Taylor Marsh: Hillary Shines at Health Care Forum

From the Huffington Post:
Hillary Shines at Health Care Forum
by Taylor Marsh

Yes, my fellow Americans, there is an issue beyond Iraq. It might even be one that outlasts the war. Consider that before you read on, because long after we're out of Iraq we'll still be dealing with the current health care crisis in America that reaches from single people to families to veterans to seniors.

Sitting in the bleachers among the voters yesterday at the CAP/SEIU event, I learned many things. One is that some candidates don't make it past the stage; that is their message doesn't carry and neither do they. As a former Broadway babe this is something I not only appreciate politically, but also know matters in electoral politics. It was part of the reason a clear winner stood out yesterday, regardless of your willingness to swallow your prejudices and judgments and preconceived notions and accept someone who on certain issues stands above the rest. But way a minute, that's too small. It's not about "certain issues." It's about shining above the rest in message, performance and personality.

The clear winner was Hillary Clinton. Period. No one came close to her passion, energy and details, as well as the humor and, yes, humility she brought to the subject at hand: health care. After the health care defeat she suffered during her husband's tenure it's clear she has come to terms with the issue as well as cultivated a sense of humor about her mistakes.

The big loser was Barack Obama, who wasn't at all prepared.

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/hillary-shines-at-health-_b_44209.html

...after reading the article, John Edwards put in a fine performance, as well.


"The clear winner was Hillary Clinton. Period. No one came close to her passion, energy and details, as well as the humor and, yes, humility she brought to the subject at hand: health care. After the health care defeat she suffered during her husband's tenure it's clear she has come to terms with the issue as well as cultivated a sense of humor about her mistakes.

The big loser was Barack Obama, who wasn't at all prepared.

But don't take my word for either judgment.

An African American man sitting next to me in the bleachers wearing an SEIU shirt said he liked Barack Obama but he "wasn't prepared," because he didn't even have a plan ready. The look on his face said it all. He wasn't ready, he continued, but he just "had to come."

"She's probably the brightest person on the trail," the woman sitting next to me (also an African American) said.

What I came away with from Obama was that he punted. He felt he absolutely did have to show up in Nevada, especially after flying over the state previously, but he simply wasn't prepared. It was obvious. His speech was on point and he's a gifted man in front of people; clearly comfortable with speaking without a script, unlike so many other politicians, but when he talked about the series of round table discussions he had planned before he announced his health care ideas my eyes glazed over. It was obvious he wasn't up to speed for this event. I can't say it more plainly, except to add that no one in the audience was fooled. Barack Obama blew it. Hey, but it's one event.

..she is really looking good. Her sheer tenacity is transcending her having to cope with her illness.

At the same time the glowing reports of Hillary's latest appearance are awesome.

"Now to Hillary Clinton. She was the star yesterday. If you were in the room, listening, watching and taking it all in, she simply rose way above everyone else. That she came after Obama did her some good, because she, quite frankly, made him look like an amateur. She was personable. Likeable. Knowledgeable in the extreme. There were also specifics to her delivery that were unmistakable and could not be ignored, except by those who refuse to give her a chance. The voters in the room took to her and got her, responding with laughter and applause. I specifically appreciated her choice to stand rather than sit next to Karen Tumulty, the moderator. She was comfortable and natural in the setting, clearly loving this new role, something I can only imagine she's dreamed of manifesting her whole life. Her Midwestern twang is definitely back, which I can appreciate, though it illustrates something else. Hillary Clinton is coming into her own.She's feeling some momentum or maybe she's just having a damn fine time. Whatever it is it shows. Could it be contagious? One never knows, but that brings me back to where this day started.

..which makes me extremely happy to hear!

...there might still be a few small pieces of the Taylor Marsh HuffPo piece that you didn't find a way to copy and paste into this thread yet.

Because the HuffPo piece you pointed us to here certainly reads like she is.

It was a fluff piece, heavy on opinions (Taylor Marsh's) and atmosphere (as Taylor Marsh perceived it) but conspicuously short on actual information to back up her somewhat over-the-top assertions that Hillary was (according to Taylor Marsh) the Best. Candidate. Ever. at the SEIU health-care forum in Las Vegas last week.

I didn't come away from reading that HuffPo piece knowing anything more about Hillary that I didn't already know. I did come away knowing, because Taylor Marsh a point of saying so in some details, that (a) she's pooyied at the Edwards campaign because they promised her special insider access whenever she wants it and she hasn't gotten any yet, therefore they must suck; (b) she's pleased as punch with the Hillary campaign because they are giving her special insider access whenever she wants it; and (c) Taylor Marsh used to be a chorus girl on Broadway, yawn, who cares?

The overall sense I get of Taylor Marsh's 'reporting' on what she saw at the SEIU event and why she wants us to agree with her that Hillary is the Best. Candidate. Ever. is that it has everything to do with Taylor Marsh, period. Everything else, including even Hillary herself, is secondary to that self-inflating message as far as I can tell.

And I say to hell with it. The world is already way too full of bloggers who think that they are more important than whatever it is they're bloviating about at the moment.

Hillary was well prepared with a Health Care Plan?

Please explain..if you want to.

...not even about whether Hillary has a health care plan or not. It's about whether Taylor Marsh was shamelessly shilling for Hillary as the Best. Candidate. Ever. in this HuffPo piece y'all keep quoting at great length here as though it had some sort of great intrinsic value, which it really does not.

I'm not opposed to believing that Hillary is the Best. Candidate. Ever. but being as how I am a reality-based blogger who likes to have solid information on which to base my beliefs, it's going to take more than two people cross-pasting a self-serving Taylor Marsh flogitorial post to convince me.

I don't care what Taylor Marsh thinks. I don't even care what Taylor Marsh believes. How about you guys, though? Why do *you* think and believe that I should be a Hillary booster, too?

C'mon, convince me. I'm reading.

and a general overview of how she was received by the audience, as well as Obama and Edwards.
If you are having a problem with Taylor Marsh, I suggest you direct your vitriol toward Marsh.
After all, when did I agree to take on your sociological problems as my own.

I'm here for Hillary, not you-

Since, as you say, the topic is Taylor Marsh's glowing report on Hillary;

and since I pointed out that I don't think her glowing report was particularly credible based on the report in question, not on the candidate herself;

and since I did not vitriolically say anything about Taylor Marsh, much less about you guys, which does not justify your cavalier use of the term;

but since when I did ask you to tell me why you yourselves think so glowingly of Taylor Marsh's report on Hillary you declined the opportunity to tell me why the piece in question is actually sound reporting, you turned it into a canard;

then should I take that to mean that you are unable or unwilling to articulate your own reasons for supporting your candidate of choice, preferring instead to just paste quotes from someone else on her behalf instead?

If so, then I must conclude that you are doing your candidate no great service by serving as her second- and third-hand advocates here.

Are we in a courtroom or a message board?

Oh, I see, you had a momentary lapse of place and time..

I also wanted to make note of this remembrance:

"that she came after Obama did her some good, because she, quite frankly, made him look like an amateur. She was personable. Likable. Knowledgeable in the extreme. There were also specifics to her delivery that were unmistakable and could not be ignored, except by those who refuse to give her a chance. The voters in the room took to her and got her, responding with laughter and applause. I specifically appreciated her choice to stand rather than sit next to Karen Tumulty, the moderator. She was comfortable and natural in the setting, clearly loving this new role, something I can only imagine she's dreamed of manifesting her whole life. Her Midwestern twang is definitely back, which I can appreciate, though it illustrates something else. Hillary Clinton is coming into her own. She's feeling some momentum or maybe she's just having a damn fine time. Whatever it is it shows. Could it be contagious? One never knows, but that brings me back to where this day started. Three GOP white guys with signs slamming liberal women. This is a challenge for Hillary and the rest of us. As Clinton continues to take heat, much of it justified, what also shows up is the over the top criticism and judgments that few males have to endure"

Good point brought to light by Marsh. The feminine aspect of campaigning, how female candidates are held to a higher standard than males. Where Marsh does inject a level of the reality experienced by Hillary taking what I would call UNjustified heat- (Marsh's typo)..continuing with "criticism and judgments few males have to endure."

By copying and pasting yet *another* piece of Taylor Marsh's PuffPo piece instead of actually presenting any sort of logic or supporting information on your own, you have totally destroyed any remaining doubts I might have had about the Incredible, Invincable Hillary being the Best. Candidate. Ever.

I have no possible option but to bow down in the face of your overwhelming rhetorical brilliance. I am without a discussional leg to stand on. My verbal mount has been slain, my dialectical armor has been pierced, surely I must yield the field because in this reply you, yourself, have so inescapably made the Best. Answer. Ever.

Bah.

You were an easy mark... apologies for putting you on so.. I'm really not in the habit of posting vacuous meretricious junk, however you made the opportunity too irresistible and tempting...ergo,.

If you are sincerely interested in Sen Clinton's Health Care programs you can look here for her accomplishments.

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/health/index.cfm?topic=overview

Sen Clinton's website is the most comprehensive site of all the candidates running up to this point. I'm not saying they won't have their plans together at some future date, but for now she is prepared to go forward, adding to the plans she's already advocated.

Her wikipedia biography is pretty updated.

Calling for the firing of Alberto Gonzales just last week, and it's already in there.

enjoy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

... then I will have to take your word for it.

"I'm really not in the habit of posting vacuous meretricious junk"

But I do appreciate the informative links you included in this reply. I shall study them and be informed by them. Thank you.

His post's are very well written, researched and quite insightful.

I had to re-read both of your posts, just to try and understand what your point was.......

Communication is a two-way street, sometimes people simply don't connect.....it's not personal......

Others of Tellurian's posts may well be, as you characterize them, "very well written, researched and quite insightful."

None of them in this thread have met that standard of quality, though, nor even approximated it.

I requested that Tellurian and ElizabethDC provide solid information and reality-based reasoning to support their gushing over Taylor Marsh's so-yclept "glowing" report on Hillary's appearance at the Las Vegas forum.

So far there has been none of that in response here in this thread, from them or for that matter from anyone else.

Since you're standing up in Tellurian's defense based on what you see as his solid credibility and record of clear, incisive posts to DU, I extend the same invitation to you that I presented way back at the beginning of this meandering discussion:

Please give me a reason or reasons to agree that Taylor Marsh's HuffPo piece on Hillary's appearance at the CAP/SEIU health care forum this week have merit and that her positive statements about Hillary's positions on this subject are valid based on facts.

I suspect if this piece were about Obama, we would not be having this debate.

I hope whomever wins the nomination, DUers will support the candidate!! The stakes are just too high!!

If you think this is so important, why don't you do the research and present it here.

I expect and hope there will be many positive piece's on the front-runners. I like a civil discussion on the pros/cons of the candidates, but I won't engage in bashing any of them. It is not necessary to denigrate Hillary to make Obama look positive. It makes no converts and creates alot of bad blood.

Try to keep a more positive attitude and an open-mind. In the end, we all want the same thing I hope, a dem in the White House in 2008.

One small "caveat" we have had many discussions here about what is bashing and what is opinion. We all can be sensitive when it comes to our favored candidates. However, both sides must be able to have an honest, fair debate about the positives/negatives of each candidacy and be able to talk without attacking each other.

If you want your favored candidate to win, you must be willing to debate the weaknesses, which all of them have.

too funny.

Short and to the point!!

on Sen Clinton...when they breathe 'fresh air'...it becomes generally suspect.
Alls, I can say, is she is well prepared for the fight with the Republican nominee.

I'm not looking forward to a Republican president next election cycle. Not again!

I'm confident Hillary can Win!

You've peaked my curiosity. Thanks! :hi:

all the supporters of "other" candidates, who are contemplating VOTING for candidates other than her-

Thanks for asking! :hi:

For a more balanced opinion and not someone coming off as a cheerleader for one candidate.

I get tired of reading "Hillary kiss up" pieces.

Hence my reading of Huffingtonpost.com.

live blogged the event. You can read the comments.

But thanks for trying-

I'll see if a video is available somwhere..

this.

I certainly didn't see what you saw, I have my guy picked, even joined his campaign.

things worse than they were before.

..as in Edwards proposal, most of the candidates are forcasting a Tax increase for UHC..but are not exactly sure how it will play out in the end.

Part of Hillary's statement:

...Read this MyDD entry where the author was liveblogging the event. It's important to note that Obama said he is still finalizing his plan (which would explain the lack of details).

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/24/115150/071#readmore">Healthcare Forum

Seeing as how we're still very early in the process of the campaigning...I don't see why it's imperative that Obama has a detailed plan right now. I think people are getting into too much of a fever over 2008...trying to rush the candidates and everything.

that is a total right wing lie. The final product, as well as many of the meetings leading to it were open and public. She did have a few meetings that were not public just like any sane person would, to get input from people within the government.

It appears he is the only one with a plan. And Hillary still doesn't have a personality!

...since he announced. And it only makes sense, since he's been dealing with the healthcare issue for years now (going around the country speaking about it). So it doesn't surprise me that he's the most well-versed on the issue.

N/T

but isn't sure how it would be funded. Not necessary for the snide remark, saracat.
Coming from you, above all, after leaving the forum because of DEM bashing!

and, I personally don't think that there are necessarily winners and losers, as it's pretty subjective (e.g. "Hillary doesn't have a personality" - um, okay). John Edwards definitely has the most substantive plan thus far, and I think the general consensus has been that he, Hillary, and Kucinich came out the strongest. But I didn't see the whole thing, so I can't say for myself.

it was disappointing to see no Republicans at this forum. The least a Republican candidate could have done is to discuss some changes that would to end cherry picking and discrimination based on pre-existing conditions!

Hillary did the best, and surprised me with her passion of ending reduced coverage and higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. Most of the other candidates either changed the subject or avoided that issue completely!

Bill Richardson did the worst in my opinion, instead of giving us his plan for universal healthcare..he lectures us on obesity!...He provided plenty of fat on the stage, but very little substance. I was interested in Mike Gravel's voucher plan, but still don't understand how it could be passed without Congress. Could he use public dollars now in the budget to provide vouchers to the uninsured, or would Congress have to give him the authority to issue them?

Also, it was another one of those double message posts. Whether they are posted there or here at DU, I remain suspicious of double message posts.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/article/view/?id=1412

I haven't picked my candidate yet, but am happy to share any info I can find on them ;)

Thanks for the link.

Whatever it is. That's all I know.

and backed by a huge Dem push.. The Repugs aren't going to want to give up the comfy lobbying perks.

Thats why she said, "the people have to support UHC."

and sell it to the people. She hasn't even promised to do that until her second term.

She said, "I think we're all going to start as soon as possible," (i.e. any of the candidates would want to get it started as soon as possible once they take office) but that it will be a "series of steps," and won't necessarily happen quickly.

I was left with the impression that she wouldn't be able to pass it as part of a single legislative package, but that she plans to pass smaller parts of that plan over time. In other words, she won't push this like Bill Clinton did in 1993..while threatening to veto anything less than universal coverage. But will implement it all after eight years in legislative pieces..that resemble the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill.

and you articulated it well - thanks!

I heard her say it a couple weeks ago. It's reported she said it yesterday. She has no intention of spending any political capital getting real health reform passed. She criticizes "nibbling at the edges", then turns right around and nibbles at the edges. Her plan isn't even as bold as Kerry's and a lot of people said his didn't go far enough.

"Clinton has said her goal would be to have universal health insurance in place by the end of her second term as president."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070325-9999-1n25dems.html

here is a direct quote:

Essentially what Hillary said is this:



and disingenuous of you sandnsea to restate her quote for an entirely different meaning!



There are posters and composters.. :shrug:

Point Blank. In her second term.

All one has to do is look at what they did with welfare reform to know what she's talking about. We were supposed to get more health care and child care and job training and education to go along with the welfare caps. They were passing it through "piece meal". What happened? The Republicans got welfare caps and work requirements, which they keep increasing - and keep cutting the programs that were supposed to help people transition. They didn't even get minimum wage increases to make sure these parents being pushed into the work force would get a fair wage.

I've had enough of the Clintons. I know EXACTLY what she means by second term. It means she isn't going to do anything that might make waves. Only somebody who needs to wipe the compost out of their eyes wouldn't be able to see that.

I cannot help but notice the complete absence of issues or details in Taylor Marsh's article, or from Hillary supporters on this thread.

Do any of you know (or care) what her HealthCare Plan is? :shrug:

The OP reads like a bad (and biased) highschool Gossip Corner report on the Head Cheerleader contest.

And this is how we are going to choose our candidate?

No one has complete details of their HCP available as of yet. Edwards is floating a rough draft of what his plan would include. Obama's not prepared because his campaign is only 8 weeks old. Hillary's Plan is based once it's proposed on the support of the people. As far as I've seen, Kucinich's plan is based on the Canadian model, Richardson doesn't have a plan yet as well as Dodd.

I didn't hear the speeches and a transcript hasn't been released yet..

Our candidates are just brainstorming a strategy, looking for audience participation and feed back.

For now, I know what Senator Clinton's website contains. Her health care initiatives and advocacy programs.

here..http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/health/index.cfm?topic=overview

Theres no hurry.. we have 18 mos before the elections.

Here's a link to Hillary's remarks: http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?ClipID1=1321207&h1=Sen.%20Hillary%20Clinton&vt1=v&at1=News%20-%20Special%20Coverage&d1=1339967&LaunchPageAdTag=Political&activePane=info&playerVersion=1&hostPageUrl=http%3A//www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D6220088&rnd=31006748

I would assume that the others' remarks can also be found on that website; I haven't had time to look around.

for making it available..:hi:

No one has complete details of their HCP available as of yet. Edwards is floating a rough draft of what his plan would include. Obama's not prepared because his campaign is only 8 weeks old. Hillary's Plan is based once it's proposed on the support of the people. As far as I've seen, Kucinich's plan is based on the Canadian model, Richardson doesn't have a plan yet as well as Dodd.

I don't know if I totally agree with that. It seems Edwards and Kucinich definently have a more stable idea of what they want than some of the others who look to still be in brainstorm-mode.

details and all! http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.676:

this is the reason I love these debates, those with plans must defend them..those without plans slowly lose support. But at least with the Canadian plan, young voters get something in return for paying more while keeping Medicare solvent for the retiring babyboomers.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?ClipID1=1321207&h1=Sen.%20Hillary%20Clinton&vt1=v&at1=News%20-%20Special%20Coverage&d1=1339967&LaunchPageAdTag=Political&activePane=info&playerVersion=1&hostPageUrl=http%3A//www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp%3FS%3D6220088&rnd=31006748">Obama Healthcare Forum Video

It runs about 5 minutes shorter than Hillary's...

Is it a functionality problem or is the video being bombarded with users?

Count on it. :thumbsup: