Clinton Claims She Was Secretary of State in … the Bush Administration. (I think that’s what she’s claiming, anyway.)
Clinton put her presidential experience in stark terms by telling detail-laden stories about her political life, including one about dealing with a terrorist threat around President Barack Obama’s first inauguration from the White House’s Situation Room.
“I was able to bring my years of experience to the forefront,” Clinton said about having to decide whether to go on with the inauguration despite the threat against Barack Obama, who she described as the nation’s “newly elected young dynamic president.” “This is one of the biggest parts of the decision as you head toward February 1 that I want you to keep in mind. We’re living in a complicated world, to say the least. We know we have a terrorist threat — and I’ve laid out a detailed set of recommendations of what to do.”
The anecdote, which gripped town hall attendees here, squares with Clinton’s closing argument: I am ready for the presidency on Day 1 and you and your family don’t have time to wait for someone to learn on the job.
— One Iowa city, two messages for Clinton and Sanders, Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny, CNN, yesterday
The years of experience she brought to the forefront in early January 2009 were eight years as a United States senator. She was not yet secretary of state, unless she was playing that role secretly in Bush’s State Department.
And, yes, the reporters’ phrasing above (“… Clinton said about having to decide whether to go on with the inauguration despite the threat against Barack Obama”) is an accurate description of her claim. In a more detailed account I read elsewhere but couldn’t find just now to quote from, she did indeed claim that she was the one who made the call on whether the inauguration should proceed. Which strikes me as probably not accurate.
I guess the implication is supposed to be that Sanders, who on Inauguration Day 2017 will have been a senator for 10 years and, before that a member of the House for 14 years, would make a different call in such a situation, because he lacks sufficient experience to weigh the complex pro and cons properly. Only someone who has had no particular experience in foreign affairs other than as a run-of-the-mill senator for eight years but nonetheless was about to become secretary of state could have called that one right.
What worries me more than anything else about a Clinton general election campaign is her propensity to say obviously silly things. Elsewhere in that speech, in Clinton, IA on Friday, she again repeated her (and her daughter’s) complaint—without any hint of recognition of irony—that Sanders’ single-payer healthcare insurance plan would kill Obamacare. As if it weren’t the very purpose of a single-payer healthcare insurance system to eliminate private healthcare insurance for the benefits that the single-payer plan provides. As if the purpose of Obamacare was to create some living monument to Obama, rather than to provide healthcare insurance to people who had no access to it, and provide decent insurance to people who had policies that provided almost no coverage.
In a post here last week, I said about her contest with Bernie Sanders:
Live by the sleight-of-hand, die by the sleight-of-hand. Or at least because of the sleight-of-hand: you’re own. At least if your opponent is now, finally, getting real media attention and has a zillion followers. Who use social media!
But if it is Clinton, not Sanders, who wins the nomination, is there some way to get her to speak in normal, sensical sentences and paragraphs? Like her husband did on her behalf a few days ago in New Hampshire?
I think whichever one wins the Dem nomination will win the general election. But will she make it an easier procession by ditching the incoherencies? Or is that type of thing just inherent to her, something she lacks the ability to stop because she doesn’t realize that it is counterproductive and could be fatal to her candidacy?
—-
ADDENDUM: I posted the following comment in the Comments thread in response to a comment by Run75441 about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton’s (mis)representations about the single-payer healthcare insurance bill that Sanders proposed in 2013, and about the proposal he released two weekends ago:
The single-payer plan that Sanders released a few hours before the debate two weekends ago is administered entirely by the federal government, just as current Medicare is, run. I read that last night.
Sanders’ earlier proposal, from 2013, was structured like the marketplaces part of the ACA are, including the provision that if states refused to administer it, either at the outset or down the road, the federal government would do so.
The purpose of the state involvement was to give states some slight latitude in coverage and administration of it, in order to try to fend off the usual attacks about states having no say, no leeway. That, of course, was the reason that the ACA was structured the way it was.
But of course since 2013, it became clear that Republican-controlled states would not cooperate at all, in any respect, so the federal government would have to run a whole lot of it anyway.
But what Hillary and Chelsea Clinton did was to outright lie that the 2013 Sanders proposal was similar to the ACA’s Medicaid provision rather than the ACA’s marketplaces provision, and that the states could opt out or hamstring or cripple healthcare insurance.
This was especially strange since it is Clinton, not Sanders, who sings the praises of the ACA and says she wants to keep it and improve upon it. The ACA has separate marketplaces for each state, and therefore separate policies available in each state.
The Clintons’ misrepresentation of what part of the ACA Sanders’ plan resembled was classic Hillary Clinton: a bald misrepresentation about Sanders’ policy proposals and stated goals, via glaring misdirection and sleight of hand.
Added 1/25 at 11:27 a.m.
Clinton is more a team Bush/PNAC player than Colin Powell even during his “team player, go alomng with blither days”.
US needs more of the same violent response to perceived frights.
” As if it weren’t the very purpose of a single-payer healthcare insurance system to eliminate private healthcare insurance for the benefits that the single-payer plan provides.”
Yes. This.
Which really was my only point about “supplementals” in the recent brouhaha. Single Payer has implications. Including ones that seem odd at first encounter. Like what you would have the “freedom” to buy where and when. Eliminating two and three tier medical care is more a feature than a bug of Single Pay.
Hmmmm:
Here is what I read:
“His plan would take Medicare and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act health-care insurance and private employer health insurance and he would take that all together and send health insurance to the states, turning over your and my health insurance to governors,” Clinton said, naming the state’s Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.
Sanders’ bill, which he said he will soon introduce in the Senate, would set federal guidelines and strong minimum standards for states to administer single-payer health care programs.
Here is actual language in S. 1782 that is cause for concern:
“It is the sense of the Senate that in order to provide high quality health care coverage for all Americans while controlling costs in order to make American companies more competitive, individual States should be given maximum flexibility in designing health care programs to improve the individual experience of care and the health of populations, and to reduce the per capita costs of care for each State.”
Do you really expect the states that already have opposed the expansion of Medicaid (including where you live) to administer single payer to the benefit of its people rather than stonewall it as they have done with Medicaid (courts agreed they could not be penalized for not expanding Medicaid if I remember correctly). This is a flaw and Clinton is correct in it could destroy overall healthcare in the US. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/13/1469215/-Chelsea-Clinton-wasn-t-wrong-after-all-neither-was-Hillary
Given the makeup of Congress, do you believe the Repubs are going to roll-over and agree with Bernie? Oh, its Bernie; we need to pass this. Once Barack leaves the Whitehouse and if either Hillary or Bernie replace him, it will again be “game-on.” There is no amount of persuasion or force on the states to get them to accept this mandate from the Whitehouse. With the present make-up of SCOTUS, it is unlikely support would come from there either.
And the Senate will determine costs of healthcare? Based upon what, pharma, hospital, or doctors profitability? Best to establish an independent agency to administer costs and eliminate as much of the politics and lobbying as can be accomplished.
This brings me to another point. Having written on the PPACA, reading the original plans, and refuting the continuous stream of deliberate or unknowing BS occurring here and in other places, I find that you should be on top of this Bev and not add to the continuous stream of BS especially at AB. You are an incredibly intelligent and capable person who presents arguments and ideas in an articulate believable manner. It would be great if you presented it all rather than construing the facts for the sake of politics.
The single-payer plan that Sanders released a few hours before the debate two weekends ago is administered entirely by the federal government, just as current Medicare is, run. I read that last night.
Sanders’ earlier proposal, from 2013, was structured like the marketplaces part of the ACA are, including the provision that if states refused to administer it, either at the outset or down the road, the federal government would do so.
The purpose of the state involvement was to give states some slight latitude in coverage and administration of it, in order to try to fend off the usual attacks about states having no say, no leeway. That, of course, was the reason that the ACA was structured the way it was.
But of course since 2013, it became clear that Republican-controlled states would not cooperate at all, in any respect, so the federal government would have to run a whole lot of it anyway.
But what Hillary and Chelsea Clinton did was to outright lie that the 2013 Sanders proposal was similar to the ACA’s Medicaid provision rather than the ACA’s marketplaces provision, and that the states could opt out or hamstring or cripple healthcare insurance.
This was especially strange since it is Clinton, not Sanders, who sings the praises of the ACA and says she wants to keep it and improve upon it. The ACA has separate marketplaces for each state, and therefore separate policies available in each state.
The Clintons’ misrepresentation of what part of the ACA Sanders’ plan resembled was classic Hillary Clinton: a bald misrepresentation about Sanders’ policy proposals and stated goals, via glaring misdirection and sleight of hand.
Bev:
You are spreading supposition, conjecture, etc. again. There were no out right lies. There are some reasonable concerns. Read it again: Republican Gov. Terry Branstad. “I don’t believe number one we should be starting over. We had enough of a fight to get to the Affordable Care Act. So I don’t want to rip it up and start over.” People are looking for migration. If you think for one minute, then you are sadly mistaken.
Given the makeup of Congress, do you believe the Repubs are going to roll-over and agree with Bernie? Oh, its Bernie; we need to pass this. Once Barack leaves the Whitehouse and if either Hillary or Bernie replace him, it will again be “game-on.” There is no amount of persuasion or force on the states to get them to accept this mandate from the Whitehouse. With the present make-up of SCOTUS, it is unlikely support would come from there either.
And the Senate will determine costs of healthcare? Based upon what, pharma, hospital, or doctors profitability? Best to establish an independent agency to administer costs and eliminate as much of the politics and lobbying as can be accomplished.
Post Bernie’s plan if it is different than the 8 page one I read.
Run the flaw in your logic is that for federal regulations for state-run anything to kick in the state has to buy in to the basic program – in this case agree to administer a single payer health care system.
You would have recalcitrant states trying to thread the needle by accepting single payer but trying to administer is badly or as if it wasn’t what it was. This seems odd to me. Sure States trying to opt out entirely, we see that right now in spades. But opting in and then trying to run a very different program using other people’s money (the feds and the premium payers) is more like trying to shove a cable through the needle head. It would take a particularly feeble HHS and CMS to allow that to happen.
Bruce:
Opting out is the worst. Bernie has called for giving states greater flexibility. So what is he going to settle on with reluctant states?
You tell me. Either his plan is silent about this or has something to say. Same with “flexibility”. I be a Religious Bear (of sorts): Give me Chapter and Verse! (and Data if you got it)
Bruce:
I already produced the information from the 2013/14 plan. Several times, I have asked Bev to produce the 2016 plan which she says “she read.” I would like to read it also. The KOS article does not state Hillary said anything about opting in or out. I believe I already stated what the Clintons said?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/13/1469215/-Chelsea-Clinton-wasn-t-wrong-after-all-neither-was-Hillary
The only other Bernie plan out there is the 8 pager which appears to be a summation. Sorry, I do not see a flaw in what I said. I do see a moving target in claiming what the Clintons actually said. Maybe, hey saw Bernie’s 2016 plan?
Sounds a lot like the days when her and her daughter were dodging sniper fire in Bosnia 😉
Run and Bruce, Sanders’ 2013 bill had no opt-in or opt-out for states. It was like the ACA’s marketplaces; the states could choose to administer the program and would have some slight latitude in how they did it, or they could refuse to do that, in which case the federal government would administer it. Either way, the residents of every state would have been covered by the program.
So, yes, the Clintons lied in saying–Hillary, inferentially; Chelsea, outright–that Sanders’ bill was like the Medicaid part of the ACA. It was not; it was like the marketplaces part of the ACA.
Thanks Bev. I suspected as much. Just wanted confirmation from someone who read it.
Bev:
Lets not get side tracked with what Bruce has said and I answered. There are no out right lies by the Clintons. There are some statements which Bernie has to clear up in his healthcare proposal which he has not done yet. You must have it somewhere in your possession (as you claim this statement does not exist) and I can not find a detailed present 2015/16 version. Please present the plan you are discussing. Now if we look at what Bernie has proposed:
TITLE V—Quality Assessment
SEC. 501. American Health Security Quality Council.
This is what was said by the Clintons and it is in Bernie’s bill S.1782 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
If you have another proposal to look at, I would like to see this proposal and not your suggestion the one above does not exist.
Here’s what I don’t get, Bill. What makes you or anyone else think that Clinton could get the legislation passed that SHE’s proposing?
I have no idea how she wants to improve the ACA; she just says she wants to build on it, improve it, but never says what, specifically, she has in mind. But it doesn’t matter. She couldn’t get it through the Congress. The Senate will, I think, go Dem in the election, but the House won’t. So why does she claim she could get her proposals enacted, any more than sanders could?
Which is exactly the subject of a good article today by Brian Beutler on the New Republic website, at https://newrepublic.com/article/128239/nominating-bernie-sanders-worthwhile-gamble.
Bev:
You are deflecting. Bernie’s plan was the question. I have seen the 8 pager https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Medicare-for-All.pdf . I asked you for Bernie’s detailed plan so I could read exactly from where you are drawing your information. Other than that document put out by Bernie, what you are saying is the proverbial “hearsay” councilor. I already addressed Hillary in this statement twice now in separate replies to each of your comments:
I believe we already tried to force states to move on the Medicaid expansion which SCOTUS threw out for various reasons. You can bet the same will happen as state rights will be the issue.
.
Bud, her account was true. She was with Brian Williams at the time, and he’ll verify its accuracy.
Beverly:
Your Comment: “The single-payer plan that Sanders released a few hours before the debate two weekends ago is administered entirely by the federal government, just as current Medicare is, run. I read that last night.”
Please produce this mysterious plan you keep citing. I would like to read it also.