Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe problem for candidate Clinton is how to stop kicking herself in the leg. Although she's scored real achievements over the years, when repeating her 35-years-of-experience mantra, she pushes the facts too far.
By now, her gaffes on Tuzla, Bosnia, where her claims of "landing under sniper fire" and "running for cover" are well-known. Ditto her lines on Northern Ireland - where Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, Ireland, said she was "a wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played in bringing peace.
But if we reality-check some other claims, what can we say of her 35 years, on which she hopes to distinguish herself from Obama, who has actually logged more years in elected posts, counting his years in the Illinois legislature?
To start with, for 14 of the 35 years that she's counting, Clinton was a full-time corporate litigator in Little Rock, Arkansas, at the Rose Law Firm. Further, for her White House years - aside from her work as chair of the President's Task Force on Health Care Reform - she served as First Lady, not policy maker.
While First Lady in Arkansas, she did, as she claims, help "transform the education system." Teachers and others there agree that, as chair of a commission to re-write Arkansas' deplorable education standards, she was effective. Among other things, the new norms raised teacher salaries and amounts spent per pupil, and reduced class size.
Since Arkansas ranked 49th out of America's 50 states in most educational measurements, and dead last in the percent of students who went on to college, the base was so low that any gains would be good. But it's a fact the numbers improved.
Add to the fact column her work on child welfare boards, like the Children's Defense Fund and the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.
Dubious Claims
Other claims, however, are downright dubious, if not terminal twaddle.
Let's start with her now-impassioned concerns for workers' rights. This is surely an eyebrow-raiser, since her record on labor issues is roughly zero.
For example, she was on WalMart's Board of Directors from 1986-1992, a company legendary for its low wages and union busting. Not surprisingly, her official biography omits this six-year stint.
Nor does she mention it when she woos Pennsylvania workers for the upcoming April 22 primary. In an effort to expunge the WalMart connection, Clinton returned its $5,000 campaign contribution to her in 2005.
According to Sam Ortega, a Wall Street Journal reporter and author of In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and How Wal-Mart is Devouring America, the company fiercely fought any union attempts to organize WalMart workers - threatening, spying on and firing supporters, all illegal acts.
Ortega writes that, during a Teamsters' campaign at a distribution center, "Sam Walton bluntly told them he'd take away their profit-sharing if they voted for the union."
Further, Ortega says many workers "remember his (Walton's) threats with perfect clarity." He adds that one worker, Larry Havener, recalls, "He told us if the union got in, the warehouse would be closed."
Worse, Ortega writes, "union activists were soon laid off-always for some other stated reason, of course."
Moreover, "Walton asked all employees to call John Tate - the company's chief union-buster - if they noticed anything that smacked of union activity," Ortega notes.
Low Wages
WalMart's devotion to low wages seems not to have lost Clinton any sleep.
Ortega notes that in 1988 - two years after Clinton joined the Board - an Arkansas state senator publicly attacked the company for "dumping its overhead on state taxpayers, saying many of its near minimum-wage workers made so little they had to get by on public assistance."
Another problem plaguing the company was the use of child workers - some as young as nine - by its foreign suppliers: When shown photos of children in Sakara, a Bangladesh sweatshop that made WalMart-label shirts, the company claimed ignorance.
Moreover, despite her long-term concern for health care - along with child welfare, Clinton's signature issues - she stayed on the Board although Ortega says WalMart insured fewer than 40 percent of its workers.
Why? Perhaps it was Clinton's $15,000 annual WalMart salary, which rose to $45,000, for her service at four meetings a year, at a time her husband earned just $35,000 as Governor.
Perhaps it was her corporate lawyer role at the conservative Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, where she worked from 1978 until the couple moved to the White House.
Perhaps it was Arkansas' "right-to-work" fundamentalism that made her mute. Whatever the motive, today's worries for working-blokes' concerns ring hollow.
Then there's NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), which passed on her husband's watch in 1994. Critics worried then, and insist now, that it caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Today, candidate Clinton claims to have doubted NAFTA's merits from the start. But the record indicates otherwise. As recently as 2004, she praised NAFTA as "good for New York and America." This observation has been omitted in her Pennsylvania campaign.
Health-Care Choices
But more than any others, Clinton's claims about her desire to improve health coverage and care through her efforts as chair of President Clinton's health care task force are seriously flawed.
History and numbers tell the story best. In 1993, health care was a crisis for the U.S. public: 37 million Americans had none, and millions more had very little. Thus, public opinion polls ranked it as the number-two concern, second only to the economy - since the country, as today, was in a recession.
A majority wanted universal health care: Even many providers and the American Medical Association initially favored some form of universal plan.
The universal model adopted in Canada and most Western European countries, called the single-payer system, is not socialized medicine, as insurance companies repeat by rote.
Governments do not tell patients which doctors to see. Nor do they dictate what doctors may or may not do. Instead, it's a payment mechanism, like Medicare: The government pays the health care bills directly, rather than the insurance companies.
This way, overhead costs linked to billings are slashed: In 1993, when First Lady Clinton launched her task force, a hospital official in Windsor, Canada, told me his costs associated with billing the Government for patient services accounted for just 9 percent of the hospital's budget, while the average U.S. hospital spent 14 percent - a big difference in a multi-million-dollar budget.
In Canada, the savings left huge sums for covering patient care.
Did Clinton's task force examine the single-payer option? Alas, it was never on the table.
According to Vicente Navarro, a physician and professor of health and public policy at Johns Hopkins University, and a member of Clinton's task force, he tried repeatedly to get it considered, and failed.
In a 2007 CounterPunch article, "Why Hillary's Health Care Plan Really Failed," Navarro writes that although he promoted the views of the single-payer community (unions, grassroots organizations and many providers) "they were heard but not heeded. ... I had the feeling I was in the White House as a token."
Nixing Single-Payer
Why such disdain for the system used in most industrialized nations?
Navarro says Bill Clinton was pushing the managed-competition model, backed by the insurance industry, where the companies "have full control over health-care providers."
As proof, he writes that Bill Link, vice president of Prudential, stated that "For Prudential, the best scenario for reform ... would be ... managed competition."
The plan the task force ultimately sent to the Senate failed to pass, but not, Navarro insists, because of "bad timing" or the "excessive generosity" of the plan's proposed benefits, as is generally believed.
Rather, it died because the President and Hillary Clinton refused to send a plan that was truly universal, and one around which the public could mobilize.
Thus, no plan was approved and insurance companies continued to control - and prosper from - the U.S. health-care model.
Now, 14 years later, another 10 million are uninsured and millions more are under-insured - often impoverished by serious or even not-so-serious illnesses.
Again, why? Why rule out even a cursory discussion of single-payer models?
Navarro says Hillary Clinton told him a single-payer plan was not politically possible. But to pass NAFTA, the President twisted every congressional arm he needed to make the deal.
So, why couldn't he use the bully pulpit to mount the same push for universal health care - an issue on which most of the public agreed?
One answer could be contributions from the insurance industry and those connected to it: According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), over Bill Clinton's career, insurance industries rank among the top 20 donors, while law and the financial firms are among the top 10 - the sectors often tightly linked to the insurance industry.
Fast forward to 2008 and, based on CRP figures, the industry continues its generosity, this time to Hillary Clinton - giving $913,000 to date. Obama has benefited too, with $700,000.
Since Bill Clinton and other Hillary supporters complain she's picked on by the press, she would do well if she only claimed what is legitimate. This way, the press would not have to flush out the fables.
Barbara Koeppel is a Washington-based investigative reporter.
29 Comments so far
Show AllOBAMA 'S HYPOCRICY: WAS HE EVER PAPTIZED?
Clinton has every right to stay and fight as Obama has not been truthful to this nation and Republicans would bring up the issue to steal the next election.
Farhat Maquami
I BELIEVE that Obama is the best Marketing tool invented by Multinationals corporations to sell America to the world after 8 years of debacles and shameless destruction to the US image in the world. I support the efforts of the CNN and MSNBC to push Obama over Hillary.
What I am against is the orchestrated attempt of the Media to fool the public and push an image of Obama that is not true.; therefore depriving American electorate to make an educated choice!
When the same media that pushed for the War in Iraq and the same pundits who defended unquestionably the War in their SITUATION ROOMS, are pushing for Obama, then we have to be skeptical of their choice!
I don't care if Obama is Muslim or Christian . What I care if a man is telling the truth or is shaping shaping the truth so it fits his goal. We immigrants do everything to get ahead in business, I am all for Obama as an immigrants child; but this is not a business adventure. This is the Presidency of the United States and for God's sake take it more seriously.
OBAMA was introduced to Christianity in his early twenties. Introduced, but never Baptized! He worked for the Church, went to the Church, sit in the Church, even listened to some of the sermons of Reverend Wright, but was never officially converted to Christianity!
I am so surprised of the superficiality of analyzing Obama 's background in the media. MSNBC is enchanted with Obama, as the first son of a Kenyan-American who can pass as a black American, get their backing without ever sharing their history or socio-cultural experience!
I am a Muslim-American and like every progressive liberal democrat would like to see Obama as president, it would be very good for the image of the US abroad. However, I have a problem with Obama and that is his opportunism and hypocrisy.
He says he believe in Jesus, so does every Muslim. But, the question is when was he baptized. To become a Muslim you must assume a Muslim name and be born in a Muslim family. Likewise, to be baptized as Christian Obama,similar to every other CHRISTIAN should have been baptized somewhere.
He has a Muslim name Barak and Hussein.We have to know that in what church , where and by whom he was baptized as a Christian?
The son a Muslim is always a Muslim, that is the law of Sharia! I would like to know when and at what church, a son of a Muslim Father and a Devote Muslim Muslim step dad converted to Christianity.
I went to Jeremiah Wright Church at the age of 23 is not good enough. Muslims have nothing against Christianity and by choice anyone can attend and should attend other religions sermons and respect them , and understand them so he understands why Mohammad was the last Prophet!! I attended Church so did Obama! But that does not mean he ever become Christian.
Lets assume that at the age of 23 Jeremiah Wright baptized Obama in a recorded ceremony and gave him a Christian name then we have to see what was Obama's belief before that!
My son went to Catholic School and even attended mass but he never became Christian. Indeed many affluent Muslim pay high tuition and send their kids to Catholic Schools, that does not make them Christian!
I love Obama, but I like to know what are his beliefs .I know as son of a rich Sunni Muslim he went to a Catholic schools, but going to a Catholic school doesn't make any Muslim Christian. If he is able to get away with trashing Jeremiah Wright and dismissing his ideas just to beat Hillary Clinton and get the nomination he is man with no principal. A shameless opportunist who should not be trusted!
A political opportunist who would do anything to get elected! This is not good for America, not because all politicians lie; but because only a man who by all accounts was a non practicing Muslim until 23 and cannot prove that he has been ever baptized to Christianity should not hoodwinked a nation about his beliefs. He cannot be trusted!
Republicans know these facts and would discredit Obama in case he gets the nomination!
Thanks Barbara. It's too bad that Obama is too principled to use this info to counter Hillary's lies. I would love to see her get busted on live TV with this "experience."
While a lot of this article is a kind of tabloid, gratuitous version of the facts, the part about Hillary not championing single-payer, universal health care is accurate.
The biggest problem with the article, however, is what it implies. Notice that the writer does not say: "This is why you should vote for Ralph Nader instead of Hillary Clinton. Nader is for single-payer, universal health care."
Nope, not a word about Nader. What you have is a 1500-word critique of Hillary, and a six-word critique of Obama. The clear implication is: forget Hillary and vote for Obama. In fact, you see that very reaction in the posts here in this forum.
The problem is, Obama's health care plan is not a single-payer, universal plan either. In fact, his plan is worse than Hillary's plan -- that's what Elizabeth Edwards said recently.
So, it's the same theme that Common Dreams has been pushing these past several weeks: Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Except, the "into the fire" part is never mentioned. No articles critiquing Obama are allowed on Common Dreams.
Here's a link to a hilarious analysis of the Great Debate, titled "Battle of the Baggage". It certainly helps to laugh in these times. Enjoy!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17collins.html
kathyodat
Words Are Important (April 15th, 2008 12:22 pm): "For Hillary to claim that she has experience as president since she was married to one, is like Yoko Ono claiming she was a Beatle because she was married to one."
WAI, I seem to recall an interview she did two decades ago where she did claim she was the 'fifth' (or sixth, as the case may be) Beatle, and that she influenced all of their musical output in the late '60s, helping John Lennon write all of his later tunes.
curmudgeon99 (April 15th, 2008 2:33 pm):
"Does anyone really believe it makes any difference who the Dems nominate? Or the GOP, for that matter?"
Bill and Hillary Clinton are the prime movers and creators of the Democratic Leadership Council, better known as the 'Republican Lite' Dems which has dictated policy within the party since 1992. If Obama gets the nomination, it will be the final nail in the coffin for the DLC and, perhaps, the party will return to its populist/union roots. Also, some of you may have heard that Obama has now come out and promised his Attorney General will begin investigations and prosecutions of BushCo the day he takes office as president. I hope this doesn't guarantee that he'll lose to Diebold and caging lists.
Tim Farrell, et al, the good news is that Hillary's 'GOP negative' campaign hasn't done her much good; Obama has pulled ahead in Indiana, stayed in the lead in NC, and maintained his six-points-back status in PA. There may be a surprise in PA -- record number of new Democratic voters and 26 percent of them are young cellphone users who are not being reached by the pollsters. The 18 to 34 group has been going to Obama in massive numbers.
BUT -- Hillary Clinton's work in taking an ax to the New Deal was a neo-con's dream come true. Compassion is not an American value (although crowing about our compassion is a national pass-time). Hillary Clinton played a vital role, even before moving on into the White House, in "reforming" welfare. Upou have to admit that it takes some sort of genious to convince an entire nation that those scraping by on incomes well below the poverty line are living in spoiled luxury at our expense -- WHILE continuing more than a quarter-century of annual "tax relief" for our suffering rich. Ending humanitarian aid for our poor freed up millions of dollars to help pay corporations to move our jobs to foreign nations. This was very important because, by the 1970's, American workers had become quite uppity, demanding everything from a living wage to a safe working environment (all of which cuts into corporate profits). Workfare workers have no choice, no voice, can be paid a fraction of the legal minimum wage and fired without cause -- a truly disposable workforce. Hundreds of thousands of these workfare people have already replaced entire chunks of a workforce that was formerly paid a living wage. Workfare has been a powerful tool for crushing unions, and eliminating those annoying workers' right and protections. This has played a central role in creating the severe economic disparities we have today.
Consider how smart this is. Corporations are more than happy to repay H. Clinton, and since this is a subject too complex for a 20-second soundbite, Americans aren't going to analyze how welfare "reform" has impacted all of the working-to-middle class. And isn't it about time that we had a politician who stood up for the interests of big business, working to end the oppression and despair of our wealthy?
Strongly recommend that Common Dreams make maximim distribution of this article to the press in Pennsylvania and in all other states where Democratic primaries are yet to be held. Please forward to Obama's Election Committee to use as ammunition against this arrogant liar.
Why criticize her for her positions on NAFTA and single-payer?
There will never be a media-approved candidate who differs from her on these issues, or on any other issue that matters.
doggone, thank you for that video link to UTube. If Hillary manages to wrest the nomination from Obama, the Republicans will have a field day showing her to be a liar with it. I watched her praise Wal-Mart while on the board (and why not, she was making more than her husband the Governor of Arkansas), and
Wal-Mart's sleazy "Made in USA" campaign, pretending foreign goods were made in the US, and the videos of little 9 year old girls working in sweatshops for Wal-Mart. Another video showed her promoting and praising NAFTA. You can bet the Republicans will have the whole country watching it, juxtaposed with her current statements on the subjects. Bosnia just revealed her to be a liar, these videos shows her corporate core. By the time they would be through with her, even Democrats wouldn't want to vote for her.
And then we have McCain, the flipflopper. He's reversed himself on so many issues, no one say with certainty which way he would jump as President. He may well not know himself. Talk about being for it before he was against it. Or rather, them. He has started opposing bills he helped write.
This has to be the most ridiculous election I've ever seen. And I've seen plenty.
And the most they can come up with about Obama is that his pastor once said "God damn America" and that Obama said small town Americans feel abandoned by their country and are angry and cling to their faith and guns. Gee. If someone can get it right 98% of the time, I can go with that. Especially if they don't lie or flipflop.
kathyodat
Nice job, Barbara Knoppel___You have developed your slime machine very well and should be proud of your accomplishment. If all of your BS about Hillary Clinton helps get another four or eight years of Repug ruination, I hope you enjoy watching our country be destroyed.
I expect it is easier for someone with no judgment and nothing constructive to say to just do like Limbaugh and his kind and give the people all the smut they crave. Congratulations!!
I've come to believe that both Hillary and Bill Clinton will say and do pretty much anything to get elected. Having said that, the country has never been as well off as it was under Bill Clinton's administration, and John McCain is just not an option for me. I plan to vote for Barack Obama, and if Hillary Clinton turns out to be the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her, albeit reluctantly. I think Hillary can be controlled by Congress more effectively than McCain can, even though I don't think she's to be trusted, either. To me, there's only one positive candidate in the field of these choices- an intelligent young man, a dithering, too-old war veteran and a willing liar, and I'm going for intelligent.
More anti-Hillary BS. Read the NY Times and watch video clips shown on Olbermann and other places--Hillary WAS told while flying into Tuzla that there WAS sniper fire at the airport. Now we're supposed to stick Hillary with Bill's policy screw-ups and Wal-Mart?
Before you do that, ASK her where she stands on NAFTA, Wal Mart practices, etc. This article is the same kind of BS spin the Neocons have used. Most of us Progressives arn't really that desperate and stupid, but some who write for Common Dreams are. I think I will have to vote Nader again.
I never knew such silly BS could come out of even a former Nader voter. Damn, what cracker jack boxes do you get your ideas out of? It's time for a change on the dawg!
Here's a poem about the hero of the wealthiest 1%, Sam "I Hate Unions" Walton, sung to the theme of "Christmas is Coming".
Christmas is coming and my wallet's getting fat,
If you can't buy the product, then please put it back.
If you haven't got the money, then take a hike my friend,
Because a friend without money is a friend who cannot spend!
Will you Obama fans knock it off? He's Hillary's political twin for god's sake.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference---policy wise---between these two.
Personality differences just don't cut it. A personality isn't going to bring about single payer. A personality isn't going to roll back our military empire around the world. A personality isn't going to bring the oil companies into line and reduce gas prices by a dollar per gallon.
A personality isn't going to restore badly needed government regulation of the housing market.
And on and on. Only a set of progressive policies advocated by an actual progressive is going to bring us all justice.
And that ain't coming from Hillary OR Obama.
This HRC is scary. I just watched, in absolute disbelief,as she stated that an Obama Presidency would be four more years of the Bush presidency. This is more than cynical pandering to the bitterness she denies is out here. It's taking on dimensions of pathological projection...i.e. of her own ambition, given her having repeated her Iraq authorization vote now with regard to Iran. She voted to give it to Bush when she was expecting to inherit the Presidency. I truly cringe at the thought of turning over my civil rigths to this corporate .....
Hillary at Walmart before she dressed up like a Presidential candidate. We all need to pass this information on to everyone we know!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sigkAd3SxxI&NR=1
Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton?? NO WAY.
No third term for the Clinton co-presidency!
McCain-Clinton in 2008!
I hope that Obama takes the gloves off tonight and lets this calculating, triangulating Republikud lowlife have it. I am sick of her attacks on him in a desperate attempt to fool us into voting against our own interests.
Does anyone really believe it makes any difference who the Dems nominate? Or the GOP, for that matter?
The die has already been cast - we just have not been told what the final shape turned out to be.
I have been creating a collage of Hillary Clinton's lies and smears on the walls of my home and although I have 10 rooms in my house I am running out of space.
Thank you Barbara Koeppel for giving us Hillary's real resume. Too bad all those Democrats in Pennsylvania won't see it. I was aware of this, but it's helpful to have it all in order.
Like everyone, she's not all bad, but she does lie more often than she tells the truth.
Bob K, what do you have to say? Just that nobody's perfect?
kathyodat
I love the C word (the one Jane Fonda uttered on national TV recently) in connection with Hillary.
In fact every time I see a picture of Hillary that word comes to mind. Why is that? Perhaps because she's a calculating, self-serving, evil and pathological liar?
Some say Hillary muffed health care in the 1990s. I say Bill muffed health care. He not only went into it seeking to appease corporations, but worse, he appointed a lightweight to manage the issue. HE was president, not her. HE failed miserably to advance the single most important "peoples'" issue by embracing the wrong approach.
As for experience? Both Hillary and John McCain now have the "experience" of being wealthy by tens of millions in net worth by the sole virtue of who they each married. That's not "good" experience, in fact, it's the kind that is tantamount to wearing a blindfold. It renders people incapable of actually "seeing" anything. OBAMA 08!
Hillary is a member of the Bushco Country Club...
You can run as a Dem...say you are a Dem...but if you don't act like one...then...
You can dress like Madonna, sing and dance around like Madonna...but that doesn't make you Madonna...
She lost total credibility with when she had to lie so much and embellish details to make herself appear to be more than she is. And supporting NAFTA...that was the icing on the cake. I wonder, if there is a cherry on top of the cake, or one of the sniper bullets as a conversation piece.
Yoko Clinton. I love it!
For Hillary to claim that she has experience as president since she was married to one, is like Yoko Ono claiming she was a Beatle because she was married to one.
Hillary Clinton is Bush in drag.