Hillary:"Where was Bernie when I got healthcare in 93?" Right there, she thanked him

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt said:
Because Bernie introduced a nothing bill in the House? I mean, he didn't have power to do much more, fine, but he still didn't do very much.
Click to expand...

Are you serious right now? You deny the facts and then essentially say: "fuck what he did anyway" when you finally acknowledge it. >_>
 
jgwhiteus said:
I think Hillary rightfully got dragged across the coals for her comment on Nancy Reagan / AIDS, especially since it was unprompted and so dangerously uninformed, and she should have put out more than a simple 2-line statement on it in response.

This... feels dumb and manufactured, and not on her part.

The question "where was...?" is meant to be rhetorical about whether Bernie was actively advocating for and backing up the healthcare push in 1993, and not a literal request as to Bernie's physical location, like some responders are treating it. Like, when people ask "where was President Bush during Hurricane Katrina?", they expect more than a glib response of "that day he was probably sitting in the White House haha... why do you ask?"

And the "thank you" notes seem like the customary thank you's you'd provide any legislator (of either party) who indicated they'd vote for your legislation. Her comment was probably more about him not being as strong a public advocate for healthcare legislation back then as he is now. It's fine to say that Bernie was in fact a strong advocate back in 1993 and point to his legislative record or public appearances, but "thank you" notes are hardly compelling evidence.

Sure, Clinton should have realized her words would be open to this kind of interpretation and response, and it wasn't a very savvy line to use, but people trying to treat it as some kinda "gotcha!" moment that shows how forgetful or dishonest she is seem a bit disingenuous to me. Respond to the substance of her criticism (about whether Bernie had an active role in healthcare reform in the 90's) rather than this childish crap ("Hillary, are you blind, he's standing right there!")
Click to expand...
The problem is that this line of attack only works if Sanders was indeed a bandwagoner who didn't actually stick his neck out for universal health care at the same time that Hillary was.

But he was, so it just comes across as disingenuous.

If now the argument is that he wasn't as public and vocal about it as she was, that's also disingenuous because it's ridiculous to expect him to get the same level of spotlight and attention as a sitting First Lady. How do you expect the "scale" of his efforts to match someone with the resources that Hillary had?

I'm starting to see some blatant intellectual dishonesty here, and it's quite frustrating.

Sanders is doing a bang up job losing the nomination all on his own. We don't want the person who will need his supporters in a few months flinging rancid bullshit.
 
Risette said:
I mean if we're going to criticize people for trying and failing then Hillary did fuck all in the 90s too. Just with a lot of press coverage.
Click to expand...

But she was "out in front" so that of course counts for far more than anything, anyone else could even hope to attain to. She basically died for our sins and we should be thankful.
 
Tesseract said:
dem eyes

CdZb_g5WwAARvRm.jpg
Click to expand...

Is it such a good idea for her to kill even more brain cells?
 
jgwhiteus said:
I think Hillary rightfully got dragged across the coals for her comment on Nancy Reagan / AIDS, especially since it was unprompted and so dangerously uninformed, and she should have put out more than a simple 2-line statement on it in response.

This... feels dumb and manufactured, and not on her part.

The question "where was...?" is meant to be rhetorical about whether Bernie was actively advocating for and backing up the healthcare push in 1993, and not a literal request as to Bernie's physical location, like some responders are treating it. Like, when people ask "where was President Bush during Hurricane Katrina?", they expect more than a glib response of "that day he was probably sitting in the White House haha... why do you ask?"

And the "thank you" notes seem like the customary thank you's you'd provide any legislator (of either party) who indicated they'd vote for your legislation. Her comment was probably more about him not being as strong a public advocate for healthcare legislation back then as he is now. It's fine to say that Bernie was in fact a strong advocate back in 1993 and point to his legislative record or public appearances, but "thank you" notes are hardly compelling evidence.

Sure, Clinton should have realized her words would be open to this kind of interpretation and response, and it wasn't a very savvy line to use, but people trying to treat it as some kinda "gotcha!" moment that shows how forgetful or dishonest she is seem a bit disingenuous to me. Respond to the substance of her criticism (about whether Bernie had an active role in healthcare reform in the 90's) rather than this childish crap ("Hillary, are you blind, he's standing right there!")
Click to expand...

"Where was x person when y issue was happening?" is very clearly meant to suggest a lack of any support on x person's behalf. That Bernie was standing behind her at a speech about universal health care, and was mentioned in that speech, just points out how egregiously misleading her statement is. It's not, in itself, a repudiation of her statement. His physical location and his advocacy are not entirely unrelated though. His physical location during that speech is a direct result of his advocacy, and that's the point. If he resisted or was indifferent to universal health care, one of the several hundred other members of the house of representatives would have been standing where he was.


If I say to my friend "Where were you when I was going through a divorce?!" or whatever, the implication is very clearly that they were no where to be found. It takes huge mental leaps to pretend otherwise.
 
Zoe said:
As pointed out earlier, he was already officially formulating plans for UHC as early as 1993.
Click to expand...

Then honestly, the mature response is to point that out (highlight his legislative efforts, show him speaking out on it) rather than showing an image of him standing behind her at a public speaking event and saying "he was right there! Wow, can't believe you can't see that!"

The former points to his legislative accomplishments / efforts and makes it seems like he's taking his opponent seriously (and respectfully), the latter makes it seem like his campaign is being deliberately obtuse and juvenile as to what she meant and is just interested in scoring "points" by making a joke. The former might not be spread as virally, but comes off as more substantive.

shinra-bansho said:
In his first term he introduced H.R. 2530 (102nd): National Health Care and Cost Containment Act. It died in committee, so far as I can tell. So he was doing something back then too. I'm not sure what the CNN story linked earlier is talking about in terms of 1993. I can't find it on GovTrack.

There are, however, like hundreds of bills like this that have no hope of going anywhere introduced. I'm somewhat curious why he wasn't a co-sponsor on the 1993 Daschle bill, but it could be because he had his own effort so didn't want to be attached to that more well-supported effort.

He's introduced like 30 bills this session, none of them are going anywhere either.

I'm not sure whether he had a role in the CHIP policy win that Ted Kennedy led with Clinton.
Click to expand...

Thank you, like this.
 
Matt said:
Because Bernie introduced a nothing bill in the House? I mean, he didn't have power to do much more, fine, but he still didn't do very much.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, what you're experiencing is most likely some form of the backfire effect.
Matt said:
The scale of those efforts can't really be compared, no.
Click to expand...

And besada already explained that particular point to you, thus making it quite a bit more likely that you are under its effect.
 
kirblar said:
Bernie's had their team (and many other Dems) seeing red for a while. It's definitely been warping their judgment since they're trying to attack him while keeping the kid gloves on since they're pretty sure they're going to win.
Click to expand...

This is what annoys me the most.

People think it's guaranteed she's going to win. But it really isn't. Trump getting this far proves that. Bernie getting this far proves that.

To Hillary's supporters, the emperor wears new clothes. And they are falling for it, thinking that everything is alright, thinking that this is clenched. And it's as if Hillarys own camp is too afraid to speak out about it, that she's tripping up and things are going the wayside. And from the things HIllary has said, today and yesterday, it seems she's fallen for that own spell.

It's funny. People talk about how the GOP is devouring itself inside and out, but on the Dem side it's more or less the same with Hillary.
 
royalan said:
And yet all I did was agree with a post. Ok.
Click to expand...

Many times you've stepped in to ask Sanders supporters to be more fair towards Hillary, especially on issues that she too has a history of supporting and working towards. But then she goes and blatantly distorts history. Which is something you've warned Sanders supporters against. Then you go and agree with a post that downplays Hillary's recent comments?

I'm fine with you still voting for her, because there is more to her than this single guff. But come on... be consistent.
 
Leona Lewis said:
The problem is that this line of attack only works if Sanders was indeed a bandwagoner who didn't actually stick his neck out for universal health care at the same time that Hillary was.

But he was, so it just comes across as disingenuous.

If now the argument is that he wasn't as public and vocal about it as she was, that's also disingenuous because it's ridiculous to expect him to get the same level of spotlight and attention as a sitting First Lady. How do you expect the "scale" of his efforts to match someone with the resources that Hillary had?

I'm starting to see some blatant intellectual dishonesty here, and it's quite frustrating. .
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.
 
border said:
You haven't seen that expression used pretty commonly in popular culture?

Locker-Room Team Meeting
Running Back: I think we did a pretty good job, we can still win.
Quarterback: I don't know where you were when the oppenents just scored 3 unanswered touchdowns, but we're getting our ass handed to us.

It's not necessarily a way to question someone's literal presence or their motivational support, but their interpretation of prior events.
Click to expand...

The context provided so far doesn't suggest the way you're suggesting. There needs to be the closing parenthetical to have that meaning.

border said:
Deliberately clipping a lengthy discussion down to a single sound bite that looks bad is what you do to win over uninformed voters.
Click to expand...
What did she say in the full context?
 
Ryaaan14 said:
This is sum funny ass shit
Click to expand...

And this is the worse time for it to happen. That trump rally is going to have everyone paying a lot more attention to the campaign from now on. So now that people are tuning in what do they see from Hillary? Bush league (pun intended) stuff like this.
 
That's hilarious. I love it. Where were you. Um behind you. lol

I really hope Bernie can come back and win the Democratic nod. It would be so awesome.
 
Risette said:
I mean if we're going to criticize people for trying and failing then Hillary did fuck all in the 90s too. Just with a lot of press coverage.
Click to expand...

Not true. Clinton laid a substantial amount of political ground work that helped Obama Administration pass health insurance reform. The reason the ACA primarily targets the uninsured and is not as broad in scope as Hillarycare was in the 90's was because of the obstruction and difficulty of getting Hillary's more ambitious plan passed through Congress. Obamacare leaves the current private insurance system largely unchanged for the majority of people who get coverage through their employers. Hillarycare would have required most people to switch their health insurance coverage to new health insurance alliances, with caps on how fast premiums could rise. So, Obama pivoted to get Health Insurance companies on board - which would have been much more difficult without the work done by the Clinton's in the 90s.
 
shinra-bansho said:
He's introduced like 30 bills this session, none of them are going anywhere either. (EDIT: Should clarify 30 bills in general, not 30 on healthcare.)
Click to expand...
From Clinton's perspective- this is the frustrating thing about him. He's a reliable vote, but his policy preferences are so far out of the realm of possibility that nothing he works on directly is actually going to get passed.
 
numble said:
The context provided so far doesn't suggest the way you're suggesting. There needs to be the closing parenthetical to have that meaning.

What did she say in the full context?
Click to expand...

So far everyone who's quoted the speech has completely deleted the closing parenthetical. Look at the Twitter footage posted in the OP -- whoever made the video deliberately cuts her off before her sentence even ends. Maybe it's just for comedic timing, or maybe it's because the second half of the sentence makes the first half seem more reasonable and less accusatory.

My point is that there is no context whatsoever. The quote people are damning her over isn't even a complete sentence.
 
BreezyLimbo said:
This is what annoys me the most.

People think it's guaranteed she's going to win. But it really isn't. Trump getting this far proves that. Bernie getting this far proves that.
Click to expand...
Trump hasn't won a majority of votes in any GOP primary.

If he is the nominee, he is going to tear the GOP apart.
 
mugurumakensei said:
Her plan was not single payer. It was however pretty much the RomneyCare and ObamaCare first attempt without the pre-existing condition stuff.
Click to expand...

Single-payer is not the only form of universal health care. Some European countries have Obamacare-like systems that are still considered universal, and we could get universal care here with a beefed-up public option being added onto Obamacare without doing single-payer.

Sure, Hillarycare was Obamacare-ish but certainly seems to the left of it; the health insurance industry lobbied hardcore against it, whereas they loved Obamacare.
 
injurai said:
Many times you've stepped in to ask Sanders supporters to be more fair towards Hillary, especially on issues that she too has a history of supporting and working towards. But then she goes and blatantly distorts history. Which is something you've warned Sanders supporters against. Then you go and agree with a post that downplays Hillary's recent comments?

I'm fine with you still voting for her, because there is more to her than this single guff. But come on... be consistent.
Click to expand...

I can understand your point of view, but I don't believe that Hillary is distorting history here, because I don't think she meant what people are saying she did. She's defending her record with that statement more than she's trying to erase his. But that's my interpretation, and other posters have shared similar sentiment, so I agreed.
 
thcsquad said:
Single-payer is not the only form of universal health care. Some European countries have Obamacare-like systems that are still considered universal, and we could get universal care here with a beefed-up public option being added onto Obamacare without doing single-payer.

Sure, Hillarycare was Obamacare-ish but certainly seems to the left of it; the health insurance industry lobbied hardcore against it, whereas they loved Obamacare.
Click to expand...

To be fair, their obamacare-like system has so much other regulation that the insurance companies are forced to provide near government level service. Our forced private/public model is full of abuse, underinsured, and general shit that makes us pay double for worse healthcare than most countries.
 
border said:
So far everyone who's quoted the speech has completely deleted the closing parenthetical. Look at the Twitter footage posted in the OP -- whoever made the video deliberately cuts her off before her sentence even ends. Maybe it's just for comedic timing, or maybe it's because the second half of the sentence makes the first half seem more reasonable and less accusatory.

My point is that there is no context whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You need to have the closing parenthetical to make the point that it is out of context though. If you are claiming it is being taken out of context, it is up to you, as the one making that claim, to provide the context. You can't say people are taking it out of context but admit that all we can judge is the context given thus far.
 
jgwhiteus said:
I think Hillary rightfully got dragged across the coals for her comment on Nancy Reagan / AIDS, especially since it was unprompted and so dangerously uninformed, and she should have put out more than a simple 2-line statement on it in response.

This... feels dumb and manufactured, and not on her part.

The question "where was...?" is meant to be rhetorical about whether Bernie was actively advocating for and backing up the healthcare push in 1993, and not a literal request as to Bernie's physical location, like some responders are treating it. Like, when people ask "where was President Bush during Hurricane Katrina?", they expect more than a glib response of "that day he was probably sitting in the White House haha... why do you ask?"

And the "thank you" notes seem like the customary thank you's you'd provide any legislator (of either party) who indicated they'd vote for your legislation. Her comment was probably more about him not being as strong a public advocate for healthcare legislation back then as he is now. It's fine to say that Bernie was in fact a strong advocate back in 1993 and point to his legislative record or public appearances, but "thank you" notes are hardly compelling evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but what are you on about?

'93 Hillary Clinton specifically praised Sanders for his "leadership". There are videos of this ITT.

'16 Hillary is using negative rhetoric while either being ignorant to the technology of the Internet or just bizarrely hopeful no-one notices her mischaracterisations.

#whichhillary indeed
 
royalan said:
I can understand your point of view, but I don't believe that Hillary is distorting history here, because I don't think she meant what people are saying she did. She's defending her record with that statement more than she's trying to erase his. But that's my interpretation, and other posters have shared similar sentiment, so I agreed.
Click to expand...

But this and the reagen aids thing are huge defining things of her life, not some random factoid she got wrong (maybe she wasnt as aware about the reagen aids thing, but she sent a postcard thinking sanders and should remember who supported her life's greatest struggle). Unless she is really letting the years catch up with her, these are things you remember.
 
vainglorious said:
Not true. Clinton laid a substantial amount of political ground work that helped Obama Administration pass health insurance reform. The reason the ACA primarily targets the uninsured and is not as broad in scope as Hillarycare was in the 90's was because of the obstruction and difficulty of getting Hillary's more ambitious plan passed through Congress. Obamacare leaves the current private insurance system largely unchanged for the majority of people who get coverage through their employers. Hillarycare would have required most people to switch their health insurance coverage to new health insurance alliances, with caps on how fast premiums could rise. So, Obama pivoted to get Health Insurance companies on board - which would have been much more difficult without the work done by the Clinton's in the 90s.
Click to expand...

Also, CHIP.

StaticJam said:
Bernie from 93 looks a lot like current Victor Garber.
Click to expand...

I was going to go with an older Ira Glass:
Ira%20Glass.jpg
 
ugaboga232 said:
To be fair, their obamacare-like system has so much other regulation that the insurance companies are forced to provide near government level service. Our forced private/public model is full of abuse, underinsured, and general shit that makes us pay double for worse healthcare than most countries.
Click to expand...

Not arguing that. I'm just against treating 'universal healthcare' and 'single-payer healthcare' interchangeably. It's holding us back: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10899790/single-payer-americare
 
jgwhiteus said:
I think Hillary rightfully got dragged across the coals for her comment on Nancy Reagan / AIDS, especially since it was unprompted and so dangerously uninformed, and she should have put out more than a simple 2-line statement on it in response.

This... feels dumb and manufactured, and not on her part.

The question "where was...?" is meant to be rhetorical about whether Bernie was actively advocating for and backing up the healthcare push in 1993, and not a literal request as to Bernie's physical location, like some responders are treating it. Like, when people ask "where was President Bush during Hurricane Katrina?", they expect more than a glib response of "that day he was probably sitting in the White House haha... why do you ask?"

And the "thank you" notes seem like the customary thank you's you'd provide any legislator (of either party) who indicated they'd vote for your legislation. Her comment was probably more about him not being as strong a public advocate for healthcare legislation back then as he is now. It's fine to say that Bernie was in fact a strong advocate back in 1993 and point to his legislative record or public appearances, but "thank you" notes are hardly compelling evidence.

Sure, Clinton should have realized her words would be open to this kind of interpretation and response, and it wasn't a very savvy line to use, but people trying to treat it as some kinda "gotcha!" moment that shows how forgetful or dishonest she is seem a bit disingenuous to me. Respond to the substance of her criticism (about whether Bernie had an active role in healthcare reform in the 90's) rather than this childish crap ("Hillary, are you blind, he's standing right there!")
Click to expand...

This is some serious fucking mental gymnastics trying to defend Hilary for a mistake
 
Coriolanus said:
The chain started with this exchange.

I understand. You disagree with his point. And i am telling you that your disagreement stems not from sound logic, but from something else entirely.

Which is also why i fully expect you to also disregard this.
Click to expand...

This is incredibly condescending and empty post. If you disagree with my line of thinking, fine, but to say my thinking is inherently wrong and illogical without even speaking as to why is just...well, silly.
 
royalan said:
I can understand your point of view, but I don't believe that Hillary is distorting history here, because I don't think she meant what people are saying she did. She's defending her record with that statement more than she's trying to erase his. But that's my interpretation, and other posters have shared similar sentiment, so I agreed.
Click to expand...

"I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94,"

That's not a defense. That's an attack.
 
Holy shit Hillary, that was a huge fuck up. Omg LOL! I can't believe how incredibly poor in taste this comes off as. Not only is she trying to throw him under the bus, she's completely and utterly wrong about the whole situation anyways. The dude was right there with you the whole time Hilary! Agh!


I'm curious, are these speeches already written by others before they are delivered? If so, I wonder how it wasn't caught before by her campaign. I think this is one of the crazier things that she has said/done.

As a side note, I do love seeing these pictures/videos of Bernie that keep propping up though. I'm sure we will eventually have a picture or video of Bernie, standing tall and proud, next to Mr. Armstrong on the moon or something crazy like that. Where has this man not been!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

When i logged in today neogaf was in dark mode and other weird behavior
7
423
FatallyYours replied
Is there a flight website where ....
10
875
Trilobit replied
Where is the "Everyman" in todays pop culture?
37
633
Doom85 replied
I am become retarded but when
NSFW 
27
2K
Cyberpunkd replied
HIM | Official Teaser Trailer (Sports Horror Film)
5
466
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom