WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton, moving with a speed that has startled some observers of her presidential campaign, is making health care the premier domestic plank for her 2008 bid.

Whether criticizing President Bush’s budget, co-sponsoring legislation in the Senate, or joking about her failures during the 1990s, Mrs. Clinton has been talking about health at nearly every turn.

When the senator appeared at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday announcing a bill aimed at lowering the cost of generic versions of biologic drugs, it was her fourth event devoted to health care since January 20, the date she officially launched her presidential campaign. The legislation has the support of some Republicans and a variety of business groups and unions, but it faces opposition from two leading pharmaceutical industry groups that contend it risks stifling innovation by decreasing the incentive for the development of cutting-edge drugs.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategy to emphasize health care so early in her campaign serves two chief purposes, analysts say. It highlights her experience on the issue, and it shifts the focus away from Iraq and the hard questions Mrs. Clinton has faced about her 2002 vote authorizing the war.

From a policy standpoint, many voters outside New York remember Mrs. Clinton most for her unsuccessful bid to overhaul the nation’s health care system as first lady during her husband’s administration. The debacle drew stinging criticism to Mrs. Clinton and, many say, helped contribute to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Yet as senator, Mrs. Clinton has sought to confront the defeat head on, and often with a sense of humor, saying repeatedly that she has learned from her past mistakes and is now better prepared to try again.

The benefit of bringing her past out early and proactively could serve Mrs. Clinton well later in the campaign, a Democratic consultant who is the interim dean of Boston University’s College of Communication, Tobe Berkovitz, said. “If you can turn a weakness into a strength, that is a huge strategic success,” he said.

From the Clinton campaign’s perspective, what her opponents may deem a singular failure in management is a valuable experience lacking in her top rivals for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards and Senator Obama. “Everyone knows that Senator Clinton has been a national leader working to fix the health care system,” a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Blake Zeff, said.

Health care has provided an easier talking point for Mrs. Clinton than Iraq. She is taking increasing heat from Messrs. Edwards and Obama for her 2002 vote and her refusal to admit it was a mistake.

The two are also trying to outflank her on health care with proposals for universal coverage that are either more detailed or ambitious than anything she has offered. Mr. Edwards has laid out an extensive plan that calls for tax increases for the nation’s top earners, and Mr. Obama has called for enacting universal health care within five years. While Mrs. Clinton has said she intends to issue a universal plan, her focus thus far has been on more incremental change.

Since announcing her White House bid on January 20, she has touted proposals to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, to increase the use of electronic health records, and, most recently, to improve access to lower-cost prescription drugs. Mrs. Clinton could have an added stake in securing passage of each of those measures as a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

“She would love to go into the campaign with a track record in Congress on health care,” a political science professor at Hunter College, Andrew Polsky, said.

A beefed up résumé would distance Mrs. Clinton from Mr. Edwards, who did not run for re-election as a North Carolina senator when he sought the presidency in 2004.

Mrs. Clinton appeared yesterday with Senator Schumer, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, and others to introduce the “Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act,” which would allow the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of biotech drugs, often referred to as biologics.

Biologics, which are produced from living cells rather than synthesized chemically, are expanding as a way to treat diseases such as cancer and diabetes, but some can cost consumers tens of thousands of dollars a year, lawmakers said.

“Without action, the manufacturers of these biotech drugs can continue to charge monopoly prices indefinitely,” Mrs. Clinton said. “This is a perfect example of skyrocketing costs in health care, and this legislation is the perfect opportunity to help put the brakes on this overspending.”

The bill is opposed by some in the pharmaceutical industry, who warn of safety concerns and say that if major companies are forced to give up profits from patent-protected drugs, they will be less likely to invest in research and development. The innovation of revolutionary new medicines will continue “if and only if investors are attracted to the idea of investing billions and billions of dollars in these companies,” the president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, James Greenwood, said in an interview.

A former Pennsylvania congressman, Mr. Greenwood said his trade group, which represents more than 1,100 biotech firms, wanted measures added to the bill that would ensure the safety of generic versions, protect trade secrets, and provide 10 years of market exclusivity to patent-holders.