Clinton nearly crossed the line when she dissed Edward's work on the Patient's Bill of Rights

[bigtree]

from the debate in NH: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?adxnnlx=1199635359-w5tvgWPkI7PNXWF%20W8fpUA&pagewanted=print


MR. SPRADLING: Can you give New Hampshire voters a guide of something significant that you accomplished in your six years as a U.S. senator -- that would give us some guide as to what kind of president you're going to be?

MR. EDWARDS: Absolutely. I can tell you exactly one -- I'll give you one very specific example, a big example.

When the Democrats finally took over the United States Senate, the first issue that was brought to the table was the so-called "Patient's Bill of Rights", so that patients and families can make their own health care decisions. What's happening now is insurance companies are running all over people. I mean, the case of Natalie Sarkisyan, which a lot of the audience would be familiar with -- 17 year old girl who lost her life a couple of weeks ago because her insurance company would not pay for a liver transplant operation. She had health insurance, but the insurance company wouldn't pay for it. They finally caved in a few hours before she died.

We need a president who will take these people on. What we did -- and I didn't do it alone, don't claim to have done it alone -- but I, Senator McCain who was here earlier, Senator Kennedy, the three of us wrote the Patient's Bill of Rights, the three of us took on the powerful insurance industry and their lobby every single day of the fight for the Patient's Bill of Rights and we got that bill through the United States Senate and got it passed.

And I'm proud of having done that, but that's just an example of why this battle is personal for me. You know, we need a president who believes deeply in here, who believes deeply in this battle, and it is personal for me. When I see these lobbyists roaming around Washington, D.C., taking all the politicians to cocktail parties, I mean, the picture I get in my head is my father and my grandmother going in that mill every day so that I could have the chances I've had. Where is their voice in this democracy? When are they going to get heard? They need a president who will stand up for them and so does every American who's listened to this debate.


SEN. CLINTON: Can we just have a -- can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute? Because I think that it is important to make some kind of an assessment of these -- of these statements.

You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the Patients Bill of Rights through the Senate; it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a Patients Bill of Rights. We don't have a Patients Bill of Rights.

MR. EDWARDS: Because George Bush -- George Bush killed it.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's right, he killed it. So we've got to have a plan and a real push to get it through.


my take:

First, I saw her response as curious for a sitting Senator who is using her many votes and sponsorship of legislation which has passed the Senate, but, has gone nowhere, as a representation of "experience" she says she has which qualifies her to be president. Just because the House didn't manage to pass the legislation and Bush effectively blocked it shouldn't detract from Edward's (and other's) commitment in advancing it through the Senate.

Secondly, she seemed to relish in the fact (for the purpose of belittling his experience or commitment) that the efforts of Edwards fell short of actually helping save Natalie Sarkisyan's life. I think she missed the point by a mile. That Patient's Bill of Rights is a fine example of the commitment that Edwards would bring to the White House. If it HAD passed, it may well have helped the child.

Also, she's really pushing the definition of what role she actually played in advancing health issues and the like as Bill Clinton's wife when he was governor and president. She had virtually none of the accountability of an electorate in her efforts she's touting before she became a senator (except for the health care fiasco early in her husband's first term). I think she completely deflated on the point in the end, admitting that she's not ready to openly measure her own "experience" against the other candidates' . . .


SEN. CLINTON: In the White House, I worked to create health care for kids and reform a lot of the other programs like taking on the drug companies.

MR. SPRADLING: And to be clear, they can't. You're saying they can't.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I'm not saying that -- I'm only making my case, that this is what I have done.


Then, what was the point in using this argument to counter Edward's touting of his own accomplishments? And, she led her rebuttal with the snipe about the child dying because Edwards' efforts were thwarted . . . I thought it was a sleazy line of debate.

So, apparently, did Edwards.


from MSNBC First Read: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/06/553073.aspx

Starting at noon today, the Edwardses go on another 36-hour tour -- this time through New Hampshire. On the trail, Edwards will be joined by the family of Nataline Sarkisyan, whose name came up a few times at last night’s debate. (The Edwards camp, in fact, sent MSNBC the exchange with Clinton from the debate)

[marmar]

1. Desperate times, desperate measures.....

n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. Wait a minute. Edwards was not out of line calling her the STatus Quo

which is saying, She is just like Bush? You are off base.

CHANGE he shouts from the roof tops. CLINTON IS THE STATUS QUO, he shouts, in essence calling her Bush-like. I AM THE ONE TO MAKE CHANGE, shouts Edwards.


Prove it, says the moderator. What changes have you made when you HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CHANGE.

And: he tried to suggest that he made changes with the bill of rights. But, what he did not tell you in his spin: NOTHING CHANGED. HE FAILED TO MAKE ANY CHANGES. It did not pass.

Now, I remember both he and Obama blaming Clinton for the health care initiative not passing...turn about is fair play.

[bigtree]

4. he spelled it out. 'Status quo' was about her willingness to accept corporate money

". . .t he problem is you can't be with those people, take their money and then challenge them. It doesn't work. You have to be willing to actually stand up and say no -- no to lobbyist money, no to PAC money, no corporate lobbyists working for me in the White House. If you intend to take them on, and if it is personal for you -- and this is extraordinarily personal for me -- if it's personal for you, then you can be successful bringing about the change."

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. She has stood up to corporate interests for years. Look what she did with children's health care

That is his shtick. But when he suggests that he is the agent of change and then has nothing to back it up--that is fair game.

And now he will trot out the dead-girl's family to say what? The patient bill of rights failure was not his fault?

[bigtree]

7. He has a record as well, in and out of Congress. She was trying to make his look insignificant

If you don't get what the family and he are doing championing the cause of health care by highlighting an actual victim of Washington's and the insurance companies' obstruction then you really don't understand advocacy.

What she was doing in belittling those efforts was for her own vain benefit.

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. wait. He is the one who had the opportuinity to tell us what he has changed

Remember, he bragged about being the only one who could make CHANGE. And, come to find out, his is full of hot air. Because when he was in a position to make change, he FAILED.

That is completely appropriate to address.

Is he the change agent? Actions speak louder than words. Belitting those efforts? He said SHE was the status quo. And, yet his record is one of status quo.

So, now the dead girl's parents come out and advote for him--he who has the SAME healthcare plan as Clinton. What it he purpose of parading them out? Using her to get votes. Lovely.

[bigtree]

14. The question:

Can you give New Hampshire voters a guide of something significant that you accomplished in your six years as a U.S. senator --

MR. EDWARDS: Absolutely.

MR. SPRADLING: -- that would give us some guide as to what kind of president you're going to be?


. . . not at all what you are characterizing it to be. The accomplishment was the passage of the bill. It was the example he chose to "give us some guide as to what kind of president (he's) going to be."

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. The question was in the context of change. He made no change.

I am not characterizing it wrong. Look at the context of the question.

[bigtree]

18. well, that's not an indictment that she's immune from as a senator.

and, it takes us back to his indictment of Clinton's term as an example of the status quo which stands in the way of the changes we say we want:

" . . . you can't be with those people, take their money and then challenge them."

[creeksneakers2]

23. Hillary challenges the status quo all the time n/t

[bvar22]

39. And Hillary's HealthCare reform was soooo successful.

AND, there was NO Bush* to VETO her plan in the 90's.

[creeksneakers2]

22. Edwards was misleading

Hillary was right to give the other side of what Edwards claimed he did.

[bigtree]

24. the family of the child is speaking on his behalf right now in NH

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. so. It does not negate the fact that he was misleading

He did nothing for changing the status quo.

[bigtree]

36. I think the bill's passage indicated that there are certainly the votes in Congress to pass it

without republicans standing in the way. It was co-written by Edwards and he managed the bill to passage through the Senate. It remains for the day when the republican obstruction is overcome. It is the standard we look to when we consider the remedies for the abuses, neglect, and indifference of the insurance companies toward patients and their doctor's prescriptions for wellness or survival.

But, you go ahead and ignore it (belittle it) because Bush and the republicans ultimately blocked it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. look: Clinton worked her ass off for health care in the 90's and Edwards

said she "failed" because she did not pass it. Now, you and I both now that she was stopped with a brick wall of republicans refusing to cooperate in anyway.

Edwards should be held to the same standard that he holds Clinton.

[indimuse]

8. tooshay EE...

:yourock:

[MannyGoldstein]

3. You're Being Totally Unfair - Clinton Has Earned The Right To Say That

If it wasn't for Clinton's success at winning universal health care in the 1990s, we wouldn't have the excellent, inexpensive, and fully-accessible medical system that we have today.

:sarcasm:

[tekisui]

9. 35 years of change.

[Nailzberg]

29. Oh my.

:rofl:

[williesgirl]

6. I absolutely intensely dislike HRC and hope the hell she drops out of public life forever. She is

cold, calculating, a liar like her idol Bush, a corporate shill, a warmonger unless it's politically expedient to not be for a short time to garner votes and the list goes on.

And, this is coming from a feminist who always dreamed of being able to vote for the first female Presidential candidate. She is NOT what we all put up with bullshit and retribution for our efforts.

Flame away. The more she opens her mouth, the harder it will be to vote for her even holding my nose in a GE. If the Supreme Court weren't at stake, I'd stay home rather than do so.

[Evergreen Emerald]

10. More sexist crap ingrained in our citizenry and to whom it is so

natural that they dare to post it on a public forum for all to see--and suggest that they are a feminist.

You are no feminist. A feminist would never treat a strong, intelligent, progressive woman like you just did.

Your post is a load of crap. She is not "cold" or a "liar" or a "corporate shill." Look at her record rather than just spewing the lies that circle the web and Fox News.

[Generator]

33. Oh really

As a married woman, mother and feminist-yeah I even kept my own name-I hear Hillary isn't running under Rodham now is she-I agree with that post.

Do you honestly think marrying your way into a position of power is what feminism is all about? How many poltical offices did Ms. Rodham ever hold?

I've said this before if Hillary Clinton wanted to be in politics she had MANY years to do. (Who is Barbara Boxer's husband anyway-I don't even know his NAME) She waited for her husband's success-and then road his coattails, name, money and the rest to get a place in the Senate-taking energy, money and time for Al Gore's bid for president in 2000. To me it seems it has always been about her, and not what's best for the country. All her votes on the war seem calculated to get Republican votes. I honestly think that's all she panders to at this point. She knows the Democrats are no longer her base. She has lost her base by being all those things-pro-corporate and pro-war just to start.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. No flames here.

:thumbsup:

[Yael]

19. No flames here!

Well stated.

[Triana]

12. That was my take on it too - very disengenuous (n/t)

[TomClash]

13. Neither one has a good record getting important legislation passed nt

[Pachamama]

16. I completely agree with you...The more I watch Hillary, the less impressed I am with her & believe

she WILL NOT get the nomination.

In my opinion, it was another foot in mouth moment for her and last night, Edwards and Obama, especially on the topic of the "status quo" really, really got to her and got the point out to the public.

I also keep laughing when she talks about all her "experience"....She has how much more experience than Edwards? By being married to Bill?

I will support whoever is the nominee...I just pray it isn't Hillary....Seriously...

Obama or Edwards - Or better yet - the two of them together.....that's what I want to see!

[Yael]

20. They would be unbeatable

[Pachamama]

38. Whether Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama - Unbeatable I believe too!

:kick:

[zalinda]

21. Hey, look here..........did every one miss the story

that the family of Nataline Sarkisyan is endorsing Edwards? They are on the campaign trail together. And people were dissing him for mentioning her name. I am guessing that the family wants her death to come to mean something. And, that they are pissed at their insurance company. Which of course, I don't blame them.

zalinda

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. That does not negate the fact that he did not make change.

Of course to people who will be easily distracted, it may be.

[bigtree]

40. the point is that he's sparked at least as much 'change' as Clinton herself

and, that her use of the child in her argument was not about health care, but about pulling Edward's down for her own political benefit.

[Sparkly]

25. "something significant that you accomplished" -- a bill that never even went through??

It was totally fair game.

[bigtree]

27. as a legislator, Clinton rests most of her laurels (and experience) on un-enacted legislation

which has passed the Senate.

[Sparkly]

28. Fine, and if she said bills that didn't pass were her greatest accomplishment,

they could have jumped on her for that.

[bigtree]

30. he used the bill, as he did with the child's family today . . .

to answer the question -- "give New Hampshire voters a guide of something significant that you accomplished in your six years as a U.S. senator -- that would give us some guide as to what kind of president you're going to be?"

. . . maybe not the 'greatest', but significant, nonetheless. And, a 'guide' to what he wants to accomplish and will focus on as president, if elected.

[Sparkly]

31. If you think it's a significant accomplishment, what's wrong with pointing out

that it didn't pass?

Is it not fair to say that?

[bigtree]

35. I made much more of a point than that.

I thought it was unseemly the way she suggested the child might have survived if the bill had passed; not in a way which highlighted the need for the legislation (which Edwards certainly has been, and was), but in an effort to belittle the passage of the landmark bill to elevate her own profile.

[spooky3]

26. You've provided a very good dissection of the argument.