More debunking of the Left-Wing hit piece on Hillary in the "Nation"...

[SaveElmer]

First Berman could not even be bothered to check the public record on the 2005 Bankruptcy bill, musing about whether Hillary would have voted for it or not...when in fact she had stated publically, and forcefully that she would not vote for it...

And the little tidbit that she was one of only 29 Senators to vote AGAINST cloture was also conveniently left out...as was Edwards stronger role on behalf of both the 2001 and 2005 Acts...

Now this on the 2002 Welfare bill from an astute poster over at Kos...further exposing Berman as another left wing hack with a predetermined thesis of Hillary as devil, and then cherry picking "evidence" to support it...

What Hillary did in 2002 in regards to Welfare Reform
by nodular
Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:41:31 PM PDT

Setting the record straight.

There has recently been a bit of a stir in the blogosphere in the form of the repetition of an inflammatory quote from an article in The Nation.

I have done a little digging and uncovered the facts of the case. Hillary did agree to an increase in the amount that mothers on welfare would have to work. However, her position was part of the negotiation that won numerous benefits in return. In the event, this turned out to be a transitory agreement in the bill negotiating process which did not end up as part of the actual bill that was passed.

* nodular's diary :: ::
*

The Attack Quote from The Nation

The cause of the fuss is a quote from a future article in the Nation---"Hillary Inc." (It really is a future article. The article is in the June 4, 2007 issue, but was posted May 17, 2007.)

The Nation

"In 2002 she backed a harsh position on welfare reform reauthorization that put her at odds even with conservative Republicans like Orrin Hatch."

What Actually Happened

from:

The New York Times, May 22, 2002

"Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat, has joined a group of moderate and conservative Democratic senators in supporting a bill to increase the work requirement for welfare recipients to 37 hours a week, a significant increase over the current 30 hours. Mr. Bush would require 40 hours.

"In an interview this afternoon, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that she had initially been reluctant to back the new work requirements. But she said she decided to support them after the bill's two main Senate sponsors, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, agreed to tie them to $8 billion in child care funding.

"Mrs. Clinton and her aides also noted that she had secured more money for Medicaid, immigrants' benefits, and education and training for welfare recipients. In addition, Mrs. Clinton noted that the Senate bill maintained limited exemptions from work requirements for mothers of children under 6.

"...Mrs. Clinton pointed out that the Senate bill was far better than one that the Republican-led House had advanced at Mr. Bush's urging. The House bill imposes a work requirement of 40 hours a week, and does not provide nearly as much money for child care. 'It's a vast improvement,' she said. 'It's not even comparable.'"

Perspective: The 2002 Welfare Activist Response

From reading the article (which I recommend) one gathers that this was something of a watershed moment for Hillary Clinton. Up until this point, she was seen as a progressive, as a member of the Left. Progressives, welfare activists, and others felt betrayed by Hillary.

Nonetheless, she was working within the political system to get what she felt at the time, was the best bill she could attain. With Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the White House, Hillary knew that compromises would have to be made and was willing to make them.

[Warpy]

1. She runs consistently 80% progressive in her votes

While individual votes may appear self serving or even boneheaded due to the natures of compromise, misinformation and fear, her performance has been solidly moderate. I have no doubt she would be an adequate president and, should she be the nominee, I will vote for her.

She's just not one of my favorites, and I think the states are too high right now to take a chance on running her against all the propaganda we know will curse her campaign. Plus, I fear legacy candidates with good reason.

My eyes tend to glaze over from either extreme of Hillary article, the trashing or the canonization. I skipped this one in the Nation. Unfortunately, the dispassionate articles are as easy to find as four leaf clovers in the NM desert, and therein lies her problem.

[Bitwit1234]

2. Certainly makes you wonder

if all these so called left wingers are left wingers at all. Maybe they are repubs in disguise.

With all the wonderful examples of candidates from the republican side to post information that they have researched, why do so called people from the left continue to slur and slam Hillary Clinton.

If they took as much time to dig into the republicans politcos they might find something.

Come on folks give it a rest. Hillary, Obama, Edwards et al are DEMOCRATS.....stop slamming them....go after the republicans.

[karynnj]

6. They are not Republicans

Of course they should spend at least as much time on the Democrats now as on the Republicans. Just as they did in 2003. The first decision to make is who should represent us as the nominee. I don't think we should make that decision based on simply a comparison of what they put up on their web sites.

There is nothing written here that I haven't read before. The only thing I would have trouble with is someone writing something that is not true. Only if it is something they have personal knowledge of that they know would never be known by the Republicans could it conceivably give ammunition to the Republicans that they otherwise wouldn't have.

[Forkboy]

8. Why do people on the left continue to slur and slam Clinton?

She generates a lot of bad blood.Some for valid reasons,some for dumb reasons.

Why do her supporters engage in the same behavior? Ever see how THEY talk about those on the left.

Both sides attack the other constantly,and both will say they were pushed first.They will try to out post each other with "gotcha" stories full of innuendo and skimpy on facts.I worry strongly about the ones who only see one set of attacks,while pretending that the side they're on doesn't do the same.

I'm a proud "lefty" and I'll readily admit there a lot of attacks on the mushy center from us,and Hillary specifically,some valid,a lot that aren't.And I have no problems with the attacks back at us,also some valid and many that aren't.But a certain group of vocal Hillary defenders engage in the very thing they claim to hate see being used against her.They post the same crap stories that would pop their foreheads veins if someone posted something like that about Hillary.A few of her supporters are as nasty,spiteful and obnoxious as anyone they rail against.

Watch the upcoming months with Obama fans and Hillary fans and if you look with a critical eye you'll see members from both sides being total hypocrites and whining about the things people say about their choice.And to show how much they hate those tactics they'll do the same thing. :crazy:

There's always been a LOT of selective outrage on DU,and it looks like it will continue for a long time to come.

[Larkspur]

12. She's a whore for corporate interests and supports outsourcing good paying American jobs

overseas. She and Bill have close ties to the Asian Indian community and they see no problem with the outsourcing of high tech jobs to India.

Hillary is DLC. The DLC are pro-corporate and are the major reason why Democrats could not win recontorl of Congress when Bill was president. The DLC and the Clintons basically sacrificed the tradional Democratic bases in favor of corporate money. The Clintons are Eisenhower Republicans. They said so themselves.

[Missy M]

3. Great find Elmer, thank you......

people like Berman don't like to tell the whole story because it doesn't suit their agenda. In politics, as in life, you sometimes have to give something to get something.

[guruoo]

4. K&R - kudos, a great find indeed n/t

[Tellurian]

5. Thanks, for the heads up..

I never did like anyone with the first name Ari..

[karynnj]

7. She was good on the 2005 bill

but I do not understand what role Edwards had in 2005 - he was not in the Senate. The fact is that she did vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2001. It was pretty similar to the one that passed in 2005. As she voted differently in 2005, did she ever explain this welcome change?

[wyldwolf]

9. typical of leftwing hacks. Same as rightwing hacks

[Telly Savalas]

11. And "centrist" hacks as well.

[wyldwolf]

14. well, then, show me an example of a centrist writing something factually inaccurate like in the OP.

[Telly Savalas]

15. Pick up a copy of the New Republic.

[omega minimo]

10. There's a Left Wing?

:wow:

[Perry Logan]

13. We're a nation of lefties

There sure is a left wing, Omega! You might want to cut down on your consumption of mainstream media.

In poll after poll, 80% of Americans favor stronger environmental legislation. 80% of us favor Social Security. Two-thirds of us support the UN, more gun control, and a national healthcare system. It goes on and on like that, on issue after issue. You don't hear about it much, because the game is heavily rigged in favor of the right. But we're really a nation of lefties.