The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    tmccarthy0's picture

    The Case for Hillary Clinton: Health Care Policy Experience

    Everyone knows I think Hillary Clinton is Bernie Sanders; equal. But if we were to be very truthful, she is more than his equal, because she has had to fight harder to get here. I'm serious about that, she even had to fight harder to get me.

    In 2008, I was not a Hillary fan at all. I was 100% for the President.  I didn't think she proved herself (I was wrong about that). But I chose Obama, and while I am glad that I did, I want to say this, Hillary Clinton is a loyal big d and little d, democrat. She is the equal of every man and woman running, including Bernie Sanders. She has deep experience crafting policy and understands how to get legislation passed.  

    My biggest issue is and always has been health care policy.

    Health Care: 

    • In 1979, Hillary chaired the Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Committee, which focused on expanding health care access to isolated rural areas of the state.

    • As first lady, she refused to give up when Congress defeated health care reform in 1993. Instead, she worked with Republicans and Democrats to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now provides health coverage to more than 8 million children. Senator Ted Kennedy said that if not for Hillary, the Children’s Health Insurance Program wouldn’t be in existence today.

    • As senator, she introduced legislation to reduce the cost of health insurance expenses.

    • Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary pushed the Bush administration for $20 billion for recovery and to address health care needs of first responders who suffered lasting health effects from their time at Ground Zero.

     She has vast experience in health care policy. I don't know if people truly understand the spot we are in here. We now need extensive reforms in the health care industry. She does know how to work with Republicans to get these things done as evidenced by the ChIP program. Clinton also knows to effectively use the media to her advantage when Republicans refuse to act. The next election doesn't hold great prospects for the Democrats in those very red areas of the country, it looks like congress will remain in control of Republicans for now. That does mean we have to work towards some resolution in working with Republicans, but not giving up the store when we do. Clinton has experience working with these instransigent knuckleheads.

    There is also the issue of cost.  Those states where Medicaid has not been expanded continue to make health care more costly. These are red states we are talking about. These states are the very reason PPACA isn't working optimally. It is estimated that 33 million people are uninsured in America. The vast majority of those people reside in red states where Medicaid hasn't been expanded.  There is a great cost associated with those states where Medicaid has not been expanded. Those states continue to have greater emergency room costs that go unpaid, and continue to have greater mortality rates among the lower middle class. Much of this is the result of the lack of access to health insurance. 

    She has so much experience in this area alone. But this isn't her only area of expertise. She is going to be a solid President, maybe  even a great President. And as I mentioned somewhere above, she is the equal, or more than equal of every other person running. She even knows how to move legislation. This is the kind of experience we need in 2016. 


    I agree with every word, and Hillary was not my choice last time either. Barack Obama really did a good thing by making her Secretary of State.  She got very good experience as well as international credibility from that job. If she still had to rely on her First Lady experience she would not be as good a candidate as she has become. 

    Agree on the health care aspect, and also the ability to work with Republicans, a quality that took Obama longer to recognize than it should have IMHOP. I do think that the GOPS will not treat her as badly as they did him.  I sure hope no, any way. 

    I like Bernie, but I honestly don't think he can accomplish the things we all wish he could. He sure has brought HRC leftward, thank goodness!  

    Thanks CVille, I agree.

    If you look up Hillary and the federal funded children's health program first passed in the 90s -  CHIP this pops up near the top of Google, with this quote from the 2012 Tea Party challenge survivor Senator Hatch (R-UT), from 2/2008:

    ..She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it.""I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No...

    Hatch is one of the more sane Republicans and teamed with Kennedy to put together the original  CHIP program in 1995. He survived a Tea Party primary opponent in 2012.

    Senator Kennedy 2007 on Hillary's involvement, and note Ted endorsed Obama for President the next year, it seems an honest appraisal, not an aggrandizement and a Hillary for President promotion:

    "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Kennedy told The Associated Press.

    Senator Hatch endorsed John McCain for President in 2008, some votes of John McCain on SCHIP  from 2008 on a conservative website, "rightnation America's #1 Conservative Community" - they tout these votes by the Hatch endorsed McCain as giving the real deal on why McCain is so great a 'conservative':

    2007: McCain Opposed Reauthorizing of the SCHIP and Providing Insurance For Millions of Uninsured Children. McCain voted against reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program for five years  [Senate Vote #307, 8/2/07]

    2007: McCain Claimed the Reauthorization Covered Too Many Children.  [Congressional Record, 8/2/07]

    2005: McCain Chose Tax Breaks For Wealthy Americans Instead of Funding SCHIP.  [Senate Vote #337, 11/17/05]

    1997: McCain Voted Against Providing Health Insurance To Low Income Children. McCain voted against increasing the tobacco tax to provide more money to help insure low and moderate income children. [Senate Vote #76, 5/21/1997]

    1995: McCain Voted to Eliminate Vaccines for Children's Program. McCain voted for the 1995 Republican budget that repealed the Vaccines for Children Program.  [Senate CQ Vote #584, 11/17/95; DPC Legislative Bulletin, H.R. 2491, 11/17/95; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/95, p. 3540]

    1995: McCain Voted to Drastically Cut Health Care for Children. McCain voted for the 1995 GOP budget that would have repealed guaranteed coverage of preventative, primary care and hospital services for about 18 million children.. [Senate CQ Vote #584, 11/17/95; DPC Legislative Bulletin, H.R. 2491, 11/17/95; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/95, p. 3540]

    This gives some idea of how the GOP views federal financial help for the health care of children in poor families. Expect any Republican running for President to support the impact and the ideology behind these votes.

    It seems Hatch and McCain are not the most faithful friend of health care for children, if any Republicans are at all.

    And although Hatch is one of the few remaining Republicans with some principles, I would not believe Hatch in his hedging, above, about what Hillary did to help pass the first SCHIP bill in 1995.

    Excellent post on highlighting Hillary and her involvement with passing meaningful and lasting legislation. It is one thing to take positions, it is another to have a record of getting things done.

    Thanks for the additional information NCD.  Her expertise in Health Care policy is going to be one of the areas she can do some real good.

    I read all your links! Thanks.

    Hillary said she is proud 2 have drug co's as her enemies She also takes their $. Lots of it! 

    Clinton tops 2016 field in drug industry donations

    Bernie Slams Clinton 4 Lies Abt Universal Health Care Plan as Distraction From her BIG Wall St Donations

    The Daily Show's Desi Lydic examines Hillary Clinton's claim to have mostly small donors

    If you're not going to vote for anyone who takes large donations you're pretty much limited to only voting for Sanders. Ted Kennedy the so called liberal lion of the senate took big donations including pharma money. Even Kucinich took large donations and PAC money when he could get it.

    I feel like you didn't address the blog at all. I mean, I have written about her policy expertise in health care, it's an important issue.  So if you want to have a discussion, why not lay out Sen. Sanders Health Care policy and we can discuss the differences and what we can really expect after the election takes place. We have to keep in mind Congress will not change significantly, so please go ahead and explain Sen. Sanders on Health  Care policy, what he has done in the past, and what he will do in the future to make sure his goals will be attained.  Let's have the discussion. 

    I'm with you and OceanKat on this. Accepting money from people and organizations who HAVE MONEY is a necessary evil. If taking it means that you will listen to their ideas, I guess that's the way the game is played. That is NOT the same as taking Koch $$$, going to their "seminars," and then spouting word for word, their talking points. 

    I am so damn sick of the false equivalency shit, and it really gripes me when Democrats do it to each other. 

    Given that your biggest issue is healthcare policy, HRC is a defensible choice.  Universal single-payer, which Bernie champions, is of course far better than anything centrist corporadem Hillary would ever actually push for. 

    Still as you point out there's very little  likelihood over the next nine years that the American people will elect a Congress that would even consider expanding Medicare/Medicaid.  Clinton does deserve credit for expanding s-Chip. 

    Bernie likewise deserves credit for working across party lines to expand veterans access to healthcare and he received credit from the Veterans of Foreign Wars who awarded him their 2015 Congressional Award.

    It's sad that not only are so many Americans willing to settle for so much less than we deserve, many appear not even to know they're settling.

    On a visit to relatives in Australia the year of the Olympics (2000), a visit to the Doctor by a sick family member resulted in a Dr. bill less than our co-pay in the US dollars, and a prescription a little less than US $10. As a foreign visitor with no plan for coverage in that country.

    When Aussie Grandma came here, her diabetes med that had cost $8 Aussie for 3 months cost us about $45 for one month. And at that time the Aussie dollar cost only 0.45 cents US.

    One reason US politicians go to the Pharm industry or health 'insurers' for election money. They got loads of it. And Americans think we have such a great 'health system'...we have no health system, we have health businesses run by Wall Street.

    So just a quick thing,  if HRC is a corpadem is Bernie a convenientdem who will turn into a corpadem?  Why even use the party to run if he doesn't want to be tainted by corporate dollars? Seriously, if his message is so strong and really attracts ALL THE PEOPLE, why does he even need to run as a Democrat? Is that because he is very willing to use our organization? Doesn't that ultimately mean he is more than willing to take money from corporate America. Money to run the Democratic Party does in part come from corporate America.  What? OH NOES.... BERNIE IS TAINTED TOO! Ultimately, if Mr. Sanders were to win this thing, he would be the recipient of millions of dollars from corporate America via the Democratic Party.  You can't run a national campaign without those dollars.  Your black and white world suddenly isn't so black and white is it.

     Bernie's not perfect.  Nobody is.  He is the best chance we have to take a little of the power back from the corporations that they've consolidated over the past 35 years.

    Hahahahaha..You are funny.

    Brilliant retort.

    You gave a lame answer Hal.." well Bernie isn't perfect".  To win a national election, even your candidate has to take money from corporations. Boom... he isn't different. He is a politician. He knew he had to join the Democrats to have even a slight chance of being the nominee, because that gives him access to a solid organization with all of that money. Your candidate is no more immune to pressure from corporate American than any other politician running,  So my hahahaha, response,  is me finding it quite humorous watching you turn yourself into knots over the charade that Senator Sanders, a lifetime politician is not a politician.    

    To be fair, Sanders seems to be a *small-money* politician from a small state, starting as mayor of a quite liberal college town, and as such has been allowed much more leeway in pursuing non-mainstream positions, including being a rare "independent" in a sharply divided middle left-far right US political system. So while a politician, he is likely more of a heart-felt politician (which doesn't mean his heart is always right on a particular policy), and hasn't had to make so many of those brutal sausage-making compromises, for better and worse, including even being a Democrat up to now.

    (even his vote on gun industry immunity I can see - if abortion is legal, we should protect abortion clinics from frivolous lawsuits related to doing their job. If vaccines or other medicines are legal and we need pharmaceutical companies to push risky but needed solutions on the market quick, we need to protect them from lawsuits based on doing exactly that... there are other factors, but at core, I don't find it terribly unreasonable, and don't think the gun manufacturers are responsible for Republican gun lobbying and faux Patriot positioning even in light of weekly mass shootings)

    Hillary's been playing with big money politics since the McGovern campaign in '72. Yes, it's nice to have some small-money values influence our post-Citizens United hyper-money system, but putting that cat back in the bag takes more than just not accepting big money. (Citizens United being specifically designed as a right-wing attack on Hillary in 2008, leading to near-billion dollar slush funds in 2012 for "policy issues", e.g. thinly veiled attacks and/or promotions of candidates of right-wing choice).

    Since these 3rd party organizations now control 90%+ of the money, you can imagine that's where the real power is. Jeb Bush has over $100 million in PAC money, Ted Cruz $38 million. The public-contributed portion is nice for showing public enthusiasm, but with $2700 per person ($5400 for primary + general), it's a far cry from even personal limits to party coffers ($38K per person).

    That's not the end of the equation though - Ben Carson has a small amount of PAC money but has been #2. Trump probably has 0 PAC money, but is his own PAC. Scott Walker had a lot, but is gone (& Bush is on oxygen). Still, these are primaries, and the big billion dollar money kicks in for the generals (as well as all the down-ticket campaigns without limits).

    The Tea Party arguably rose out of the rants of a stock broker on the floor of Wall Street complaining about not getting enough bailout (presumably a free-market shrink-government type who suddenly discovered an appreciation for government largesse). Just as post-9/11 neocons shifted all Americans to the right (despite us thinking them disproven laughing stocks), the Tea Party has largely defined our political world post-meltdown, getting Obama to play along with self-defeating tax cuts and other austerity measures starting from the 2009 bailout on.

    I largely like Bernie & his ideas, would probably be the one I'd most like to have a beer with and probably agree most with in terms of coffee shop political discussions. But I couldn't be effective in Washington, and I'm doubtful of his ability to lead the sheep off the ranch - there are electric wires there, it's not low security. And strangely for me, I'd be much more supportive of Bernie if he were reining in Hillary on the military/foreign policy/state security side, rather than the WallStreet/oligarchy side where I don't see popular support (failed #OWS?) or room for huge change - we're largely a nation of yuppie aesthetics and Dow Jones fan-bois, even if we don't have money. I'm not a huge fan of her career as war Secretary of State, and can only excuse away some of the bad choices as "comes with the job". The knee-jerk attitude against Eric Snowden is probably understandable, but after a couple years consideration & perspective related to revealed excesses of the US government, she could have become significantly more progressive on these matters. I don't see her distancing herself from the failed Petraeus "train them to stand up for themselves" approach or finding a mild way to soften the glorious screw-up of overthrowing Qaddafi (I guess if the press doesn't notice, she shouldn't advertise it, but still...) and that ISIS rose out of our Syrian screwup, backing rebels to create a power vacuum, even if ISIS leaders were initially Iraqi Ba'ath elites - I'm hardly cheered to see Democrats make Bush's horrid mendacious failures even more mendacious and failing.

    So I'm happy to vote for Hillary as a politician where she's back in her groove as pragmatic hard-nosed values-based politician - health care, poverty, women's issues, et al, including what I see as her already existing commitment to pro-people economics - and hope she extends that groove & evolves on what Ike called the *Congressional*-military-industrial complex. Perhaps her sympathies for African-Americans at the mercy of overlording, lying, covering-up police will lead her to obvious comparisons to the general public at the mercy of overstretching and covering-up intelligence officials and the overstretching & distorted reality/deluded optimism/massive self-destructive behavior of our foreign policy these last 15 years. But her position to "study" marijuana a bit more seems like a lame anachronistic Johnny-come-lately approach rather in astounding denial of the effects of mass incarceration on the black community and its influence on the current black-police conflicts of today. 

    He isn't taking money from corporations.  He doesn't have any PACs.  When he does, I'll address that concern.  Sanders isn't perfect.  But he's better than anybody else running for President right now.

    Regarding PACs, I suppose it depends on how technical you want to be.

    Well - this is a major dilemma.  Nurses formed a PAC to support Bernie but he has specifically told them not to operate it on his behalf.  Nurses my gosh.  Next thing you know steelworkers and firefighters and teachers will want to help Bernie any way they can.   What a revolting development.  Those uppity nurses are going to start demanding that they shouldn't have to work more than 12-hours consecutively or be assigned to more patients than they can reasonably handle and that doctors should have to treat them respectfully.  I mean who doesn't get that nurses are as big a threat to our freedoms and economic well-being as the investment bankers, corporate lawyers, private prison industry lobbyists, and CEOs who back Hillary?

    It's hard to claim you don't take PAC money if you take a PAC's money or a PAC's spending money on you. Sadly, this is true whether the PAC is nurses or nonagenarians or nuns or numismatics.

    I'm sure you've already qualified who are the acceptable PACs and who the unacceptable ones (hint: former give to Bernie, latter give to HIllary).

    Of course Hillary has backing of several unions, including SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, the machinists union, the AFSCME, the longshoremen, the National Eductors' Association, the American Postal Workers Union, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, and National Nursers United - like she already has backing from unions representing a majority of union workers while Bernie only has a couple of smaller ones.

    But it's so doggoned fun to pretend Bernie's ahead with the real people and Hillary is only running around trying to attract Wall Street brokers and taking prison lobbyists to lunch, that hey, let's ignore any real facts and just claim that it's all true. Bernie is God, Hillary is Satan - the dumbing of the electorate round 2.

    Brought to you by Hal the workingman's hero and eternal class-division exerciser.

    Why have unions jumped on the Clinton bandwagon?  Gee - I dunno maybe because 1) she's going to win and they don't want to face her vindictiveness and 2) she's cultivated close relationships with union bosses but has done little for the rank and file.  Those explanations are far more plausible than the claim that she's been or will be a better friend to working people than Bernie Sanders.

    Regarding the NNU super Pac - here's the email I received from the Sanders campaign, I know it won't be enough for you but then again nothing would be right?

    "But much to our surprise, one super PAC plans to start spending money in support of our campaign. They should spend their money somewhere else. We do not want their help."  (Emphasis retained).

    So if it's just the bosses that like Hillary and the masses that love Bernie, how come Hillary leads the National polls by 30 points? Ever consider your math and logic aren't too good?

    Yeah that's what I said.  You know PP you like to make things personal so I'll make it personal.  I've noticed that every criticism about HC always draws an immediate assertive response from you.  Is it just possible that like a self-hating gay you are protesting just a little too much.  Maybe there's a barely conscious or subconscious doubt in your mind that she's the best choice for America.  Could it be that you fear the powerful progressive case against Clinton has merit and therefore you fight triply hard against it (and against yourself).  Just sayin'.

    No, that's not what you said - you're claiming either unions are afraid of HIllayr's "vindictiveness" (yeah, she's Joe Stalin in drag - fear the purges!!!) or buddies up with union bosses but has "done little for the rank and file". Except that those national polls don't measure union bosses - they measure total popular support (within some margin of error). So unless there are more chiefs than indians, some of the rank and file supports Hillary pretty well - why's that? could it be the claim that "she's been or will be a better friend than Bernie Sanders" isn't so implausible?

    And yes, I'm a self-hating closeted gay and a self-hating closeted Jew and a self-hating closeted black man and a self-hating closeted transgender feminist. Glad I could get all that out in the open, but I'll still keep my self-hating libido - it's such an essential part of me.

    "Maybe there's a barely conscious or subconscious doubt in your mind that she's the best choice for America.  Could it be that you fear the powerful progressive case against Clinton has merit and therefore you fight triply hard against it 

    Yeah, you got me Hal - I don't post articles about Hillary's mess of a problem from overthrowing Qaddafi or her shitty "let's study it some more" approach to marijuana or her trying to weaken encryption - that's some progressive gremlin, my inner Mr. Hyde, stealing my account to post the progressive ideals I fear and aspire to. You got me, Hal. It's not that you see outrageously false, naive and frequently misogynistic things in the name of "progressivism" - it's that I hate myself. Fear and Loathing in Las Peracles. Noted, grazie - you've almost cleansed me.- a few more rounds of self-flagellation and I'll be there.

    There's a 57 step program that I'm sure Hal can point you to - he's a glorified graduate of "How To Deflect An Argument".

    Actually it was PP who deflected but since you agree with her unqualified support of HC, you criticized me.  I provided two very plausible reasons that many unions have endorsed HC even though HC is pro-corporate/anti-labor: 1) they're afraid of her and 2) she and the bosses have a cozy relationship.  Nothing PP wrote undermined this point, therefore, I properly questioned her support for the candidate who has demonstrably been worse for working people.

    Who deflected?

    You proved somehow that people are afraid of Hillary?

    She has gone out of her way to court labor - I don't think just the bosses - along with a mass of other endorsements. She has more endorsements than any Democratic candidate ever. Isn't that good?

    And by "cozy", do you mean they take jacuzzi baths in candlelight together, trade packs of unmarked bills, or simply share liberal union values?

    And she's leading the national polls by 25% - are all these pro-supporters simply bosses, or could there be a few unwashed masses in there?

    And since you say "demonstrably worse for working people", please show me that "demonstrably" link. And if she's been such a witch, how come so many are supporting her? Not that many can be on the take, can they? oh wait, becuase they're afraid, verrrry afraid.

    So you do get that she ain't so great yet you lash out at anybody who points this out.  Q.E.D.

    Oh my my my...

    I'm waiting for you Hal to expand on and provide a clearer explanation on what really constitutes the following description:

    "...a self-hating gay..."

    Is that anything along the lines of a self-loathing lawyer syndrome?

    I'm all ears.


    Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates. The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense fear of homosexuals.

    So am I a self-hating gay or a homophobe or both?

    How authoritarian do my parents need to be?

    (I thought enjoying the spankings would be *acknowledging* my attraction, no?)

    I studied flamboyance in college, but still came out closeted, I guess. "More panache!!!", as my glamour prof would tell me. "This isn't cruising 101,  this is the *Theater*, the catwalk of life!!!"


    See my response down thread here...

    Tue, 12/15/2015



    Now Hal, there's no need to be touchy. That there is a PAC raising and spending money on behalf of his campaign is simply a fact - whether or not you (or Bernie) support those efforts doesn't change that.

    The thing with the mayor made me wonder how many mayoral endorsements Hillary has (to go with I think 183 current governors, US Sentaor & representative) - apparently 83 current plus another 20 ex-.

    Bernie has 2 congressmen, an ex-gov (Jesse Ventura), a current & an ex-mayor.

    Current polling spread between Clinton-Sanders at RealClearPolitics is almost 26 points, from the tightest 13% back at end of September. Sanders says he's going to spend more money now, but Bill Clinton is now starting to hit the fundraising trail for Hillary.

    Short answer - there's *very little chance* that Sanders will be elected, though there are 3 months for him to pull out a miracle.

    It would be close to a miracle if Bernie won.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it happen for ourselves and our children and their children.

    How many terms we talking? Sounds like a socialist dictatorship . (;-))

    Thanks PP ;-))

    My biggest issue is and always has been health care policy.

    There is so much more that is of critical importance in the world as a whole and, in terms of our next election, the US in particular, that I think the value of your argument to the whole question is greatly weakened by making that single issue so preeminent. It seems, to me, as much a poor way of deciding who to vote for as that of the single issue voters with other priorities who are providing strength to the campaigns of the like of Trump and other Republican candidates. I don’t say that to lessen the importance of health care reform but ...

    It is impossible to imagine or even guess at the way our country would react if the quantity of death and human pain, both physical and mental, that we have ladled both directly and indirectly over great parts of the world were shared equally within our borders but it would surely raise the importance of health care to heights most of those living relatively comfortably here in the US have not empathetically imagined and which so many casually accept and/or justify. Our elected representatives who have ultimately made the choices have for some years followed the lead of either the neocons or the humanitarian interventionists but both ways have led to the same ends. Anyone believing that we can continue down the same path and simultaneously improve the situation of common citizens here at home for the long run … …  

    Well, as I have said recently, I am attempting to be more diplomatic in my comments so I will just say that they think much differently than me and prioritise their choices very differently. I would bet and give high odds that Hillary will be our next President. I agree that she is a better choice than any of the Republicans. I believe Sanders is bringing important issues more to the forefront and I hope that the enthusiasm for his stated positions is an indication of how and to where the national conscience is moving and that Hillary and other politicians will not only notice and then at least pander but hopefully  also honestly react and represent those ideas in their goals and decisions. It is Sanders that gives me some hope, but there is no national figure who gives me much confidence. The essay linked below represents my views today better than I am able to do myself. I do not have any more original thoughts than the average person. I expect that you will get your wish for Hillary as our next President and then I expect that there will be as much ignoring of many grave errors or else apologies for the same by Hillary supporters as there has been for the ones of Obama whom I also supported with some enthusiasm. I expect that you will think I am wrong while I hope that I am. I have no doubt that we both support progressive change for the better.        


    Thanks for the link.  I don't agree with all of it.  Most of it is spot on for me. 

    Lovely holiday weekend read, my friend.  I'd only add, and I guess I've already said it elsewhere, that I think Hillary is just more qualified now than she was in 2008.  Her work with the Obama administration did a lot for her.

    Thanks Mike.

    Nicely done, TMac.  I think the advantage Hillary will have over Bernie is that she's well aware of the hurdles and how to jump over them.  Bernie knows what he wants (and what we want) but knowing it and knowing how to do it are two different things.  

    Hillary's strength is in her intimate knowledge of the Washington machinery.  Sometimes it's good to be a politician.  They know she knows and they don't like it.

    It might just be that they replayed the first SNL debate sketch last night (where Larry David, as Bernie, implies he will be Veep) but I do think that when Hillary wins, Bernie is going to find he has a friend on the inside.

    Hey there... Ramona and Mike...

    Win or lose... One thing cannot be denied about the positive influence of Bernie...

    Wherever I've posted that it's received positive feedback.

    Anyone wishing to use it... Feel free to do so...


    Shouldn't that be "Lern", Vern? Through everything, Tern, Tern, Tern...

    Great tune... Thanks... I was there...

    Oh and about my spelling? Sorry, I are just a edumacated kin'a guy.


    Fer sher, I concer. That eddykashun is real perty. So is them Berds. Don't make Nehru jackets like they use 'ter.

    Bernie's great.  The Dems can certainly learn from him.  Love him, I do..  I just don't see him as president.

    Absolutely.  He's making a positive contribution by running a positive campaign.

    Thanks Mona.

    For Hal from unthread . . .

    Note... the words "causal" "inferences" and "implied" in these studies you cited...

    Parental Autonomy Support and Discrepancies Between Implicit and Explicit Sexual Identities:Dynamics of Self-Acceptance and Defense - Netta Weinstein - 01/2012

    Any other Peer Reviews on that one study other than this initial publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology?

    Now... please note my bold highlighted sections in the following from the study:

    Page: 829 - Limitations and Future Directions

    There are several limitations of this study that should be addressed in future research. First, these studies were conducted on college students no longer though relatively recently) living with their parents. It may be helpful to test these effects in younger adolescents still living in the home and in older adults who have spent a longer time away from parents’ influence. Such samples could help identify the extent to which perceived parental styles vary with identity discrepancy and intolerance, as well as how more proximal social contexts impact these outcomes.

    Additionally, given the correlational nature of many of the present findings, causal and developmental inferences cannot be reliably made.

    Though evidence examining developmental lines and stable self-identities may be difficult to attain, experimental studies that introduce threatening self relevant information might help to support the causal model implied in these studies.

    --end snip--


    The important part: "...causal and developmental inferences cannot be reliably made."

    Even in the original link you provided the following is written right at the top.

    Is some homophobia self-phobia? - Science Daily

    Nothing is set in stone,




    Latest Comments