Jon Ralston on the Republican response to Clinton’s proposal and her campaign for redemption

Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2007 | 7:12 a.m.

Campaigns mostly are simplistic, and presidential campaigns, which should be the most sophisticated of all, usually are the most simplistic.

So when Hillary Clinton this week unveiled her health care plan, the reaction of her opponents was predictably simple. Let's do the montage: She blew it the last time. Hillarycare. Socialized medicine. We're not Europe. Tax increase. My plan is better. Nanny state.

And so on.

Considering this issue represents one-seventh of the U.S. economy, and considering it may be the most important domestic issue, the Pavlovian responses were sickeningly simplistic.

Nevadans can relate. The same tableau played out after Sierra Health Services announced its merger with United Health - a compact now awarded the state's imprimatur. Another montage: Greedy monopoly. Higher rates. Bad for consumers. Insurance companies are evil. It's a conspiracy!

And so on.

What makes health care an issue emblematic of the bankruptcy of most modern political discourse is that it really is a simple question with more than one set of answers. You either believe everyone should be covered, or you don't. If you don't, then explain why. If you do, then explain how.

Clinton and her primary challengers see universal coverage as a moral imperative. The Republicans, none of whom has as detailed a plan as Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards, don't believe so.

The reaction to Clinton's plan from the Republicans is hardly worth mentioning - boiler-plate stuff designed to reinforce anti-Clintonism within the GOP base.

The Democratic reaction was more interesting, especially from her two closest rivals, who have plans that are not radically different from hers. Obama talked in The New York Times of "the ability to bring people together in an open, transparent process that builds a broad consensus for change," a clear shot at Clinton's 1993-94 health care debacle. Obama, though he now has his own plan, left an indelible mark here in Nevada a few months ago when he appeared at a health care forum and talked in generalities and banalities.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, in his new incarnation as a calmer, slicker Howard Dean 2.0, is banking on contrasting himself at every turn to Clinton. He, too, brought up the failures of 14 years ago and said he would end health care coverage for the president and Congressfolk if universal coverage were not established by July 20, 2009. (Anyone else notice the irony of the populist Clinton-basher using triangulation, the Dick Morris/Clinton technique, to try to win the nomination?)

Health care also is emblematic of the raison d'etre of the Clinton candidacy. Redemption is an undercurrent of her White House bid - for herself and for her husband. And, of course, her new plan inevitably is viewed through the prism of the 1993 failure, which not only destroyed any chance of universal health care but, in the ensuing conflagration, almost incinerated the Democratic Party and ignited the Republican Revolution. That's a lot to redeem.

In his extensively researched book about Clinton, "A Woman in Charge," Carl Bernstein meticulously details Clinton's arrogance and self-righteousness on entering the White House - qualities the author pinpoints as the reason the then-first lady's health care plan became so toxic. Bernstein writes that she "responded icily" when asked about changes to her health care plan and threatened to "demonize members of Congress who stood in her way. "That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton," Bernstein quotes former Sen. Bill Bradley as saying.

And for many others, too, raising the central point of this campaign for the nomination and what all of her rivals, primary and potential general election, are focusing on: Is this the same Hillary Clinton or has she learned from the mistakes of yore, matured and become more seasoned?

Notice her talk of partnerships and her laying out the political realities on health care reform - that makes her seem different, and not in a good way, to some partisans. But some will say she is right, and that none of the other contenders has the knowledge gained from experience - and what better experience is failure? - to do it right.

That may be too nuanced to help Clinton in the long run because it's not just elephants that have long memories. But as her campaign continues to plug gushing quotes into the mouths of willing Nevada politicians and creates here and elsewhere that aura of inevitability, Clinton hopes people will remember a very simple Al Davis phrase that once derailed her health care bill but now defines her candidacy: Just win, baby.