Hillarysworld

captain friday wrote:

---

You guys, please remember that in Washington DC the hardest thing to be is a Clinton. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If she did not hug Obama and put on that Oscar worthy smile she would be denounced as being "jealous" and "bitter".

Hillary did NOT do more behind the scenes than she absolutely had to. She was NOT among the arm twisters.

Don't any of you find it curious that a pro Obama site is only NOW mentioning Hillary in regards to Obamacare???

Only now that people are discovering the loopholes and other Liberals are criticizing it as well?

The origin of this bill is with the Heritage Foundation and is the same one that the Republicans back in 1993 were trying to counter Hillarycare with. You think Hillary does'nt know this??

Hillary can very easily say two years from now that she honestly did'nt realize what a clusterf**k the bill actually was. How could she with Israel, Iran, Russia, etc on her plate.

Of course she and Bill are happy. They know Pelosi and Obama are gonna pay dearly for this come election time.

---

Hillarysmygirl16 wrote:

---

I decided to change my avitar lol not because I am mad at Hillary but because I want to show off my grandbaby.

---

Optixmom wrote:

---

Boy what a night.  Tossing and turning.

I am still very angry.  Hopefully I can distract myself with other things.  This has been a horrible couple of weeks for me.  I was rejected from my University's PhD program (and I am even a PROFESSOR for them).  I have found another program at a local University that I got special permission from the University to apply; got my materials in yesterday; and so I should hear in about a month.  I dropped my quantum physics class because I will never need it (and it was horrible).   Eric Massa was my congress rep and now because I am part of my local GOP committee I am working hard for Tom Reed (previous Mayor of Corning) to win the seat.  Busy Busy Busy.

Reading that article and seeing the picture of Hillary was like getting hit with a 2x4 in the head yesterday.  Now the Senate are voting on individual amendments and rejected a GOP amendment to stop access of Viagra to Sex Offenders.  Just unfrickenbelievable.  Dems want to go out with a bang, don't they.

---

Why does sex offenders need viagra but this same bill won't pay for a Mamagram.  Unbelievable

Sanders wrote:

---

HMG, great avatar! Very beautiful baby there! Peaceful and adorable.

Optix, sorry to hear of the PhD program... very tough. Lousy of them, especially when you are a professor there. Unfair.

 

Jen the Michigander wrote:

---

Hillarysmygirl16 wrote:

---

I decided to change my avitar lol not because I am mad at Hillary but because I want to show off my grandbaby.

---

Your grandbaby is adorable-- you should show her off!

As for Hillary, I sure don't like that photo of her hugging Obama. But I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as far as this health care bill is concerned. It would be different if she were still in the Senate, in which case I would have expected her to read all 2000 pages of that mess and then fight loud and fight hard to get the worst aspects of the bill tossed out. However, as SOS, this bill is not her responsibility, which she made sure to point out.

Since much of the bill doesn't come into effect right away, including the mandate that everyone buy insurance, perhaps Hillary figures there's time to fix the flaws before anybody gets hurt? And if she does get elected in 2012, she will almost certainly have a Republican Congress that will fight her every step of the way on every issue. Under those conditions, it would be impossible for her to initiate health care reform, but she could tinker with this existing legislation. One thing's for sure, I would rather have President Hillary tinkering with this mess in 2013 than someone like Romney or Huckabee or Gingrich. Those guys make Stupak look like a spokesman for Planned Parenthood. (And Stupak himself will probably lose in November to a Repub, most likely an ultra-conservative religious Repub given the demographics of his district.)

I don't know... For the most part I agree with Eminence and Captain Friday. We'll have to wait and see what happens. But I'm not turning my back on Hillary, especially not on account of this one article seeing as how it's an opinion piece written by an obot.

I guess this thread proves we are Hillary supporters and not Hillbots, eh?

---

Jen, Great perspective there. CF (Captain Friday) too said it quite succinctly. We should never forget she is a politician..

Yes, Hillary will likely face a Republican majority and having a structure of Health Insurance Exchanges creating competition in the market will help bring forth the legislation that she really wanted. The bill is only directionally what she wanted and not what she would have implemented. There are many other things that she had in the 2008 proposal we discussed here in early Fall last year. 

As a clarification -- since I have really read the whole bill -- the bill is NOT paying for any medical service as such.  It
- requires large employers to provide insurance or pay fine and facilitate ALL employees (including very low paid) gaining access to insurance; for low paid, at cost below 8% of incme
- requires all with income to get insurance
- gives subsidies (govt) aid to get insurance based on income levels
- creates Health Insurance Exchanges (competition) from which to buy insurance. That marketplace is expected to provide coverage of all kinds and options. Market forces will continue to play force and more so than in the past, especially in areas where only one or two insurance companies existed before. This is going to be far more efficient. 
- assures and enables Continuity of coverage
- promoting change in way we pay for medical care especially when there are many doctors to be seen - this goes from fee for service to quality of care and this is far more complicated to explain.  There is a 'bundling' of services by condition. (There are pros and cons in this. It changes the incentives for the providers and holds providers accountable for quality care to some degree.)
- covering the Medicare donut hole gradually and completely by a certain date.

And things like this...

But there is no real payment FROM the government FOR a particular medical service. It is really more of insurance reform. Its objective is to ensure more people can get access to insurance coverage.

Again, it is not the bill I wanted. Health care was one of my top concerns in 2008 campaign and I really studied each candidate's approach. Hillary's approach was the absolute best.


I accept that Hillary is a politician who knows how to give a most sincerely LOOKing (Oscar-worthy - love that ) smile politically fitting to the occasion and give a more somber sounding statement on the same topic a few minutes later in a speech.  Women do have a lot to gain in getting continuity of coverage for themselves and children, especially those on their spouse's medical plan with a 30-day gap coverage if they loose coverage, and I am sure she is happy about that.


I will always be a Hillary supporter; I did not put in money into her campaign and 2 years+ now into Hillary support work for nothing. 

I hope she does run for 2012 or at least 2016..  A GOP congress would make it very difficult for Hillary to implement a base bill and now she does not have to as there is one to modify, hopefully Hillary gets that chance as POTUS to improve upon that.  I sincerely hope we do not get the ultra conservatives you mention Jen, yes they certainly would make Stupak look like Planned parenthood sponsor! 

The work Hillary is doing globally right now is also extremely important.  I am also enjoying observing and following her and learning from her. She is one fantastic top diplomat!  She is on C-SPAN right now talking about Nuclear treaty with Russia. [It was a short speech; she was great! Hope we can find a clip..]


-- Edited by Sanders on Friday 26th of March 2010 12:35:20 PM

---

Jen the Michigander wrote:

---

OK, I am bored and can't sleep. So I went back and reread this article. Now I'm going to pick it apart...

Before we begin to dissect the creature at hand, let's take a moment to note that the author of this article is an obot who is in favor of this bill. If you want evidence, look at some of her other articles. It's also worth noting that the author did not interview Hillary or Bill or Obama or any of the other key players. She is getting her facts from disparate sources and then putting them together to construct a narrative.

Now for the title:
"How The Clintons Fought for Health Care Behind The Scenes."

We've seen this before, where a journalist or politician assumes The Clintons are some sort of two-headed hydra and holds each one responsible for the other's actions. Next comes the word "Fought." That suggests a long, involved, strenuous effort on their part, doesn't it? "Behind The Scenes"... Yes, this was done out of the public eye. Neither Hillary nor Bill came out publicly for this bill in a strong way. As SOS, it would not have been appropriate for her to do so, but Bill certainly could have gone everywhere and talked to high-profile media outlets, especially if this legislation is something he "fought" for. But that's not what happened.

OK, let's move on to the article itself, shall we?

The Clintons and health care: It was their issue, their passion and their failure in the '90s. This time around, both President and Secretary Clinton worked behind the scenes to get it done, giving pep talks and campaign speeches and, in Hillary's case, calling one stubborn Democrat as the clock ticked down to Sunday's vote.

Yes, health care is extremely important to The Clintons. As I distance myself emotionally and play the role of impartial observer, I would have expected one or both of them to participate in any attempt to reform health care, regardless of who is President. I would not expect either of them to do this for, say, immigration reform or cap and trade. Note the author's use of the word "failure." In this case, I see it as a put down, although perhaps not everyone will agree. The rest of the paragraph implies that both Hillary and Bill played a very active role in getting this bill passed. The words "campaign speeches" in particular conjures up mental images of loud rallies with large crowds. Hmm, I must have missed those.

It ended with a hug, Hillary Clinton's arms thrown out exuberantly to congratulate President Obama once the bill passed. The White House made sure to snap a picture and posted it online. But Hillary, and even Bill, were kept out of the spotlight for nearly all of the debate.

So Hillary congratulated Obama and gave him a hug. And we all saw that yucky photo. Still, all of this happened after the fact, not during the actual process... "Kept out of the spotlight" contradicts the earlier paragraph. How can one make a campaign speech when one is out of the spotlight?

Hillary has been almost completely out of the public eye. It's certainly benefited the White House -- which has for months refused to discuss the Clintons' level of involvement -- to keep someone who once brutally attacked President Obama's health care plans out of the debate.

The first sentence is, I think, a little dig at Hillary. The author could have written that she has been spending much of her time overseas engaged in her work as SOS. But, no. The next sentence makes it sound as if things are not rosy between Hillary and 0. As a whole, this paragraph can be translated as "Hillary was marginalized."

So she extended a hand privately. She was reportedly called in as a closer over the weekend, making last-ditch appeals to difficult lawmakers. She called Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), a surprise holdout who refused to vote for the Senate bill even after a one-on-one meeting with President Obama. (Lynch ended up voting against the Senate bill but for the reconciliation package.)

Did Hillary "extend a hand" (which means she acted on her own accord) or was she "called in" (which means Obama issued orders)? How many "difficult lawmakers" did she talk to? Only one is mentioned by name. There's nothing regarding what was said between the two of them. There is no quote from Rep. Lynch where he says he was going to vote against the bill until Hillary convinced him otherwise. So yes, Hillary was involved here, but what I'm seeing is very minimal. Nothing even close to a "fight."

The White House kept her in the bullpen, she told CNN in February, taking the mound only when needed.

"When I am asked, I am very happy to respond. I mean, it's not anything I have direct responsibility for, but I have had a number of conversations and both in the White House and on the Hill and with others who are playing a constructive role," she said. The New York Times also reported that she made calls to on-the-fence lawmakers as the Senate neared its Christmas Eve vote.

The Hillary quote is from February, a month before the final vote in the House. Then there's the line about Christmas Eve. We don't know which lawmakers Hillary spoke to or what was said between them. "When I'm asked" can mean she was willing to give her opinion about the bill when someone in Congress asked her about it or it can mean Obama asked her to get involved. Hillary doesn't specify. Her words here seem to be carefully chosen. Notice how she emphasizes it's not her responsibility.

Bygones indeed seem to be bygones. In 2008, some of the nastiest attacks between Clinton and Obama were over health care. After John Edwards dropped out, she said she was the only candidate who cared about universal health care.

Obama, in turn -- and now rather ironically -- dismissed Clinton's ability to get health care passed because she was too polarizing.

The author fails to mention that this bill does not provide universal health care or anything close to what Hillary campaigned for in 2008. And then there's that familiar word "polarizing." Typical obotics.

So Bill Clinton has been much more visible than his wife, serving as the Democrats' own inspirational speaker. In November, he inspired Senate Democrats to fight on after months of tough fighting.

"His message was very simply it is so important that this be done, that there are so many people, I think 30 percent of the population he said at one point or another, don't have any health care coverage," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told TPMDC at the time, "and so the ability to fix the problem is really upon us."

In January, he implored the House to forge ahead while they had the Senate votes.

Clinton's remarks were, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described, "master class."

None of this equals Bill aggressively pushing our lawmakers to pass this particular reform package. He simply wanted the Democrats to reform health care at a time in history when they had enough votes to get it done.

The same day, he campaigned for Martha Coakley, in an election intrinsically tied to health care, at least for Washington.

This must be the aforementioned "campaign speeches." There's no mention of the fact that Martha Coakley is a loyal Hillary supporter and this is why Bill campaigned for her-- it wasn't all about health care, even though that was one key issue. There is also no mention of any other campaign speeches for other candidates.

And like his wife, he came in at the bottom of the ninth. Speaking to Senate Democrats last week, he pushed them to swallow their pride and vote for the reconciliation bill out of the House. "It doesn't have to be perfect," he said.

Asked after the meeting how he would feel if it passed, he told reporters he'd be "one happy fella."

"Maybe Hillary'll be the happiest person in America, I'll be the second happiest person," he said. "Even more than President Obama."

We were already aware that Bill is of the "it's now or never, something is better than nothing" school of health care reform. I don't see Hillary's opinion here. No direct quotes, nothing. Bill says maybe she will be the happiest person in America-- and we all know that with Bill, every little word counts. I wish a real journalist would actually interview Hillary or Bill about all of this. I'd like to hear what they have to say about Obama's executive order where he basically caved in to Stupak or about some of the other ugly aspects of this health care package. I would also like to know how many of the 2000 pages either one of them actually read. There are other questions that have not been asked. For example, when Hillary spoke to lawmakers, did she encourage them to push for a public option or for other reforms that didn't end up in the final package?

I think we should also remember everything else that has been going on these past few months. While the health care debate raged on, Hillary was traveling from one country to another as well as meeting with foreign officials here in the USA. Bill was doing his Foundation work before the earthquake struck Haiti. Then there was his hospitalization. Neither of The Clintons had health care on their front burner.

What do we learn from this article? Not a lot, really. We already knew about Bill's involvement. Nothing new there. Hillary had some conversations about health care "when asked" and made a few phone calls. That doesn't sound like much of a "fight" to me. And we don't know enough about what really went on "behind the scenes."

In the end, my opinion is that neither Hillary nor Bill deserves to be thrown under our bus based on the scant information provided in this obotic article. I am disappointed that they got themselves even minimally involved in this mess, but I'd be hard pressed to find a politician who has never disappointed me.

-- Edited by Jen the Michigander on Saturday 27th of March 2010 03:54:24 AM

---

Jen the Michigander wrote:

---

It's hard to tell if Hillary is taking care of her own needs or if she's putting others first. On one hand, an argument can be made that she's a team player who did this for Obama. But on the other hand, one can also look at this same information and interpret it to mean that Hillary did this for the sake of her own political viability and it's yet another situation where she's had to walk that fine line between pleasing the Party and pleasing potential voters. FWIW, I heard that the Repub pundits believe it's the latter, not the former.

---