Very weird quote from Hillary: "I have produced change" ???

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TV9LH80&show_article=1

(snip)
Clinton got off her plane in New Hampshire and declared: "This is especially about all of the young people in New Hampshire who need a president who won't just call for change, or a president who won't just demand change, but a president who will produce change, just like I've been doing for 35 years."
(snip)

I first heard that on TV this morning, and looked it up to see if it was a hoax or some kind of joke. Sure enough, she actually said that, and just yesterday. And with a straight face.

Did I miss something? What change, exactly, has she "produced" in the last 35 years? She hasn't even been in any kind of office until her Senate election. And the sum total of bills she has written and gotten passed there? **ZERO**.

She may have been referring to her time as First Lady. Or, "co-President", as she once referred to it. ut wasn't Bill the Presidentt, in fact, during that time? Certainly she advised Bill, as every First Lady advises her husband. But the only thing she was ever actually in charge of, was the Health Care task force in 1993, and it flopped on its face and never became law.

What "change" did she EVER produce? Can someone help me out here?

Actually, I guess there was one change she did produce, through her one actual government job during her husband's presidency. She came up with the "President's Health Care Reform Plan", and even published a book by that title. American voters reacted with nothing short of horror, especially at the draconian restrictions on doctor choice, huge new bureaucracies, dozens of normal activities now designated "crimes", etc. And the following year, they voted Democrats out of majorities in both the House and Senate, ending an almost-unbroken Dem monopoly that stretched back sixty years.

So I guess Hillary did produce one change. But it's very weird to hear her bragging about it now.

 

[Lookout]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TV9LH80&show_article=1

(snip)
Clinton got off her plane in New Hampshire and declared: "This is especially about all of the young people in New Hampshire who need a president who won't just call for change, or a president who won't just demand change, but a president who will produce change, just like I've been doing for 35 years."
(snip)

I first heard that on TV this morning, and looked it up to see if it was a hoax or some kind of joke. Sure enough, she actually said that, and just yesterday. And with a straight face.

Did I miss something? What change, exactly, has she "produced" in the last 35 years? She hasn't even been in any kind of office until her Senate election. And the sum total of bills she has written and gotten passed there? **ZERO**.

She may have been referring to her time as First Lady. Or, "co-President", as she once referred to it. ut wasn't Bill the Presidentt, in fact, during that time? Certainly she advised Bill, as every First Lady advises her husband. But the only thing she was ever actually in charge of, was the Health Care task force in 1993, and it flopped on its face and never became law.

What "change" did she EVER produce? Can someone help me out here?

Actually, I guess there was one change she did produce, through her one actual government job during her husband's presidency. She came up with the "President's Health Care Reform Plan", and even published a book by that title. American voters reacted with nothing short of horror, especially at the draconian restrictions on doctor choice, huge new bureaucracies, dozens of normal activities now designated "crimes", etc. And the following year, they voted Democrats out of majorities in both the House and Senate, ending an almost-unbroken Dem monopoly that stretched back sixty years.

So I guess Hillary did produce one change. But it's very weird to hear her bragging about it now.

Her is something she was a part of Acorn. Yeah, she has been involved in changing things...FOR THE WORSE!
standing guard
By Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President
"Never Forget—Never Again"
For the countless millions of Americans who believe in the true meaning of the Second Amendment—the right to be armed to protect self, family, community, country and our individual liberty—the words "Katrina" and "New Orleans" sharply focus on very real tyranny in our times, on our soil. Throw into those defining words the name Hillary Clinton, and you will see a glimpse of a future she would wish for us all—a civilization utterly transformed.
As you will remember, that Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans tyranny was ordered by a rogue police chief who, in August 2005, issued this unconstitutional edict: "No one will be able to be armed," he declared. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." And that illegal order—in the midst of a natural disaster that produced unbridled anarchy and placed frightened citizens at the mercy of armed criminal predators—was enforced at gunpoint in house-to-house searches.
I vividly remember a stunning Fox network news video showing a 58-year-old grandmother body-slammed and severely injured by a burly patrolman in SWAT garb because she produced a small antique revolver, innocently saying it was all the protection she needed.
And I remember chaotic scenes of homeowners handcuffed, forced to watch police search for and seize their guns at a time when they needed them most. An ABC reporter explained,"... homeowners had armed themselves,... in the end, police took their weapons but let them stay in their homes."
And then there was a Cox News Service headline that defines what the 21 st century Right to Keep and Bear Arms means:
"Armed militia protects its New Orleans neighborhood."
The accompanying news story told of civic-minded residents who banded
together in the face of a total absence of law enforcement to protect their community against roving gangs of violent criminals—many of whom flocked to New Orleans because of the news that over 270 local police officers went AWOL during the emergency.
Juxtapose that item with another headline that same week: "New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms,..."
All of that injustice led to NRA's legislative battle cry, "New Orleans—Never Again—Never Forget!"
With NRA taking the lead, harnessing the outrage over the firearms confiscation all across the political spectrum, legislatures across the country enacted prohibitions against any such civil disarmament during times of emergency.
And equally importantly, the Congress acted decisively with enactment of a tough federal measure to forever outlaw such abuse at the national level.
And that brings us back to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who now cynically claims she is all for the Second Amendment.
When Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter's Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 came to the floor on July 13 of that year, Hillary Clinton was among a handful of senators voting against outlawing the disarming of innocent Americans during times of disaster.
In essence, with that single recorded vote, the leading candidate in her party's bid to take the White House, voted to support the gun-ban mandate of the New Orleans police superintendent.
With her vote against Vitter's "never-again" amendment, Hillary voted to disarm any innocent citizen who has the grit to keep a firearm to provide self-protection against evildoers.
With her vote, Hillary supports every aspect of the civil disarmament that marked the dismantling of the Second
Amendment in New Orleans—including the refusal of government to acknowledge the existence of its secret cache of confiscated guns and its refusal to return those guns to their lawful owners once they were unearthed through NRA court action.
And with that vote, Hillary showed that her new phony support of the . Second Amendment—which surfaced in an October 23,2007, Des Moines Register (Iowa) article—is a cynical lie, insulting the overwhelming majority of Americans who know the true meaning of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
In debates and in campaign statements, Hillary Clinton insinuates that she served as the "co-President" to her husband Bill Clinton. On the issue of "gun control," and her singular enmity toward the National Rifle Association, the New York Times once reported:
"Mrs. Clinton, who is considering running for the Senate from New York, where gun control is popular, has also been more forceful than the President in directly taking on the powerful gun lobby..."
To the prospect of Hillary ever occupying the White House again—this time, not as the ever-influential wife of the most anti-gun President in American history, but as President in her own right, bent on outdoing Bill Clinton's gun ban legacy, we say, "Never again!"
In the coming months, we must do everything possible, use every aspect of Hillary Clinton's anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment record to convince our friends and neighbors—80 million gun owners—to work to defeat her at the polls.
11)
I remember chaotic scenes of homeowners handcuffed, forced to watch police search for and seize their guns at a time when they needed them most.
For news about legislation and your NRA, visit: www.nraila.org, www.nranews.com and www.nra.org.
JANUARY 2008 AMERICAN RIFLEMAN

 

[midcan5]

Sorta of ironic but I find Hillary closer to the republican party than to the more liberal side of the democrats. But at least comment on what she has and has not done and not on campaign rhetoric.

http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

 

[Lookout]

Sorta of ironic but I find Hillary closer to the republican party than to the more liberal side of the democrats. But at least comment on what she has and has not done and not on campaign rhetoric.

http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Yep, This is exactly the kind of crap I was talking about. So if some one kills someone with a shoe, should they be able to sue the shoe manufacturer? Flat out fucking stupid if you ask me?

Get assault weapons & guns off the street. (Jul 2007)
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
FactCheck: VA Tech shooter not declared a danger to others. (Apr 2007)
Congress' failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run. (Nov 2003)
Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. (Sep 2000)
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs. (Sep 2000)
License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)
Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands. (Jul 1999)
Gun control protects our children. (Jul 1999)
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation. (Jul 1999)
Lock up guns; store ammo separately. (Jun 1999)
Ban kids’ unsupervised access to guns. (Jun 1999)
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

 

[indago]

The only thing that changes are the faces...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Sorta of ironic but I find Hillary closer to the republican party than to the more liberal side of the democrats.

You're not the only one of the left who agrees. She's an odd duck, and not nearly as uniformly hard left as the right wing punditry would have us believe. From counterpunch.org:

Why Hillary Clinton has Always Been a Republican

In the first of a series of profiles, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair chart the formative years of Hillary Clinton. Watch her as she zigzags from Nixon campaigner and vote-fraud investigator in 1960 to Goldwater Girl and President of Young Republicans at Wellesley to her internship for Gerald Ford and campaigner for Nelson Rockefeller. Witness her reaction to the student protests at Yale and the demonstrations at Grant Park during the Democratic Convention in 1968. Learn how she and Bill vowed to "remake" the Democratic Party--using the Nixon model HRC learned about as a member of the House impeachment staff.

Ok, you have to be a suscriber to read that article (I am not), but you can browse a list of their articles and get a picture that you rarely hear about from either side.

 

[Adam's Apple]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TV9LH80&show_article=1

(snip)
Clinton got off her plane in New Hampshire and declared: "This is especially about all of the young people in New Hampshire who need a president who won't just call for change, or a president who won't just demand change, but a president who will produce change, just like I've been doing for 35 years."
(snip)

Since I think Hillary's experience is greatly exaggerated, I wondered why Obama and John Edwards didn't jump on that claim by Hillary and ask her for examples of the changes she was responsible for during those 35 years. They missed a golden opportunity to enlighten the voters about Hillary's claimed "experience".

 

[Dr Grump]

You don't have to be in office to produce change.

 

[jillian]

Since I think Hillary's experience is greatly exaggerated, I wondered why Obama and John Edwards didn't jump on that claim by Hillary and ask her for examples of the changes she was responsible for during those 35 years. They missed a golden opportunity to enlighten the voters about Hillary's claimed "experience".

Maybe it wasn't exaggerated.

I love how people forget that she was considered one of the top 100 attorneys in the country even before Bill was president. This isn't some bimbo. Like her or not, she's always been a powerhouse.

 

[Taomon]

I don't trust either party. Both the Dems and the Repubs have sold out to corporate sponsors via lobbyists and power via the military.

They will do and say anything to get your vote. Our elections are all over the board, some electronic with no paper trail and subject to manipulation and error, some are Chads that can be unreliable at best, some are paper ballots which does not guarantee that they will be counted. Every office/school/church that an election is performed in is subject to tampering by volunteers and government officials.

Does your vote truly count?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Maybe it wasn't exaggerated.

I love how people forget that she was considered one of the top 100 attorneys in the country even before Bill was president. This isn't some bimbo. Like her or not, she's always been a powerhouse.

lmao

In 1990, the National Law Journal ran profiles of "the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in the United States". Hillary Clinton was on the list, and for years she would publicly boast that the Journal had named her one of "the nation's 100 top lawyers". Finally, the editor of the National Law Journal, Patrick Oster, wrote to Arkansas' first lady--as she still was in 1991--testily pointing out that the word "influential" is not synonymous with "top" or "best"--the latter two words used by Mrs. Clinton interchangeably.

By "influential" the Journal's profile writer, Peggy Fisk, had meant a lawyer plentifully endowed with corporate and political connections, which Mrs. Clinton certainly enjoyed in Arkansas where she had become a partner of the Rose Law Firm in 1977, amid the dawn of her husband's political career as he began his terms as governor of the state. By the late 1980s, Hillary Clinton was sitting on the board of Wal-Mart, with the rest of Arkansas' business elite crowding her Rolodex. Hillary ignored Oster's letter of correction, instructing her staff to continue to use the word "best" in invoking the Journal's profile. She continued to do so for years. Oster was still writing her a decade later about her misuse--including an editorial column in the Journal in 2000, when she was running for the U.S. Senate.

In fact, Mrs. Clinton was not a particularly good lawyer and would have had trouble making any honest list of the 100 best lawyers in Little Rock. In their political biography, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. tell the story about the National Law Journal and also probe her lawyerly skills when she was at Rose Law. She only tried five cases and confided to Vince Foster--another Rose Law partner--that she was terrified of juries. So Foster had to accompany her to court. Because of her lack of prowess in the courtroom, she had to make her way at Rose Law by working her connections as the State's first lady to bring in clients, and even then her annual partner's share was mostly below $100,000--the lowest in the firm and very small potatoes for one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11152007.html

 

[jillian]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... and counterpunch wouldn't have any agenda with regard to diminishing her stature.

lmao, yourself.

 

[mattskramer]

Here is what Hillary has accomplished. Feel free to put whatever weight that you want on the events. I’m confident that if these things were done by a Republican, many people here would give them much more weight. Since Hillary is a Democrat, people will probably brush them off. Anyway, here they are:

http://www.hillary-rodham-clinton.org/first_lady_hillary_clinton.html

Even before her role as First Lady of Arkansas and only a couple of years after her marriage to Bill Clinton, President Carter appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, which she served from 1978 to 1981. During this time, she was the first woman to be chair of that board which was her main role, the majority of the time.

Hillary was not the type of First Lady that most American's were use to seeing. She was not the quiet, stay at home, cleaning, and baking type of First Lady. As First Lady, Hillary accomplished many firsts and worked at improving health care across the US.

Bill Clinton became Governor of Arkansas in January of 1979 and Hillary held the title of First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 until 1981 and again from 1983 until 1992. During her time as First Lady, Clinton appointed her to chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee in 1979. While in this position she received federal funds that helped place medical facilities in poor areas around Arkansas, while not affecting the fees of doctors.

During her years as First Lady of Arkansas from 1983 until 1992, she served as chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, established the Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, and was honored by being named the Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. During 1987 to 1991, Hillary was the chairperson of the American Bar Associations's Commission on Women in the Profession, and was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the most influential attorneys in the United States for the years of 1988 and 1991.

Other board positions Hillary held while having the title of First Lady of Arkansas include 1988-1992 Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services, 1985-1992 chairperson of the Children's Defense Fund, 1985 to 1992 corporate board of directors of TCBY, 1986 to 1992 Wal-Mart, and during 1990 to 1992 Lafarge. Once again, Hillary gained a first as being the first woman member on the board for Wal-Mart.

President Clinton appointed Hillary to be the head and the chairperson of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993, was a force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997 along with Ted Kennedy, endorsed nationwide immunization and mammograms for older women covered by Medicare, aided in increasing research funding for childhood asthma and prostate cancer at the National Institutes of Health. Along with these accomplishments she worked along Attorney General Janet Reno to establish the Office on Violence Against Women, was the pioneer behind the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997, along with hosting several White House Conferences centered on Early Childhood Development and Learning in 1997, Children and Adolescents in 2000, Child Care in 1997, and the first Conferences ever held on Philanthropy in 1999 and Teenagers in 2000.

Among these wonderful accomplishments for the citizens of the United States, she broke the record of First Lady Pat Nixon by traveling to more than 80 countries.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... and counterpunch wouldn't have any agenda with regard to diminishing her stature.

Did you actually want to refute any of their points, or give us a reason why we shouldn't believe them?

Counterpunch is a pretty left-wing website. Their agenda is anti-corporate and anti-war, like most lefties. Thus it's not hard to understand why they aren't smitten with her.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Here is what Hillary has accomplished.

And this makes her qualifications for President far superior (their claim) to the other candidates--Democrat or Republican? How so?

 

[mattskramer]

And this makes her qualifications for President far superior (their claim) to the other candidates--Democrat or Republican? How so?

I never said that she is more qualified or less qualified. I just pointed out that she did accomplish things. She made changes.

 

[mattskramer]

And this makes her qualifications for President far superior (their claim) to the other candidates--Democrat or Republican? How so?

Who do you think is more qualified to be president and by what criteria do you measure their qualifications? What experience do you value more than others – political party affiliation?

 

[Adam's Apple]

I never said that she is more qualified or less qualified. I just pointed out that she did accomplish things. She made changes.

I understand that you never said she was more qualified or less qualified. That claim is made by Hillary and her campaign staff. See the clarifying parenthetical item in my post.

For a lot of good information on Hillary I would recommend that you read two recent books: A Woman in Charge by Carl Bernstein and Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton by two writers for the NYT, Jeff Gerth and Don VanNatta, Jr. These are writers who should have credibility with the left--nothing at all conservative about them--and there’s plenty of food for thought in these books about Hillary’s “experience”.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Who do you think is more qualified to be president and by what criteria do you measure their qualifications?

Simply by their knowledge and life's experiences that they have had, I would say that McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, Romney, Biden, and Richardson all have more "presidential" experience than Hillary. Their actual administrative and executive experiences make hers pale by comparison.

What experience do you value more than others – political party affiliation?

Here is what I personally look for re qualifications in considering a presidential candidate:

1. Personal administrative/executive experience, such as operating a business, governing a city or state, commanding a military component (such as Eisenhower or Colin Powell), etc.

2. Demonstrated leadership ability and good judgment.

3. Integrity, which entails good moral character, honesty, standards or principles that govern one's life.

4. Visionary and problem-solving abilities (such as offering new ideas in the areas of immigration, Social Security, energy dependence, education) and evidence that s/he can get these ideas implemented.

5. Has achieved success in his/her own life.

6. Has decision-making ability; does not have to take a poll to determine what decision to make.

7. Evidence is available that this person learns from past mistakes.

Political party affiliation enters into the picture, of course, but not so much as political philosophy. I would have no problem voting for a conservative Democrat rather than a liberal Republican if that was the choice offered me.