« Idealism in Action | Main | The Romance of Empire » Clinton and S-CHIP14 Mar 2008 09:39 am
Hillary Clinton's been going around the country for months now, campaigning, and claiming credit for S-CHIP, the Sate Children's Health Insurance Program that was passed during her husband's administration. All well and good, but The Boston Globe says it's not true, citing the idea's main legislative sponsors as the source for their debunking. Photo by Flickr user maessive used under a Creative Commons license Comments (49)
What this blog needs is more adorable baby pictures. Particularly of Matt. 
She made a really big deal about this in the NH debate, using it as evidence for how hard she'd "worked for change". I remember thinking at the time that it was probably complete bullshit. I await Tim K and Petey's vastly superior knowledge on this topic. I expect it to come in the form of some reference to Obama puffing up his resume, you know, since they can't actually address the issue at hand.
Yeah, no shit. Not only did the Clinton White House openly lobby Congressmen to kill the first incarnation of the bill, but after it succeeded, Hillary came out in public and defended that: "He had to safeguard the overall budget proposal" It was only after some intense lobbying of the White House by, according to my link, "Kennedy, Hatch and a coalition of advocacy groups ranging from the Children's Defense Fund to the Girl Scouts". This is Hillary Clinton's profile in courage. This is her example of fighting for progressive causes. This is her big legislative accomplishment, that proves she can get things done on health care. A bill she didn't write, a bill who's death she supported when it was politically convenient for her husband to kill it. This is why so many of us find her to be a rather, shall we say, unimpressive nominee, on the whole
Ugh, to clear up some ill-conceived sentences above, I'm just gonna re-try the post: Yeah, no shit. Not only did the Clinton White House openly lobby Congressmen to kill the first incarnation of the bill, but after the effort to kill it succeeded, Hillary came out in public and defended that: "He had to safeguard the overall budget proposal" It was only after some intense lobbying of the White House by, according to my link, "Kennedy, Hatch and a coalition of advocacy groups ranging from the Children's Defense Fund to the Girl Scouts", that the White House actually got on board with S-CHIP. That's right: the Clinton White House had to be politically cajoled into supporting the bill for which Sen. Clinton is taking credit. This is Hillary Clinton's profile in courage. This is her example of fighting for progressive causes. This is her big legislative accomplishment, that proves she can get things done on health care. A bill she didn't write, a bill who's death she supported when it was politically convenient for her husband to kill it. This is why so many of us find her to be a rather, shall we say, unimpressive nominee, on the whole I'd just add that my link, which is also from The Boston Globe and covers much of the same ground, was written in October of 07. That means a major newspaper fact-checked a claim central to Clinton's domestic policy argument and stump speech and found it, well, lacking...and the major national papers and cable news networks ignored for 5.5 months now, so much so that the same newspaper came out again with a similar factcheck, only now with more people who were involved in the drafting of the bill going on record to say she's just making shit up. Anyone wanna guess how much coverage this story gets? Oh man, that nasty Obama-friendly press, almost as bad as the liberal media.
Everything good that happened in the last 35 years happened because of Hillary Clinton. Everything bad that happened in the last 35 years would have been far worse had Hillary Clinton not been mitigate the harm from evildoers. Bad things done by allies of Hillary Clinton came when they ignored her advice. Hillary Clinton advised the Trailblazers to take Michael Jordan with the second pick of the draft. Hillary Clinton warned me not to buy that Betamax machine. Hillary Clinton never saw the appeal of Zima and Menudo.
Clinton hasn't made as big a deal of this as her purported SCHIP leadership, but she also claims that her work was important to passing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. But congressional leaders planned on passing the FMLA (which had been previously passed and vetoed twice) a full two weeks before Bill Clinton was sworn in. For details and links to sourchttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/111930/6389/50/472849
Someone turn on the Peteysymbol! And the TimKSymbol! We need to be told about how this is proof that Obama's not ready and Clinton is winning!
Link to sources and timetable on the Family and Medical Leave Act -- http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/9/111930/6389/50/472849
Cute baby! I literally, truly had been thinking lately, "well, she exaggerated all that other stuff like the trip to Bosnia with Sinbad, but she did really make SCHIP happen"-- since she'd been so adamant about repeating that accomplishment and since children/health issues are clearly very important to her. It's taking me a while but I am slowly learning that one cannot trust anything this person says. Duh, many will say-- but having supported and defended the Clintons for so long during the 90s it is hard to let go of the last shreds of respect!
Well, even if it isn't true, it is still true, because she has been fighting the right for 35 years!!!!
So what precisely has that woman ever accomplished, other than marrying well?
Hillary Clinton never saw the appeal of Zima and Menudo. Is it any surprise that the decline of her campaign started with the rebirth of Menudo? Who has Ricky Martin endorsed?
This is why the republicans want her to be the nominee. She's inflated herself into a big fat balloon just waiting to be popped.
Why is this blog even necessary? We already have one unabashed Obama support in Andrew Sullivan blogging for The Atlantic Online. Why is Yglesias needed as an echo?
Tim K,
Y'know, I've read and re-read that Tim K comment, searching it for the topical refutation it really must contain, and yet I seem not to be able to find it. Little help, please?
Before anyone reads too much into this, keep in mind that this article quotes two senators instrumental in the bill's passage. One is a staunch Republican who has motivations other than fidelity to the truth. The other is a big Obama supporter, and even he refuses to directly criticize Clinton.
"Why is this blog even necessary? We already have one unabashed Obama support in Andrew Sullivan blogging for The Atlantic Online. Why is Yglesias needed as an echo?" A million blogs in the world, and you got to hang out in this one that you hate. Why, dude? If you don't like reading Matt's stuff, go read something else. Hillaryis44 or talkleft or whatever.
Joe,
Why is this blog even necessary? Some of us were reading this blog before this election, and you, came along, and will be after you, I suspect, are long gone.
So what precisely has that woman ever accomplished, other than marrying well? To be fair, she did keep Bill on task and leashed enough-- along with aggressive efforts to control the hound-dog narrative-- to get him to the White House. She of course wouldn't be where she is without Bill's status, but Bill almost certainly would never have achieved that status without her focus and discipline. None of that's to say that the same qualities are central to being a good president; they're only a relatively small part of the picture. But I guess I can hardly blame either her or Bill for believing they are, because their experience reinforces the idea that presidencies can only survive hostile opposition with a tightly controlled tactician at or near the top. We can't really expect people to be that objective about their own marriage or, by extension, careers that rely so completely on the marriage dynamic.
What this blog needs is more pictures of cute babies! That is all...
What this blog needs is more pictures of cute babies! Make that cute American babies, not babies from Commie metric-using countries. That kid wouldn't look so phlegmatic if he realized that he's being outbred by the Mexicoisolamonazi hordes!
"Before anyone reads too much into this, keep in mind that this article quotes two senators instrumental in the bill's passage. One is a staunch Republican who has motivations other than fidelity to the truth. The other is a big Obama supporter, and even he refuses to directly criticize Clinton. Posted by Joe | March 14, 2008 11:07 AM" You fail to mention that that Obama supporter is Ted Kennedy, who probably has been the most important and effective true-blue liberal Senator for decades. The other is his good friend Orin Hatch, who I don't like but who Kennedy once in a while can talk into doing the right thing. This isn't a revelation. The New York Times was reporting the same story of the Clintons hiding in fear from S-CHIP at the time of the legislative wrangling. This stuff was already public record before Clinton lied her ass off. Think about it: when she has to name an accomplishment, she names progressive legislation that was more ardently fought for by Hatch than Clinton.
just as we denounce and reject the asshatery that is Tim K. Once again, green tea spraying from my nose. Please provide some warning prior to posting funny slams at my deviant brother. Where we're from he's known as the Apostle of Asshatery.
The Atlantic has more Obama supporters because he's the candidate of the educated. I thought that's Clinton's point in saying that only "real Americans" and not "latte-sipping elites" support her. Also, Clinton's goose is cooked. Precisely because of things like saying she supported S-Chip when she tried to smother it in its crib since the bond market might not like it.
....Well, even if it isn't true, it is still true, because she has been fighting the right for 35 years!!!!.... Except, of course, for the pesky few years when she was fighting worker organizations while on the Board of Wal Mart of
Joe said... Before anyone reads too much into this, keep in mind that this article quotes two senators instrumental in the bill's passage. One is a staunch Republican who has motivations other than fidelity to the truth. The other is a big Obama supporter, and even he refuses to directly criticize Clinton. The staunch Republican is Orrin Hatch. I thought staunch Republicans were rallying FOR Clinton since that's the person they want running against McCain. Hmmmmm. The "big Obama supporter" is Ted Kennedy who actually crafted the program after a similar one already implemented in Mass. You're correct that he didn't directly criticize her. Wanna' know what that means? It means that you just saw Ted Kennedy exhibiting infinitely more class than Hillary Clinton.
Hey Tim K - You should be thankful we have journalists like Matthew who are not afraid to tell the whole story. It just seems skewed against Hillary because she is continually the one who is puffing and exaggerating her record. Thanks Matt for doing your best to set the record straight. Now, about those tax returns?
Joe said... Before anyone reads too much into this, keep in mind that this article quotes two senators instrumental in the bill's passage. One is a staunch Republican who has motivations other than fidelity to the truth. The other is a big Obama supporter, and even he refuses to directly criticize Clinton. The staunch Republican is Orrin Hatch. I thought staunch Republicans were rallying FOR Clinton since that's the person they want running against McCain. Hmmmmm. The "big Obama supporter" is Ted Kennedy who actually crafted the program after a similar one already implemented in Mass. You're correct that he didn't directly criticize her. Wanna' know what that means? It means that you just saw Ted Kennedy exhibiting infinitely more class than Hillary Clinton.
You Hillary-haters will believe anything you read. Of course, you'll just ignore this little bit of evidence as somehow not being relevant because it doesn't fit with this ridiculous story that proves how duplicitous Hillary is. I expect more from the namesake of the so-called Yglesia Award. Harrumph. -------------- October 17, 2000, Tuesday FACT SHEET: President Clinton Signs Children's Health Act of 2000 SECTION: NATIONAL DESK LENGTH: 1702 words DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Oct. 17 The following was released today by the White House:
Jeff - There is nothing in that piece that contradicts anything that has been said so far. You need to read through the White House spin. I know we have grown accustomed to the Bush spin machine but the Clinton spin machine was much better.
Hillary Clinton is bull-flap on a stick. I didn't always hate her, I used to feel sorry for her because she was married to a sociopath. Now I detest her and freely admit it. Her claims to a century of experience saving widows and orphans and waging war on behalf of Holocaust victims makes me want to vomit. The faster the Clintons are history, the better off this country will be.
Damn right, Jeff in Boston! And the source is irrefutable! Dude, you really need to learn the difference between journalism and a press release. Note that the two Senators, Kennedy and Hatch, who crafted and sponsored the bill, had it killed by the White House, and got it resurrected aren't even mentioned. Isn't that nice?
Somehow I knew all of you were going to say that. White House spin, blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying the WH press release proves anything. But it's just as much proof as anything else that's been offered on the other side. The problem is that both sides are so darn sure they're right when nothing beyond spin and hindsight have been given. I'm still waiting ....
@ LFC Actually, the source was Lexis-Nexis.
The cute baby is being measured on an evil, un-American French/Eurowimp/Communist centimetric ruler. Who will protect you from this insidious liberal agenda for world government?
Hatch: "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't." Kennedy said he patterned the SCHIP plan on a similar program Massachusetts had approved in 1996. Kennedy's account was backed up by two Bay State healthcare advocates who met with Kennedy in Boston to discuss the possibility of taking the idea nationwide: Dr. Barry Zuckerman, director of pediatrics at Boston Medical Center, and John McDonough, then a Democratic state legislator and now the executive director of Health Care for All, a healthcare advocacy group. And lawmakers in both parties acknowledge that administration support was needed and appreciated. But they said the effort was largely driven by Hatch, Kennedy, and others in Congress. Waxman: "It did not originate at the White House."
In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." No doubt she's happy with the SCHIP. She probably even lobbied for it. The issue here is that she's taking too much credit for it to inflate her resume. It's starting to seem like a habit with her.
"I helped to start." THAT'S what you're hanging your entire accusation upon? It's got that word "helped" that is so not definite -- unless you have an agenda, of course. If you search Lexis under "children," "health" and "Hillary Clinton" it will return thousands of entries just since she was in the White House. And she was doing a lot before that. I realize we're talking about S-CHIP specifically, but she clearly has a track record on children's health that makes Hatch's and Kennedy's pale in comparison. I'm wondering which person (or persons) can specifically claim that they started S-CHIP given all the work that had been done publicly and behind the scenes on the issues that led to S-CHIP. I'll bet NOBODY thought of the related issues before Massachusetts did. I have my Billary issues, and I don't trust them on a lot of things. But this S-CHIP issue only proves how silly and nasty this election is getting -- and will continue to get. It must give great comfort to the GOP. Clearly they know how to play the Andrew Sullivans of the world. Reminds me of the Gore-started-the-Internet nonsense that so many so-called journalists lapped up like pigs at the trough.
"@ LFC Actually, the source was Lexis-Nexis." LOL. Lexis-Nexis isn't a "source". They don't produce anything. They are simply a search tool. What it found for you was a press release from the White House. How do I know this? It says "The following was released today by the White House..."
@ LFC You're odd. Using that standard, your previous statement ("And the source is irrefutable!") is LOL -worthy because it's not a "source" either -- even though you specifically use that word that merely links to a 2000 press release. Lexis is as much a "source" as a web page that contains links is a "source". A press release is a "source." Not only that, but the "source" from Lexis-Nexis is the Washington Post that reprinted the 2000 WH press release -- thus proving that I did not get it from the "source" you mention in the post above. LOL on that, dork. Take an English class.
Somehow I knew all of you were going to say that. White House spin, blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying the WH press release proves anything. But it's just as much proof as anything else that's been offered on the other side. The other side? I guess I wasn't aware that the Boston Globe is a subsidiary of the Obama campaign. The problem is that both sides are so darn sure they're right when nothing beyond spin and hindsight have been given. I'm still waiting .... Ah, the Clinton "low information voter" rears his ugly head. Discerning the truth about anything must be very difficult for you, Jeff, considering that most factual disagreements, by their very nature, involve competing claims. Since most of us aren't witnesses to the disputed facts or events in question, we're forced to rely on the testimony of others. In doing so, it's important to consider both universally agreed-upon facts and the motivations of the claimants in question. When there's a dispute about global warming, and both sides agree that the earth is getting warmer but the side funded by Exxon-Mobile argues that it isn't due to human activity, we have reason to be skeptical of their findings. In the case of S-CHIP, it's indisputably clear that the Clinton Administration had no role in authoring the legislation and had originally opposed its passage by Congress. It's also clear that, due to the popularity of the program, it's politically advantageous for Hillary Clinton to take credit for it. Now, you can choose to believe Hillary "I was secretly opposed to every unpopular thing Bill ever did" Clinton, or you can trust a purportedly unbiased newspaper column relying on the testimony of the bill's legislative proponents and architects. I have no doubt you'll do the former, but that's why you're a Clinton supporter.
Somehow I knew all of you were going to say that. White House spin, blah, blah, blah. I'm not saying the WH press release proves anything. But it's just as much proof as anything else that's been offered on the other side. The other side? I guess I wasn't aware that the Boston Globe is a subsidiary of the Obama campaign. The problem is that both sides are so darn sure they're right when nothing beyond spin and hindsight have been given. I'm still waiting .... Ah, the Clinton "low information voter" rears his ugly head. Discerning the truth about anything must be very difficult for you, Jeff, considering that most factual disagreements, by their very nature, involve competing claims. Since most of us aren't witnesses to the disputed facts or events in question, we're forced to rely on the testimony of others. In doing so, it's important to consider both universally agreed-upon facts and the motivations of the claimants in question. When there's a dispute about global warming, and both sides agree that the earth is getting warmer but the side funded by Exxon-Mobile argues that it isn't due to human activity, we have reason to be skeptical of their findings. In the case of S-CHIP, it's indisputably clear that the Clinton Administration had no role in authoring the legislation and had originally opposed its passage by Congress. It's also clear that, due to the popularity of the program, it's politically advantageous for Hillary Clinton to take credit for it. Now, you can choose to believe Hillary "I was secretly opposed to every unpopular thing Bill ever did" Clinton, or you can trust a purportedly unbiased newspaper column relying on the testimony of the bill's legislative proponents and architects. I have no doubt you'll do the former, but that's why you're a Clinton supporter.
That being said, and well said I might add – some folks take longer than others to wise up; the Clintons, both of them, are kryptonite: http://theseedsof9-11.com
The bigger picture is Hillary's truth problem. Hillary has a big problem being honest, with simply telling the truth. She can't get through an interview or speech without fabricating stories.
@ asdf: "I have no doubt you'll do the former, but that's why you're a Clinton supporter." Sorry, wrong answer. I voted for Obama in Massachusetts for too many reasons to go into here. Just because I have doubts about some of the anti-Clinton charges, doesn't mean I'm a Clinton supporter. Although I will admit that I could have gone either way, primarily because I worry about how often the fresh-faced presidential candidate anointed as the hope of the future has crumpled under the onslaught of the GOP attack machine in the general election. I think there is some merit to the idea that Mrs. Clinton has been investigated and re-investigated to the point that there probably isn't much more of great importance they can throw at her that they haven't hurled already. But I will probably feel differently tomorrow, as will many of us who see the election of any Democrat as more important than the question of which Democrat we elect.
Senator Clinton needs to let the American people
Senator Clinton needs to let the American people
Comments closed March 28, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Clinton puffing up her resume? Man, I didn't see that coming. I haven't been this surprised since I found out Lance Bass was gay.
Posted by Helter | March 14, 2008 9:54 AM