Why Did Hillary Fail in Her Only Real Attempt at Policy Reform: Health Care?

[Bonobo]

And why did she give up on real change afterward?

I mean, now it seems she thinks its okay if companies reap profits off the health care system.

Isn't she just a beaten and failed idealist who has thrown in the towel and now plays ball with the right people?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. She's not ready until day one of her presidency.

It's gonna be awhile.

[surfermaw]

38. Too many darn republicans trying to kill it, Obama will do no better UNLESS we have dem. in both h.

[Bonobo]

40. He will have a real mandate for change.

[knixphan]

41. We need 60% -

[Bonobo]

42. Nope, we need 51% and some conviction.

[polpilot]

48. Conviction = 90% done in that position. Watch Michelle's RESULTS.

[JVS]

2. incompetence

[BuyingThyme]

3. She obviously hates sick people.

[polpilot]

52. Naw..just not too concerned about the less fortunate, that's all.

As long as Bill & Poppy Bush can play golf & laugh then all's good.

[Kittycat]

4. In great part - Lack of transparency/secret meetings.

sound familiar. She still can't shake that bad habit.

[backscatter712]

15. Exactly. She went behind closed doors, made up the policy without input from others,

then tried to shove it down Congress' throat.

She didn't understand cooperation or collaboration then, and she still doesn't understand now, as she tries to shove herself down the Democratic Party's throat even though she doesn't have the delegates or the popular vote.

[Bonobo]

22. That jibes with what Tatiana was saying as well.

I was living in Japan at the time and never really understood what had happened. Thanks.

[Kittycat]

26. This also contributed to us losing the house.

[niceypoo]

31. I am curious where you got this little theory of yours...

please share it with us...

[goodgd_yall]

27. Somehow

I think the reasons you state are the rewriting of history by people who don't want to own up to the antagonism of the health care industry toward health care reform.

[Kittycat]

28. It was doomed from the start, and rewriting had nothing to do with it.

I was a free thinking, voting adult when all this occurred, not a school girl - so don't mistake me for an idiot.

Whenever you go "secret" and lock the lawmakers out, your plan will get no where. Especially when it's a plan that will impact taxes.

[goodgd_yall]

34. Well, pardonez-moi

I also was a free-thinking and voting adult. My sense was that those making a profit with the health care status quo were not going to buy into changing anything that would affect their profits.

I doubt health care reform, at that time, could garner enough support. I think introducing it back then has lain the groundwork for it being, at the very least, considered once again. And with so many uninsured people and higher costs, health care reform is now looking more like a necessity.

[WyLoochka]

50. 60 Fucking Years

Since Harry Truman advocated and introduced Universal Health Care

60 FUCKING YEARS - GOD DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit - spl - I'm pissed..

[cornermouse]

36. Ahhh. I see.

She and Bill should have just rammed it through Congress like George and Dick have done for the last 7+ years....

[Exilednight]

35. It's reminiscent of Cheney's Energy meetings. n/t

[KittyWampus]

5. Bill put an incompetent crony, Ira Magaziner, on the case with Hillary. They ignored all the work

other politicians and experts had done.

[andym]

72. Ira Magaziner was a major problem

Agreed, Ira Magaziner's insistence on creating a completely new way (and complex) to implement universal health care was a major problem.

[tularetom]

6. She lacks the personality and charisma to sell any concept

so she gave up on her ideals and got in bed with the insurance companies.

[anamandujano]

7. $300 million in Repuke ads to bamboozle the public and assassinate

her character. Most of you are using their talking points right now.

At this point the public knows they've been sold a bill of goods, the same one Bama is trying to sell them now with his bandaid approach.

Everyone will be behind Hillary's plan this time. Everyone knows they need it.

[Bonobo]

8. So why is it okay for money-makers and ins. companies to be in now?

[EmilyAnne]

9. I've asked this question many times, but never got a satisfactory response.

She presented her care plan to a Democratic-controlled Congress to no avail. If she couldn't get her own party together on this, I just don't have much faith in her ability to pull it off.

And then there is this from Wikipedia.
"In September 2007, former Clinton Administration senior health policy advisor Paul Starr published an article named 'The Hillarycare Mythology', where he asserted that Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, was the driving force behind the plan at all stages of its origination and development; that the task force headed by Hillary Clinton quickly became useless and was not the primary force behind formulating the proposed policy; and that 'Not only did the fiction of Hillary's personal responsibility for the health plan fail to protect the president at the time, it has also now come back to haunt her in her own quest for the presidency.'"

REFERENCED from this article by Paul Starr:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_hillarycare_mythology

[ldf]

10. what?

you mean at the beginning of the clinton presidency when, as soon as she came out with the beginnings of ANY type of plans, EVERY republican and EVERY for-profit healthcare lobbyist, and EVERY pharmacy industry lobbyiest, PLUS many democratic "leaders" landed on her with BOTH FEET?

try paying attention, rather than trying to re-write history just so you can do a smear job.

%$#^#$^%$%^$#%$#%$# asshole.

and who said that the health care industry must only be allowed to break even? no one.

it was a start.

but they couldn't even allow a start, because they may result in discussion, give and take, compromise, and EGADS! possibly a better way!

DO YOU HATE AMERICA????????

[Bonobo]

13. With a Democratic House, she couldn't do shit! Why expect something now?

She is ineffectual. She cannot put together a coalition.

She is unlikeable, uncharismatic, and impolitic.

Why do you hate Progressives?

Why do you vote with the conservative-side of the party?

Do you want Bill back that much?

[niceypoo]

32. Then why are you so absolutely obsessed with her?

...and why have you been so for months on end?

Just curious...

[ldf]

49. why do i vote conservative?

i don't. i have voted for one republican, once. carter over ford, because i was very leery of carter's core of religious beliefs. boy did i get that wrong. he was the best president we have had in my lifetime.

but let's get something clear about "conservative" and "progressive". labels are used for nothing but smears.

there is no clear definition of either, anymore.

i am pro-woman/pro-choice, pro-gay (obviously), equal rights for all, regardless of race. but i also DON'T believe that anytime someone doesn't get their way they can play the sexism or racism card.

i am a strong believer in separation of church and state.

for "sexism", i think we men have fucked it up for FAR too long. it may do the nation a little good to have someone who can express a little emotion, in the whitehouse. all that machismo was a big part of why we are in the mess we are in. we need a break from the testosterone poisoning. hillary is a good, seasoned candidate for that.

and i, personally, do not think that hillary has played the race card against obama. I HAVE, because i feel that the only reason he has been given the play he has gotten is because he is black, and attractive. and he has a built in base that is loyal to a fault.

i am also pro-gun ownership for the purposes of personal defense of self and mine, but more importantly defense from my very own government (but it doesn't give me the right to a tank or a shoulder missle launcher), pro-capital punishment (when there is absolutely irrefutable evidence, beyone a shadow of a doubt, WHO committed the heinous crime), and believe that we can NOT continue to give refuge to any and everyone who manages to sneak into this country (and hold the business community responsible for propping up this situation due to an unwillingness to pay livable wages).

i am 100% against the iraq war, the afganistan war. if we should be at war with anyone it should be saudi arabia because THEY were the occupants of the planes. but at the same time, i believe we should get OUT of their countries. we are there for the corporation$, nothing more.

although he purports himself to be the agent of "change" i just sure as hell don't see obama as the "liberal/progressive" he claims to be. but that is just my take. i won't resort to vile and vicious snarks just to promote hillary.

regarding hillary, when everyone is working against you, it is not necessarily your fault. that also doesn't mean that you are not the best person for the job.

DEMOCRATS can't put together a coalition. witness this forum. we can not WAIT to smear each other in the most vicious and vile terms.

i may not support obama, but i do NOT smear him.

he doesn't have the experience needed. he is where he is because he is black, and the black community is voting for him en masse. you will see how that resonates when the rest of the nation has to choose between obama and mccain. i happen to think the chances are better between hillary and mccain.

i am an atheist. i don't respond to the "preacher sermon" type of speech delivery. it, in fact, turns me off. again, i am BIG on separation of church and state.

but i am not going to make baseless accusations against obama. i think he would be great, with a little more experience under his belt.

hillary is unlikeable? at least half the democratic party differs with that opinion.

hillary is uncharismatic? well, if you dislike someone to start with, that is a forgone conclusion, isn't it?

impolitic? dare i mention mcclurkin and wright?

i will say that i WAS a big fan of bill. but the more time passes, the more critical i have become. i see mistakes, but i also realize the political realities he was dealing with at the time.

i do think that hillary was very active in the clinton presidency, and already is on a first name basis with many world leaders. that alone, is a major plus for her.

i WILL say that bill has the good will of the world, and on that level, he can sure do a LOT more than ms. obama.

so, thank you for your opinion. it was given the consideration it deserved.

[Bonobo]

53. Thank you for your post as well. I will not say you are wrong about what you say.

The experience point is your best in my opinion. It has merit.

However I don't think Hillary really has any advantage in the experience department over Obama.

Take care.

[cornermouse]

11. You're wrong.

The failure of healthcare reform during Bill's presidency is no more her fault than what Obama's pastor said is somehow Obama's fault. I wish you guys would stop setting up all these false scenarios, propositions, etc.

The failure of healthcare reform should properly be laid at the door the Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and the republican party and the vendetta they pursued against the Clintons.

The controversy about Obama's pastor is the fault of the media and their hysterical drive to find tabloid journalism which we encourage because we listen to it and we buy it.

[papau]

12. My insurance compay lobbyists tricked Bill just as they had tricked Nixon in 73 - promised to go

along with universal health insurance plan if profits not affected - and Dems jumped to please the insurance industry.

meanwhile we made the $20 million investment in the famous Harry and Louise ads paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's supposed complex, bureaucratic nature.

Time, CBS News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor ran stories questioning whether there really was a health-care crisis.

Op-eds were written against it, including one in The Washington Post by University of Virginia Professor Martha Derthick that said:“ In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete ... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.”

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated "there is no health care crisis."

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated "anyone who thinks (the Clinton health care plan) can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."

[anamandujano]

20. Moynihan certainly embraced his socialized health care plan, probably

the best in the world.

It's true that in his isolated world there was no crisis.

[papau]

66. Historians that think they are economist/lawyers/actuaries do have a large ego and find it easy

to dump progressive ideas that in their view aren't perfect (I fought Moynihan on Social Security where he like Bush wanted to replace it with separate accounts).

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Two Reasons

1. Inability to compromise.
2. The most complicated plan imaginable.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. Newt and First

[atal]

17. Was she reigned in by the lobbyists?

Maybe she realized you can't go against the tide and fight Washington.... Does it make her a LOSER or a REALIST?? (that's what I want to know)

[goodgd_yall]

30. That's what my answer to the OP would be

She's become a realist. If you have an entrenched successful industry like health insurance, how can you cut them out of the picture?
I also have read that her plan was extremely complicated, but I doubt that was the real reason it didn't get anywhere.

[atal]

37. just read an article on Obama

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070826/3obama_2.htm

Some critics say that if he wins the presidency, the partisan divisions and rancor of Washington would quickly overwhelm him. But his wife, also a lawyer, says Altgeld gave him the skills to bring Washington's warring factions together. "Barack is not one of those people who fight for the sake of fighting," says Michelle Obama. He's "willing to do it when it's necessary," but he knows "you have to keep the door open" to deal with the other side.

End Quote


You'll see from the article, which speaks well about Obama, that he only spent 3 years at Altgeld, yet it was enough to give him skills to take on Washington..!!

I feel Clinton has refined skills to deal with Washington over the years, but Altgeld IS NOT in any way imaginable a place to learn how to deal with Washington, IMHO.

Having said that, Clinton is NOT a candidate for change. With her I feel we'd get the "same old" all over again.

[Tatiana]

18. Several reasons.

She was attacked so viciously by the health care industry that I think this is where she began to think playing along to get along would be an OK way to go. That was the first time Hillary had taken on a corporation and I don't think she had the knowledge of what she was up against, nor the political savvy to fight them off or beat them back.

Bill put her in an untenable position. She had no official position in the WH other than first lady. Yet he gave her one of the greatest policy challenges of that time. Instead of being open about the meetings of the task force and taking her case to the public, her mindset was to develop a government policy and force it on the American public without the open debate that such an undertaking required. When various DEMOCRATIC Congressional members tried to give their input, they were not listened to or even invited to sit at the table and take part in the deliberations.

Winning is the most important thing to Hillary, IMO. No longer is it about winning on the right issues or winning on the merits of an idea, but her goal is just to win and defeat "the enemy" whoever that enemy may be. So instead of building coalitions and tailoring her own message to win on a just and valid policy position, she crafts or changes the policy position to ensure she will have enough support/votes to win, period. She's the complete opposite of someone like Al Gore or Howard Dean, who started off in the centrist school of thought and gradually moved themselves further left to line up with good public policy. During her political career, she started off to the left of her centrist/conservative husband and has, over time, migrated further right as she believes (along with the DLC) that this method will ensure victory.

[Bonobo]

21. The best analysis I have read, IMHO. Thank you, Tatiana.

[anamandujano]

23. Congratulations, you've got the Repuke talking points down pat.

[Tatiana]

47. Actually, I don't need "talking points" to formulate an intelligent opinion.

Maybe you should take a look at Vicente Navarro's account (who was Jesse Jackson's senior health advisor):

Paul Starr sold managed care to candidate Bill Clinton. Of course, Starr and another leader of the White House task force, Walter Zelman, were aware of some drawbacks of this scheme, and they modified it to allow for some form of regulation of the ill-defined market forces--without specifying, however, who would do the regulating. They spoke of Health Alliances that would regulate the rate of growth of premiums and would allow, in theory, for consumer choice of health plans, with large employers operating on their own outside the regulatory process but still within the framework of managed care competition (with budget constraints); health insurers and health care providers could be integrated in the same organization, or Health Plans. While managed care competition was the proposal favored by insurers and large employers, it was not favored by health care providers. Providers had already had enough experience with insurance companies to know that they could be more intrusive, abusive, and nasty than government. And managed care was certainly not the choice of the grassroots of the Democratic Party--labor unions and social movements.

Concerned that managed care was not backed by the majority of the progressive base of the Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Rivera (then president of Local 1199, the foremost health care workers union), and I went to see Hillary Clinton. We complained about the commitment to managed care competition without due consideration of a single-payer proposal supported by large sectors of the left in the Democratic Party. We emphasized the need to include this proposal among those to be considered by the task force. Mrs. Clinton responded by asking Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition to appoint someone to the task force with that point of view. And this is how I became a member of the White House task force. I later found out that there was considerable opposition from senior health advisors, including Starr and Zelman, to my becoming part of the task force. According to a memo later made public and published in David Brock's nasty book The Seduction of Hillary Clinton, Starr and Zelman disapproved of my appointment "because Navarro is a real left-winger and has extreme distaste for the approach we are pursuing"­ which was fairly accurate about my feelings, but I must stress that my disdain for managed competition and the intellectuals who supported it did not interfere with my primary objective: to make sure that the views of the single-payer community would be heard in the task force. They were heard, but not heeded. I was ostracized, and I had the feeling I was in the White House as a token--although whether as a token left-winger, token radical, token Hispanic, or token single-payer advocate, I cannot say. But I definitely had the feeling I was a token something.

<snip>

Starr's explanation of why the reform failed is dramatically insufficient. The failure had little to do with timing, with when and where President Clinton presented the proposal. It had to do with how the Clintons related to the progressive constituencies, including labor and social movements. No universal, comprehensive coverage will ever be achieved in the U.S. without an active mobilization of the population (especially progressive forces) so as to balance and neutralize the enormous resistance from some of the most important financial lobbies in the nation. Starr's social engineering approach, lacking any understanding of the dynamics of power, explains failure as a consequence of problems of the electoral calendar or the types of benefits offered.

In reality, the Clinton administration ignored the majority of the country's progressive forces from the very beginning of its mandate. President Clinton made his first priority a reduction of the federal deficit (a policy not even included in his program), approved NAFTA (against the opposition of the AFL-CIO, the social movements, and even the majority of the Democratic Party), and committed himself to perpetuation of the for-profit health insurance system--the primary cause of the country's inhumane medical care system. When NAFTA was approved, Clinton signed the death certificate for the health care plan, and for the Democratic majority in Congress. The number of people who voted Republican in 1994 was no larger than in 1990 (the previous non-presidential congressional election year). The big difference was in the Democratic vote. Abstention by working-class voters increased dramatically in 1994 and was the primary reason why Democrats lost their majority in Congress. This is a point that Starr ignores. The Gingrich Revolution of 1994 was an outcome of voter abstention, particularly among the working class, who were fed up with President Clinton. But NAFTA was also the death knell for health care reform. One could see this in the White House task force. NAFTA empowered the right, and weakened and demoralized the left.

(more...)

http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro11122007.html

[RamboLiberal]

19. In Paul Krugman's book he said one reason is they waited

too long - late in 93 instead of doing immediately when Bill Clinton first got in to office. Now her papers released today apparently show she started work immediately. But they took too long in crafting it.

And it grew way too complex from what I remember. It looked like a horse crafted by committee. The secret meetings didn't help and IMHO she could've gotten Democratic members more involved in crafting it. I understand that the Clinton's weren't open to much compromise on it as well.

In her current plan one area where I think Obama is right is the mandated issue. Hillary could well be right about a mandate being needed but if she's the nominee I expect McCain and/or the 527's running on fear ads that she will "garnish your paycheck!"

[anamandujano]

24. And why shouldn't they? Obama got it started using the old Harry and Louise

imagery.

[RamboLiberal]

33. Believe me they didn't need Obama to point that out to them

Hey maybe she can get the Mittster to defend her plan. Hear it's working swell in Massachusetts!

[Forkboy]

25. I don't know why, but I fear your last line is now correct.

:(

[annie1]

29. idealist, who dealt with failure and now knows how to play ball with the right people...

to get things accomplished. we hope anyway.

[Liberal Veteran]

39. She'll sell us out to the insurance lobby like Bush did with Medicare D.

Bank on it.

[cbayer]

56. Congress did that.

Bush just signed the bill.

[Liberal Veteran]

57. Given that Hillary is one of the largest beneficiary of insurance lobby, do you believe....

....she is going to turn on them?

[cbayer]

58. I think the health plans of both candidates are

a step in the right direction, but neither gets to the goal post.

Your question is a good one. The insurance industry clearly has the most to lose or to gain, depending on how this is crafted. Both candidates have received significant donations from the insurance industry and I could not predict how they will deal with them.

This is possibly the most complex issue on the table and will require, IMHO, all the parties at the table, including the insurance industry.

I was just making the point that Medicare Part D was crafted by and passed by the Congress. Most of the amendments that would have made it more palatable failed, but were voted on favorably by both candidates.

[Liberal Veteran]

59. I have no reason to trust a DLC candidate to put OUR interests above the corporations.

That's where I really don't trust Hillary Clinton.

[cbayer]

60. Honestly, I would advise you not to trust either one.

What we are asking them to do is close to impossible under the best of circumstances, but completely impossible without making some deals with the devil.

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I respect your decision.

[tabasco]

43. By that time she already had 20 years of experience!

How could she fail????????? :shrug:

[knixphan]

44. Obama won't veto Conyers' original bill if we can sneak it out...

but we need 60% across the board!

http://www.actblue.com/page/bluemajority

[Bonobo]

45. You do not need 60. Bills pass by a majority. The wimpy Dems sold us a bridge with that '60' BS!

Sure, they'd have to force some fillibustering and maybe play a little hardball, but 51 is required, not 60. Never 60. That's a bullshit "convention" they started to save themselves the trouble of having to actually get off their fat asses.

[karynnj]

69. They need 60, if the other side decides to filibuster

They do this by demanding a cloture vote before voting - the cloture vote needs 60 votes to pass - if it doesn't get 60, there is NO ACTUAL VOTE on the issue. This is in the Senate's rules and has been for decades - it was a "reform" of the old fashion "Mr Smith Goes to Washington filibuster."

I have no idea what you are speaking of when you say "force a filibuster", as this would STOP passage, not facilitate it.

[rug]

46. An avalanche of vested, moneyed right-wing interests.

Which, as we see, is still alive and well.

[Zhade]

51. Give up on real change? It wasn't real change in the first place.

It was health insurer-care, not health care - putting life-altering medical decisions in the hands of those whose job is to deny health care to boost the bottom line is INSANE.

[journalist3072]

54. Because the special interests ran those awful Harry and Louise ads.

That is why health care reform failed.

You really have short term memory (or rather, selective memory) if you don't remember those Harry and Louise ads.

Second of all, you are an outright liar in your post, saying health care reform was her only real attempt at policy reform.

Are you mad?

She transformed the education system in Arkansas. That was one of her main focuses in Arkansas: education reform.

What's more, she was able to help implemnent the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

[Bonobo]

55. I was out of the country. That's why I never saw the ads. Never felt the atmosphere.

When you are out of the country, you really, really lose track of what's happening back home.

[metalluk]

61. Yeh, and Barack Obama is pristine in that respect.

No attempts at policy reform; no failures.

He did, however, succeed in attaching a few amendments to other Senators' bills.

[IADEMO2004]

62. 2 links -- We all failed not just Sen. Clinton

http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptbok.html

The health care debate of 1993-94 provides an instructive, albeit a somewhat extravagant case through which to ponder these questions. Much space and time were devoted to the issues by newspapers, TV stations and radio talk shows. More than $100 million is said to have been spent on the legislative campaign by the many interest groups concerned with health care reform. Most of this amount was devoted to media efforts to communicate with the public. Innumerable fliers, TV spots, newspaper advertisements, and direct mail appeals were directed to citizens by interest groups on every side of the question. If there was ever a "marketplace of ideas" for public policy, the health care debate was surely a spectacular example.

Yet in the end, this vast effort at persuasion exhibited all of the weaknesses already identified and more besides. The debate was confused throughout by the large number of participating groups in Congress. Instead of simplifying the discussion by developing a single Democratic plan, several committees and even individual Senators and Representatives took it upon themselves to introduce separate reform plans, creating a daunting array of options for the public to follow and understand. By the end of the Congressional debates, 27 different legislative proposals were advanced, which in turn were identified in the media by 110 different names.


Public TV time line of Health Care

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

[Bonobo]

68. Thank you for those links!

[eridani]

63. Because she concocted her plan in secret with CEOs of big insurance companies

No ordinary citizens were invited.

[Bonobo]

65. That sense of entitlement and privelege sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[casus belli]

64. Apprently, sometimes "experience"isn't necessarily a good thing. n/t

[cottonseed]

67. Because being known for an issue is a hell of a lot easier than solving one.

And it's great "experience" to point to during a campaign.

[stillcool]

70. I was just reading about that...

an interview with David Gergen.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/gergen3.html
Just before Christmas in 1993, the trooper story breaks, first in The American Spectator, then in The Los Angeles Times. How did Bill and Hillary take that story?

That was a tough, tough blow. He acted outraged, and she was clearly outraged; wouldn't say so, but I think she felt a sense of humiliation that went very deep. No first lady likes to be put in that situation, of course. So, it was a very tough time for them.
--------------------------------------------

But I think it was privately just very, very difficult for her. Now, I believe that the Troopergate story was a turning point on the health care fight. Let me explain why. Up until that time, she had been very, very involved in sort of the effort to put together the health care plan. It had been early presentations in the fall of 1993. The Troopergate story came along in December. I think it put him in a substantially one-down situation, with her psychologically in the dynamics of a marriage.

I can't prove this. My sense has been they are on a see-saw in their relationship. When that relationship works, they're very good partners. But when she goes up and he goes down, or he goes up and she goes down, there, the balance gets out of whack. On health care, what happened was that that Troopergate story put that see-saw up so that she went way up and he went way down. And I never saw him challenge her on health care in the weeks that followed. On the politics of what was going on, on sort of how to get it presented to the Congress properly. How to get it through the Congress. I really think that it sealed her position. It put her firmly in charge of how to get health care done.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And, of course, the Troopergate story set off the Paula Jones case. Paula was mentioned in The American Spectator story and that led to the lawsuit. So it had other consequences. But it had a real change in the dynamics I sensed, at least in the White House, and it couldn't have come at a worse time. It was really very, very damaging.

I don't want to put the blame on her on health care. I don't think that's fair. I don't think she ever should have been asked to put the health care thing together. I think Donna Shalala should have been asked to put that together and I think Mrs. Clinton could have led the crusade to get it passed. But ultimately this was Bill Clinton's White House. He was the guy elected president. Ultimately if your wife gets assigned health care that's his decision.

[BenDavid]

71. because she had a bunch of no balls pink tutu wearing

democrats that did not want to fight the republicans and then do what all good democrats do, stab em in the back.....the damn dems took their lessons well from julius ceasar.....

[Bonobo]

73. "No balls, tutu wearing"... Wow, talk about revealing phraseology.

You are a piece of work.

I say "dayenu" to you.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

74. I'm Not a Hillary Supporter...

But this particular meme is terribly misleading. As an article in The American Prospect details, by the time Hillary became the chair of the Health Care Reform Task Force, Bill Clinton had already decided upon the direction he wanted to go on this issue. Hillary's involvement was more as a facilitator of the process, working in concert with Ira Magaziner to conduct and coordinate the many working groups that came together for the process. Far from being the "behind closed doors" process that critics have claimed, her work on health care was unprecedented in its openness and inclusiveness. It's ultimate defeat was due to backroom negotiations in Congress, an area where Hillary played no significant role.

I'll say again. I support Obama, but the failure of Health Care in 1993 was not Hillary's fault.