THE SPINE MARCH 16, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I knew that Hillary's spiel about her experience in this and her experience in that was fake. Take, for example, her evidence for being an old foreign policy hand: she had been to 80 different foreign countries while her poor hubby was (alone) in the White House. This seemed to me to be a hyped-up version of Jules Verne's Around the World in Eighty Days. How gullible does she think the American public is?But there was one area in public policy about which I was prepared to take her at her word, and that was health policy. Yes, we know she did screw up in her first dip into those tempestuous waters. But, my God, she was intense about medical care, and she was intense about it every opportunity she had. And especially about coverage of children. Well, it turns out, she was hyping this, too. But she was -- how do I say this? -- lying.The front page of Friday's Boston Globe has a measured headline: "Clinton role in health program disputed." But the article by Susan Milligan is devastating. The piece begins, "Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue." Wow. This is a big lie."In 1997," she said in Iowa in one of her typical "me, me, me" claims," I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." The opposite was true. The Clinton White House was against the legislation, which was proposed by Orrin G. Hatch and Ted Kennedy. And what about Hillary? When asked, Ted half-shrugged and then said, "Facts are stubborn things." John McDonough, a Democratic health care specialist then and now, said, "I don't recall Mrs. Clinton's engagement."
33 comments
Usually opinioned Marty continues to be unusually quiet about Jeremaiah Wright.
- jacobt1
March 16, 2008 at 5:46pm
Earlier, her role was very clear. From an October 6, 2007 Associated Press article:
The effort was revived, with Kennedy, Hatch and a coalition of advocacy groups ranging from the Children's Defense Fund to the Girl Scouts lobbying hard. Kennedy made a special appeal to the first lady, who added her pressure anew.
"The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Kennedy told The Associated Press.
President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.
While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial.
"She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."
From an August 11, 2000, New York Times article:
Among her other accomplishments, Mrs. Clinton said she helped to initiate and promote the Children's Health Insurance Program, created by Congress in 1997 to provide $24 billion over five years to states to insure children.
"She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done," Mr. Littlefield of the Health, Education and Labor Committee said. He said that he and Senator Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the major force behind the bill, enlisted Mrs. Clinton's help in the spring of 1997 when the president became "skittish" about the program. Mr. Littlefield said the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, was threatening that it was a "deal buster" on the balanced budget agreement that he and Mr. Clinton had reached.
"At that point we went to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You've got to get the president to come around on this thing,' " Mr. Littlefield said. "And she said, 'Absolutely.' And we very quickly noticed a change. The president was very much on board."
3/14/2008 9:49:15 AM #
facts.hillaryhub.com/archive
- jacobt1
March 16, 2008 at 5:52pm
You know, it's really sad that Marty is standing idly by while Democrats look to nominate a man whose spiritual mentor is a Blame-America-First, anti-semitic, anti-Zionist, racist nutjob. I realize that it would be difficult for Marty to swallow his pride (since he has personal reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton) and admit she'd be a good President. But dammit, the stakes of this election are way too high.
Are we really going to put Barack Obama in charge of our foreign policy? Do we really trust HIM to protect Israel? Once again, we have far too many examples of his close association with people who hold radically dangerous and frightening ideas about America.
This Wright character is an abomination. And Obama claims he didn't know about this kind of rhetoric?! Bullshit! Barack Obama is a liar; that much is now obvious. But tell me this: If Obama isn't a different kind of politician, if he's not the clean, sensible, ethical, hope-monger, then why the hell shouldn't we laugh his candidacy out of the room?
God, I hope Democrats aren't stupid enough to take this loser into the general election fight, because the American people will not stand for this crap, nor should they be expected to.
- nturner
March 16, 2008 at 6:44pm
Nturner,
You are wrong. Democrats are stupid enough.
- jacobt1
March 16, 2008 at 7:01pm
Jacob1,
I fear you're correct -- which is why I'm on record in saying that I'll be supporting McCain if Obama gets our nomination.
Politics is always a relative choice, and I could never support the naif from Illinois.
- nturner
March 16, 2008 at 7:22pm
nturner
I'm afraid you may be correct. Obama's contention that he was unaware of these kinds of rhetorical rants is profoundly implausible and seriously undermines his candidacy of transcending race. When these videos are played, as they are likely to be, by GOP supporting 527 groups in November they will alienate the independents and disaffected members of GOP that Obama supporters claim he can win. Obama is finally receiving some criticism of the sort that political candidates have always been subjected to and he isn't holding up too well. And neither are his supporters with their shrill squawks and jabs at everyone else here who disagrees with them. It is like they have taken a chapter or chapters out of the GOP book.
I, and moreover, many others who intended to work and vote for whoever won the nomination are deeply disappointed. Hillary Clinton has behaved badly in her efforts to overtake Obama and now we see that he is a member of yet another of these "social Gospel" churches who seem to resent everything in the society of which they are part. Obama's wife makes $300,000 a year after obtaining an ivy league education and is only proud of America when they embrace her husband? You both go to this church for nearly two decades and are unaware of its ideology of resentment? Give me a break.
Some cyber vigilante Roidubouloi decided he had to put all of those in place with whom he disagreed by the common tactic of personal attack rather than civil rational argument. So, this is for you.
Who I voted for is logically irrelevant to the legitimacy of anything I said, so you could have saved your breath. It makes no difference whether I voted, didn’t vote, or who I voted for (Edwards by the way.)
Even though I am a secular person I was quite close to the situation in Plains in 1976 and your characterization is inaccurate and the circumstances are not the same. You might also ask yourself why Carter enjoyed so much support among African-Americans in Georgia and nationally. Unlike you and your nearly 1000 posts I don’t spend much time in blogs responding obnoxiously to everyone I disagree with. But I do invite you to take some of that time and read about Carter, his religion, and his relationship to African-Americans.
And, once again, there is no resemblance to the Obama-Wright relationship of a bigoted, conspiracy mongering, zealot, “mentoring” a "unifying" presidential candidate and Carter's near life long efforts to reform the Southern Baptist Convention he eventually left. Even if the two cases were the same you would still only have two candidates who behaved wrongly and that would be of no assistance in defending Obama's candidacy thirty two years later. (Incidentally, Carter was severely critical of his own father for his views and that association, unlike Obama’s with Wright, wasn’t voluntary. So much for Obama's pathetic embarrassing old uncle defense.) So stop trying to defend him by attacking Carter or Hillary or anybody else. If you don’t get that then you can take the logic course I teach and learn about fallacies of irrelevance. But you will have to enroll and pay tuition. Better yet, I think I would rather have as much distance from you as that race baiter Wright.
- mhollifield
March 16, 2008 at 7:46pm
Marty Perez, scoundrel?
If at least he said nothing about either candidate, we could assume that he is contemplative. But if his response to Jim Wright is another attack on Hillary Clinton, I can only think that he has set aside decency for politics.
- yacovdavid
March 16, 2008 at 8:24pm
I think Marty is in a bind.
- jacobt1
March 16, 2008 at 8:46pm
wow, wasn't the few hundred postings on other threads about Wright enough? I say it is high time all Americans denounce and reject Jesus and his teaching us to love the sinner, but hate the sin. No, we must now hate the sinner. Renounce and reject him. Hillary must also renounce and reject Bill for being an admitted adulterer. She should renounce and reject herself for continuing to remain married to a known womanizer and adulterer. No, her forgiving him is unacceptable. And if McCain were to become President, he must nuke Vietnam for what it did to him. Let our hatred of each other bring us together, because for sure that will solve our problems.
Well, one thing seems certain, Since most black politicians have relied historically on black churches for networking this, of course, means that no liberal black Dem. can ever aspire to the Presidency. the only blacks that will ever be able to run for President will have to be Republican, have served in the military, and belong to a suburban white church. They can be black on the outside, but God forbid they have any black on the inside. Naturally, since there are so few blacks that fit this profile (Colin Powell), I think it is safe for us whites for at least another generation.
As to regular blacks, lets just keep them on the Democratic reservation, where they can vote for Whites for President who like to fancy themselves as understanding blacks because they like jazz music and have fried chicken. Oh yeah, only white Democrats can save blacks. At least the Republicans are upfront in their attitudes. The only color they care about is green.
I am starting to think F the Democrats, it is far better to lose now and watch the country fall to pieces under the Republicans. Maybe in 20 years we will be smart enough not to obsess over such little shit as what someones minister said, and fix what will doubtless be a truly f-ed over country.
I will like to see how Hillary Clinton thinks she can win the election after thoroughly alienating blacks, and since there are no other blacks who are even remotely qualified for VP, it will be fun to watch how Gov. Strickland is received as her VP candidate.
Hey, when unemployment hits 10% next year, everybody can be so thankful that we spent so much time talking about absolutely stupid non issues like Wright or how involved or not Hillary was with SChip.
- blackton
March 16, 2008 at 8:52pm
mhollifield,
You teach logic? Great. Have you learned the meaning of "evidence" for a proposition?
The point under discussion was not whether Carter or for that matter Obama is blameworthy for their associations, with a segregated church on the one hand and with Wright on the other. The point is what the impact will be on the public. Do you think the public that was indifferent to Carter's association read his whole book and bio in order to draw its conclusions?
The public reaction to Carter, as well as the public reaction to Reagan's pastoral associations is evidence of how the public will ultimately react to Obama's association with Wright.
It offends you? That's your business. I would not try to persuade you for an instant that you should not be offended. You want to argue that it ought to offend me? It doesn't, and I can argue back as to why it doesn't and shouldn't. You want to conflate your personal reaction with the likely public response, or take your own view as a reliable indicator of the public reaction, then you are making a serious logical error. You should know better.
- roidubouloi
March 16, 2008 at 9:26pm
hey roi, I have noticed that even some of the black anchors on Fox are barely able to contain their rage at this situation. They know the deadliness of this guilt by association. Hillary will be playing with serious fire if she tries to game this (which so far she hasn't, afaik.) And I can't see the Republicans doing it successfully either. Trying to take down the Black churches in America will set back America for a generation. I have to believe that McCain wouldn't want the Presidency in that situation. If it gets to seem like piling on it could get to be an ugly summer.
- blackton
March 16, 2008 at 9:57pm
blackton,
"I say it is high time all Americans denounce and reject Jesus and his teaching us to love the sinner, but hate the sin."
HRC is not a sinner, and still too many of Obama supporters hate her. If Obama supporters stop express their hate for Clintons, there is going to be slilence.
- jacobt1
March 16, 2008 at 10:06pm
blackton,
This is quite a volatile situation, so much so that even Hillary understands she had better stay away. It is a great test of Obama's ability to keep his cool, his humor, and stay on message. I think he can pull this off and that he will be much better prepared for the general for having faced this now. The more I look at the numbers, the more certain I am that it is too late to have any impact on the nomination.
jacobt,
Are we supposed to understand that it is the public that is ultimately responsible for Hillary's bad behavior? And if Hillary's supporters stopped bashing Obama's supporters (I hear plenty of vitriol aimed by Obama-ites at Hillary, but none aimed at Hillary's supporters), what would we hear then? Perhaps if Hillary's supporters stopped declaring and behaving as though anyone supporting Obama is an idiot, Obama's supporters wouldn't be so intent on cutting Hillary off at the knees? What do you say?
- roidubouloi
March 16, 2008 at 11:39pm
By the way, jacob,
I had developed a pretty intense dislike for Hillary Clinton well before Obama became a viable candidate, solely on the basis of her own political behavior. I was more or less in a state of despair for a long time (pretty much since Kerry lost) because I assumed she would get the nomination, that McCain would be the Republican nominee, and that she would lose. Nothing about her campaign has ever given me reason to think otherwise. The morning after Iowa, I woke up, saw the headlines, and was overcome with a feeling of elation that maybe the ending was not inevitable. Hillary earned her high negatives without any help from Obama. If there is any connection to him, it is only the palpable relief that there is a viable alternative to Hillary.
- roidubouloi
March 16, 2008 at 11:44pm
roidubouloi,
You have a right to hate Clinton. I have a right to hate Obama.
I don’t call you sexist. You don’t call me racist.
You are not going to vote Clinton. I’m not going to vote for Obama.
Let’s hope that McCain will be a good president.
"I hear plenty of vitriol aimed by Obama-ites at Hillary, but none aimed at Hillary's supporters), what would we hear then? "
You must be kidding. We are all racists if we don’t vote for Obama.
- jacobt1
March 17, 2008 at 12:17am
Who has ever said, here or anywhere, that anyone who does not vote for Obama is a racist? Find it anywhere and direct our attention to it, or stop whining and mewling about how life is unfair to Hillary.
Indeed, find me any good juicy quote where Obama's supporters attack Hillary's supporters as opposed to Hillary herself. I can find you lots of quotes where Hillary supporters describe Obama's supporters in unflattering terms. Let's see you do likewise. I don't think you can. It's just that you, Jacob, like Hillary, like to play the victim. It seems her victim shtick is contagious.
As Bill said, "I feel your pain."
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2008 at 2:09am
roidubouloi,
Obama supporters have expressed their hatred for Clintons for a long time in most vicious terms.
Clinton supporters noticed such hatred and stsrted to describe Obama's supporters in deservedly unflattering terms.
“Who has ever said, here or anywhere, that anyone who does not vote for Obama is a racist?”
This is a standard explanation given every time when Whites or Hispanics don’t vote for Obama.
- jacobt1
March 17, 2008 at 2:39am
jacob1
You did not produce one quote for roidbl.
We await the qoutes.
- lindamwil
March 17, 2008 at 10:25am
jacobt1 stole my thunder on Marty's silence on Wright
blackton -- Fox's "interview" of Obama on Wright was pathetic even by its standards -- it wasn't an interview, it was a deposition.
I said it to Obama-ites, I'll say it to Clintonites: anyone who has claimed to be a progressive/decried the Iraq war/etc. the last 7 years who votes for McCain over the Democratic nominee is contemptable: they have betrayed everything they claimed to hold dear. To take just one example, if you blame the war for killing thousands of American soldiers, you'd be saying "I'll kill a few thousand more to make my protest." I think they hypcoricy is a little greater on the Republican-won't-vote-for-Mcain side (esp. for pro-lifers who are one supreme court vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade), but regardless, CHILL! Obama has done absolutely nothing to warrant that kind of bitterness.
Roid: I don't know about here on TNR, but there's definitely a message put out by the Obama campaign that explains all losing votes as due to racism of some sort. And when you describe Hillary as the devil (see Andrew Sullivan and Marty Peretz) and Obama as nearly flawless, what are you implicitly saying about those who would vote for Hillary in the face of such an obvious choice? Either they are morally challenged or incredibly stupid.
- Lymon1
March 17, 2008 at 10:27am
"This is a standard explanation given every time when Whites or Hispanics don’t vote for Obama."
I would to see a reference on ONE person (an Obama supporter perhaps) besides yourself who said that. Love to see because it's really something you made.
- bsdespain
March 17, 2008 at 10:36am
matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/.../the_crucial_racist_vote.php
The Crucial Racist Vote
You guys can search the web
"Working class vote Obama racism"
- jacobt1
March 17, 2008 at 11:14am
Please, jacobt1,
Do you mean to say that you do not see the difference between these four statements:
"If you do not vote for Obama you are a racist; if you do not vote for Hillary, you are not a feminist."
"Some percentage of the people who vote report that race (or gender) is an important consideration in their choice."
"Some people will not vote for Obama simply because of his race or for Hillary simply because of her sex."
"Some people who vote against Obama are racists; some people who vote against Hillary are misogynists."
I am sorry, the citation that you make does not prove your point. It is quite beside your point. Your point was number one above, not two, three, or four. Your citation is support for the second proposition, possibly the third.
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2008 at 11:51am
As a matter of historical fact, jacobt, widespread dislike, even hatred, of Hillary Clinton long ante-dates the appearance of Barack Obama. She earned every bit of it without any help from him.
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2008 at 11:53am
Lymon,
I have never for one minute suggested that I think Obama is morally flawless or anything else extraordinary other than extraordinarily talented as a politician. My own case for him is that he has unusual political and rhetorical gifts that give him tools with which to win and to govern, that he is more than bright enough to cope with the policy issues that the president faces, and that he is undeniably a man of the left. That's it. I don't think he is going to cure the ills of the world or magically unite all Americans. I think both are very worthy aspirations that should be kept in mind when trying to solve much more mundane problems.
I would like you to support your claim that anyone in the Obama campaign has ever attributed any electin loss to racism, or could even have been interpreted as doing so. I think that is a fabrication.
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2008 at 11:57am
lymon,
re the war in Iraq, I incline to the view that both McCain and Obama are more likely to bring it to a swift conclusion than Hillary. I don't think McCain is captive to ideology when it comes to military affairs (although he plainly has a disposition toward the earlier use of force); I think he is intellectually willing to make a call based on the military risks and possibilities (or futility) because he has faith in his own judgment and the guts to do it. I think Obama has the guts to make a tough call and the skills to sell it to the public and the Congress so that he need not be overcome by political weakness.
Hillary, on the other hand, although she makes the ludicrous claim that she has "crosse the commander in chief threshold" strikes me as politically timid and cowardly, in part because she doesn't have the political skills to sell her point of view. She is left looking over her shoulder, with neither the courage of conviction nor the rhetorical and political gifts to lead others where she has decided to go. I think the likely result with Hillary is a long, pointless, stasis, neither in, nor out. just struggling and bleeding.
- roidubouloi
March 17, 2008 at 12:47pm
Roid -
I think that's a pretty attenuated analysis (the candidate who swears we shouldn't cut and run and need to stay as long as it takes is more likely to pull US troops than Clinton? Especially when Clinton will desperately need the money to fund her domestic initiatives and/or restore the economy?), but I could go through a lot of other issues (Supreme Court being the starkest, less government regulation of industry another) where I don't see how a progressive pulls the lever for McCain. Though I'll conceed I don't think it's an absolute and if McCain took a significantly bolder position on energy even I would waver.
As for the Obama campaign, in the Willentz article he wrote that reporters have been spun by the Obama camp off the record to portray the Clinton victories as examples of the Bradley Effect. I guess you could interpret them to mean the Bradley Effect as "they (the voters) didn't want to be perceived as racists, but were voting out of pure motives nontheless" but I don't think that's plausible -- Bradley Effect is code for "race based voters."
- Lymon1
March 17, 2008 at 2:04pm
Around THe World in 80 Days, exactly, and also don't forget "If it's Tuesday This Must be Belgium" a kooky little comedy from the late 60s that is very dated in the most adorable way.
- psantillana
March 17, 2008 at 10:05pm
Lymon,
The Bradley effect is an explanation for the differences between polls and election results. It is not an explanation of election results themselves as being due to race or anything else. Hence, your post on this point is incoherent.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2008 at 1:35am
Lymon,
Clinton will be incapable of action.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2008 at 1:36am
Roid -- that's ridiculous -- the Bradley effect attributes those differences (between polls and actual votes) to racism. You can spin that nicely ("the voter was embarassed to be perceived as racist") but reality is the voter is voting racially and the term has been used that way since Bradley's squeeker victory for Virginia governor.
- Lymon1
March 18, 2008 at 10:20am
Man, I am so nauseated, it would be impossible for me to eat enough food in order to be able to vommit as much as I want to, listening to you kids go on and on about voting for McCain if your favorite Dem doesn't get the nomination.
It's like hearing two kids on the playground fight over whose dad could beat up the other.
Any Clinton fan voting for McCain instead of Obama, or Obama supporter vowing to support McCain over a nominated Clinton, is either a selfish psychopath, or someone that has no understanding of how the Presidency works.
Either way it should get them banned to the Arctic Circle for life.
It doesn't matter how obnoxious or phony or stupid you find the other Democratic candidate--voting for a Republican does not serve out the ideals you supposedly have, even if it is John McCain. Think of the Supreme Court nominations!!! Think of Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan!!!!
- chrisnatale
March 18, 2008 at 2:13pm
chrisnatale, I am a swing voter, of course I can vote for McCain. McCain is actually the closest to me politically there is out there right now. He is a fiscal conservative, is against big money corrupting politics (McCain-Feingold) is for compassionate immigration reform (McCain -Kennedy). And is best able to deal with the military situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also like Obama's position on health care, environments, etc. so in a sense it is a toss up for me. But for Hillary, no. I would have voted for her only against Guiliani or Romney.
- blackton
March 18, 2008 at 2:46pm
lymon,
sorry, no, the Bradley effect is an explanation for the difference between what voters say to pollsters and how they vote. It is concerned principally with how they think they will be perceived by pollsters, not with their motivation for how they vote. It's point is one about how voters think they will be perceived by pollsters.
- roidubouloi
March 18, 2008 at 7:05pm