Clinton Pledges to Slam Obama's Tactics at Cleveland Debate

"I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored." - Hillary Clinton Feb. 21, 2008

"Shame on you Barack Obama!" - Hillary Clinton Feb. 23, 2008

Which Hillary Clinton should we believe? This woman is so inconsistent she makes it EXTREMELY hard people to give her the benefit of the doubt even if they want to.

Just days after she had a "Moment" that might've revived her dead campaign, she comes out today attacking, screaming, spitting vernom and showing the side of her that gets everyone to tune out. She said "Since when did Democrats attack each other on health care?" That's very dishonest, considering she launched the very first health care attack in this election. here it is:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/mailer.pdf

And she launched the very first negative TV ad against a fellow Democrat - on healthcare and debates.

John Edwards who was the first to come out with a health plan, never had a mailer attacking Obama's plan on the basis of not forcing people to buy health insurance.

Obama responds:

I think she has a lot of nerve complaining. Her campaign has been trying to take Obama down anyway they can - instead of focusing on the issues and on their own campaign. Perhaps this is sour grapes - or just a tactical manoeuvre.

As first lady, Clinton did offer praise for free-trade agreements.

In 1996, Clinton said during a visit to New York that she believed everybody was in favor of ``free and fair trade.'' She went on to say, ``I think Nafta is proving its worth,'' according to an Associated Press account of the trip.

At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting ``a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.'' She added: ``It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.''

Strickland's statement that Bill Clinton said his wife opposed Nafta when it was enacted is the first public report of the former president saying his wife was against the agreement. Frankly Bill's word is not good enough for me - they are say anything do anything to win politicians. And more to the point I do not think in their hearts they understand what it is like to have your job sent across the border or overseas. People are hurting - i know lots of people who are unemployed - in manufacturing and in tech jobs - they used to have work but now those jobs are in China, India and South America. At least Obama want to make it a level playing field so we can compete again.

Kels
From: Lawrence Kelly
Date: February 13, 2008 11:45:37 PM GMT-05:00AM
To: bsmith@politico.com

Subject: Hillary on trade. "No data"?

Mr. Smith:

Regarding your

The "boon" quote
February 13, 2008
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

and this excerpt:

"It's actually pretty hard to figure out where Clinton was, personally, on Nafta in the 1990s. Though the Obama campaign has done its best, she seems to have said virtually nothing public on the subject, and though there's some chatter that she opposed it internally, I've never been able to stand that up either."

My comment on the "data lack" follows below, after my signature line.

Regards,

Lawrence Kelly
500 Colin Circle
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
734 929-2307

Comment:

Just before Iowa, I became curious as to just how much Hillary had involved herself in her husband's unexpected and quite peculiar penchant for vigorously pushing the badly backfiring economists' "no borders" experiment known as "free trade". Here's a summary of what I found:

If Iraq is "Hillary's big mistake", isn't China "Bill's big mistake"? Is it fair to blame the wife for the husband's errors, blame Hillary for Bill's blunders? Seems so. For the essence of Hillary's presidential pitch is: "Elect me. I was there -- been there, done that -- for the full eight years. I've got the experience". Indeed, unlike her Iraq vote, Hilllary seems prepared to admit that the Clintonian pushing of the NAFTA and China deals was in retrospect, a very large mistake, another learning experience. In this concession, Hillary would seem to give herself little other choice, than to share the blame with Bill. For, given her reliance on the "I'm experienced" pitch, what else can she say? "Yes, I was deeply involved in simply everything the administration did in those 8 years -- except of course for NAFTA and China"?

NAFTA and China are of course not minor blunders. We all know that, now. But is it fair to suggest that the remarkable damage to America's once-cherished manufacturing base could have been foreseen? Who had such good judgment, such good foresight? Anybody? As Tim Curry, MSNBC's national affairs writer, recently pointed out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21536832/), some indeed did. The late and lamented Paul Wellstone for one: "What Wellstone knew: Among the relatively few senators (only 15) voting 'no' were liberal Democratic senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota . . .". Curry notes that Jesse Helms of North Carolina also opposed the China deal, and Curry asks: "Did Wellstone and Helms have the wisdom to foresee consequences from the China trade deal that Edwards didn’t? Or has the wheel simply turned, so that lowering trade barriers — once so popular in the Bill Clinton Era — now has become a cause for remorse because the consequences are now more apparent?"

Today's trade refection and remorse come just a little too late, in the view of at least one Iowan, former local union president Ted Johnson. A recent PBS program on "Iowa's Take on Free Trade", after noting that "On the Democratic side, candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards have pledged to renegotiate NAFTA, but Hillary Clinton seems to stop short, promising to review the trade deal.", added that "That's not enough for Ted Johnson". Johnson's succinctly-stated view: "JOHNSON: They should have reviewed it before it got signed and perhaps they should have listened to some folks who said 'hey, this is not a good deal'." (See "Iowa's Take on Free Trade"; PBS Nightly Business Report; November 7, 2007; http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/071107b/)

One of those in addition to Wellstone who had vigorously tried to warn the Clinton administration of the obvious upcoming damage, long-time trade-deal critic Ralph Nader, tends to agree with Iowan Johnson, that Hillary's new help is coming just a little late. Noting Sen. Clinton's June, 2007 Michigan town hall statement that the upcoming Korea trade agreement is "inherently unfair" and will "cost us good middle-class jobs", Nader notes that these current Clinton appraisals could and should have been made as to "NAFTA and the WTO" -- and asks: "Where has she been for the past fifteen years?" Nader also notes (as did the above PBS program) that, unlike Obama's and Edwards" firm commitments to renegotiate such as the backfiring NAFTA, Hillary tends to fuzz over just what she might or might not do to correct such "inherent unfairness": "Still, she has not supported the renegotiation of NAFTA and WTO which the U.S. can force by utilizing the Treaties' 6 month notice of withdrawal from each . . .". (See "The NAFTA Two-Step"; June 19, 2007; http://www.counterpunch.org/nader06192007.htm)

Hillary's carefully-worded straddle on trade is understandable. While, as noted, such as the Des Moines Register seem to see her history of past mistakes as some kind of "toughening" plus, Hillary herself is understandably not too keen on unnecessarily adding to her list. Thus, she doesn't overtly apologize for her part in such as NAFTA and China. Indeed, when it comes to the trade debacle, she seems to be setting herself up as a sort of "smarter Clinton" -- one who, if the voters would just put her in full charge of trade, will do things much differently from Bill. See, for instance, such reviews of this tactic (or "electoral calculations") as New York Magazine's "Marital Discord: Bill Clinton was the ultimate free trader. But Hillary, tacking left, is sounding protectionist notes" (http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/34457/) and Bloomberg News' "Clinton Breaks With Husband's Legacy on Nafta Pact, China Trade" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=p...).

But the Bloomberg "Clinton Breaks With Husband's Legacy" review insists on giving us not simply the new tactic, but also a little Hillary history. Some excerpts:

"Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. 'The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. 'Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.'

And:

"Praise for Nafta"

"At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.' She added: 'It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun'."

And:

"In her interview with Bloomberg, Clinton was careful to describe Nafta as having been negotiated by the administration of President George H.W. Bush 'and then pushed through Congress in the Clinton administration',"

The New York Magazine review finds itself bemused by Hillary's attempt to blame the current trade debacle on not either herself or husband Bill but on George Bush's father. After noting Hillary's argument that ”’NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton administration’, she [Hillary] informed Time magazine”, the New York review adds this:

"It’s tempting to mock this last point as a nakedly disingenuous reading of history . . .. Though Clinton did, in fact, inherit NAFTA from the Bush 41 régime, he campaigned for its passage as if his life depended on it, taking on the out-front protectionist bloc in the Democratic party at a time when his standing was far from solid—an act of considerable political courage and even greater political skill. After pushing through the deal, Clinton described it as representing a seminal decision by the country not to retreat from a world in which 'change is the only constant'."

What has proved to be not so "constant", the magazine suggests, is the once-vigorous support for "free trade" that Bill Clinton could count on, trom his "economist" friends. The fact is that these once-zealous free trade pushers are now busily jumping the "free trade" ship:

"More broadly, the consensus among top-tier economists that underpinned the support for free trade has lately been rattled by a spate of revisionism. Alan Blinder of Princeton, a former vice-chair of the Federal Reserve and a staunch Democrat, has taken to arguing that the downsides of unfettered globalization may be far greater than standard doctrine has assumed—in particular, that offshoring and outsourcing may put as many as 40 million American jobs at risk in the next two decades. The Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson has joined the chorus, as has former Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers, who wrote recently that pledges to retrain workers displaced in the globalized economy are 'pretty thin gruel' when it comes to allaying the fears of the middle class."

In all of this, it may be unsurprising to find Hillary rather shamelessly trying to peddle the baldly self-serving pitch, in effect: "Okay. It's true. It was all just a big, awful mistake. But don't blame me or Bill. Blame George the First." Or as New York Magazine sums up things:

"This new political context helps explain why Hillary is charting a course on trade so different from her husband’s. And Washington is only part of the story—and for her, the less important part. In crucial Democratic primary states, the anti-globalization fever is running even higher. 'She’s lurching left on economics, and it’s all about Iowa,' says one Democratic insider with no affiliation to any presidential campaign. 'They know she is badly positioned on Iraq, especially out there, where the antiwar feeling is strong. So she has to compensate somehow, and this is her way of doing it..”

The question remains: has perhaps "experience" helped Hillary here? Might she be not just tactically but also truly a belated convert to the Nader view -- now become the Nader/Blinder/Samuelson/Summers view -- of the Clinton Administration's misbegotten trade deals? Has she, in short, "learned from this mistake"? Some think not, seeing the "conversion" as but convenient, and very temporary.

In this regard, it is of interest that the record of Hillary's Senate votes had been, until recently, quite uniform:

"Sen. Clinton has voted YES for all free trade agreements presented during her tenure in Congress, except for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2005. Sen. Clinton voted to extend 'most favored nation trade status' to China despite the country's record of substantial human rights violations." See: "The 2008 Democratic Candidates on Free Trade Agreements"; Deborah White; About.com: US Liberal Politics; http://usliberals.about.com/od/2008candidatesonissues/a/DemFreeTrade.htm. Ms. White adds what some might find a further insight: “Both Clintons are active leaders of the Democratic Leadership Council, a pro-corporate interests, centrist Democratic organization that fully supports U.S. free trade arrangements.”

Also of some interest may be Hillary's record on "outsourcing". As noted above, a former staunch "free trader", Alan Blinder, has lately had some substantial second thoughts about the "free trade" experiment -- and what he has to say about outsourcing bears repeating: "Alan Blinder of Princeton, a former vice-chair of the Federal Reserve and a staunch Democrat, has taken to arguing that the downsides of unfettered globalization may be far greater than standard doctrine has assumed—in particular, that offshoring and outsourcing may put as many as 40 million American jobs at risk in the next two decades".

"40 million American jobs". And these will be almost entirely "white collar jobs" -- most of the moveable blue-collar jobs having already gone via that companion to outsourcing called "offshoring" (move of plant, equipment and factory jobs, to China, etc.). As to "outsourcing", Hillary didn't fool around. She went right over to India, the prime beneficiary of American CEOs' outsourcing craze, and candidly told the Indians what she thought of oursourcing. Those Iowans who wear a white collar, or whose children wear white collars alongside their college loan obligations, might want to read the following rather carefully:

Hillary Clinton woos India
By Siddharth Srivastava
Asia Times Mar 1, 2005
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

"Hillary clears outsourcing air

"Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. 'There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue,' she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. 'It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind,' said Hillary.

"Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. 'We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences,' Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade. ***

"'Though the US understood that the economic vibrancy of India was in its own interest, there are people who feel left behind and might stir up negative feelings against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing,' Clinton remarked."

Former Wal-Mart director Hillary has apparently learned to understand such things as "the economic benefits of outsourcing". One might forgive Iowans (and such as Michiganders) if they are just a little bit slow -- as Hillary complained to her Indian friends: ". . . there are people who feel left behind and might stir up negative feelings against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing,"

It's not only "india". And it's not only Hillary's Senate voting record on trade or, as Bloomberg reported above, that her friends reassure that she remains a free trade true believer or, as the Bloomberg review puts it, ". . . friends say she's a free-trader at heart". Nor is it simply that as recently as the late 90s at Davos, she thanked the assembled business leaders for helping the Clintons push NAFTA through a very reluctant Congress. Nor that she assured the Davos autience that the "free trade" job was not over but had just begun ("'It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun'.") It is more likely the sheer convenience of the supposed sudden conversion -- just in time "for Iowa". As the Bloomberg report puts it:

"Labor leaders, upset about job losses they blame on Nafta, remain suspicious that she is too influenced by Rubin, the vice chairman of Citigroup Inc. and an outspoken foe of protectionism. 'The Rubin wing of the Democratic Party is heading up policy direction' for the Clinton campaign, said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers. That's 'going to be an issue' with union members, he said. `We don't need more of the same'."

"More of the same". Should that be the concern, once Hillary has got herself safely elected? After all, when husband Bill was campaigning for his first term, he too promised that if elected, he'd "do something about trade". And then, helped greatly by votes which believed him, he did do something. First NAFTA. Then, China.

Who to believe here? When in doubt, a handy rule is "Follow the money". Cash -- or cash flow -- is a fact, a fact that rarely lies. The fat-cat contributors don't give to those they don't trust to give back. Take Robert Rubin, for instance, still proud of the "free trade" damage that he talked Bill Clinton into doing, in spite of Bill's campaign promises to the contrary. As union leader Gerard has taken care to note, the same trade-zealot Rubin is prominent among Hillary's "trade" advisors. Are we to believe that he just doesn't know what he's doing, in backing Hillary? Or, that we know more about the real Hillary han does Rubin? Unlikely? Yes.

While banker and Citigroup chairman Rubin has been out of formal governmental office since his Clinton years as chief economic advisor then Secretary of the Treasury, his interest in promoting and preserving his Clinton-era free trade "breakthoughs" (NAFTA and China) continues unabated. For instance, shortly after the Democrats took over control of Congress last year, Rubin sped back to Washington to warn Democrats against doing anything rash (that is, anything substantial or, indeed, anything at all) about his trade "achievements":

Rubin, Summers Push Free Trade
Corporation fellow and former president try to sell trade policy to Dems
By CLIFFORD M MARKS
Harvard Crimson February 01, 2007
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516746

"Two Harvard heavyweights and former treasury secretaries told Congress’s Joint Economic Committee yesterday that the new Democratic majority must take a stand in favor of free trade. *** Though both are members of the same party as the committee’s majority, their testimony underscored a divide on trade policy among Congressional Democrats. Acknowledging that globalization has had negative effects on segments of the American workforce, Summers and Rubin backed free trade . . .".

The newly-elected Jim Webb wasn't buying. As the Crimson report notes, "However, some of the committee members such as Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), who once wrote that globalization and illegal immigration are leading to 'a different life and a troubling future' for middle-class Americans, were less enthusiastic about free trade’s effect on the United States."

Several months later, Webb reiterated his displeasure with the continued influence of what might be called "Rubin Democrats":

"He [James Webb] criticized what he called 'the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party,' after Robert E. Rubin, former President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary, saying those Democrats share the same problem as many Republicans: 'We're not paying attention to what has happened to basic working people in the country'." (See "Webb lauds freshman power"; Washington Times, July 17, 2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070717/NATIO...)

So, let's try to follow the money -- or, in predicting what will be an elected Hillary's true trade program -- let's follow Robert E. Rubin. Who's Rubin backing this year?

Rubin to Back Clinton
By PATRICK HEALY
The Caucus
NY Times NOVEMBER 7, 2007
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/rubin-to-back-clinton/

"Aside from Al Gore, the biggest presidential endorsement prize that is still up for grabs from the Clinton administration is Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary and deficit hawk who remains one of the most admired economic stewards in Democratic politics.

"Mr. Rubin is now ready to go public: Despite some early misgivings about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy, he is scheduled to headline a major fundraiser for her on Dec. 13 in New York City, according to a memo describing the event. Democrats close to the Clinton campaign said today that he may appear at additional events, with her or former President Bill Clinton, before the primaries begin in January.

***

"Democrats close to Mr. Rubin say that he and Mrs. Clinton have spent time together privately this year discussing economy policy and the race — as he has with his former boss, Mr. Clinton, who encouraged the Rubin endorsement.

***

"He is is scheduled, with Mr. Altman, to hold the opening dinner for Mrs. Clinton’s 'Winter Summit: Grand Finale' forum, her last major fundraiser of 2007, which will take place in New York City on Dec. 13 and Dec. 14. The dinner is for supporters who sell more than $25,000 in tickets for the event."

___________________________________

So, what is Hillary's real (post-election) plan for "trade reform"? Is her surprising 11th-hour conversion from a long-standing free trade addiction a genuine as well as a sudden one? Or, is it but a convenient and passing turnabout -- what is sometimes called, in religious circles, a “death-bed conversion” (with, in Hillary's case, it being not so much a fear of God's looming judgment as that of a mass of completely-trade-disgusted Iowans).

Thanks for all that info - but it may be too much for most people. So what is your take on her latest - "Shame on You Barack" - Have you watched the tape - she seems like an hysterical mom - really po'd - just sour grapes - or tactical. The past about debating his campaign tactics seems like a suicide wish. but i do not think that that will really happen.

Those mailing have been around for weeks - she has already seen them - I have seen her in other videos pre Wisconsin's primary waving them about - but not like this time. Maybe she just wants to go out with a bang.

There is something about an older white woman saying "Shame on you" that does not sit well with me. It reminds me of some condescending school marm - which would be fine if Clinton's campaign had not been distorting Barack's record since Iowa, where ABC reported they did poll pushing, trying to change the rules ( they (Ickes) made) in Nevada, introducing the race card via surrogates and finally Bill's Jesse jackson blunder. Theirs have been the Rovean tactics - not just dirty tricks - but UGLY. Their's has been the campaign the campaign that was divisive of the Democratic party. Then the change you can xerox remark. Give me a break.

Oddly, while Hillary lambasts details of Obama's health care plan, noone seems to have taken a real look at the peculiar rationale behind Hillary's plan?

Here's a review, put together back when the Iowa primary loomed.

Lawrence Kelly

Key Issue #1: Health care:

As the Des MoinesRegister notes, "for many", Hillary remains "regarded as the one who fumbled health care reform".

Over her 8 years of White House residence, the one real assignment Bill had given Hillary was health care reform. The consequence: A clear and utter botch -- with Hillary deciding that any "reform" of our failed health care system must for some reason preserve the role of those who've failed, primarily the sorry group of for-profit companies known as "health care insurers". The sop is, "But they must be much more carefully watched!" The first time around, the job of watching the insurer incompetents had produced such an indecipherable crazy-quilt of watcher groups and committees that a blown-up graphic of that incredible maze became the opponents' chief exhibit on the Senate floor. Harry & Louise were given credit for torpedoing the hapless Hillary. Less appreciated was that her Rube Goldberg attempt to have cake and eat it too -- to have "universal" health care, but one somehow run by the discredited insurance profiteers -- fell of its own indigestible weight.

IIn short, and to put it candidly, Hillary plainly and simply "blew it". With everyone in the early nineties ready for and expecting to finally get Harry Truman's 1948 universal health plan, Hillary somehow managed to get the momemtum shelved for perhaps yet another generation.

That was "the experience". But how about the "learning from experience"?

Being nice to the insurers and such back in 1993 -- keeping them as main players in the supposed "reform" -- clearly hadn't worked. So, what to do -- this time? Simply send the failed insurers packing -- and then do a real reform? No. The apparent lesson: If nice doesn't work, be even nicer. So, this year, the nicely-embedded insurers are so relaxed (unthreatened by, indeed even looking forward to the expansion of their take in a Hillary-style "reform", one in which all Americans will be required to buy insurance) that we have the truly remarkable spectacle of "health reformer" Hillary garnering more "health care industry" contributions than even the most regressive Republican. See the June, 2007 California Nurses' Institute for Health & Socio-economic Policy study at http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_marketbasedhealthcare_062607.... And see the New York Times' more current October 28 update at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/us/politics/29health.html?_r=1&ref=pol... ("Mrs. Clinton received $2.7 million through the end of September . . . *** and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City . . . $1.4 million."))

As Newsweek recently summed up things: "And the captains of the health care industry who once viewed her as the root of all evil are now filling the coffers of her campaign". The captains, the magazine adds, like Hillary's "reform", particularly the fact that "Her proposal calls for mandatory participation, which the industry tends to favor".

How Hillary Won Over the Health-Care Industry
Susannah Meadows
Newsweek Sept. 17, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20822145/site/newsweek/

So, the apparent lesson: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. This is what the Register applauds as Hillary "realism". She has learned, the paper tells us, how "to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure . . . ". So, when all the smoke clears after "Hillary health reform", one will find all the old player/political contributor insurers still standing -- and smiling, for now with a very nice new requirement: everybody must buy insurance. True, the same ol' "Watch 'em closely!" from the 1993 plan will be put in play. But, does anyone anymore buy the "Set 'em free -- but watch 'em closely" form of "government"? We freed the mortgage brokers, but what good were the supposed "watchers"? Our trade representatives freed the toy companies to move all their production over to China and then bring it back, "free" (no tariffs) -- but where were the watchers when the lead-tainted product came pouring back in? We freed the telecommunications industry so that it -- they -- might better compete among themselves and, as they promised a naive Congress, "lower prices". But, as I write this few have noticed any "lower prices" and the "chief watcher", the head of the FCC, looking toward his waiting cushy job in the industry, is about to further free his charges, this time to become virtual monopolies of the news, in the cities of Michigan and the cities of Iowa.

So much for "Free 'em, but then watch 'em" reform. "Experience" tells us that that just does not work. Hillary's experience apparently tells her that it does.

And as for learning by mistake, perhaps Hillary herself has best summed up her "progress", 1993 to 2007: "You know, I feel a little bit like this is deja vu all over again". (See "Hillary Clinton: Health Care 'Deja Vu All Over Again'. ABC News: Sept. 16, 2007 http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=3610027&page=2)

Watching all of this unfold, Phil Jarrett, "a college student soon to be uninsured", decided he best take some time to look very closely at Hillary's proposed new health plan. He concludes it is at best a kind of "half-baked" thing and, noting that Hillary herself had observed that "none of us . . . would fashion the kind of health care system America has inherited", wonders why Hillary then chose to build her "reform" right on top of such a patently faulty foundation. As he puts it, ". . . it is somewhat peculiar that Clinton would want to construct her reform on this pre-existing system that none of us would fashion". Jarrett then asks what may seem to some a very good question:

"I want to know why she is taking this route towards health care reform where we keep the same old insurers who have been mucking things up for years."

Single-payer insurance would cure nation's ills
By: Phil Jarrett
Truman State University Index 9/20/07
http://www.trumanindex.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFri...

The root of Mr. Jarrett's confusion may be found in this informative factoid, buried deep in the above Newsweek review of Hillary's proposal: "She frequently talks about how she now understands that change must be incremental . . .". "Incremetal". And, "now understands". So, Hillary has indeed "learned" from her 1990s mistake: do nothing "drastic", do nothing "basic". Just tinker around the edges here and there. Put a new dress on the health care pig and loudly reintroduce it as "reformed". This is what Hillary's "experience" has taught her, and this is why the relieved health insurance industry is busily shoveling thousands into her campaign coffers.

Some years ago, a true reformer -- indeed, back in the 1770s, he was called a "revolutionary" -- indicated what "experience" had taught him, if not Hillary:

"The worst of all policy is doing things by halves. Penney wise and pound foolish has been the ruin of thousands."

And:

"What we have now to do is as clear as light, and the way to do it is as strait as a line."

(Thomas Paine, "Common Sense"; Signet Classics 2003 edition at pages 111 and 114.)