Hillary Clinton - Now Can We Talk About Health Care?

Health Care 2004 - 2008
"We have more problems today than we had back then."

Now Can We Talk About Health Care?

April 18, 2004

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

know what you're thinking. Hillary Clinton and health care? Been there. Didn't do that!

No, it's not 1994; it's 2004. And believe it or not, we have more problems today than we had back then. Issues like soaring health costs and millions of uninsured have yet to fix themselves. And now we are confronting a new set of challenges associated with the arrival of the information age, the technological revolution and modern life.

Think for a moment about recent advances in genetic testing. Knowing you are prone to cancer or heart disease or Lou Gehrig's disease may give you a fighting chance. But just try, with that information in hand, to get health insurance in a system without strong protections against discrimination for pre-existing or genetic conditions. Each vaunted scientific breakthrough brings with it new challenges to our health system. But it's not only medicine that is changing. So, too, are the economy, our personal behaviors and our environment. Unless Americans across the political spectrum come together to change our health care system, that system, already buckling under the pressures of today, will collapse with the problems of tomorrow.

Twenty-first-century problems, like genetic mapping, an aging population and globalization, are combining with old problems like skyrocketing costs and skyrocketing numbers of uninsured, to overwhelm the 20th-century system we have inherited.

The way we finance care is so seriously flawed that if we fail to fix it, we face a fiscal disaster that will not only deny quality health care to the uninsured and underinsured but also undermine the capacity of the system to care for even the well insured. For example, if a hospital's trauma center is closed or so crowded that it cannot take any more patients, your insurance card won't help much if you're the one in the freeway accident.

Let's face it -- if we were to start from scratch, none of us, from dyed-in-the-wool liberals to rock-solid conservatives, would fashion the kind of health care system America has inherited. So why should we carry the problems of this system into the future?

21st-Century Problems
At the dawn of the last century, America was coping with the effects of the industrial revolution -- crowded living conditions, dangerous workplaces, inadequate sanitation and infrastructure in cities and pollution and infectious diseases like typhoid fever and cholera that exacted a huge toll on the oldest and youngest in society.

Since then, a century's worth of advances yielded remarkable results. Antibiotics were developed. Anesthesia was improved. Public health programs like mosquito control and childhood immunizations succeeded in reducing or even eradicating diseases like malaria and polio in this country. Congress passed legislation regulating the quality of food and drugs and assuring that safety and science guided medical developments. Workplace and product-safety standards resulted in fewer deaths and injuries from accidents. Effective campaigns cut tobacco use and alcohol abuse. Employers began providing some workers with health care coverage, primarily for hospitalization costs. And to aid some of those left out, President Lyndon B. Johnson persuaded Congress to establish Medicare and Medicaid to address the poorest, sickest, oldest and highest-risk patients in our society. As a result of these accumulated gains, life expectancy grew from 47 years in 1900 to 77 years for those born in 2000.

As astounding as those changes were, we are likely to see even more revolutionary changes in the next 100 years. Advances in medicine coincide with advances in computers and communications. The American workplace is changing in response to global pressures. But even positive advances may come with a negative underside. Our affluence contributes to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle that, combined with a diet filled with sugar and fat-rich foods, undermines our ability to fend off chronic diseases like diabetes. And research is proving that the pollutants and contaminants in our environment cause disease and mortality.

It is overwhelming just thinking about the problems, never mind dealing with them. But we have to begin applying American ingenuity and resolve or watch the best health care system in the world deteriorate.

Medical Advances
The pace of scientific development in medicine is so rapid that the next hundred years is likely to be called the Century of the Life Sciences. We have mapped the human genome and seen the birth of the burgeoning field of genomics, offering the opportunity to pinpoint and modify the genes responsible for a whole host of conditions. Scientists are exploring whether nanotechnology can target drugs to diseased tissues or implant sensors to detect disease in its earliest forms. We can look forward to ''designer drugs'' tailored to individual genetic profiles. But the advances we herald carry challenges and costs.

Think about the potential for inequities in drug research. Today, pharmaceutical and biotech companies have little incentive to research and develop treatments for individuals with rare diseases. Never heard of progeria? That's the point. This fatal syndrome, also called premature-aging disease, affects one in four million newborns a year. It's rare enough that there is no profit in developing a cure. This is known as the ''orphan drug'' problem. Genetic profiles and individualized therapies have the potential to increase the problem of orphaned drugs by further fragmenting the market. Even manufacturers of drugs for conditions like high blood pressure might focus their efforts on people with common genetic profiles. Depending on your genes, you could be out of luck.

The increasing understanding and use of genomics may also undermine the insurance system. Health insurance, like other insurance, exists to protect against unpredictable, costly events. It is based on risk. As genetic information allows us to predict illness with greater certainty, it threatens to turn the most susceptible patients into the most vulnerable. Many of us will become uninsurable, like the two young sisters with a congenital disease I met in Cleveland. Their father went from insurance company to insurance company trying to get coverage, until one insurance agent looked at him and said, ''We don't insure burning houses.''

Many have worked to get laws on the books to protect people from genetic discrimination, but we have yet to pass legislation that addresses job security and health coverage. The challenges do not stop there. Health insurance will have to change fundamentally to cope with predictable, knowable risks. Will health insurance companies offer coverage tailored to a person's future health prospects? Right now, if you have asthma, or even just allergies, insurers in the individual market can exclude your respiratory system from your health insurance policy. Will all health plans stop offering benefits that relate to genetic diseases?

The ability to predict illness may overwhelm more than just the insurance system; it may overwhelm the patient and the provider. Studies in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that nearly 6 out of 10 patients at risk for breast and ovarian cancer declined a genetic test, and a similar fraction of those at risk for colon cancer also declined testing. Why? One reason is probably to avoid higher insurance premiums. But the decision to undergo genetic testing is a complex one that involves many issues. Positive test results often indicate increased risk but no certainty that a disease will occur. Negative results also come without guarantees. The development of genetic profiles and individual therapies will exponentially increase the amount of information a physician is expected to manage. Instead of remembering one or two drugs for any condition, a physician will have to analyze all the different genetic, demographic and behavioral variables to generate optimal treatment for a patient.

Medical advances have the potential to overwhelm the health care system top to bottom. At the very least, the pace of technological progress is so rapid that our antiquated health care system is ill equipped to deliver the fruits of that progress. But these advances are not occurring in isolation from other factors affecting both how we finance health care and how much care we need and expect.

Globalization
The globalization of our economy has changed everything from how we work as individuals to what we produce as a nation to how quickly diseases can spread. American companies -- and workers -- compete not only with one another but all over the world. It is called competitive advantage, but it can put American businesses and workers at a disadvantage.

The United States' closest economic rivals have mandatory national health care systems rather than the voluntary employer-based model we have. Automakers in the United States and Canada pay taxes to help finance public health care. But in the United States, automakers also pay about $1,300 per midsize car produced for private employee health insurance. Automakers in Canada come out ahead, according to recent news reports, even after paying higher taxes.

At the same time, American companies are outsourcing jobs to countries where the price of labor does not include health coverage, which costs Americans jobs and puts pressure on employers who continue to cover their employees at home.

And many new jobs, especially those in the service sector and part-time jobs, don't include comprehensive health benefits. More uninsured and underinsured workers impose major strains on a health system that relies on employer-based insurance. In addition, the failure of government to help contain health costs for employers has led to a fraying of the implicit social contract in which a good job came with affordable coverage.

Gone are the days when a young person would start in the mail room and stay with the company until retirement. Employee mobility is now the rule rather than the exception. Those who pay for health care -- insurance companies and employers -- increasingly deal with employees who change jobs every few years. This has the effect of not only increasing the numbers of uninsured but also of decreasing the incentive for employers to underwrite access to preventive care.

At the same time, war, poverty, environmental degradation and increased world travel for business and pleasure mean greater migration of people across borders. And with people go diseases. The likes of SARS can travel quickly from Hong Kong to Toronto, and news of a strange flu in Asia worries us in New York. Welcome to the world without borders.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer Laurie Garrett has described it as ''payback for decades of shunning the desperate health needs of the poor world.'' No matter the blame, the need to act now to address issues of global health is no longer just a moral imperative; it is self-interest.

Lifestyle and Demographic Changes
One hundred years ago, who could have predicted that living longer would be a problem?

In three decades, the number of Medicare beneficiaries will double. By the year 2050, one in five Americans will be 65 or older. We will have to find a way to finance the growing demand not only for health care but also for long-term care, which is now largely left out of Medicare.

Our society's affluence is only half of the story. Widening disparities in wealth and in health care too often cleave along ethnic lines. Today, a Hispanic child with asthma is far less likely than a non-Hispanic white child to get needed medication. African-Americans are systematically less likely to get state-of-the-art cardiac care. As our country becomes more and more diverse, these disparities become more obvious and more intolerable.

Our changing lifestyles also contribute to behavior-induced health problems. We can shop online, order in fast food, drive to our errands. Entertainment -- movies, TV, video games and music -- is one click away. The physical activity required to get through the day has decreased, while the pace and stress of daily life has quickened, affecting mental health. Persistent poverty, risky behaviors like substance abuse and unprotected sex and pollution from cars and power plants all add to the country's health problems. As Judith Stern of the University of California at Davis so aptly put it, genetics may load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger.

Old Problems Persist
If all we had to do was face these tremendous changes, that would be daunting enough. But many of the systemic problems we have struggled with for decades -- like high costs and the uninsured -- are simply getting worse.

In 1993, the critics predicted that if the Clinton administration's universal health care coverage plan became law, costs would go through the roof. ''Hospitals will have to close,'' they said, ''Families will lose their choice of doctors. Bureaucrats will deny medically necessary care.''

They were half-right. All that has happened. They were just wrong about the reason.

In 1993, there were 37 million uninsured Americans. In the late 90's, the situation improved slightly, largely because of the improved economy and the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program. But now some 43.6 million Americans are uninsured, and the vast majority of them are in working families.

While employer-sponsored insurance remains a major source of coverage for workers, it is becoming less accessible and affordable for spouses, dependents and retirees. In 1993, 46 percent of companies with 500 or more employees offered some type of retiree health benefit. That declined to 29 percent in 2001. When you think about the new economy and worker mobility, it's no wonder employers are dropping retiree health benefits. You can only wonder how many yet-to-retire workers are next.

Even those Americans not among the ranks of the uninsured increasingly find themselves underinsured. In 2003, two-thirds of companies with 200 or more employees dealt with increasing costs by increasing the share that their employees had to pay and dropping coverage for particular services. With rising deductibles and co-pays, even if you have insurance, you may not be able to afford the care you need, and some benefits, like mental health services, may not be covered at all.

The problem of the uninsured and underinsured affects everyone. A recent Institute of Medicine study estimates that 18,000 25- to 64-year-old adults die every year as a result of lack of coverage. But even if you are insured, if you have a heart attack, and the ambulance that picks you up has to go three hospitals away because the nearby emergency rooms are full, you will have suffered from our inadequate system of coverage.

If, as a nation, we were saving money by denying insurance to some people, you could at least say there's some logic to it -- no matter how cruel. But that's not the case. Despite the lack of universal coverage in our country, we still spend much more than countries that provide health care to all their citizens. We are No. 1 in the world in health care spending. On a per capita basis, health spending in the United States is 50 percent higher than the second-highest-spending country: Switzerland. Our health costs now constitute 14.9 percent of our gross domestic product and are growing at an alarming rate: by 2013, per capita health care spending is projected to increase to 18.4 percent of G.D.P.

What drives skyrocketing spending? The cost of prescription drugs rose almost twice as fast as spending on all health services, 40 percent in just the last few years.

Hospital costs have been rising as well, in large measure because more than one in four health care dollars go to administration. In 1999, that meant $300 billion per year went to pay for administrative bureaucracy: accountants and bookkeepers, who collect bills, negotiate with insurance companies and squeeze every possible reimbursement out of public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Asthma and other pulmonary disorders linked to pollution contribute significantly to these costs, according to the health economist Ken Thorpe. Diabetes, high blood pressure and mental illness are also among the conditions that keep these costs rising.

If we spend so much, even after administrative costs, why does the United States rank behind 47 other countries in life expectancy and 42nd in infant mortality?

A lot of the money Americans spend is wasted on care that doesn't improve health. A recent study by Dartmouth researchers argues that close to a third of the $1.6 trillion we now spend on health care goes to care that is duplicative, fails to improve patient health or may even make it worse. A study in Santa Barbara, Calif., found that one out of every five lab tests and X-rays were conducted solely because previous test results were unavailable. A recent study found that for two-thirds of the patients who received a $15,000 surgery to prevent stroke, there was no compelling evidence that the surgery worked.

In situations in which the benefits of intervention are clear, many patients are not receiving that care. For example, few hospitalized patients at risk for bacterial pneumonia get the vaccine against it during their hospital stays. A recent study in The New England Journal of Medicine by Elizabeth McGlynn found that, overall, Americans are getting the care they should only 55 percent of the time.

As a whole, our ailing health care system is plagued with underuse, overuse and misuse. In a fundamental way, we pay far more for less than citizens in other advanced economies get.

How We Deliver Care
There is no ''one size fits all'' solution to our health care problems, but there are common-sense solutions that call for aggressive, creative and effective strategies as bold in their approach as they are practical in their effect.

First, the way we deliver health care must change. For too long our model of health care delivery has been based on the provider, the payer, anyone but the patient. Think about the fact that our medical records are still owned by a physician or a hospital, in bits and pieces, with no reasonable way to connect the dots of our conditions and our care over the years.

If we as individuals are responsible for keeping our own passports, 401(k) and tax files, educational histories and virtually every other document of our lives, then surely we can be responsible for keeping, or at least sharing custody of, our medical records. Studies have shown that when patients have a greater stake in their own care, they make better choices.

We should adopt the model of a ''personal health record'' controlled by the patient, who could use it not only to access the latest reliable health information on the Internet but also to record weight and blood sugar and to receive daily reminders to take asthma or cholesterol medication. Moreover, our current system revolves around ''cases'' rather than patients. Reimbursements are based on ''episodes of treatment'' rather than on a broader consideration of a patient's well-being. Thus it rewards the treatment of discrete diseases and injuries rather than keeping the patient alive and healthy. While we assure adequate privacy protections, we need care to focus on the patient.

Our system rewards clinicians for providing more services but not for keeping patients healthier. The structure of the health care system should shift toward rewarding doctors and health plans that treat patients with their long-term health needs in mind and rewarding patients who make sensible decisions about maintaining their own health.

Harnessing Modernization
As paradoxical as it is that advances in medical technology could potentially break our antiquated system, advances in other technologies may hold the answer to saving it. Using a 20th-century health care system to deal with 21st-century problems is nowhere more true than in the failure to use information technology.

Ten years ago, the Internet was used primarily by academics and the military. Now it is possible to imagine all of a person's health files stored securely on a computer file -- test results, lab records, X-rays -- accessible from any doctor's office. It is easy to imagine, yet our medical system is not there.

The average emergency-room doctor or nurse has minutes to gather information on a patient, from past records and from interviewing the patient or relatives. In the age of P.D.A.'s, why are these professionals forced to rely on a patient's memory?

Information technology can also be used to disseminate research. A government study recently documented that it takes 17 years from the time of a new medical discovery to the time clinicians actually incorporate that discovery into their practice at the bedside. Why not 17 seconds?

Why rely solely on the doctor's brain to store that information? Computers could crunch the variables on a particular patient's medical history, constantly update the algorithms with the latest scientific evidence and put that information at the clinician's fingertips at the point of care.

Americans may not be getting the care they should 45 percent of the time, but the tools exist to narrow that gap. Research shows that when physicians receive computerized reminders, statistics improve exponentially. Reminders can take the form of an alert in the electronic health record that the hospitalized patient has not had a pneumonia vaccine or as computerized questions to remind a doctor of the conditions that must be fulfilled before surgery is considered appropriate.

Newt Gingrich and I have disagreed on many issues, including health care, but I agree with some of the proposals he outlines in his book ''Saving Lives and Saving Money,'' which support taking advantage of technological changes to create a more modern and efficient health care system. I have introduced legislation that promotes the use of information technology to update our health care system and organize it around the best interests of patients. Improvements in technology will end the paper chase, limit errors and reduce the number of malpractice suits.

I strongly believe that savings from information technology should not just be diffused throughout the system, never to be recaptured, but should be used to make substantial progress toward real universal coverage. By better using technology, we can lower health care costs throughout the system and thereby lower the exorbitant premiums that are placing a financial squeeze on businesses, individuals and the government. At the same time, some of those savings should be used to make substantial progress toward real universal coverage. (I may have just lost Newt Gingrich.)

Taking the Broader View: Public Health And Prevention
While we focus on empowering the individual through technology, we also have to recognize the larger factors that affect our health -- from the environment to public health.

If asthma and other pulmonary disorders are the main drivers of increased health spending, that argues strongly that we should rethink how social and environmental factors impact our collective health. Consider that over the last century we have extended life expectancy by 30 years but that only 8 of those years can be credited to medical intervention. The rest of our gains stem from the construction of water and sewer systems, draining mosquito-infested swamps and addressing spoilage, quality and nutrition in our food supply. Yet we continue to underinvest in these important systematic measures -- resulting in expensive health consequences like the explosion of asthma among children living in New York City or the harmful levels of lead found among children drinking water from the District of Columbia water system.

Our neglect of public health also contributes to spiraling health costs. We tend to address health care -- as a nation and as individuals -- after the sickness has taken hold, rather than addressing the cause through public health. Public health programs can help stop preventable disease and control dangerous behaviors. Take obesity, for example. Individuals should understand that they put their lives at risk with unhealthy behavior. But let's face it -- we live in a fast-food nation, and we need to take steps, like restoring physical-education programs in schools, that support the individual's ability to master his or her own health. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have identified ''Programs That Work,'' which should be financed. It comes down to individual responsibility reinforced by national policy.

The public health system also needs to be brought up to date. The current public health tools were developed when the major threats to health were infectious diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. But now chronic diseases are the No. 1 killer in our country. We need to be concerned not just about pathogens but also about carcinogens.

Over the last three years, I have introduced legislation to increase investment in tracking and correlating environmental and health conditions. I have met with people from Long Island to Fallon, Nev., who want answers about cancer clusters in their communities. The data we have seen about lead and mercury contamination in our food and water suggest that the effects they have on the fetus and children may have contributed to the increasing number of children in special education with attention and learning disorders. We need more research to determine once and for all if increasing pollution in our communities and increasing rates of learning-related disabilities are cause and effect.

We should also be looking at sprawl -- talking about the way we design our neighborhoods and schools and about our shrinking supply of safe, usable outdoor space -- and how that contributes to asthma, stress and obesity. We should follow the example of the European Union and start testing the chemicals we use every day and not wait until we have a rash of birth defects or cancers on our hands before taking action. And we should look at factors in our society that lead to youth violence, substance abuse, depression and suicide and ultimately require insurance and treatment for mental health.

After Sept. 11, mental health was a significant factor in the health toll on our nation's first responders. And yet our mental health delivery system is underfinanced and unprepared.

Finally, as a society, we need greater emphasis on preventive care, an investment in people and their health that saves us money, because when families can't get preventive care, they often end up in the emergency room -- getting the most expensive care possible.

Expanding Coverage
All that we have learned in the last decade confirms that our goal should continue to be what every other industrialized nation has achieved -- health care that's always there for every citizen.

For the first time, this year a nonpartisan group dedicated to improving the nation's health, the Institute of Medicine, recommended that by 2010 everyone in the United States should have health insurance. Such a system would promote better overall health for individuals, families, communities and our nation by providing financial access for everyone to necessary, appropriate and effective health services.

It will, as I have been known to say, take the whole village to finance an affordable and accountable health system. Employers and individuals would share in its financing, and individuals would have to assume more responsibility for improving their own health and lifestyles. Private insurers and public programs would work together, playing complementary roles in ensuring that all Americans have the health care they need. Our society is already spending $35 billion a year to treat people who have no health insurance, and our economy loses $65 billion to $130 billion in productivity and other costs. We are already spending what it would cost if we reallocated those resources and required responsibility.

In the post 9/11 world, there is one more reason for universal coverage. The anthrax and ricin episodes, and the continuing threat posed by biological, chemical and radiological weapons, should make us painfully aware of the shortcomings of our fragmented system of health care. Can you imagine the aftermath of a bioterrorism attack, with thousands of people flooding emergency rooms and bureaucrats demanding proof of insurance coverage from each and every one? Those without coverage might not see a doctor until after they had infected others.

Insurance should be about sharing risk and responsibility -- pooling resources and risk to protect ourselves from the devastating cost of illness or injury. It should not be about further dividing us. Competition should reward health plans for quality and cost savings, not for how many bad risks they can exclude -- especially as we enter the genomic age, when all of us could have uninsurable risks written into our genes.

So achieving comprehensive health care reform is no simple feat, as I learned a decade ago. None of these ideas mean anything if the political will to ensure that they happen doesn't exist.

Some people believe that the only solution to our present cost explosion is to shift the cost and risk onto individuals in what is called ''consumer driven'' health care. Each consumer would have an individual health care account and would monitor his or her own spending. But instead of putting consumers in the driver's seat, it actually leaves consumers at the mercy of a broken market. This system shifts the costs, the risks and the burdens of disease onto the individuals who have the misfortune of being sick. Think about the times you have been sick or injured -- were you able under those circumstances to negotiate for the best price or shop for the best care? And instead of giving individuals, providers and payers incentives for better care, this cost-shifting approach actually causes individuals to delay or skip needed services, resulting in worse health and more expensive health needs later on.

Meanwhile, proposals like those for individual health insurance tax credits, without reforms for the individual insurance market, leave individuals in the lurch as well. We know that asthmatics can have their entire respiratory systems excluded from coverage. Individual insurance companies can increase your premium or limit coverage for factors like age, previous medical history or even flat feet. Those in the individual market cannot pool their risk with colleagues or other members of the group. The coverage you can get and the price you pay for it will reflect individual risk, and you simply don't receive many of the benefits of what we consider traditional insurance when people pool risks. So the proposal to give individuals tax credits to buy coverage in the individual market, without any rules of fair play, won't provide much help for Americans who need health care. In the same way, the recent Medicare bill, which seeks to privatize Medicare benefits, long a government guarantee, threatens to leave the ''bad risks'' without any affordable coverage. With the new genetic information at our disposal, that could mean any one of us could one day be denied health insurance.

When many of those who opposed the Health Security Act look back, they are still proud of their achievement in blocking our reform plan. The focus of that proposal was to cover everybody by enabling the healthier to pool the ''risk'' with others. The plan was to redirect what we currently pay for uninsured care into expanding health coverage.

We could make cosmetic changes to the system we currently have, but that would simply take what is already a Rube Goldberg contraption and make it larger and even more unwieldy. We could go the route many have advocated, putting the burden almost entirely on individuals, thereby creating a veritable nationwide health care casino in which you win or lose should illness strike you or someone in your family. Or we could decide to develop a new social contract for a new century premised on joint responsibility to prevent disease and provide those who need care access to it. This would not let us as individuals off the hook. In fact, joint responsibility demands accountability from patients, employers, payers and society as a whole.

What will we say about ourselves 10 years from today? If we finally act to reform what we know needs to change, we may take credit in building a health care system that covers everyone and improves the quality of all our lives. But if we continue to dither and disagree, divided by ideology and frozen into inaction by competing special interests, then we will share in the blame for the collapse of health care in America, where rising costs break the back of our economy and leave too many people without the medical attention they need.

The nexus of globalization, the revolution in medical technology and the seismic pressures imposed by the contradictions in our current health care system will force radical changes whether we choose them or not. We can do nothing, we can take incremental steps -- or we can implement wide-ranging reform.

To me, the case for action is clear. And as we work to develop long-term solutions, we can take steps now to help address the immediate problems we face. As Senator John Kerry has proposed, we should cover everyone living in poverty, and all children; allow people to buy into the federal employee health benefits program; and also help employers by reinsuring high-cost claims while assuming more of the costs from hard-pressed state and local governments.

We can pass real privacy legislation that will ensure that Americans continue to feel secure in the trust they place in others for their most intimate medical information. And we can realize the promise of savings through information technology and disease management by passing quality health legislation now.

If we do not fix the problems of the present, we are doomed to live with the consequences in the future. As someone who tried to promote comprehensive health care reform a decade ago and decided to push for incremental changes in the years since, I still believe America needs sensible, wide-ranging reform that leads to quality health care coverage available to all Americans at an affordable cost.

The present system is unsustainable. The only question is whether we will master the change or it will master us.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic senator from New York.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be on CNN’s Larry King Live on Tuesday, April 20. Check your local listings for exact times.

Name:	Whodunit Idunno
To:	forum
Re:	Was screenwriter a 5th column, Enemy Within?

In response to:
LA Times spins dozens into "tens of thousands". What's after the funeral? Free Cola and Bar-B-Cue? Maybe they line up for 7 "virgins"?

Latest Spin on 9/11 has NORAD envisioning airliners even BEFORE "The Lone Gunman" episode with the airliner crashing a building, U.N. Building? (that killed the well-received series spinoff from X-Files)

Message:
The Los Angeles Times leads with "tens of thousands" of mourners in Gaza attending the funeral for recently appointed and assassinated Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi. The paper says the procession was about the same size as the one for Hamas founder Sheik Yassin, which is to say, massive. The NYT off-leads news that some key rightist members of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's Cabinet endorsed his plan to pull out of Gaza. USA Today, in an odd choice, leads with word that in the two years before Sept. 11, U.S./Canadian air defense command, NORAD, conducted exercises that envisioned hijacked jetliners being used as weapons and in one instance being flown into the World Trade Center. The exercises were created by "scriptwriters" and were not in response to specific intelligence warnings. The White House also said it hadn't been aware of them. USAT's lead, of course, contrasts NORAD's exercises with the White House's occasional insistence that the government never imagined that hijacked planes could be used as missiles. But the lead has some problems. For one thing, it's not news. TP founder Scott Shuger mentioned NORAD's planes-as-bombs exercises two years ago. What's more, it's long been known that intelligence services were generally aware that al-Qaida types had been interested in such schemes. Considering that, besides the facile coincidence factor, why is this story in the lead spot? The NYT fronts Iraq boss Paul Bremer upping his rhetoric and warning that the guerrillas "must be dealt with, and they will be dealt with." The Times' first sentence warns of a potential showdown with "rebels in Fallujah and Najaf." But as the paper eventually gets to mentioning, while a fight in Fallujah may be approaching, it's still unlikely that they'll be one in Najaf, which is essentially the Shiites' Vatican. Continue Article The NYT mentions that a reporter from the St. Louis Post Dispatch was with the Marines during the attack in a border town near Syrian. That reporter, Ron Harris, has a sobering dispatch detailing the Marines' hard-edged search patrols the day after the fight. "When we first got here, we tried making friends," said one soldier. "Then I started evacuating my friends and it wasn't cool anymore." The Post says that attacks on convoys near Baghdad have led to shortages of "food and other essential supplies" at military bases as well as at the U.S.'s HQ. "Whatever we take, it's dangerous now," said the owner of an Iraqi trucking firm that has worked with the U.S. "The mujahedeen stop you on the road. They ask you: 'Who are taking these things for?' They want to see the papers. If you lie and you don't have the right papers, they will burn you with the trailer.' " Lagging behind the WP and others, the NYT has a lengthy piece on the proliferation of security contractors in Iraq. There's a lot of retread, but the Times does get a draft of the rules of engagement the military has written for the contractors. The draft states that in limited circumstances contractors would have the authority to detain civilians. In a news analysis that amounts to a scathing (and slightly overwrought?) critique of the occupation, the LAT's Alissa Rubin says that while the fighting has calmed down, the "reality on the ground was, if anything, more disturbing than the week before." Rubin writes that "more and more Iraqis who once resented—but tolerated—Americans, now refuse to talk to them." Fallujah has become a symbol. Said one Iraqi doctor, "America won the war on April 9 last year; they lost the war on April 9 this year. That is what Iraqis feel." The Journal notes that eight Afghan soldiers were killed in an attack by suspected Taliban guerrillas. A Page-One Post piece, citing unnamed Pentagon officials who "briefed" the paper, says the administration plans to spend $660 million to help mainly countries in Africa train and equip troops for peacekeeping missions. There aren't enough such troops right now, and analysts praised the plan. The WP says below-the-fold that a congressional bill meant to simply remove a $5 billion export subsidy has turned into "one of the most complex, special-interest-riddled corporate tax bills in years," with $170 billion in tax cuts (that are at least theoretically off-set by tightening of various tax holes). One lobbyist "involved in drafting" the bill described the result as "a new level of sleaze." The NYT goes Page One with unnamed administration officials complaining that Secretary of State Powell blabbed to Bob Woodward about his misgivings (and supposed prescience) about the Iraq invasion. "It's such a soap opera with him," said one "official." (Take that, Al Siegal!) Eric Umansky writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@hotmail.com. Don't understand Today's Papers jargon? Check out the Today's Papers glossary. Need math lessons to subtract 2 from 2004, to determine today's spin was not before 9/11/2001? Check out the Today's Papers glossary. H

Name:	Dem Viewer
To:	forum Kerry-ites (the three of You)

In response to:
Hillary's HMO schemes that ran $100,000 meetings into over $3 million cost for meetings held within White House compound did not finish off the world class US health care system. Like Bin Laden and WTC , she wants another crack at killing it off.

Message:
"Canadians and other foreigners still flock to America for health care, where did we go wrong? --anoymous Hillary Health care task force participant in recent interview on Fox News.

Name:	Adult
To:	Hillary
Re:	Screw Socialism!

In response to:
...The increasing understanding and use of genomics may also undermine the insurance system. Health insurance, like other insurance, exists to protect against unpredictable, costly events...

Message:
Yet you want to force insurers (and/or me, as a taxpayer) to "insure" persons with pre-existing illnesses, whatever those illnesses might be, and from whatever cause they may arise!

Name:	XYZ
To:	Hillary Clinton

Message:
Your repeated socialist views of health care are laughable.

Name:	vet
To:	forum
Re:	health care

Message:
if you think health care is expensive now, wait 'til it's free!!!!!!

Name:	Talkmaster
Re:	Botox man makes an idiot of himself again

Message:
Yesterday, on Meet the Press, John Kerry set a record for the highest number of idiotic statements made inside of an hour. This guy hasn't changed a bit.

Continuing his trend of attacking the Commander in Chief during a time of war, Kerry lashed out at President Bush over the Iraq issue. He accused Bush of having a "stunningly ineffective" foreign policy and worst of all, he said that the war on terrorism wasn't primarily a military struggle. That's right...Kerry still believes that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement problem. This is almost frightening...apparently he believes that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda can be fought with lawyers and subpoenas, much the way the Clinton administration did for 8 years, and we all know where that got us. Is he not paying attention to the 9/11 Commission hearings in Washington? Time and time again we are hearing from the FBI and the CIA that they were hamstrung by legal red tape when it came to hunting down terrorists and protecting this nation. What Kerry is saying is that he wants to turn the United States back to sitting ducks, with somehow our safety and security provided by the United Nations. I don't think so.

Name:	regular joe
To:	forum
Re:	health care

Message:
MORE SOCIALIST PIE- IN-THE SKY BULL$HIT!!!!!!!!!!!! BREAK UP THE HMOS AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, ANS PLACE PRICE CONTROLS ON THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES......

Name:	Milan
To:	ET

In response to:
If we as individuals are responsible for keeping our own passports, 401(k) and tax files, educational histories and virtually every other document of our lives, then surely we can be responsible for keeping, or at least sharing custody of, our medical records...... It will, as I have been known to say, take the whole village to finance an affordable and accountable health system. Employers and individuals would share in its financing, and individuals would have to assume more responsibility for improving their own health and lifestyles.

Message:
Nice post. Hillary's emphasis on personal responsibility is a good defense against those who distort her message "it takes a village" to mean "socialism"

It simply means that healthy communities with thriving neigborhoods are more likely to raise individuals who are healthy in body, mind, and spirit.

Name:

SUV

In response to:
Also, I find the Palestinian rhetoric fascinating. Things like: "Revenge serves no purpose", and the various statements about how such forms of killing are so wrong, which is fascinating considering the guys gatting killed wouldn't hesitate to kill a shoolbus full of children.

Hillary Clinton will be on Larry King tonight at 9.00 PM EST

Name:	XYZ
Re:	Hillary Clinton will be on Larry King tonight at 9.00 PM EST

Message:
Great. Another boring hour or two of King lobbing softball questions at the Hildebeast.

Name:	Talkmaster
Re:	Priorities

Message:
Who cares about terrorist attacks in this country? After all, gasoline prices are way too high. That is what is really important, right?

Name:	Doug Patton
Re:	Dodd Displays a Lott of Hypocrisy

Message:
When U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., uttered his now-infamous (not to mention politically stupid) remarks on the occasion of former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday, he was rightfully forced to step down from his position as Senate Majority Leader.

"I want to say this about my state," Lott had said. "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems for all these years, either."

At that time, in a column titled "A Whole Lott of Bad Judgment," I wrote that for the sake of the Republican agenda-especially in the area of judicial appointments-Lott's continued service as Majority Leader had become a huge distraction.

One of Lott's harshest critics was his Senate colleague, Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

"If a Democratic leader had made [Lott's] statements," Dodd said at the time, "we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever. If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift. I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call for the leader to step aside."

Oh, really? Well, this past week, Senate Democrats had a golden opportunity to prove the veracity of Dodd's statement. Dodd was on the Senate floor, doing exactly what Lott was trying to do at the Thurmond birthday party: praise the long service of a fellow United States Senator.

It seems that West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd-a former Ku Klux Klansman who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and just a couple years ago used the "n" word in a TV interview-had just cast his 17,000th vote in a long and colorful career of Senate soliloquies and pork barrel spending. Several of his colleagues from both sides of the aisle paid tribute to Byrd's longevity in the body. But apparently, Dodd felt the need to go several verbose steps further, and in so doing, inserted his foot directly into his mouth.

"It has often been said that the man and the moment come together," Dodd said of Byrd. "I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time.

"He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution," Dodd blathered on. "He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. You would have been right at the founding of this country, right during the Civil War. I cannot think of a single moment in this nation's 220-plus year history where [Robert Byrd] would not have been a valuable asset to this country."

Sixteen months ago, Trent Lott could not apologize profusely enough to suit anyone-myself included-because apologies simply were not enough after opining that a segregationist presidential campaign should have succeeded and that America would be better off today if it had. But in this case, Democrats and Republicans alike seem content to accept a mere "sorry if I offended anyone" apology from Dodd. Little has been said by anyone in either party (or the national media) about Dodd's outrageous contention that a man who once wore the white sheets and hood of the while participating in sick racist ceremonies and terrorizing people of color, would have been right for a place in the United States Senate at any time in our nation's history!

Let us review Christopher Dodd's comments about the Lott-Thurmond controversy: "I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call for the leader to step aside."

Name:	Neilsen Family
To:	Hillary Stoogette
Re:	Must Flee TV

In response to:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be on CNN’s Larry King Live on Tuesday, April 20. Check your local listings for exact times.

Message:
At least you're not claiming that Hillary.org will be featured on Larry King...

Message:
Great! Throw some of your "Living History" and "Moveon.Org" money into an insurance fund for "the little people"...say your Castle Grande scam victims?

Name:	The REAL Deal
Re:	FEC Heat Hurts Hillary's VP Chances

Message:
The Federal Election Commission has opened a formal probe into a star-studded Aug. 12, 2000 Hollywood fund-raiser for then-first lady Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, Fox News Channel reported on Sunday.

And some say the development is at least partly responsible for Sen. Clinton's claim that she's not interested in joining John Kerry's presidential ticket.

The allegations themselves are not new: Two of the event's organizers, Hollywood producer Peter Paul and charity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken, have detailed a series of transactions undertaken in conjunction with Hillary's campaign that could violate FEC regulations, with Paul charging that the campaign failed to report nearly $2 million he spent producing the event.

The question for the Clintons, not to mention the Democratic Party, is: What prompted the FEC to finally get off the dime?

Three years ago the Commission snubbed requests from Paul's legal team, the Washington-based group Judicial Watch, for a probe. And the Justice Department left him languishing in a Brazilian jail on unrelated stock fraud charges until last September.

But months before Paul was returned to the U.S. to stand trial in the stock case, Hollywood fund-raiser Aaron Tonken began cooperating with federal probers. Tonken has said that he's a star witness against the Clintons in a federal grand jury probe in New York into Mr. Clinton's Marc Rich pardon - and has been cooperating with the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles who's probing his fund-raising activities.

"This is nonsense," Hank Sheinkopf, who worked on the Clinton-Gore re-election team in 1996, told Fox News Channel's Eric Shawn. "If there was a case here, why did the government wait so long?"

Asked about a paper trail that reportedly backs both Tonken and Paul's account, Sheinkopf said that even if the charges were proved, they would be "a violation of [FEC] regulations, not a violation of law."

True enough. But grand juries in New York and Los Angeles are conducting parallel investigations into possible criminality, with the focus shifting to whether witnesses have made false statements to probers in the case.

A recent conviction on similar charges has home decorating diva Martha Stewart looking at the business end of a substantial jail term.

And while prosecutors say publicly that Mrs. Clinton isn't part of any criminal probe, the investigation is moving perilously close to her.

In December the feds announced they were investigating David Rosen, the finance chairman of her Senate campaign, in connection with the Paul-Tonken event.

There are also indications that prosecutors are concerned about tipping their hand, and don't want key witnesses saying anything that might kill their case. Fox newsman Shawn reported that a recently scheduled jailhouse interview with Peter Paul was scuttled at the last minute - even though Paul had agreed to do it.

No wonder Sen. Clinton decided it was better to lay low this election year rather than invite the kind of media scrutiny that her presence on a presidential ticket might bring to Paul and Tonken's accusations.

Name:

In response to:
The Federal Election Commission has opened a formal probe into a star-studded Aug. 12, 2000 Hollywood fund-raiser for then-first lady Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, Fox News Channel reported on Sunday.

Message:
Hillary is not going to be the VP. She made that clear on Dateline last Friday. This FEC news is very old stuff.

Name:	ET
To:	Milan

In response to:
Nice post. Hillary's emphasis on personal responsibility is a good defense against those who distort her message "it takes a village" to mean "socialism" It simply means that healthy communities with thriving neigborhoods are more likely to raise individuals who are healthy in body, mind, and spirit.

Message:
Yes, it always puzzled me why the Hillary-haters couldn't see that if you were not raising your child in the right "village" - the chances that your child would succeed in life were not as good as those who were.

No matter how good you are as parents, if you are poor and live in countries that don't offer the best environment for children, your children are not going to be healthy or succeed as adults, if they are even lucky enough to become adults.

Message:
Event raising $1 million for N.Y. senator also investigated by grand jury By Michael Cieply and James Bates

The Federal Election Commission is investigating a Hollywood gala that raised more than $1 million for Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, according to people familiar with the probe.

The FEC investigation, launched several weeks ago, comes atop a U.S. Justice Department inquiry that has focused in recent months on the event and former Clinton finance executive David Rosen.

In addition, documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times indicate that a federal grand jury in Los Angeles has been examining evidence of wrongdoing by a number of people in connection with the activities of Aaron Tonken, the fund-raising impresario behind the event.

The scope of the grand jury inquiry and the identity of its targets remained unclear. The Justice Department is believed to be focusing on whether anyone made false statements about how contributions were collected and disbursed.

Tonken, who peaded guilty in December to two fraud counts in connection with his high-profile charity galas, has been cooperating with federal authorities while awaiting sentencing, according to people familiar with his case.

Since last month, FEC investigators have been seeking testimony from a number of witnesses with knowledge of the August 2000 political gala.

Held on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, the event at the estate of radio mogul Ken Roberts was billed as a tribute to outgoing President Bill Clinton. But the gala simultaneously gave a much-needed cash infusion to the then-first lady's successful Senate campaign.

Internet entrepreneur Peter Paul - who paid for the event and is awaiting trial on federal charges of business-related fraud - unsuccessfully asked the commission nearly three years ago to investigate the Clinton campaign for allegedly underreporting his contribution.

At the time, Paul was jailed in Brazil, awaiting extradition to the United States. He is being held without bail in Long Island, N.Y.

Paul is among those asked recently to cooperate with the election commission probe, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

The event he helped underwrite has been estimated to have cost as much as $2 million, including expenses associated with a roster of star entertainers. This year, Paul sued the Clintons and others in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming that they defrauded him in connection with the fund-raiser.

David Kendall, who represents the Clintons in the suit, said he plans this month to seek a dismissal.

Kendall declined to discuss the Justice Department probe and referred questions about the election commission action to another attorney, who did not return calls.

An attorney for ex-finance chief Rosen did not respond to a request for comment. Based in Chicago, Rosen is a longtime political money consultant who recently worked on retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's failed presidential campaign.

A commission spokesman declined to comment on the investigation; a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles could not be reached for comment.

Last week, at a creditors' meeting in Tonken's Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, Tonken refused several dozen times to answer questions, invoking his right against self-incrimination.

Name:	Question
To:	Hillary

Message:
If I don't want to be any part you "new social contract", will you force me into it? Will I have any choice?

Name:	Diversity of Thought
To:	Simon & Schuster

In response to:
Yes, it always puzzled me why the Hillary-haters couldn't see that if you were not raising your child in the right "village" - the chances that your child would succeed in life were not as good as those who were.

Name:

Hillary

In response to:
If I don't want to be any part you "new social contract", will you force me into it? Will I have any choice?

Message:
Yes, no. My village includes everyone including you. Whether you like it or not. Besides, how can my village provide proper health care unless I get your money to do it?

Name:	Sul Rost
To:	forum
Re:	Don Feder is awake and aware

In response to:
It has been argued that writers like Kitty who fistionalized affairs for Sinatra's dreams, and Woodward who seems to have tape recorders stashed everywhere or makes things up as he goes along. Meanwhile, other people's families, those of Average Joe are under assault by social experimenters. out to change for the sake of change.

Message:
"Journalists venerate the environment, and worry excessively about deforestation and CO2 emissions. They should consider the impact of tampering with an equally delicate eco-system -- the family -- for the sake of gratifying those who believe society exists to validate their whims. But no individual, enterprise or profession exists in a vacuum. The fate of each is determined by the society they help to shape. We all rely on families for social peace, stability and decency. Without them, the world would be plunged into chaos -- something for reporters to ponder as they pen their latest ode to alternative lifestyles, in the guise of news reporting." --Don Feder

Name:	ET
To:	Milan

Message:
The news from Iraq is very bad. The US may have to pull out and leave the whole mess behind, or get more of our troops slaughtered.

It's very hard to win a battle when you are up against a billion Muslims and half of the citizens in this country who hoped Bush would fail. Worse still many on the left supported the very active 5th column in America. Add that to the European appeasers and the future looks bleak.

What can we do? Batten down the hatches in America and watch the Islamists slaughter millions and millions of innocent people across the world on a daily basis like they are doing in the Sudan right now?

Our country is so polarized that maybe we can't win wars anymore if one half of the country always attacks our leaders.

Victor Davis Hanson, author of several books about war's affect on civilization, says it best in the current issue of City Journal. I paraphrase: Thanks to George W. Bush, the Taliban are gone. So is Saddam Hussein. Yasser Arafat is isolated, restricted to the wretched confines of his Ramallah compound. American troops no longer stake their lives guarding the terror kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Europeans finally feel a righteous American heat over their cold accountings of anti-Semitism and their largesse to Islamic terror organizations.

Thanks also to Bush, Islamofascist "charities" have been shuttered in this country. Al Qaeda is in splinters around the world, desperately seeking a new state-haven. In one of the great diplomatic coups of our time, Pakistan has been turned, as Hanson put it, from "a de facto foe to a scrutinized neutral." Just this week, India's prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, publicly credited the U.S.-led war in Iraq with pushing nuclear rivals India and Pakistan to set about resolving their dispute over Kashmir. Bush has further pressured Libya, Iran and Pakistan to come clean on nuclear cheating; and where the Middle East once feared Iraq's military, the president has had reason lately to lament its ineffectualness. Then there's always the fact that he has "so far avoided another September 11 -- and promises that he is not nearly done yet."

What next? Since he's on a roll, maybe Bush could pre-empt the White House media. There may be no WMD stockpiled by the Washington press corps, but that doesn't mean they aren't a threat to peace and freedom. Having abandoned the pursuit of fact and meaning to chase down a kind of therapeutic humiliation -- therapeutic for them, humiliation for the president -- the White House media, with a couple of notable exceptions, revealed in this week's presidential press conference a particularly disturbing taste for presidential blood, and a patent antipathy for his accomplishments. This bloodlust now borders on icky obsession.

"Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?" asked The New York Times' Elizabeth Bumiller. "You never admit a mistake," said NBC's David Gregory. "Is that a fair criticism?" Were there "any errors of judgment that you made" regarding "those topics (Iraq and Sept. 11) I brought up?"

Again and again, the White House media went apology-hunting. "Two weeks ago," said CBS's John Roberts, "a former counterterrorism official at the NSC, Richard Clarke, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11." (Never mind that the grandstanding Clarke spent the rest of his testimony attesting to his own grossly underappreciated infallibility.) "Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?" Moving on from Sept. 11, Time's John erson wondered, "After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be?" NPR's Don Gonyea took a different tack: "I guess I'd like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator."

Apologies, mistakes, feelings and failings: Was this sweeps week on Oprah, or the White House at war? While Bush quite effectively and even inspirationally set the mission in Iraq and the security of the United States into the larger context of the war on Islamic terrorism, the media tended to their gotcha questions in hopes that they could lay bare, not illuminating fact or meaning -- their sorry performance elicited no new information -- but rather the diminishing fault lines of doubt and cheap emotion. Was the president sorry? Would he apologize? Would the media get their trophy -- one equally prized by John Kerry and Al Jazeera?

No. Bush described his anger, his sadness and his sickness over 9/11, but reminded the pack that "the person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden." He emphasized the serious call to action he strongly believes we must heed.

Not the media; they want that apology, preferably teary-moist, but anything to weaken his moral and political stature. Which explains their lack of journalistic fervor when it came to extracting an apology from Bill Clinton for anything ever, from the multiple lies (sex with "that" woman) to the multiple smears ( Dale, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick), from the 1993 rout in Somalia, in which 18 ill-equipped marines lost their lives in battle with Al Qaeda-trained rebels, to the 2000 attack on the USS Cole -- and every infamous act in between. The media elite wanted him to win. Even now this bunch won't train their pop-apology-guns on Clinton, despite the post-9/11 revelations of his administration's security failings, or even the multiple chances Clinton personally passed up to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.

But they'll keep George Bush in their crosshairs. They don't want him to win -- and it shows.

Name:	ET
To:	Diversity of Thought

In response to:
New book... "It Doesn't Take A Hillary-Hater To Loathe Her Ideas"

Message:
Hillary-Haters are not the only ones who can't see the raising your child in a wholesome environment gives your child the best possible chance in life. Dumbf*cks on the left with no intelligence or vision don't get it either.

Name:

Dumbf*ck on the Right

In response to:
Hillary-Haters are not the only ones who can't see the raising your child in a wholesome environment gives your child the best possible chance in life.

Message:
Hillary and her wayward hound dog husband are not what I would call a wholesome environment. It's may be OK in some Arkansas trailer park village, but keep those dysfunctional twerps out of my childrens lives thank you very much.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Our country is so polarized that maybe we can't win wars anymore if one half of the country always attacks our leaders.

Message:
Virtually everyone in the world supported the war in Afghanistan. Did we win in Afghanistan? The jury is still out. Were our leaders attacked for that war? No.

Moral to this story: We must go through some international body, like the UN, in future wars to depose tyrants who do not threaten our security. This will be very difficult, indeed, because the UN is a divided body, and we don't sometimes agree with some of the more powerful members. But one of the alternatives is Iraq--which is not really an alternative. Patience is better if our security is not at stake.

Name:	John Kerry
To:	Individual

In response to:
"...one of the alternatives is Iraq--which is not really an alternative..."

Name:	Answer
To:	ET
Re:	Fanatical minority must be stopped.

In response to:
What can we do? Batten down the hatches in America and watch the Islamists slaughter millions and millions of innocent people across the world on a daily basis like they are doing in the Sudan right now?

Name:	ET
To:	Dumbf*ck on the Right

In response to:
Hillary and her wayward hound dog husband are not what I would call a wholesome environment. It's may be OK in some Arkansas trailer park village, but keep those dysfunctional twerps out of my childrens lives thank you very much. For her to spew her nonsense about her village makes me sick.

Message:
Hillary and Bill raised their child to be a Stanford graduate with honors, and is now in Oxford. This is as high as you can get.

But if your child did this you would "spew ...and get sick" - To each his own, but I am very glad I was not your child, and I would guess that most people would feel the same way.

Name:	Marfak Oleo
To:	ET
Re:	Mono-cultural, mono-ethnic Swiss villages just won't do!!

Message:
We need a massive new federal program to put America's huge fat children into tiny classrooms in African villages!

Name:	Wellbourne Sneetch III
To:	ET
Re:	I did not have "quality time" with that child!

In response to:
Hillary and Bill raised their child to be a Stanford graduate with honors, and is now in Oxford. This is as high as you can get. But if your child did this you would "spew ...and get sick" - To each his own, but I am very glad I was not your child, and I would guess that most people would feel the same way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message:
They hired a village to raise Chelsea while they were out politicking, ruling the rubes, and so forth.

Name:	ET
To:	Individual

In response to:
Moral to this story: We must go through some international body, like the UN, in future wars to depose tyrants who do not threaten our security. This will be very difficult, indeed, because the UN is a divided body, and we don't sometimes agree with some of the more powerful members. But one of the alternatives is Iraq--which is not really an alternative. Patience is better if our security is not at stake.

Message:
I agree with you that Bush should have gotten more support from the U.N. and other nations, but once the war started the left should not have pulled him down. Especially the left should not have supported the 5th Column in America who preach death to the infidels.

The left thought they were doing a good thing by warring against our President because he did not go the the way they wanted, but once in the war the left should have supported him because if Bush loses we all lose.

The left have spent an inordinate amount of energy and expense ridiculing our President after the war in Iraq had already begun, and continue to do it to this day. They did not support him. They did everything they could to influence the world that he was an idiot and should not be supported.

Even if you hated Bush you should at least think of our troops who volunteered to fight for us. They are up against impossible odds in Iraq but the left don't care, they just keep on ridiculing the war in Iraq and the President who is leading the war.

The left cannot hide the fact that they want Bush to lose this war. They have done everything they can to make it happen. The left is so short sighted that they cannot see they are pointing the gun into their own faces and pulling the trigger when they do that.

An Iranian once said to me during the 8 year long right-wing persecution of the Clintons: "Americans are so self-destructive." There is no doubt about it, they are.

Name:	Que Largo
To:	Groveling Pissant

In response to:
Moral to this story: We must go through some international body, like the UN, in future wars to depose tyrants who do not threaten our security. This will be very difficult, indeed,

Message:
You are free to make your personal surrender to the U.N. at your convenience.

Name:	ET
To:	Wellbourne Sneetch III

In response to:
They hired a village to raise Chelsea while they were out politicking, ruling the rubes, and so forth

Message:
You just made my point, and Hillary's too: "It takes a village to raise a child."

Whether you approve of "the villiage" they chose, the villiage obviously succeeded to the highest possible level that could be obtained.

Name:	The Socialist Of Spain
To:	Individual
Re:	Flypaper

In response to:
Come to Butthead!

Name:	Wellbourne Sneetch III
To:	ET

In response to:
You just made my point, and Hillary's too: "It takes a village to raise a child."

Message:
I suppose it would, if you are too busy with your own concerns to be a parent to your children.

By all means, hire a village (beats nothing, I guess) to raise your children if you must, but do not send the bill to me!

Name:

J.L. Seagull

In response to:
Whether you approve of "the village" they chose, the villiage obviously succeeded to the highest possible level that could be obtained

Name:

Dumbf*ck On the Right

In response to:
Hillary and Bill raised their child to be a Stanford graduate with honors, and is now in Oxford. This is as high as you can get.

Message:
My mother raised a child that went to Oxford on a scholarship. She didn't have shady land deals and the treasury of the United States at our disposal. Does that qualify make her more qualified to run the village than Hillary?

Name:	ET
To:	Dumbf*ck On the Right

In response to:
My mother raised a child that went to Oxford on a scholarship. She didn't have shady land deals and the treasury of the United States at our disposal. Does that qualify make her more qualified to run the village than Hillary?

Message:
Your mother's village was obviously able to offer her child a decent education. That is a good village.

Name:	Last Visible Dog
To:	ET

Message:
Well I don't hate Hillary but claiming "It takes a village to raise a child" is pure socialism. From my perspective, the village has an impact on my children but I could a raise my kids on the surface of Mars (conceptually) and they would be fine. I don't agree that it takes a village to raise a child - like socialism and communism it is a nice idea that does not make the transition to the real world. I don't want the village idiot raising my child but that is exactly what "It takes a village" mindset will get you.

The village is an ingredient in child rearing. Not even close to the main ingredient but an ingredient nonetheless.

Let me us metaphor: It is true to say "It takes oregano to make pizza” but that does not mean it is the most important ingredient and it is possible to make a fine pizza without oregano.

Hillary is a phony. The village did not raise her child - I guess her "it takes a village" logic only applies to peasants.

Name:	Amazon.con
Re:	Hillary's Latest Tome

Message:
It Takes a Ghost-writer to Pen a Book...

Name:

Individual

In response to:
The left thought they were doing a good thing by warring against our President because he did not go the the way they wanted, but once in the war the left should have supported him because if Bush loses we all lose.

Message:
What about us people in the center? We should always support the commander-in-chief. He is the only one we have. We should always support the troops--obviously. However, we must continue to attempt to influence the commander-in-chief when we thing he is full of it.

To this end, I believe that Kerry ought to give Iraq to the UN if they will take it. The militants in Iraq will be much more likely to deal with the UN rather than US. And I don't think it will make much difference in the long run, except that we will lose a lot fewer soldiers, and it might cost less in dollars for us.

Iraq will probably go the way of Iran eventually--religious flakery. For those in the Bush administration who have the "pie in the sky" attitude, they should come down to earth. Get in the real world of Islamic religious flakery.

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE, PUT MANY OF THE RESOURCES NOW USED IN IRAQ INTO THE WAR ON TERRORISM. MAKE DAMN SURE THAT OUR INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ARE PUSHED TO THE LIMIT OF COMPETENCE. LET'S CONCENTRATE ON DOING THINGS THAT WILL INSURE OUR SAFETY.

How can you hate a person so much that you are blinded to the fact that just getting into Stanford would have been enough? Graduating with honors from Stanford would have been more than enough. Getting into Oxford was waaaaay beyond enough.

What would that more proof be? What more could Chelsea do than be a good child, who never got a criminal record for drinking, and accomplished so far beyond what 99% of children accomplish. Yet it's not proof enough for you? I bet you will even go so far as to defend the Bush daughters as role models for all other daughters to follow. Be honest. You've done that haven't you?

America has developed a serious partisan problem, which may be her undoing. No matter how well the other side does the opposition will refuse to see it. Worse still they will attack it and tear it down.

The two parties have become so polarized that nothing important, no matter how serious or beneficial, can be accomplished anymore.

Name:	Last Visible Dog
To:	ET

In response to:
Our country is so polarized that maybe we can't win wars anymore if one half of the country always attacks our leaders.

Bush is not the best thing since sliced bread. I like him – I think he is less partisan than Clinton or Kerry or most people in Washington. I like his no BS approach but I don’t like the why the budget is being handled. I am not sure about Iraq – conceptually it COULD be one of the most important foreign policy moves in recent history or it could fail miserably – the jury is very much still out on this one.

Right now the rabid Left Democrats are tearing this country apart. (and I am not going to be one-sided, the Republicans did a fine job of this in the 1990's except I think the Republicans knew when to stop - the Democrat seem to be willing to forfeit our country and our way of life just to spite Bush - but this point really doesn't matter)

I want another choice. I don't believe this the best we can offer. Kerry's only tactic is hate and attacks so if he wins there is no hope for bringing this country together (it will get worse) and if Bush wins the rabid Left will keep destroying our country (just visit DU, you will find many people that hate Bush more than the 9-11 terrorists).

Name:

Individual

Message:
Just read Senator Clinton's health care piece. Brilliant, as usual. However, she should have dealt with the problem of malpractice insurance. And she didn't fully cover one of the main issues: Who should set the prices and conditions for health care--the insurance companies (we are all at the mercy of the insurance companies now) or public committees composed of health care providers, insurers, citizens such as Ralph Nader, etc. appointed by the congress or some other entity?

Name:	Dr. Art
To:	individual

In response to:
To this end, I believe that Kerry ought to give Iraq to the UN if they will take it.

Some of the nations of the UN are run by religious flakes. Some are run by unelected and brutal dictators. These countries, and their UN ambassadors, have no idea what freedom. How can they possibly be expected to carry out the American vision of freedom and democracy in another country when they don't even practice or promote it in their home country.

Name:	Bleached Desert
To:	Flunky Flake
Re:	Screw the crooked, imbecilic U.N. that foisted "Israel" on the world.

In response to:
To this end, I believe that Kerry ought to give Iraq to the UN

Name:	Ida Red
To:	Individual

In response to:
Just read Senator Clinton's health care piece. Brilliant, as usual

Name:	The American People
To:	SPINdividual

In response to:
Virtually everyone in the world supported the war in Afghanistan. Did we win in Afghanistan? The jury is still out.

Name:	Collective
To:	Individual
Re:	Enslave the doctors! The People shall have proctological exams!

In response to:
Who should set the prices and conditions for health care--

Name:	ET
To:	Individual

In response to:
AND FOR GOD'S SAKE, PUT MANY OF THE RESOURCES NOW USED IN IRAQ INTO THE WAR ON TERRORISM. MAKE DAMN SURE THAT OUR INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ARE PUSHED TO THE LIMIT OF COMPETENCE. LET'S CONCENTRATE ON DOING THINGS THAT WILL INSURE OUR SAFETY.

Message:
You are absolutely right. There is no reason why high-tech America should not have the best intelligence in the world. We can't win the war against the jihadis with bombs and missiles. That's like trying to bomb ants. You can kill a some of them, but most will survive.

We are trying to fight terrorism with sophisticated equipment within in a hierarchy, while the terrorists are fighting with low tech equipment guided by the seeds that were sown in their heads from infancy. Pushed by over population and lack of opportunity these desperate people have nothing to lose by slaughtering populations in order to possess their territory. They also quietly occupy territories and slowly seep into a new culture until they control it.

The are like the killer bees from Africa that have consistently been moving northward, invading the terrories of the ordinary bees all the way up Africa and now in the US and other places.

Name:	JB Williams
Re:	Enough Whining About Iraq

Message:
I have heard just about all of the whining and sniveling from “self styled patriots” over Iraq that I can stand. Bush can’t say what he should be saying on this topic, it just wouldn’t be “Presidential”. But I’m not President, and I don’t plan on running for office anytime soon, so I can say it for him!

Thank God you sniveling liberals weren’t around at Valley Forge, America would have never been born. Yes, its war, and just for the record, people die in war, some of them ours, and some of them innocent bystanders, but hopefully, mostly those who threaten our way of life, and one last thing, nobody “likes” it.

All this “political” rhetoric about whether or not “it’s worth it”, or “where are the WMD”, or “was Hussein really a threat”, and “since when does America take pre-emptive action”? Since about 9/11/01, that’s since when you bunch of whiners!

“Is it worth it?” Do you mean, is it worth it to the 25 million in Iraq who may now actually have a future? Or do you mean, is it worth it in terms of world peace, mostly threatened by Middle East terrorist networks? Or do you mean, is it worth it to make certain that those terrorist networks are stripped of an opportunity to work in concert with a man like Hussein and all of his resources? Or is it worth it just to avoid an event worse than 9/11? What a childish question!

Where are the WMD? Since every intelligence service in the world thought they were in Iraq, I too wish I knew, and I continue to hope that we will know someday. For the record, the existence of WMD was never in question, the problem was and remains, we don’t know where they went, which is not good since people like Bin Laden sure would love to get their hands on them. Now that we all know where they are not, can you tell me where they are?

Was Hussein “really” a threat? Based on the fact that the last four or five administrations seemed to think so, worldwide intelligence pointed that direction, and the mans history had given us some insight in to his intentions, yeah, I’d say he was a threat. Iraqi’s, Kuwait, and Israel sure think he was, and so does Saudi Arabia.

I recently had one of my liberal friends suggest that Hussein was no “real threat” to America, because he lacked long range missile technology that would reach America, even if he had WMD (demonstrating why liberals can’t be trusted with national security). I had to point out how Al Qaeda reached our shores without such missiles, and what they might be capable of with WMD. My friend was fast becoming a “conservative”.

That brings us to pre-emption, probably the most ridiculous question of all. Let me draw you liberals a picture, if you take action against any threat, down to one second before receiving an attack from that threat, it is called a “pre-emptive” action. Any action taken, beginning one second after an attack occurs, is called a “reactionary” measure. In case this is not clear enough, 9/11 happened while we were in the business of “reacting” to threats. It became our policy to “act” against threats on 9/12.

Allow me to speak about our coalition “of the willing” for a moment. First, coalitions are always the “willing”, we never force another country to join our policies, they must be “willing” to join us, you dummy. Second, those who are most likely to “willingly” fight for freedom, are those who most vividly appreciate freedom, namely those countries that “America” liberated more recently in history. You will find a list of these countries in the list of coalition members. Countries we liberated long ago, like France, have already forgotten what they like about the good ole USA, (now that they are “free” to forget), as have many people in America itself. Last, all of these coalition countries have their young on the battle field as well; Try not to forget this you bunch of spineless ingrates!

Last but not least, you don’t get to say you are “strong on defense” after you have spent the last 20 years voting against both “defense” and “intelligence” spending. You don’t get to say that you “support our troops”, while you vote against bills that provide “support” to our troops. You don’t get to say you are “strong on national security”, and at the same time, speak on how we should allow our foreign policy to be decided by a corrupt organization made up of thugs and third world dictators, like the UN. For heavens sake, Col. Gaddafi is head of “human Rights”.

Finally, you don’t get to call our current Commander-in-Chief every name in the book for eight months without a single shred of evidence, then whine about “personal attacks” the first time somebody asks you to explain your resume, which happens to be opposite your campaign rhetoric. Enough said?

Name:	Last Visible Dog
To:	ET

In response to:
Hillary and Bill raised their child to be a Stanford graduate with honors, and is now in Oxford. This is as high as you can get.

Message:
So? Do you call the Clinton household a wholesome environment? I don’t believe the village raises the child so this proves nothing.

Hillary bypassed the government schools and the village she speaks so highly of and paid for non-village private schools and her own private village. Like I said, Hillary's village is not for her - it is for the peasants.

Name:	Uncle Sam
To:	Nattering Nebbishes of Collective Tyranny
Re:	Break the Nanny Cartel! Let Freedom ring once more!

In response to:
The two parties have become so polarized that nothing important, no matter how serious or beneficial, can be accomplished anymore.

Message:
Well, thank goodness for that! Divided government has always been best. Perhaps the era of Big Government is indeed over at last!

Name:	Lomax Bread Run
To:	ET
Re:	WRONG.

In response to:
You are absolutely right. There is no reason why high-tech America should not have the best intelligence in the world. We can't win the war against the jihadis with bombs and missiles. That's like trying to bomb ants. You can kill a some of them, but most will survive.

Message:
Most will survive. We don't want to exterminate anyone. (genocide) We want, and we require, that certain behavior shall stop. We know how to bring about this result, and we are in the process of doing precisely that. "Idividual" is full of crap.

Name:	XYZ
To:	ET

In response to:
Our country is so polarized that maybe we can't win wars anymore if one half of the country always attacks our leaders.

Message:
The appeasement movement is just as deadly as the terrorists themselves.

Name:

XYZ

In response to:
To this end, I believe that Kerry ought to give Iraq to the UN

Message:
With the UN's track record, they would screw up Iraq as bad as Hussein did.

Name:	Talkmaster
Re:	The continuing implosion of John Kerry

Message:
John Kerry is whining that George Bush and Republicans are attacking his patriotism. In the mind of John Kerry, asking about his vote against continued funding for our troops, his designation of our troops in Vietnam as "murderers," his call for American troops to be put under UN control then deployed internationally, and his incredible string of votes against the very weapons systems that are being used to defend and protect our country today are attacks on his patriotism. They're not, of course. They're really attacks on his judgment. Kerry is hiding behind the patriotism facade because there's really no other place for him to hide.

Name:	ET
To:	Uncle Sam

In response to:
Well, thank goodness for that! Divided government has always been best. Perhaps the era of Big Government is indeed over at last!

Message:
There is a BIG difference between a divided government and a government where both sides are warring with each other so fiercely that we can't win the war against another nation.

Name:	ET
To:	Lomax Bread Run

In response to:
Most will survive. We don't want to exterminate anyone. (genocide) We want, and we require, that certain behavior shall stop. We know how to bring about this result, and we are in the process of doing precisely that. "Idividual" is full of crap.

Name:	ET
To:	Individual

In response to:
To this end, I believe that Kerry ought to give Iraq to the UN

Message:
The U.N. couldn't even get Saddam to let the inspectors in. If the U.N. had enough courage to act we would not even be in Iraq right now.

Also, please remember, that when the first bomb hit the U.N. building in Iraq the U.N. ran out of Iraq.

Name:

Talkmaster

Message:
Condoleezza Rice is saying that Islamic terrorists might be planning a strike in the United States prior to the election. If such a strike does indeed happen, Democrats will say that it was planned and implemented by President Bush.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Also, please remember, that when the first bomb hit the U.N. building in Iraq the U.N. ran out of Iraq.

Message:
I said, if the UN will take Iraq--which they may not. Kerry and others have chided Bush for not being patient enough (Paul Newman's characterization on Larry King Live). Maybe the UN would have failed--maybe not.

Although it is a good thing that Saddam is out of power, Americans would not have lost a thing if Saddam were still in power (and the UN were still footing around). Americans are not safer with Saddam out of power. It is not clear whether the war against terrorism would have gone better if we had spent the resources on it rather than Iraq. And, it is not clear, at this time, whether the Iraqi people will even be big winners in the long run if an Iranian-style, religious flake government emerges. Bush is a gunslinger--or maybe Cheney (being from Wyoming) is the gunslinger.

Name:	Milan
To:	LVD
Re:	The death of the American community

In response to:
1) From my perspective, the village has an impact on my children but I could a raise my kids on the surface of Mars (conceptually) and they would be fine.

2) The village is an ingredient in child rearing. Not even close to the main ingredient but an ingredient nonetheless.

Message:
1) If you raise your kids on Mars, you don't have to worry about them being influenced by perverts and bad peers.

2) Get Real! Unless you intend to smother your kids with control (a sure way to really screw them up), they are going to pick up alot from their peers.

A healthy village has more to do with ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE, and SHARED VALUES than economics.

Kids should grow up in a safe, pedestrian-friendly environment where they can walk, play, and ride bicycles. Not in the socially antiseptic sprawling suburbs where they often have to beg for rides to see their friends. p>Kids should grow up in a culture where intelligence, learning and hard work are valued. Not in entitlement culture, where only the poor who do not work get affordable medical care. Or where the high cost of health care pretty much guts the American dream of starting your own business (thereby devaluing resourcefulness).

Kids should grow up in a culture that emphasizes shared values (as opposed to cultural differences in culture), thereby resulting in increased civic participation for a community that is worth living for.

In effect, whether or not you like Hillary, there are many CONSERVATIVE arguments for the saying "It takes a village."

In the final analysis, it is not the big govenment programs that will directly make a town livable, but the civic-mindedness of its citizens. The least we can do is be wary of government programs or corporate bullying that destroys communities.

Name:	ET
To:	Lomax Bread Run

Message:
The "behavior" you want to stop has spread across the world. Jihadis just slaughtered two million Christian black people in Sudan.

You are very optimistic if you think it can be so easily stopped. It's more like fighting a cancer than a real war, except that millions die nonetheless.

If we had the most sophisticated intelligence system in the world, and poured billions into it, we would know everything going on everywhere. As soon as some small uprising takes place we put the fire out immediately. We could get even more sophisticated and sabotage the uprising before it gets started.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
With the UN's track record, they would screw up Iraq as bad as Hussein did.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
If we had the most sophisticated intelligence system in the world, and poured billions into it, we would know everything going on everywhere.

Message:
Hear, hear. I'm not sure that "we would know everything going on everywhere." But enough to do the job. Maybe a world-wide police force is necessary so that (1) other countries bring an investment to the war on terrorism and (2) the US doesn't keep losing all of these soldiers. Other countries ought to take a big burden off of our shoulders.

Name:	Smedley
To:	LVD, SET

In response to:
Hillary is a phony. The village did not raise her child - I guess her "it takes a village" logic only applies to peasants.

I've often praised the Clintons on their apparent success in child-rearing, but apparently they succeeded by NOT doing what they tell others to do.

Name:

XYZ

In response to:
I said, if the UN will take Iraq--which they may not. Kerry and others have chided Bush for not being patient enough (Paul Newman's characterization on Larry King Live). Maybe the UN would have

Now Can We Talk About Health Care? April 18, 2004

Hillary Clinton will be on Larry King tonight at 9.00 PM EST

Now Can We Talk About Health Care?

April 18, 2004