ZZZ, Have i suggested Condi Rice for President? Call me old-fashioned but I really don't think being President is a good choice for someone's first elective office.
If you find her too hawkish, I'd say relax because it's just a pose. She would handle foreign threats as Bill did, ignore them and hope they go away. As for corruption, you need to go back and read some of the articles about the Rose Law Firm, billing records, FBI files, cattle futures, Whitewater, etc. I'm sure you'd approve of her likely appointments, eg Janet Renos, Ruth Bader Ginsburgs, etc.
AAA, Here's a link to HillaryCare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan Looks like you are spot on about the socialist nature of it. Presonally, that would be OK with me, but I can understand if others don't like it and use it as a reason not to "like/vote" Hillary. Going into your next post which hit as I wrote this, HC was never charged with anything. It all looks like political smoke from this side of it -- and very well done smoke as well as I remember the constant media pressure the Clinton's were under. Digressing a bit, I like Ginsburg. You are correct in assuming I am liberally oriented. I don't see anything wrong with government regulation done intelligently. No regulation leads to $75 oil, 40M+ americans without healthcare coverage, Enron, etc.. Overly conservative judges leads to an attempt to legislate morality, the rights of corporations over individuals, and the suspension of civil rights. I just don't buy into this as a better future for the US. But as I say that is a digression from the Why do people have such a visceral hatred of HC topic I was interested in.
Hillary provoked some backlash by acting like she had been elected to a policy role herself. She had not been elected to anything. She was First Lady, a ceremonial role. She made it clear that she was not content with that. If she had a winning personality and dripped charm, she might have pulled it off. But she didn't and doesn't have either Bill's charisma or his people skills. She hid behind the role of First Lady when it suited her, eg the "pretty in pink" press conference, and she took the gloves off when she thought she could get away with it.
I do remember people making out that she was a power crazed bitch. Somehow, Nancy Reagan was able to strike that balance. At the time, I just thought it was rough politics -- if I'd only known where we would end up. :eek:
Er...that's not why we have $75 oil. The world market sets the price. If we put limits on price, we then have major shortages. We've tried that. If we produced all our own oil, then it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury. Of course we can set regulations on gas mileage, etc, but if the market still wants $75 oil, its going to get it. Government intervention does very little here, unless they promote alternatives big time, as in the same exdpenditures now spent towards wars. That would work. In about a decade.
Sorry. I don't agree with this "logic" at all. When you are at an 8 year high for oil inventories you can't be making new highs in oil prices at the same time -- even inflation adjusted we were right at the embargo peak before the Bush investigation announcement. There is no supply problem. It's all specualtion/manipulation. Don't tell me oil dropped $4 in the last two days because they decided to stop filling the SPR for the summer. That's BS... I watched gas prices ratchet $.20 in two days. Somehow I don't think the oil companies average cost shifted that much -- nor have I seen the prices come down... There will be no shortages either. That's just scaremongering. Don't let basic economics fool you into thinking that you shouldn't deal with monopolists and profiteers. The oil companies aren't going away and neither are the countries pumping it out full tilt. Do I have to point back to Enron etc...?
what has led to (near) 75 oil (and it will go higher) isn't "no regulation" and it isn't the fault of any particular party, or president. however... a longstanding policy of not allowing new refineries, of being overly restrictive of where we drill, and ESPECIALLY of being anti-nuclear power "no nukes" has led to it even frigging GREENPEACE has the honesty to admit that maybe being anti-nuke was not such a good idea
I agree about the anti-nuclear power issue. However, Chernobyl and TMI show the fallacy of just letting the private sector build these things and run them without heavy oversight. They're just too dangerous when they fail. I disagree about the refinery issue but the explanation is complicated. I'll see if I can find a good link that describes the case we had in Bakersfield, CA recently as it does tell the basic story. I disagree about the drilling issue as we have excess supply right now -- even with Bush filling the SPR every month. There isn't a lack of oil in the world. It's just the latest bubble that fast capital has latched on to. Hillary, where did you go?
"agree about the anti-nuclear power issue. However, Chernobyl and TMI show the fallacy of just letting the private sector build these things and run them without heavy oversight." that doesn't make sense. three mile island mayble.. how many died in three mile island? chernobyl was not run by the PRIVATE SECTOR. it was STATE RUN, in a communist society, that had NEVER had any regard for the safety of their workers, and was in general - technologically inept when compared to the USA. thus, it is a silly comparison imo furthermore, even GIVEN chernobyl, if you would like to compare the death and/.or accident rate of nuclear workers/citizens around nuke plants to the accident/death rate of those in and around coal mines or oil fields, i'll take you up on that ANY DAY " They're just too dangerous when they fail. " the statistics do not support your contention. again, lets compare death/accident rates between coal mining/oil drilling and nukes i used to feel the exact same way about nukes - until i looked at the facts. talk to the french . they have way more nukes per capita than we do.