What did Hillary accomplish as First Lady?

[ripple]

If, as some believe, Hillary's experience as First Lady should be considered in terms of presidential qualifications, it stands to reason that we should take a good, hard look at what she actually accomplished while in that position.

I've thought this over and the only clear initiative I recall her taking was with health care reform. As we know, her efforts in that area failed, due in no small part to the republican congress. Despite the fact that it eventually failed, I appreciate that she at least cared enough about the issue to make it a priority. Still, she can hardly claim it as an achievement.

I know that she also fought back against the many unscrupulous and downright hateful attacks from the right. So, I suppose one could say that she learned to play down and dirty, take no prisoners, slash and burn politics. For me, that begs the question of just how much integrity has been compromised in the pursuit of power at all costs.

I think I'm likely overlooking some of Hillary's achievements as First Lady and if so, I hope some of you will enlighten me. Rather than trying to start a Hillary-bash by posing this question, I honestly want to have a discussion about an area of Hillary's past (or qualifications, as some believe) that is often mentioned, but seldom critiqued objectively.

Can anyone please enlighten me about what Hillary accomplished in her eight years as First Lady that would enhance her presidential resume?

[aquart]

1. Thank you for your concern.

I'm sure someone will appreciate it. Somewhere.

[patricia92243]

3. LOL - well said! n/t

[nini]

2. was she legislating then?

How about looking at her Senate record since the job of president relates more to being a senator than a 1st lady.

[ripple]

9. That's what I'm saying

Some here have pointed to her years as First Lady as a qualification to be president. I don't really buy into that, but those who do should at least be able to point to some positive things she achieved in that position.

[doggyboy]

38. You are conflating "qualification" and "achievement"

Some qualifications have nothing to do with achievement, per se. Interpersonal skills, certain kinds of experience, and the possession of specialized knowledge aren't considered achievements so much as they are thought as things that reflect well about the person themselves.

[terisan]

4. She had the courage to ID the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy when no other Dem would.

[hippiechick]

5. I'm not a Hillary fan but ...

... wtf does being First Lady have to do with being qualified to be President?

If nothing else, she had 8 years of international exposure that the other candidates (from both parties) haven't.

:shrug:

[ripple]

10. That's my point.

I don't think her years as First Lady, in and of themselves, qualify her to be president? There are a lot of folks who claim that because of her *experience* as First Lady, she is more qualified than the other candidates. I'm asking for specifics from people who believe that.

Good point about the international exposure, especially given the success of our international diplomacy during that time.

[napi21]

18. For one thing, her 8 years in the WH would enable her to already understand

just how the place operates. Although you may think that's no big deal, I think it is. The place is hugh, and has a lot of staff people you have to learn to deal with. To already know who does what, who's responsible for what, and who to talk to to get things done is important.It's also quite an advantage to have been on both the WH & the Congressional side fo the fence. The advantage she has of personally knowing most of the World leaders and having hosted visits by most of them as well as them hosting visits from her in the past sure can't hurt!

If you want a review of a lot of her life accomplishments, you might want to check this link. As much as I've paid fairly close attention to politics over the last 15 or so years, there are a lot of things on that site that I didn't know.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2044.html

[liberal N proud]

6. She attempted to make the position mean more..

more than anyone before her. She was surely more active than the piece of milk toast who treats middle & high school kids like pre-schoolers.
Anything Hillary Clinton tried to accomplish was met by protest from Gingrich and his band of right wing hit men.

[ripple]

12. Good point

I obviously support Obama to get the nod, but I think it would be pretty damned interesting to see Gingrich and Hillary running against each other in the general. :popcorn:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. More than Eleanor Roosevelt?

Still, she was way ahead of Miz Larva, who doesn't do much besides read to children and complain that nobody understands how much she and her addled sot husband *suffer* on account of Iraq.

[liberal N proud]

29. Maybe not Eleanor

She was her own woman as well, and did much for a country when it needed her.

[SaveElmer]

7. The "Adoption and Safe Families Act"

She considers the most important thing she accomplished as firs lady...

[ripple]

11. I wasn't aware of that

Thanks, that's the sort of information I'm looking for.

I don't think being First Lady qualifies one to be president, but if a First Lady takes the initiative and actually accomplished some positive things for the nation, those accomplishments do enhance her resume when it come to presidential aspirations.

[doggyboy]

40. That directly benefited my family

My niece was adopted

[karynnj]

35. She also did push for and get a children's vaccination program

This was the only piece that I know of from her Health care plan.

She did act as the main supporter in the WH on issues like healthcare and education - pushing Bill to be more supportive. On S-CHIP, she joined the previous first ladies and public advocacy groups in lobbying for its passage. Remember there was a heafty Republican majority in the Senate and some of their votes were needed to back the Kennedy and Hatch bill.

[terisan]

8. Had Courage to follow Eleanor Roosevelt model not Pat Nixon model of silly First Lady designation.

[Colobo]

13. First Ladies do not accomplish anything; they are not elected officials.

[ElizabethDC]

16. You can accomplish things without being an elected official

I accomplish things all the time, and nobody elected me.

[hlthe2b]

20. I don't know that there should be an expectation of tangible

accomplishments, given they are not elected. Nonetheless, I would argue that most First Ladies do contribute a great deal in the fact that they are generally a very trusted advisor to their Spouse... And, yes, their unofficial involvement in all kinds of issues as a trusted advisor
DOES constitute experience.

Obviously that implies a First-Lady to President relationship where there is that level of respect and trust. Arguably this is questionable in the current situation, but likewise less obvious from a policy point of view with Jackie and JFK. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that Nancy did influence Ronald and his administration, that Eleanor absolutely influenced FDR, and Hillary unquestionably influenced and had input to the decisions brought forth in the Clinton administration. Sometimes the influence is obvious at the time... In other instances it might be decades before the role of the First Lady on the ultimate policy/decision becomes apparent...

But, yes, that IS invaluable experience, even if unofficial.

[Bitwit1234]

14. Well she had it all over

Nancy Reagan - who got fortune tellers access to the white house.
Laura Bush---- ?????????????????? except for Jeff Gannon running around I don't see what either of the two accomplished as first ladies. And hell's bells Barbara Bush gave old white women a bad name.

[hlthe2b]

15. Wow, it seems..

that one barely needs to read between the lines to be overtaken by condescension, derision, and "snark."

I think we get it.. You don't think much of Hillary Clinton... We get it....:eyes:

[AZBlue]

49. This is just today's anti-Hillary thread on DU.

Same bullshit, different day.

[ripple]

50. No, it isn't. All candidates should be subject to scrutiny

If Hillary's experience in the WH is a part of her record, it is open to critique.

Look around, you will find plenty of candidate-bashing threads. That was not my intent at all. I reject the notion that Hillary's record (or in this case, the perception of her record) is not open for discussion and critique. If you look at my posting history, you will find that I'm not one to unfairly attack candidates.

Has Hillary been unfairly attacked on DU before? Of course she has, as have all of the other *top* candidates. I believe I'm asking a fair question and one that is deserving of a response. If you can't answer or don't want to, that is certainly your prerogative.

It's still a fair question, IMHO.

[AZBlue]

63. Except that no one's talking about her accomplishments in the WH as an advantage as a candidate.

At least no one I've seen or heard. What they are referring to is the fact that having been First Lady she knows better than any other candidate what the President really faces. What the pressures are, what the schedule's like, what the scrutiny and power playing is, and so on. No one else would know these things unless they've been President or were in the "inner circle" during a President's term. No one. No Senator, no Governor, no Representative.

And, whether or not a candidate can handle the life that accompanies the job is indeed relevant. I'm not saying there aren't other candidates out there that could handle it as well as she might - but that's not something that you can tell in advance about another person. In this one area, she does have the advantage here over the other candidates (unless Gore jumps in the race and then they'll both have that advantage, perhaps him more than her).

As for labeling this a Hillary-bashing thread, the overall negative tone and supposed outcome to her detriment did make me feel this was yet another one of those threads. The fact that her accomplishments in the WH has never been an issue put forth by her or her supporters also made me suspicious. And, being an obvious supporter of Obama, if your motives are pure why are you posting negative threads about Hillary instead of posting positive threads about Obama????

Yes, all candidates are being bashed here but that does NOT make it ok. Plus, no one attracts more false accusations or more irrelevant negative threads than Hillary. Except maybe John Edwards over the haircut issue, but that only lasted three days, so he's still far behind HRC in this area. Lucky him.

[Cant trust em]

17. Totally fair question

She's being flaunted as this candidate with all the experience. There was the legislation to keep inappropriate video games out of the hands of children and she's good on women and families issues. Other than that I'm not sure about what leadership she's provided us that's made my life better. Last time I checked she only had four more years experience in the Senate than Barack Obama. If all of the "experience" that she has still leads her to make bad votes for the war then we should ask for better. Clearly I support Obama, or Gore when he decides to run.

[Missy M]

21. She got valuable lessons on how things are....

accomplished from the White House. I'm sure she and the President had many discussions, every day. She also learned how to avoid the pitfalls. Add that to her seven years in the senate and that is a lot of experience.

[Cant trust em]

33. Sadly, I don't think that's enough for president

Being someone's confidant doesn't equal a lot of experience. I'm not saying that she's inexperienced per se, but I don't think that her collective experiences are strong enough to make her the presumptive nominee for president.

[doggyboy]

39. Hillary's experience

includes more than just First Lady and Senator from New York. She has been distinguishing herself since her college days.

At Wellesly College, she was the first student commencement speaker, and the speech she gave made it into the papers across the nation

At Yale Law School, she began advocating for women and children.

After graduation she went to for The Children's Defense Fund. Then she served as only one of two women lawyers on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

Then she moved to Arkansas with Bill and became a partner in Little Rocks most powerful law firm, but only after running a local legal aid office for the poor. She also served on the US Legal Services Corp, which is the entity the Fed govt uses to fund legal aid.

These are just the highlights. I left out the several organizations that she has worked for, led, and/or formed at various times in her life.

[Cant trust em]

60. fantastic, but...

Plenty of people in Washington have had similar experiences as the ones you've just listed. I'm not saying that she's unable to do the job, but her collective experinces aren't enough to catapult her into being the presumptive nominee. Since she has been a national figure she hasn't been a great leader.

[doggyboy]

66. Not true

In fact, most of the candidates have less experience than she has, including the two other "front-runners" Second of all, no one is claiming that her experience makes her the "presumptive nominee" What is being argued is that Hillary has a lot of experience.

[Missy M]

42. In that situation it sure does equal experience, 8 years of it....

not to mention her years as an attorney and her seven years in the senate.

[terisan]

19. Why do you equate standing up to "hateful attacks" as being "down and dirty."

Do you have some examples of Hillary Clinton engaging in "slash and burn" politics?

[Inspired]

22. I don't think it is an issue BUT.....

this is what bothers me.

I receive many polling phone calls because I live in Iowa. Last week I received a call that really pissed me off. First of all it lasted 45 minutes before I realized I was being hoodwinked.

The caller started off by asking me who I was supporting in the caucus. Then they asked me my second choice. I replied:

1. John Edwards
2. Barack Obama

They asked about Hillary. I said that electing a Clinton was not the kind of change that I feel our country desperately needs. Case closed? Hardly.

They then went into a line of questions that directly linked Hillary to Bill's presidency. It was all about the things that Hillary AND Bill brought us in the 90's. At one point I chuckled and reminded the caller that Hillary was NOT the president then.

They asked many questions to the point of being ridiculous. I admit I was slow to catch on. Until...they asked questions like:

If I was to tell you that Hillary Clinton's father raised her to be considerate of others and to respect people from all walks of life would you feel more favorable, less favorable, slightly more, slightly less?

There were about 3 more questions like this. I mean how can you say anything negative about things like that?

Then the clincher...they asked a question that went kind of like this:

If I was to tell you that John Edwards chased ambulances and was a proponent of frivolous lawsuits would you feel more favorable, less favorable, slightly more, slightly less?

I hung up.

IF you are a Hillary supporter out there...call your local campaign office and tell them that some Iowans actually get it. I thought I was participating in an honest poll. This is the exact thing that turns me off and I am having serious doubts about voting for Hillary if she becomes the nominee. Yes, politics is a dirty game but I don't have to play.

[Missy M]

25. Are you sure this poll was done by Hillary's campaign?

I can't imagine Hillary would allow questions like the one regarding John Edwards.

[Inspired]

26. Who do you think did the poll?

The line of questioning made it very apparent to me.

[Missy M]

27. I don't know. Didn't they identify who they were with.

I am going to contact her office and ask if she is aware of this. I will use your words on what they asked about John Edwards. I know she wouldn't tolerate that.

[Inspired]

30. They identified themselves

as some polling place. I don't recall the name since that part of the call lasted 2 seconds.

Since you are a supporter I understand why you would have a hard time believing her campaign was part of something like this. It was so obvious though. I knew something was funny when they started using the phrase 'Hillary and Bill' when referring to Bill's successes. I played along until it got negative against another candidate.

Now...why would some obscure polling center place a call like this if they weren't trying to push Hillary? I wonder if was really a poll but a way to smear another candidate in the eyes of someone who stated they were a supporter. Isn't that kind of what happened to McCain in South Carolina? And, as disgusting as it was, it worked.

Please call the campaign office. I'm sure they will admit it, right? Just tell them that I got the message loud and clear. Not the message they wanted me to get, but the true message.

[Missy M]

32. OK....

I'll tell them it was "some polling place".

[karynnj]

36. Like Missy M, I question if this was Hillary's campaign

This seems far too blatant and obvious. Also a 45 minute call - I can't imagine anyone would design that and have it accepted by the campaign.

[Inspired]

41. Don't forget, I hung up after 45 minutes.

Who knows how long it would have lasted if I had stated my preference was Clinton. The line of questioning I received was slanted towards her, as I stated before. Why would any objective polling center do that?

If I had stated my first preference was someone else, it might have gone negative towards them. Or is it just a coincidence that it was negative against Edwards?

All I know is that it left a bad taste in my mouth. My first thought after the call was that the 'Clinton machine' must be very worried about Iowa.

[karynnj]

44. Interesting

It is true that they have equated Hill to Bill on accomplishments for a long time. the sad thing is that few people will dispute that. The competitors are essentially running against the last Democratic President of the US - with added advantage of being able to reject "the bad" while taking all the good.

[Cant trust em]

61. If I was to tell you that....

last night I saw Hillary Clinton doing a pole dance at the gold club after doing blow with GWB would you feel more favoable, less favorable, etc...

[elocs]

23. As someone who is undecided and not a Senator Clinton fan, let me ask

if this is so important to know, why do not Obama or Edwards simply ask it themselves? Why exactly does it need to be asked in a roundabout way by their supporters on the web? If it is a legitimate question they should be able to ask it right out in the open.

[wyldwolf]

43. I would say because Obama and Edwards already know

[elocs]

45. I would assume they pose and ask many questions about things they already know.

The question would be asked for us to know and if it is good enough to be asked by one of their supporters, then it should be good enough to be asked by the candidates themselves. Or is that impolite for a candidate to ask, so it is left to supporters to pose the question as a mouthpiece for the candidate of their choice?

[wyldwolf]

56. all of that is completely beside the point. Obama and Edwards know full well the answer...

...and would look foolish to raise it as an issue.

[elocs]

59. Right, so what is the point of bringing up the question and the issue?

Is it so that the candidate can have plausible deniability to claim that they would never ask such a question. But the question is asked, the issue is raised and it is out there. I am undecided and Senator Clinton would only get my vote in the general election, but I much prefer to see candidates build themselves up rather than tear their opponents down (particularly other Democrats in the primaries) under the guise of "informing" us.

[wyldwolf]

64. there is no point, other than netroot supporters playing junior opposition researchers

[ripple]

69. Well, I mucked that up, then

I researched nothing. I merely posed a question, in order to a)see if I missed some substantial accomplishments during Hillary's tenure as First Lady, and b) to point out that if her former status as First Lady is a major selling point on her presidential resume, what she accomplished during that time should be carefully considered. Hell, I didn't even talk about failures, other than the health care thing. And even then, I didn't blame her.

I posed a question that provided a platform for both Hillary's supporters and detractors. And a fair question, at that.

[ripple]

46. I didn't post by proxy

The campaign is early, so perhaps the other candidates will pose the same question. Or not. I support Obama, but I don't work for the campaign.

This is just something I've been thinking about as I see so many people people tout Hillary's *experience* in the WH as one of her primary qualifications for the presidency.

[elocs]

48. I am talking about things the candidates cannot or will not say,

so their supporters (not necessarily campaign workers) pose the questions for them just to inform the rest of us. Particularly when it comes to the shortcomings or supposed shortcomings or stances of another candidate. Tell me what Obama has, not what Senator Clinton lacks because I am more impressed with that tactic.

[ripple]

53. I simply shared my own thoughts and posed a question

I wasn't looking to convince anyone of anything with this thread. If you look at other things I've posted, I have shared my rationale for supporting Obama- and on at least a couple of occasions, I've come to Hillary's defense when she has been unfairly attacked, as well.

I don't believe my question was at all unfair or unwarranted and yes, supporters of candidates throw shit out for discussion all of the time. I like politics and I like discussing politics. :shrug:

[elocs]

58. Never said it was unfair or unwarranted.

The question is, why doesn't Obama come flat out and ask it? If it is fair and warranted, then it should be a simple question to ask. Sure it is the type of question that anybody can ask, but it is in particular the type of question that candidates have others ask for them. My guess is that you will never, ever see Obama pose that question about Clinton.

[ripple]

62. He already knows the answer

There will be a lot of questions we ask each other that won't be addressed directly by the candidates. When it comes to this particular question, I'm guessing he would never ask it, because he wouldn't want to provide her with an opening to promote herself.

[zulchzulu]

28. A few things...

Senator Clinton's experience as First Lady:

- allowed her to go to different countries and meet with leaders

- allowed her to see what the media is like and how it can try to destroy people, sometimes with success

- allowed her to see ust how difficult it is to change healthcare policy

- allowed her to see how her husband can't be trusted with other women

- allowed her to get name recognition

- allowed her to make some decent money on book deals

- allowed her to be able to use her name recognition to run successfully for the Senate

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. The health care fiasco that led to the disaster of 1994 nt

[BeyondGeography]

34. If she becomes President

staying married to The Big Creep will have to go down as her most meaningful accomplishment.

[wyldwolf]

37. sure. Here it is again

I just heard/read that charge, or an equivalent of it, again. Hillary Clinton has no record of leadership. That is why she is unsuitable to be President. Specious at best...

I don't buy into the charge against Clinton because I remember the 90s well. I remember after losing the debate on healthcare reform, President Clinton sought to keep Hillary's influence in his administration low key. But the public record, quotes from administration officials and other leaders, tell a different tale.

When asked about his wife's role in his administration in August of 2000, President Bill Clinton said "She basically had an unprecedented level of activity in her present position over the last eight years.''

Her record as First Lady, Hillary Clinton says, includes work on a major Clinton administration child-care initiative, a huge federal-state children's health insurance program, adoption and foster care bills and foreign aid appropriations for small loans overseas.

''The record's there, and what I did is sort of self-evident I think, but it may come as new information to a lot of people,'' Mrs. Clinton said in an interview in 2000.

Pressed later about whether her new descriptions of acting as, in essence, a senior presidential adviser went beyond the job of first lady, Mrs. Clinton laughed out loud and said: ''I'm not going to have it any more. And the next first lady doesn't have to do it.''

Agency heads, other administration officials, Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill generally confirm Mrs. Clinton's assertions, but say that her role was kept quiet to avoid the kind of vilification she had attracted over her central part in health care policy.

Mrs. Clinton described her White House issues staff, which had offices in both the West Wing and the old Executive Office Building, ''as part of the domestic policy operation in the White House.'' Although she also had a small staff in the East Wing to handle first lady social responsibilities, Mrs. Clinton said that ''I realized very soon that, you know, if I had some first lady staff over here, I wouldn't be able to get things done.''

She said that she and her policy staff had the responsibility for pushing legislation and programs that would benefit children, women and health care -- issues that have concerned her, she said, for the last 30 years.

Mrs. Clinton's Democratic supporters on Capitol Hill echo her claims.

''Her office and her in particular were key allies of ours and the progressives in the Senate who were trying to pursue an agenda in the areas of children, education, health care and job training,'' said Nick Littlefield, who worked with Senator Edward M. Kennedy and was the staff director to the Health, Education and Labor Committee at the time. He added that ''once we discovered that Mrs. Clinton was running a public advocacy organization inside the White House, it followed automatically that we would start talking to her.''

She said, for example, that the Clinton administration program to guarantee free immunizations for poor and uninsured children, passed in 1993, ''was basically drafted in my office under my supervision.'' The program was a precursor to health care and its policy was largely rejected by Congress, but the Clinton administration did get $585 million for vaccines.

Mrs. Clinton also said that her staff had a large part in the development of the Corporation for National Service, the Clinton administration's domestic version of the Peace Corps.

''I hired Shirley Sagawa, who had been Ted Kennedy's person on national service, and so basically it was my staff that was involved in drafting that legislation,'' she said.

Eli J. Segal, the first chief executive of the Corporation for National Service and the 1992 Clinton campaign chief of staff, called the first lady's assertion ''100 percent correct.''

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.''

She also said she helped to write bills on adoption and foster care, and lobbied for them.

At the end of the 1997 Congressional session, Representative Dave Camp, a conservative Michigan Republican who was frantically negotiating to save an adoption bill, got a call in the House cloakroom from Mrs. Clinton.

''It was 9:30 or 10 at night,'' Mr. Camp recalled. ''I thought only Congressional night owls did that. I was surprised. You know, you're working wearily on these things, and you're worrying whether this is doing any good.'' Mrs. Clinton gave him a pep talk, Mr. Camp said, and told him the bill was worth it.

''I want to be honest,'' he said. ''It was helpful to me.''

The bill, an administration priority intended to speed up the adoption of children in foster care, had been heavily promoted by Mrs. Clinton on Capitol Hill. Four days after her call, it passed the House and Senate and was soon signed into law by the president.

Others in the Clinton Administration said that they learned to count on Mrs. Clinton as more than a spokeswoman.

''I don't think that the Endowment would be alive today if it weren't for strong White House support, and I'm sure she plays a very important role,'' said Jane Alexander, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

At the Agency for International Development, Brian Atwood, the administrator, said of Mrs. Clinton's grasp of complex development issues: ''She understands these issues better than 90 percent of the people who operate within the foreign policy community.''

Mrs. Clinton has been working with A.I.D. to import to inner cities lessons learned abroad, on child immunization, for example, and inexpensive techniques to combat diarrhea. She has taken a particularly strong interest in ''microenterprise lending,'' or efforts in developing nations and troubled cities to lend small amounts of money for new businesses, often run by women.

It is no coincidence, Mr. Atwood said, that the Administration is seeking to slightly increase the budget for A.I.D. next year. ''She deserves more credit for that,'' he said, ''than anyone.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E7DA143FF932A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E6D9133BF933A15752C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Oddly enough, the GOP (who swore up and down that Hillary was running the White House) will now tell you she had no leadership role. Unfortunately, some on the left - out of political convenience - agree.

[wyldwolf]

52. so, did the OP really want an answer?

[ripple]

54. Of course I want an answer

I appreciate the article and like SaveElmer's post up-thread, it enlightened me to things I didn't know about Hillary. When it comes to presidential qualifications, that is the sort of information I would prefer to see, rather than 'she spent eight years in the WH'.

Thank you! :hi:

[wyldwolf]

55. well, glad you read it.

[karynnj]

65. This is a nice article and it does a good job listing her accomplishments

I still see that she inflated one thing - SCHIP. The reason this is important is that it is used to balance the failed health care program. Read these two sentences -

"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."

As I have posted this was KENNEDY's accomplishment. They enlisted her help in spring 1997 in gaining the support of Bill Clinton and to generate public support. This is major - but it is not "helped to initiate" which her aide has turned to "initiate". Kennedy's effort started in 1996 when he and Kerry wrote the bill to do this that was modified (significantly - to allow the states to design it as they wanted and to not make it an entitlement) and by working with Hatch in early 1997 to get a bill that sufficeient Republicans would vote for.

[doggyboy]

67. Actually, it is "helped to initiate"

Initiate, by itself is an exagerration. IMO, the helping part qualifies it appropriately. And the 1996 bill did not happen in a vacuum. It happened during a time when many politicians were talking about the need to expand coverage to children in the wake of the defeat of the UHC managed care plan.

And the article you quote from makes it clear that while Kennedy and Kerry were pushing for this, Hillary had a bill that she was pushing. That was the bill that Hatch objected to. And without Hillary's help in allaying Bill's "skittishness", the bill may not have passed, making her claim to have "helped initiate" it true IMO.

If "initiating" a bill means writing it or introducing it to Congress, then she didn't help initiate it. But if it means actually getting the bill passed (a definition I find reasonable) then her claim to have helped is true. And note, she doesn't say she helped initiate the bill. She says she helped initiate the program.

[karynnj]

72. Hatch was objecting to what he called "Hillary care - the 1993 work,

initiate means "to start". As I said this article said "helped", but in a recent comment from a staffer, the help was dropped.

My point is that she very clearly was the person they could go to in the WH for help - she was far more positive on it than Bill. She also worked very hard to build support for it. Those were important roles and should be described for what they were. In fact, as President the fact that she can be shown to have been willing to push for these things is important. She has no reason to be seen as trying to oversell what she did here because healthcare is an area of strength.

[AtomicKitten]

47. She pissed off the wingnuts and it was wonderful.

n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

51. she accomplished being the most devisive first lady in history.

even alienating many in her own party.

[doggyboy]

68. Yes, it really pissed Lieberman off

.

[The Count]

70. zing!!!!! A beaut!

[mitchum]

57. She learned how to be really DLC

[ddeclue]

71. She screwed up getting us national healthcare....n/t