Debate Between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris-LacewellFollow

While the specific verbiage obviously refers to her sex, she didn't get it just for being a woman, nor even for being a "strong woman". She got it as a result of her own actions when she was First Lady. She had a habit of being incredibly nasty to people for minor perceived slights. She was notorious for snubbing and bashing anyone who wore a military uniform. And she's well known for throwing fits and "punishing" people who get in her way politically (like, say, them finding themselves being audited by the IRS, investigated by some committee for some bunked up reason, use of executive resources to dig up dirt on them, etc...).


The reason the rank and file Republicans are more afraid of her then Obama has nothing to do with their relative political positions, and a whole lot to do with her well known vindictiveness. If she were to become president with a Dem congress backing her, the Republicans can basically expect to have 4 years straight of investigations into any and everything, just because they're Republicans. She's just mean...

Obama never mentioned attacking Iran. The closest a Democrat has come with that was Clinton's vote in favor of declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.

Obama said that he would strike in Pakistan (which is different from "attacking Pakistan" which implies an attempt to defeat the national armed forces there) if he had firm intelligence of high value targets that Pakistan could/would not act upon. He was largely vindicated a week ago when the US did exactly that -- lauched a drone without Pakistan's permission and killed Al'Qaeda's #3 guy. I guess Clinton would have let the Al'Qaeda leader go while she sat on the phone and begged Pakistan to help?

Clinton's biggest campaign thrust, health care, is a joke. Before she goes on about it, she needs to answer this: Given that the Democrats aren't going to hold 61+ seats in the Senate next year, what is her plan to push past the inevitable Republican filibuster? She doesn't leave much room for compromise, saying that her mandate is non-negotiable and that universal coverage is non-negotiable. Her plan is one of the most partisan and devisive pieces of the Clinton legacy. So, once the Republicans filibuster against involuntary HillaryCare, what's her plan? If it's all or nothing, how will she guarantee the "all" so we don't wind up with "nothing"?

The simple answer is that she can't. Clinton can be as passionate about health care as she'd like but it's going to wind up in the same bin as Bush's Social Security reform. For all her derisive talk of hopes and dreams, she might as well be planning on having her plan carried into the Senate by a fairy riding a unicorn.