Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Dems 2008: Chelsea Speaks… to Edwards? [Karl]

Both Michelle Malkin and the Hotline took note:

Chelsea Clinton doesn’t say much on the campaign trail with her mother — famously declining to answer questions recently from a 9-year-old Scholastic News reporter. But she headed to her alma mater, Stanford University, yesterday to meet with 100 students involved in the Inter-Sorority Council.

Both also highlighted the former First Daughter’s answer to a question about health care:

“(My mother) and Senator (John) Edwards are committed to universal healthcare,” she said. “Senator (Barack) Obama (D-Ill.) is committed to what we call ‘virtual’ universal healthcare which would make it an option for people to buy into the system. What my mother argues is that if you don’t mandate that everyone have healthcare, the healthy people may not buy into the system, which means that the average cost of insuring people is a lot higher.”

A Malkin reader asked, “Oh did you like how she was nice to John Edwards? Hmmm.”  Malkin responded that Edwards won’t be returning the favor.

That is probably true.  As I have previously noted, Edwards had to know almost from the outset that he was running to be NotClinton.  Nevertheless, the Clinton camp likely recognizes that Edwards delegates could possibly hold the balance if the Democratic primary campaign goes down to the wire.  Thus, necessity must be the mother of obsequiousness, if not invention.

Moreover, Clinton has a pitch to make to Edwards, if necessary:

Edwards is the candidate of Anger.  Obama is the candidate of Unity.  Clinton is the Tough, Tested candidate.  As Headline Junky puts it:

What Hillary Clinton alludes to but never comes out and says when she mentions her experience with Team Clinton is that she has experience not so much in governing, but in campaigning. That’s why she thinks she’s more prepared to take on the GOP candidate come November, and why she so often brings the argument back to dealing with the rigors of the campaign.

Should the time come, Clinton can argue to Edwards that the Edwards campaign was not about Unity so much as it was about Sticking It To The Man.  Accordingly, he should put his support behind the candidate who is more fighter than lover.

Whether Edwards would find that argument convincing is an open question.  Depending on how events unfold, however, he may need only a rationale, rather than a reason.

22 Replies to “Dems 2008: Chelsea Speaks… to Edwards? [Karl]”

  1. Pablo says:

    What my mother argues is that if you don’t mandate that everyone have healthcare, the healthy people may not buy into the system, which means that the average cost of insuring people is a lot higher.”

    Why don’t we just vote for Romney then? He figured out that if you fine people who don’t by in, just taking their money without returning value if they don’t play along, the problem is solved.

  2. Bill D. Cat says:

    He figured out that if you fine tax the living shit out of people who don’t by in, just taking their money without returning value if they don’t play along, the problem is solved.

    Welcome to Canada y’all !

  3. happyfeet says:

    Somehow I don’t think Democrats are going to notice that their primary is a referendum on mandatory vs. voluntary participation in some healthcare plan. They just want to beat Bush in November.

  4. Bill D. Cat says:

    Sorry Pablo . I tried to strike through fine and add tax the living shit out of

  5. Bill D. Cat says:

    Do not , whatever you people do , concede the care of your person to the state .

  6. Pablo says:

    Or in other words, stay out of Massachussetts. And don’t elect Hill, Barry or Silky. Or Mitt.

    The cost of not having health insurance in Massachusetts is going up.

    When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.

  7. Bill D. Cat says:

    Department of Revenue

    Sounds sinister , or Canadian , you pick .

  8. Pablo says:

    Very sinister, Bill. Like the devil in a blue dress K-Mart pantsuit.

  9. Jeff aka Alcyoneus says:

    I did not have International Relations with that women, Chelsea Clinton, at Oxford.

    Seriously, though. It takes a village to take care of me. And I know why the caged bird sings — it wants to get the hell out of socialist hell.

  10. Bill D. Cat says:

    penalty guidelines

    That really has a bitter tone to it .

  11. happyfeet says:

    Mostly your caged bird can either sing or not sing. It’s kind of binary like that. I never really understood the why part. If you really wanted a caged bird that was singing and your caged bird flatout refused you’d just go get one of the singing ones and let the mute one go or take it back where you got it. That’s what I’d do anyway. In the time it takes to write a poem about it you could have the whole situation pretty much resolved is my point.

  12. I did not have International Relations with that women, Chelsea Clinton, at Oxford.

    yeah, cause then your name would be Ian. duh.

  13. daleyrocks says:

    Chelsea has apparently moved on from the world of consulting to that of hedge funds, big donors to the democrat party while raping and pillaging America for fun and profit.

  14. B Moe says:

    “What my mother argues is that if you don’t mandate that everyone have healthcare, the healthy people may not buy into the system, which means that the average cost of insuring people is a lot higher.”

    I hope her understanding of arithmetic is better when she is doing the hedge fun thing, because the average cost in this case is meaningless. The total cost is what is going to bankrupt the country.

  15. because the average cost in this case is meaningless.

    not if you’re trying to be fair, B Moe.

  16. Topsecretk9 says:

    I so put my trust in Pablo

    What my mother argues is that if you don’t mandate that everyone have healthcare, the healthy people may not buy into the system, which means that the average cost of insuring people is a lot higher.”

    Noooo!!!???? She really said this? really?

    The Hedge Fund manager said this?

  17. daleyrocks says:

    TS – The healthy peeps subsidize the sickos, so if everyone is going to be charged the same rate, a pool with a combo of healthy people and sick people can charge a lower average rate than a pool of just sick people (e.g. poor risks). Of course a separate pool of healthy people would pay an even lower rate. It’s something called the Law of Large Numbers.

  18. alppuccino says:

    I’m afraid I have no idea why the caged bird sings. I do know why Terrell Owens cried though. He knows what’s important.

  19. alppuccino says:

    Ooh. JD. That must have stung a little.
    .
    .
    .

    I wasn’t thinking.
    .
    .
    .
    We even now?

  20. steveaz says:

    Chelsea has given away Hillary’s game: Hillary! wants healthy people to pay the medical bills of sick people. Period.

    I dunno, but I’m inclined to pay my own medical bills when I am sick, and to let other folks pay their own bills when they are sick.

    Otherwise, what’s to stop me (or them) from becoming a hypochondriac, and scoring all that paid-for professional attention.

    Afterall, we’ve all got a little Munchausen deep inside of us, just screaming to get out.

  21. B Moe says:

    Chelsea is talking about the average cost, not the average rate. All taxpayers are going to be footing the bill, so adding low-cost healthy people isn’t going to affect the total cost to the taxpayers much. It will just lower the average paid out per participant, the total is still going to be astronomical.

  22. McGehee says:

    The caged bird sings because if it doesn’t, it’s cat food.

    Damned if I’m going to feed and clean up after a bird that won’t @#$!ing sing!

Comments are closed.