Shock me that Chelsea Clinton would drink deeply from mama-san's ruthlessness to utter a boatload of lies like this:
"Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance," she said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we'll go back to an era -- before we had the Affordable Care Act -- that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance."
Absolutely zero percent of that is true. And the lies she learned at the Knee of Mom, including that Sanders' plan is a worrisome revolution (it ain't, and sadly). Even the Weekly Standard, which on foreign policy is best buds of neocondom with Hillary Clinton, says she's lying.
Oh, if you think I think Hillary Clinton (or Chelsea) is lying on this, read Doug Henwood. But, per his exchange with Katha Pollit of The Nation, even non-Hillarybots who have a certain version of a feminist narrative locked in aren't changing their stances.
|No word if defrauded Haiti is an inspired|
or informed part of Monde du Clinton.
As for Chelsea Clinton?
But, given that Chelsea wrote an ersatz campaign bio book in place of Mommy Dearest doing one herself, and has no real experience outside of working for Chez Clinton again, none of this is shocking. People who know then have no problem saying this is politics "as usual."
And, if that's "cynical" rather than "skeptical," I plead very guilty to being cynical about that.
As for the online lies of a faculty advisor to campus Republicans, one pretending to be a Hillary Clinton supporter, and one who was co-author of a book saying that readers would be "entertained" by tea party governors, the single-payer option is NOT "rare" among countries that have some sort of insurance coverage mandate.
Per this link, 16 countries have a full single-payer. Nine others have what it calls a "two-tier" system. That's where there's a single-payer model for catastrophic insurance, with individual purchase options for comprehensive coverage, or
Bernie's one portion of his idea of "Medicare for all" single payer did leave wiggle room, in that he wanted make the expansion of Medicare like Obamacare — state exchange-type systems, but a federal system as a backup.
To that, I say, why?
Every baby these days gets a Social Security number. Give each bambino a Medicare account at the same time, if you're going to expand Medicare.
No need for state Medicare exchanges or anything like that.
Sanders now says he would support overturning that law. That said, his caveat for small gun sellers is a fig leaf just as it's always been, and his claimed 2005 — and ongoing — opposition to child gun locks is tone-deaf, indeed. Beyond that, announcing this the day of the third Democratic presidential debate you're being Just.Another.Politician.™
Here's the nut grafs:
Campaign aides said the decision was not a flip-flop, arguing that Sanders backed the 2005 law in part because of provisions that require child safety locks on guns and ban armor-piercing ammunition.
"Those were important provisions that I did support," Sanders said in a statement.
Umm, nice try, nice fail, at the caveating. And, actually, this makes things even worse.
On the other hand, a Washington Post piece argues it's not out of the blue after all. It still seems like a bit out of the blue. I know that Clinton's desperation over polling free-fall has seized on this issue. But, it does come out of the blue. And, if you like it that much, the actual legislation as described here, why not cosponsor it with Sen. Blumenthal, especially if this isn't out of the blue? And, why the special worry, still, about mom-and-pop gun dealers? Can they not fulfill the law? Or do you think many gun laws still don't work that well? Why the claim that PLCAA does NOT need a full repeal, along with your plans to offer an amendment?
Per ThinkProgress, even small gun dealers can have issues with straw purchases, undercutting your would-be amendment.
As for this being a flip-flop or not? Sanders first said he was thinking about "revisiting" the issue about the time he ran for president. Sandy Hook and Aurora happened long before that. And Schiff has been pushing similar legislation since 2013.
And, with the caveat of "within the Democratic party," sorry, Brains, but I'll keep on disagreeing with you. Until Bernie gives a "clean" backing to the Schiff-Blumenthal bill, I'll stand by that.
And, on the guns issue, you're being Just.Another.Politician.™
At the same time, there's plenty of opportunity to not be a 1-noter, and to really address foreign policy issues. Hypercapitalism, Clinton Foundation style, and neoliberalism, Obama Administration style, have teamed up in foreign policy to apparently continue to foist corrupt government on Haiti. That's even as, to the degree the government isn't corrupt, many services in Haiti are actually delivered by NGOs (many of them neoliberal or corporatist ones), not the government itself.
There's the Honduras coup. There's our drones in Yemen making us a proxy for the Saudis. There's, erm, Palestine, if you'd be less of a Middle East warhawk, less of a Zionist, and actually dare to touch the third rail of foreign policy. There's plenty of foreign policy issues where you could break outside the current Democratic mold, if only you'd actually say something.
There's the fact that capitalist neoliberalism drives a lot of American foreign policy ... ties back in with your economic stances.
There's "free" trade vs. fair trade.
Given all of the above, with the understanding that for me, it applies only to the Democratic primary process and NOT the general election, I do, though, agree with the Nation endorsing Sanders over Clinton.
Diehard fans of both candidates can't detach from the idea that both of them are saints on their ideas. Neither is. That's why I support ideas first, candidates second.