beneficial. Their point is that the status quo would be maintained by partisan gridlock between the legislative branch and the presidency.
And she knows even better how to profit from the status quo and work hand-in-hand with the special interests to the detriment of the rest of us…
When she said that during the debate, with a straight face, I practically shouted at the television.
What she meant by that is that she knows how to “rub” up against them, purring and meowing softly as they scratch behind her ears.
And she and Bill profitted tremendously following 8 years of Clintons presidency. How is it that they can grow their wealthy by a factor of up to twenty or even one hundred times? According to one report they are worth nearly $200,000,000 million. Let’s remember that she gets paid over $250,000 for each speech/talk. Not bad pay if you can demand it… which she did. She is a carcinogen for the American middle class. No difference between her and the GOP.