As more and more people step forward to debunk Hillary’s “experience” claims, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Hillary is one of those people who serves as a mail sorter in an organization, but afterward calls the position Director of Communications (technically true I suppose, if taken literally), and then talks up her involvement in projects as if she was the main person involved, when in reality all she did was stuff memos about the projects in the mailboxes of the people who did all the work on those projects. As you can imagine, if later one of these people got wind of the fact the mailroom sorter was claiming credit for their projects, they would be quite shocked. Indeed, that is basically what has been happening, with her claims over Bosnia, Kosovo, China, Rwanda, Northern Ireland all being debunked. Throughout this campaign she has also been taking credit for the original State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) passed while her husband was president. An article out today shows that her incredible exaggerations of fact and credit snatching aren’t just reserved for hyping up her foreign policy experience, indeed they extend into her domestic policy experience. The article is long, but here are the highlights:
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, 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.
In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative "I helped to start." Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, "in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program." Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.
But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.
"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch said in an interview. "She may have done some advocacy [privately] over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it."
"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."
[ … ]
Kennedy has endorsed Obama, a move that deeply upset the Clinton campaign. Hatch initially endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, then switched to Senator John McCain of Arizona after Romney left the race. Hatch, a longtime Kennedy friend, said he didn't want to criticize Clinton, but felt that the record should be set straight about how the SCHIP program was developed.
Asked whether Clinton was exaggerating her role in creating SCHIP, Kennedy, stopped in the hallway as he was entering the chamber to vote, half-shrugged.
"Facts are stubborn things," he said, declining to criticize Clinton directly. "I think we ought to stay with the facts."
Many members of Congress said they believe Hillary Clinton has a deep and sincere commitment to children's health issues. She has sponsored numerous bills and amendments dealing with a plethora of healthcare matters. [note: she is very good at sponsoring bills, as I’ve previously written, however most of the bills she has sponsored and introduced simply languish in filing cabinets because she cares enough to introduce them to be able to say she introduced them, but doesn’t care enough to do the footwork to build support and get the measures passed, another great example of mailroom fluffing]
But privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton's exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she "helped create" the program. The irritation has grown since Nov. 1, when Clinton - along with fellow senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John McCain - missed a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program, which was approved without the votes of those lawmakers.
[ … ]
McDonough, a Democrat who has not endorsed a presidential candidate, also said it was Kennedy who developed the SCHIP idea after that meeting. "I don't recall any signs of Mrs. Clinton's engagement," McDonough said. "I'm sure she was behind the scenes, engaged in lobbying, but it is demonstrably not the case" that she was driving the effort, he said.
After meeting Zuckerman and McDonough, Kennedy sought out Hatch, and the two worked on the bill together, offering it as an amendment to a budget resolution. But President Clinton - much to the surprise and anger of Kennedy - lobbied Democratic lawmakers to oppose the Hatch-Kennedy amendment, the lawmakers and staff members said.
[ … ]
"It was a bipartisan bill. I don't remember the role of the White House," said Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who has not endorsed a candidate in the presidential race and who was the chief Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which deals with health matters. "It did not originate at the White House."
It is very clear from those involved that Hillary played no major role in the original passing of SCHIP in the 90s, and she definitely shouldn’t be taking credit for it in the way she has been. There are no facts to back up her assertion that she even played a role in lobbying for its passage, past the assertion itself, and the repeating of that talking point by her campaign advisors. When taken with her prior exaggerations and distortions, there is in fact a very troubling pattern that develops. We all have fluffed our experience at some point on a resume, but when the “experience” is 90% fluff and 10% reality, and when your entire campaign is based on your “superior experience”, and when you continuously attack your opponent, a fellow Democrat on his record, despite your obvious lack of a record yourself, that is a big problem. Again, she is damn lucky the media has given her a free pass on all of this, especially the hypocrisy of it all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment