Your staff may spin it as old news, but there are some interesting tidbits in the biographies about you. We found the allegation that you were very worried about being prosecuted when you were First Lady revealing. Believe me, we know what it feels like to be pursued by that "vast right wing conspiracy". No target is too small or too irrelevant if you forget that the business of America is still business. But your paranoia about being persecuted fits in with your manipulative and ruthless personality profile. You are not above turning the same method of character smear against your adversaries a la Gennifer Flowers.
Did you really not have time to read the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq? It was full of equivocations and dissents about Iraq's capabilities and certainly a long way from George Tenant's "slam dunk" case. We know you are a policy wonk, and your bailiwick included national security issues, so we doubt the authors' allegation about this issue. No, what you decided was to continue your husband's policy of 'regime change' in Iraq, so the Estimate was superfluous verbiage in your view. You suffer the same insecurity complex about national defense that most Democrats suffer from: better to wage war than appear weak, especially if you are a woman.
But lets put these character issues aside and talk about what matters most: policy. Your current plan for reforming health care is fatally flawed because it fails to remove the single largest reason for the uncontrolled escalation in cost: the middle man in the game for profit. Insurance companies, as pointed out by Michael Moore and others, are making big money by beating patients out of coverage while increasing the price for coverage at the same time. Private insurance schemes have neither the incentive or the economic leverage to negotiate lower prices from the health care business. To control cost and provide universal coverage, the middle man must be eliminated from the equation, not simply "demanding a better return on our investment" as you proposed at George Washington University. With a monopoly position, the government could successfully demand that health care providers find delivery efficiencies, reduce administrative overheads and improve preventive care thereby lowering the astronomical cost of health care. Even corporate America realizes it does not want to be stuck with the outrageous private insurance bill anymore. Health care should be treated as a common good as it is other western industrialized countries. We think that the system is broken beyond incremental repair. It's for profit structure must be fundamentally altered. Your incremental approach and failure to succeed in 1993 demonstrate that you are not the woman to lead the next fight for health care for all Americans.