NPR: FactCheck.org: Clinton Deserves Credit for SCHIP

FactCheck.org: Clinton Deserves Credit for SCHIP

Last week the Boston Globe ran an article that questioned Sen. Hillary Clinton's claims that she deserved credit for helping to expand federal health insurance for millions of children. Among the people the Globe interviewed was Sen. Orrin Hatch, who along with Sen. Ted Kennedy, actually did get the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) bill through the Senate. Hatch said that while it was obvious that Clinton cared a great deal about children's health, she didn't have all that much to do with the actual process.

But now FactCheck.org has looked into the situation and its researchers find that "she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality."

Among the people FactCheck.org talked to about Clinton's involvement was Adam Clymer, former chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, who covered the legislative maneuvering and also wrote about it in a 1999 book, "Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography."

Adam Clymer: "On balance, I would say of course Kennedy and Hatch deserve most of the credit, but Hillary helped by making sure the Administration stuck with the $24 billion in [the Senate-House] conference. She didn't write the legislation but she played a significant role in getting it passed."

Other accounts at the time the legislation was passed and since give Clinton substantial credit. The pro-Republican Washington Times newspaper credited (or perhaps more accurately, blamed) Hillary Clinton for the program in a 1997 article. The paper said it had obtained documents from 1993 showing that the White House "plotted" to push a "Kids First" insurance program if Mrs. Clinton's universal health care proposal failed.

1:47 PM ET | 03-21-2008 | permalink

Comments

From the excerpt: "The pro-Republican Washington Times newspaper credited..."

What an odd way of mentioning a newspaper. It seems to me that I have never seen other newspapers mentioned the same way. "The pro-democrat New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.

Fascinating.

Sent by deek | 1:55 PM ET | 03-21-2008

Odd or not, it is indisputably accurate.

Sent by Dandyist | 3:06 PM ET | 03-21-2008

As are my other examples

Sent by deek | 3:54 PM ET | 03-21-2008

In the run up to the Iraq war the NY Times and the Post did little to dissuade the American public from going to war. To the contrary, their coverage lent support to the current administration's casus belli for invading Iraq. You tell me when the Washinton Times has ventured so far off course.

The increase to the SCHIP bill that Bush vetoed amounted to about 35 million dollars. Measure that against a fraction of the cost of the Iraq adventure and you see why we cannot afford the logic of blind imperialism.

Sent by Chester | 4:42 PM ET | 03-21-2008

If you research the history of the Washington Times, calling it conservative is as controversial as calling Fox News conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

Sent by Bob Anderson | 11:55 AM ET | 03-22-2008

So, what Hillary Clinton did or not in terms of SCHIP has very little to do with anything. What is important to remember is that she didn't have the judgement, failed to check the facts and eventually voted for the most disastrous misstep in American history, a war that has cost prestige, respect, honor, lives and lots, lots of money (the mortgage issue is small potatoes compared to the unnecessary cost of the war) to our battered country and people. And she is not going to convince any rational American with her deceptive rhetoric, hateful allegations, and hyperbolic claims that she is other than an aged, rancid, vitolic, devisive, and self-serving Washington polititian, democrat or republican. And those are the scourge of our country. IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE, and let's stop splitting hair about insignifant stuff while we are drowning fast.

Sent by leonel aurdaneta, md | 5:05 PM ET | 03-22-2008

mister deek seems to have missed the changing of thew guard at wapo and la times (same corporration - no longer so new conservamoderate editorial leadership). for anyone to imply they are in current fashion demo house organs is just sheer ignorance. perhaps blissfully so.

Sent by tim in exile | 4:32 AM ET | 03-23-2008

Give up the abject CHANGE crap. Obama is a self-absorbed, arrogant lawyer. He responds to everything with a lawyers approach. I know Hilary's a lawyer too but you don't see the, "Lesee, what we need here is a good closing argument speech, let's make it about race. I'll sum up," from her. Nothing's gonna change because someone is merely there. It can change from within by someone who can create alliances and who knows the ropes. All the house may change but you have 65 Senators coming back. Try and TELL them what to do.

Tell me what Obama knows?? I think he is one of the best potential leaders I have ever seen or heard but he needs to get over being a lawyer first and actually do some work in the trenches. It's no favor to him to get him to the presidency too soon.

Really funny to me that the media is absolutely no help in making distinctions of this nature.

Sent by Charles Haynes | 12:44 PM ET | 03-23-2008

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.