NPR: Lawmakers Cast Doubts On Clinton's Role in Health Plan

Lawmakers Cast Doubts On Clinton's Role in Health Plan

Sen. Hillary Clinton's has long said that she played a pivotal role in forging a children's health insurance plan, known as State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. In her speeches and during debates, Clinton said she helped start the program.

But a report in the Boston Globe says Clinton "had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue."

... the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996 ...
"I do like her," Hatch said of Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."

Neera Tanden, policy director for the Clinton campaign, says Clinton has always supported SCHIP. She said the Clinton White House opposed the 1997 Kennedy-Hatch amendment to create the program because President Clinton has made a deal not to support any amendments in order to get a contentious budget passed. Tanden "suggested that politics were at play in the criticism of Clinton."

The Globe article said many lawmakers believe that Clinton has a deep and sincere commitment to children's health care. "But privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton's exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she "helped create" the program. The irritation has grown since Nov. 1, when Clinton - along with fellow senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John McCain - missed a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program, which was approved without the votes of those lawmakers."

10:59 AM ET | 03-14-2008 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

There appears to be similar concerns regarding Sen. Clinton's claims to having had foreign affairs "experience" with numerous examples given in an Obama memo published on their website ( http://www.barackobama.com ) that was initiated by someone named Greg Craig who I believe is connected to their campaign.

There are significant concrete examples of blatant contradictions to what Sen. Clinton is claiming.

What concerns me are all these distortions:

- distortions of her foreign affairs "experience"
- distortions now of her role in SCHIP
- distortions of her perceived notion of herself as being in the "lead" ( offers VP to Sen. Obama with herself as top candidate!)
- distortions of her role in Ireland's peace process
- distortions of her role in the opening of borders in Kosovo ( her plane did not arrive until the day AFTER those borders opened up, yet she claimed to play a pivotal role in that process)
- distortions of her experience in Bosnia ( literally contradicted by an individual who was with her)
- distortions concerning Rwanda
- distortions on explanations as to why she voted to send our troops into battle in Iraq
- distortions about the release of her income tax records ...

Along with this are the non-disclosures ( more lack of transparency) that reveal:

- failure to report income tax returns so the public can see where her sources of income are coming from..
- refusal to release white house documents pertaining to her time as first lady in the white house
- failure to disclose where her earmarks ended up (why can't this be disclosed? I don't understand why there is all this secrecy. It is very disconcerting)...
- refusal to release sources of library funds donations to her husband

And so many more examples.
This is rather serious.

This is exactly why JUDGEMENT MATTERS.

Judgement: to make the right choices, but also judgement in understanding how the electorate expects an elected official to conduct themselves regarding the critical issues of DISCLOSURE and TRANSPARENCY.

How can Sen. Clinton be trusted on any issue when she obfuscates the truth of what took place?

How can Sen. Clinton be trusted regarding matters of integrity, when she can't even keep her promises over the course of 3 months ( pledge made with Sen. Obama regarding Fla and Mich. renegade "name recognition contests" which excluded Sen. Obama's name in Michigan all together, that Sen. Clinton now distorts as being legitamate and referencing as having been a "primary election" when she knew those delegates would not count!)

If Sen. Clinton cannot report facts accurately and truthfully, how can the American people trust her and rely on her to be truthful and responsible, ethical and acting with integrity regarding the representation of the public's interests?

It's like telling Black people that you care about them, but not coming out and calling for an END to all racist comments from her supporters, but then, holding a press conference with black leaders from the press to portray herself as being caring about Black people. At some point, these distortions of reality become an issue requiring serious vetting and examination.

This is no light matter. This has to do with the ability to be in touch with reality and conduct oneself in a healthy, objective, and TRUTHFUL manner.

ACTIONS! Actions and words must be consistent with each other, not contradict one another.

REALITY MUST BE VETTED BY THE TRUTH - otherwise, what is being presented IS NOT REALITY but a distortion of facts and THE TRUTH!

Frankly, I'm getting concerned over so many examples of distortions of the truth coming from Sen. Clinton.

Why not be truthful? Why is there this need to exaggerate ( putting it nicely) what took place? Why mislead and misrepresent the facts to the public?

WHY CAN'T GOVERNANCE BE TRANSPARENT?
Don't the people have the right to this information?

Sent by Hope | 11:30 AM ET | 03-14-2008

Well stated Hope. This information needs to be forwarded to the right places, to get it into the next debate if possible. to whoever is the moderator, to the Obama camp and to the Clinton camp, so she can be ready to answer them to the nation. These are fair comments.

Sent by concerned | 12:23 PM ET | 03-14-2008

To "Hope" (11:30 AM Comment): Please work on brevity. Perhaps: "Clinton has distorted and exaggerated a number of claims regarding her past work. I suggest that people take that into consideration and support Obama for the Democratic nomination." (Now, was that so hard?)

Sent by Randy | 12:34 PM ET | 03-14-2008

I wish that instead of another pointless debate, we could have a prime-time "fact check" to expose just this sort of absurdity. It would be a far greater public service than repeating the same arguments.

Sent by Marla | 2:23 PM ET | 03-14-2008

It is exactly this type of behavior (attitude) that Sen. Clinton exhibits that has turned me away for her candidacy to lean more towards Obama. Ms. Clinton is caught in a time-warp as her campaign reminds me of presidential campaigns in the 60's and 70's. It appears Ms. Clinton is out of touch with the current trends and is hoping to revive campaign approaches of old (negative and tiring), that in themselves proved deleterious to our nation in so many ways that they prompted negative attitudes and disdain towards our elected officials from the general populace that is enhanced today . Ms. Clinton, you and your staff/supporters are out-of-touch with today's society and how we no longer care for such approaches as they are taking us down an old and dilapidated path of yesteryear.

Sent by Richard Montano | 2:35 PM ET | 03-14-2008

The Obama strategy has long, long ago abandoned facts in favor of spinning it onto the woman in the race.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 2:40 PM ET | 03-14-2008

Good for Hope.

Now; where is the investigate reporting from ANY new organization in these United States.

Never hear a hard question these days!

Thank you for this report and Thank you Hope.

Have a good evening.

Sent by Dave Rosen | 8:30 PM ET | 03-14-2008

people with personality disorders have disordered lives at home (not Hillary and Bill?), exaggerate their accomplishments (SCHIP, Northern Ireland, Kosovo), laugh inappropriately (20 debates), cry (New Hampshire) for no reason, have angry outbursts that are hard to control ("shame on you").

You want her answering a phone at 3AM? She of the one who helped send us to war with Iraq, and facilitated U.S. kids, age 18 and up going to fight, unprepared, while she sends her daughter to campaign for her, but disallows questions from reporters. H.Clinton, a true fabricator and bizarre personality.

Sent by LXG | 5:33 PM ET | 03-15-2008

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

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
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	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.