to say that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be talking about health care if not for Bernie Sanders.

If they were, they wouldn't question her on it. I think maybe it might be a good idea if they went and look some things up.

but when the push comes to shove will she actually do anything

we got ACA...imperfect as it may be, it's something. I sometimes people expect miracles...that's, unfortunately doesn't happen.

And something about name recognition, polls, and favorite cleaning supplies.
And she has made many speeches. I think that covers it.

Guess what I think of them.

But suddenly she's going to give that up when she gets into the WH? Ok.

I thought she was an expert at getting things done?

The same thing that's going to prevent EITHER of our candidates from getting much done until redistricting happens?

...and that won't stop her this time? Yeah...ok...

So would Bernie. But Bernie hasn't made many friends in Congress in his many, many years of service. The silence of endorsements is ringing pretty loud. Hillary has worked cross-aisle and she's good at everything from the charm offensive to strong-arming. She's generally the smartest person in any room, a total policy wonk, and ruthless. Bernie couldn't even explain how his own policies would WORK.

If I were a betting woman, I'd bet on Hillary every time to push things through.

You seriously underrate Bernie, who understood that the way you got things done in many cases was to get others to include your legislation in their bills - either by accepting it in committee or via an amendment. While this means their name won't be on it, it means it becomes law. In the ACA, that was sponsored by Reid and was a combination of legislation written in the Finance committee under Baucus and the HELP committee under Kennedy and later Harkin. One long time Bernie goal was to get funding for health centers especially in rural areas. He got it included in the HELP committee legislation and fought to keep it in the final bill.

Hillary came to the Senate in 2000 and was already seen as likely to run for President. Like most freshman Senators, she really did not get a lot of things she wrote passed. It is very hard to think of any issue she led on. Ted Kennedy led on anything health or education related, she was not on the Foreign Relations committee, and she was clearly not a leader on the Armed Services committee where most of the members had not just more time on the committee, but more knowledge of the subject matter. Republican John Warner was the Republican chair (when they had the majority) and Cal Levin was the chair when we did. Most of the committee had served - including Warner, who was the Secretary of the Navy in the Vietnam years. Senator Reed served and graduated from West Point.

This does not mean that she was not good. It does mean legislation, once introduced goes to a committee -- and IF the committee wants to pursue it, they work together to craft a bill that may use many things that were sent to it. She did not chair any committee - no freshman does. What she had was incredibly high name recognition and connections.

As to smartest person in the room -- there are many others I would place higher than her. From my own life experience, what I looked for watching hearings to get an impression of who the genuinely intelligent people were included: 1) All legislators could have good well written questions at hearings - they do have staff. The good ones managed to gain enough subject matter expertise that they could ask a question and then follow up depending on the response. The lesser ones just went to the next well written question. 2) Note which legislators end up having their questions referenced by others. My impression was Clinton was very articulate, learned facts quickly and remembered them. To me she was more the A student, who always had their homework done, rather than the less consistent, but often brilliant student who looked at something differently and discovered something new. (From that, I am not surprised that where she did a very competent job representing the US, her talent was not the grueling work of diplomacy looking for a way to find some way to solve a puzzle to unfreeze a frozen situation. She is smart, but not that creative.)

Fuck the silly peons who think healthcare and college should actually be affordable. After all, there are wars to fund and massive profits to be made for her Wall St. buddies.

Made me laugh. There is the fact that she says these things and we have it all recorded and we can use it to pressure her. She seems to be aware that people are responding to Bernie's message. Sometimes her speeches contain Bernie's ideas almost word for word.

Climate change for ages. Improving healthcare coverage has always been important to her ( it was Hillarycare before Obamacare) . Not sure about student loan debt....

She has a well-thought out plan:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

I won't make the mistake of trudging through her policies on her site again........

But at least I can say I tried.

What they ALL (and McCain) ran on was a slightly reworked version of what John Kerry proposed in 2004 - without the genuine conviction and passion.

As SoS, Clinton was extremely interested in woman's and children's rights -- but was personally nowhere near as committed to working on ways to fight climate change. Obviously, she did go to Copenhagen, but only for about one day. (The summit was from 7 through the 18th. Here is a link to the public schedule and you can see she left DC on the afternoon of the 16th! http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2009appt/index.htm I KNOW she made a big deal of "hunting down the Chinese" at the end, but at best they saved face and did not progress beyond the agreements that were made at Bali. In fact, Ban Ki Moon noted that the approach in Paris had its roots in Bali.)

What you CAN say is that Clinton will continue what Obama did with the EPA and she will fight to keep the US in the Paris climate change accord -- that a Republican would pull us out of.

The Constitution still has not changed since Bernie started running. Still no legislating from the Oval Office, regardless of occupant.

Google is your friend: Search for "Schoolhouse Rock how a bill becomes a law."

This is why its so difficult to take many of you Bernie people seriously.

I iknow...the children's healthcare program. But would have been so much better if they'd have come back with a better overall plan.

One reason they fumbled on healthcare was they made it too complicated to placate the health insurance industry. It's baroque complexity was one of the factors that killed it.

So much simpler had they just worked on the basics and sold that. But with the Clintons it's never straightforward.

That's why I find it hard to take her and Clinton people seriously when they say she knows how to get things done.

How well did that turn out?

Hillary will be the same - lots of liberal platitudes before the election, corporate 'pragmatism' after.

She'll suddenly "evolve" on it and find it necessary to increase jobs.

All we'll hear about is that she sees the way forward for the TPP, Keystone Pipeline, etc.

Oh, and the myriad impeachment/investigation proceedings.

And sexism, of course.

but for absolutely no reason at all

about these topics but the actual stuff that will get done will be what Republicans want.

That's what "pragmatic" and "centrist" mean these days.

I think she was expecting not to have to run on anything except her name. There was an assumption that there would be a victory lap, followed by a red carpet march to her waiting throne and crown at the convention.

They'll be a few minor tweaks to the ACA. There will be some feigned concern about Climate Change. Same for income inequality.

But there will be a strong push to get the TPP through and Hillary and the Senate Democrats will fall all over themselves to pass it--once again kicking the American working class in the gonads.

As for doing anything about it, meh.

Whoever ends up in the White House, House, or Senate -- or in our state legislative bodies -- we are not off the hook.

It is critical that we get more effective at lobbying between elections.

Politics can't be left to the politicians. You don't just get them elected and leave them alone. You have to push and prod them to do the right thing, even if it it seems like you're hitting your head against a brick wall.

Famously, and lost.

Believe me, its on her brain.

As for Student Loan Debt, that depends on the make up of Congress and if we have historic obstruction like Obama has faced every year he's been in the Oval Office. If the Dems have control of Congress, then it will depend on the people to demand it from them. Simply voting then sitting around and waiting to see what the politicians do is exactly the wrong move.

As for Climate Change, that will have to be confronted by whomever is President. I don't think, for one second, that Hillary will ignore it. And, again, her action depends on what's going on in Congress. We already know Obama's high on science, and in case you don't know, so were the Clintons in the 1990s. Obama's on board with the environmental threats we face today but can't do much because Congress refuses to do anything.

So consider down ticket possibilities and outcomes before you mope into your crystal ball of doom and gloom.

But to answer your questions, we can never know what Hillary was going to talk about if Sanders wasn't in the race. Sanders is in the race and he's dominated the conversation. The race talks about what he wants to talk about, that's Sander's skill as a politician. Any other speculation of what ifs in the past is a pointless exercise. Sanders is here, Sanders has defined the topics of this contest and he will continue to do so until the end.

I do.

But, then again I support Hillary and you oppose her.

So, there really is nothing more to say then, "Yes, I do."

and you people are praising it as great. Ever wonder why some call Hillary supporters conservative?