She voted for the launch of the Iraq war.
So did Edwards, Kerry, ultra-liberal Bush-hater Henry Waxman (House vote), Schumer, etc.--in all 29 dems in the Senate, and 81 dems in the House. Did all of these people vote Yea to run for pres in the future or to forward their own political agendas? Did they all sell out? Hard to believe.
Saddam Hussein was easily as evil as Hitler or Stalin (his hero). He killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the most vicious way (chemical weapons), he killed any politician who opposed him, including family members, he had women pulled off the street so that he and his cronies could rape them in rape rooms. He would have people lowered slowly in a vat of acid, would have the eyes gouged out of children to make their parents suffer; torture for him was first resort, not last. He would order people who did not want to carry out these acts of torture to execute much of this torture, or they would in turn be tortured to death. When he was a kid, he would heat up metal spears and shove them through dogs and cats. This is as evil a man as can exist on this Earth, and there was much evidence presented that he would soon have nuke capabilities. He also was swinging much power in his territory. He clearly wanted to unite the Middle East and possibly other nations (Russian, N. Korea, etc.) against the U.S. (and Israel). Please imagine if that had actually happened.
Clinton had been personally, face-to-face informed by the highest authorities in the presidential office that Saddam was not just accumulating WMD, but had in his possession a means to attack the East coast undetected (a bio attack). Considering that she represented NYC, she likely felt much pressure regarding this vote. She certainly did NOT vote for the internationally unsupported, unjustifiable occupation and attack that actually took place. She voted for FORCEFUL DISARMAMENT (assuming there were arms; she was informed that there were). Here is exactly what she said to the President and congress in a speech about the resolution just before the vote:
“While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
“If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
“If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply [NB: He did comply], then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
“…I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial.
“…So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.”
--Clinton's complete speech
--An article from 2004 where Edwards says, in hindsight, and with the information about WMD that he has at the time of the article, he STILL would vote for the Iraq Resolution.
--An interesting post explaining the Iraq resolution vote in 2002
--An Atlantic article by Kenneth Pollack, a liberal and Middle East intelligence insider who wrote The Threatening Storm, a book about why we should invade Iraq. The article is about why we have not seen WMD in Iraq.
Eight years as First Lady does not count as “experience.”
In her case, it does. Imagine if Bill Clinton had a brother with the identical background of Hillary Clinton (law, community service, lots of politics). Imagine he had appointed that brother to take on the health care system, as a close advisor, and/or to travel abroad as a representative of the U.S. Would we be questioning the legitimacy of that brother’s political experience in those years? Doubt it. To argue that a politically experienced and ambitious First Lady--given important responsibilities, both domestically and internationally--did not gain experience is sexist and absurd.
If she’s elected, we will have to deal with Bill Clinton in the White House again-- dipping his fingers into everything, causing division. Egads.
In the eight years that Bill Clinton was president we had the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, the budget was balanced, we had the first federal surplus since 1969, lower and middle income people were given some protection at tax time, the rich were not protected, we had peace, we were internationally respected, the public had EASIER access to information/documents from the White House and government, we successfully defended the Albanians against the Serbs with only two U.S. casualties, and Clinton left the office with a 65% approval rating, higher than anyone since WWII. All the while, he was up against a Republican-heavy senate and house. So yes. God forbid THAT guy pitches in.
She messed up her attempt at health care reform.
She was not able to get her health care vision passed because she INSISTED on health care for ALL. She was strongly opposed by conservatives and insurers (surprise!) and she would not back down on that point. If she had backed down, she might have gotten something passed, and now everyone would be complaining that she did not get us health care for all. Obviously, she now has more insight into how to maneuver this vision to make it a reality.
Shall we vote for someone with whom we’d like to have a beer? Everything she has done during this campaign has been fair. Unfair is Obama allowing his crew to twist her words so that they are implied to be racist. (Obama: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement…She is free to explain that.”) I would like to see an example of Clinton twisting ANY of Obama’s words (send to sakrug8 at gmail.com). I certainly can’t imagine her twisting his words into something that implies he is sexist. She simply attacks on issues, history, etc.
She didn’t leave Bill when he was unfaithful, which reflects on her weak character.
It is amazing how often this comes up. It has NOTHING to do with her ability to be president, and again, it is sexist. If a First Lady cheated on the President, she would be tarred and feathered, and if the President stayed with her, he would be lauded as a saint for sticking by her. For all we know Hillary gave Bill permission to philander. What difference does that make in the business of politics? And why in the world would anyone assume they know what she was thinking at the time?
The Clinton Presidential Library has accepted donations from Saudi Arabians.
As has the Bush, Reagan and Carter libraries, and quite possibly every presidential library before. It is a goodwill gesture from other countries to donate to a presidential library. Is the implication in this accusation that they accepted money from terrorists? The evil muslims? If so, that is rather racist. Not to mention that this doesn't have much to do with Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
“While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
“If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
“If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply [NB: He did comply], then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
“…I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial.
“…So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.”
--Clinton's complete speech
--An article from 2004 where Edwards says, in hindsight, and with the information about WMD that he has at the time of the article, he STILL would vote for the Iraq Resolution.
--An interesting post explaining the Iraq resolution vote in 2002
--An Atlantic article by Kenneth Pollack, a liberal and Middle East intelligence insider who wrote The Threatening Storm, a book about why we should invade Iraq. The article is about why we have not seen WMD in Iraq.
Eight years as First Lady does not count as “experience.”
In her case, it does. Imagine if Bill Clinton had a brother with the identical background of Hillary Clinton (law, community service, lots of politics). Imagine he had appointed that brother to take on the health care system, as a close advisor, and/or to travel abroad as a representative of the U.S. Would we be questioning the legitimacy of that brother’s political experience in those years? Doubt it. To argue that a politically experienced and ambitious First Lady--given important responsibilities, both domestically and internationally--did not gain experience is sexist and absurd.
If she’s elected, we will have to deal with Bill Clinton in the White House again-- dipping his fingers into everything, causing division. Egads.
In the eight years that Bill Clinton was president we had the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, the budget was balanced, we had the first federal surplus since 1969, lower and middle income people were given some protection at tax time, the rich were not protected, we had peace, we were internationally respected, the public had EASIER access to information/documents from the White House and government, we successfully defended the Albanians against the Serbs with only two U.S. casualties, and Clinton left the office with a 65% approval rating, higher than anyone since WWII. All the while, he was up against a Republican-heavy senate and house. So yes. God forbid THAT guy pitches in.
She messed up her attempt at health care reform.
She was not able to get her health care vision passed because she INSISTED on health care for ALL. She was strongly opposed by conservatives and insurers (surprise!) and she would not back down on that point. If she had backed down, she might have gotten something passed, and now everyone would be complaining that she did not get us health care for all. Obviously, she now has more insight into how to maneuver this vision to make it a reality.
She is not an appealing person.
Shall we vote for someone with whom we’d like to have a beer? Everything she has done during this campaign has been fair. Unfair is Obama allowing his crew to twist her words so that they are implied to be racist. (Obama: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement…She is free to explain that.”) I would like to see an example of Clinton twisting ANY of Obama’s words (send to sakrug8 at gmail.com). I certainly can’t imagine her twisting his words into something that implies he is sexist. She simply attacks on issues, history, etc.
She didn’t leave Bill when he was unfaithful, which reflects on her weak character.
It is amazing how often this comes up. It has NOTHING to do with her ability to be president, and again, it is sexist. If a First Lady cheated on the President, she would be tarred and feathered, and if the President stayed with her, he would be lauded as a saint for sticking by her. For all we know Hillary gave Bill permission to philander. What difference does that make in the business of politics? And why in the world would anyone assume they know what she was thinking at the time?
The Clinton Presidential Library has accepted donations from Saudi Arabians.
As has the Bush, Reagan and Carter libraries, and quite possibly every presidential library before. It is a goodwill gesture from other countries to donate to a presidential library. Is the implication in this accusation that they accepted money from terrorists? The evil muslims? If so, that is rather racist. Not to mention that this doesn't have much to do with Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
Whitewater
Oh, please. That was a controversy shouted over and over by the Republicans until it stuck. It amounted to nothing. Nothing evil was proven, and even if it was, it would have been minor--to the point of meaningless--in the world of politics. And yet this controversy is probably more familiar to the average person than the Iran-Contra scandal. Or the entire history of Reagan setting us up for doom in the Middle East. And it is probably equated with all of the Bush scandals. That's how powerful the Republican machine is.
She will be divisive, not pulling together dems and reps.
She actually has worked well with (reasonable) Republicans in the past, but more important is this: We have just been through a national nightmare, with end results that include a disconnection between the office of the president and the rest of the government, limitations in civilian freedoms and rights to privacy, the implementation of torture by military personnel, the development of an antagonistic relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world, a decline in national security and safety against terrorists and enemies, a tanking economy, the excising of ethics from corporate America, etc. We don’t exactly NEED a uniter right now. We need someone who can make a quick 180 degree turn with this ship. That is NOT an easy task, and it has little to do with making everyone happy at once. Some people, who have been doing very well under Bush, need to be made very unhappy, actually.
PROBLEMS WITH OBAMA:
He has very little experience.
Not just a little. Very little. Much of his experience in the senate has been gearing up for the presidential race. Community organizer, student president of a journal, lecturer (not professor) at a university--a pretty flimsy resume, to say the least. Considering the economy, the war, our international rep, health care, education, future terrorist attacks, more global-warming natural disasters, etc., do we really want someone so green at the helm? I think it will be deadly dangerous, for human lives and for the financial stability of the U.S., our position as a world power, etc. I think right now we are Rome before the fall, and we are foolish to go with someone who is completely new to this kind of work.
She will be divisive, not pulling together dems and reps.
She actually has worked well with (reasonable) Republicans in the past, but more important is this: We have just been through a national nightmare, with end results that include a disconnection between the office of the president and the rest of the government, limitations in civilian freedoms and rights to privacy, the implementation of torture by military personnel, the development of an antagonistic relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world, a decline in national security and safety against terrorists and enemies, a tanking economy, the excising of ethics from corporate America, etc. We don’t exactly NEED a uniter right now. We need someone who can make a quick 180 degree turn with this ship. That is NOT an easy task, and it has little to do with making everyone happy at once. Some people, who have been doing very well under Bush, need to be made very unhappy, actually.
PROBLEMS WITH OBAMA:
He has very little experience.
Not just a little. Very little. Much of his experience in the senate has been gearing up for the presidential race. Community organizer, student president of a journal, lecturer (not professor) at a university--a pretty flimsy resume, to say the least. Considering the economy, the war, our international rep, health care, education, future terrorist attacks, more global-warming natural disasters, etc., do we really want someone so green at the helm? I think it will be deadly dangerous, for human lives and for the financial stability of the U.S., our position as a world power, etc. I think right now we are Rome before the fall, and we are foolish to go with someone who is completely new to this kind of work.
He is not the saint everyone makes him out to be--he is a slick politician.
He has used the race card in the most underhanded way, implying that Bill (mentioning Jesse Jackson's wins in SC) and Hillary (her MLK/Johnson statement) have made racist or race-card comments, when they have not in any way. This is unforgivable. He is slick, e.g. His absurd "Reagan was better than Clinton, brought positive change to U.S." remark. He says what people want to hear in a vague way--he is a master politician in that he can charm without really saying anything. It is ironic that HRC (and Bill) has been accused of this when she spends most of her time talking about issues and answering questions at her rallies. He clearly fudges his life story in his memoir. It is painfully apparent to anyone who reads it, and some lies have been specifically pointed out: His talking about race issues with his high school buddy (he and others say Obama was noticeably absent from these discussions and meetings), his claim that his parents met and fell in love during the Selma march (impossible), his supposed central role in the Altgeld Gardens Asbestos Campaign (he was not at all), etc.
The other side will flatten him like a pancake if he gets the ticket.
I’m sure he’s a very nice and smart man, I'm sure he could be presidential material. But in his memoir, he puts a hard spin on his weird and very sad childhood/background, making it sound rosy. The Republicans will go to town with this stuff. I am not saying that the following would make him a bad president or a bad person, I am saying that this is the kind of stuff that will freak out the voters once the Republicans put their spin on it: His dad was a polygamist, already married to one woman (who was pregnant when he left for the U.S.) when he married Obama's mother (which in turn was a shotgun wedding), and then married yet another woman after leaving Obama's mother (sans divorce) (this is not in the memoir but a well accepted fact; the other two wives are still alive). His step-dad was a corrupt government official (source: memoir) working for a genocidal maniac (Suharto). His maternal grandfather, dad and step-dad were all womanizers (source: memoir). He thanks his "Choom Gang" (pot smoking buddies) in his high school yearbook. He did hard drugs; was not just a drug dabbler (did coke in high school, partied through college (source: memoir)). It is well publicized that people he has dealt with in the past have been unethical or even criminal (Tony Rezko, etc.). Likelihood of other skeletons in his closet: very high. Again, all of that stuff in his background would be fine, except for the way every campaign in history has gone down: Republicans spin spin spin, making perfectly nice people seem irresponsible and bad, drowning out all reason. The voters will no longer want to have a beer with him. A conservative will win.
Hillary has been through the ringer already...there's not a whole lot they can say about her (see anti-Hillary sites and anti-Hillary Op-Ed pieces, which almost always grab at straws).
BONUS:
comments from my friend Corey Powell, exec. editor of Discover Magazine:
* the idea that he will be able to get things done because he's a fresh face and will arrive with a blast of bipartisan support might be true...or it might be utterly false. We simply don't know yet, because it depends on evidence of his character (which we don't yet have) and on the tone of the campaign (which has not yet happened).
* his claim to high-mindedness is contradicted by his willingness to distort the "fairy tale" line, the MLK line, and a general disconcerting tendency to allow his supporters to shout racism when the attacks get tough. The fact that he didn't bother to denounce his church's support of Farrakhan until forced to do it by media critics is also unnerving.
* the section about how the GOP will flatten Obama comes across a bit over the top, even though I agree with the basic premise. So far he's been playing to Democratic primary voters, who are strong lefties. Most of the country hasn't yet heard his full, complicated life story. Times are different than they were--Guiliani's life is a mess and it's not clear if that stuff really hurt him (more like his corruption problems and boneheaded strategy). Maybe Obama will get a free pass. The point is that there are a lot of potential points of attack, in addition to a lot of political problems with Obama.
* and to that point--what exactly are his positions, anyway? Broadly speaking his views look similar to Clinton's except a bit more conservative, a bit more directed toward market solutions rather than government-directed ones. If he's elected on the generic mood of coming together, feeling bipartisan, etc, that could fall apart the second he proposes legislation, since so far he is not pushing any idea beyond bit, vague themes.
And on the Clinton side, I'd say that an awful lot of her baggage is with the media. That is a significant problem, actually--they could make it difficult for her to govern, and her own high-minded way of dealing with the press hasn't helped things. But she worked it out in the Senate, so we at least have evidence she can work bipartisan. So far we know nothing about Obama.
Finally, I think you do have to acknowledge the potential for Bill to be a genuine meddler. If he visits foreign dignitaries and floats his own policy ideas--not too hard to imagine--that could work a lot of mischief. But again, this is a matter of contrast, in we know a LOT about Clinton's policy team but not nearly so much about Obama's, and that's what really counts.
SOME LINKS:
-Fantastic article about the media coverage of the race -- Chicago Tribune
-The unknown: Is Obama Ready? -- AP
-An historian's take on Obama as president
-Some falsehoods in Obama's memoir -- Chicago Tribune
-Article about Obama's destitute childhood friend, fresh out of prison, with Obama warning him not to speak with reporters. Worrisome.
-Susan Kruglinski (sakrug8 at gmail.com)
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
The other side will flatten him like a pancake if he gets the ticket.
I’m sure he’s a very nice and smart man, I'm sure he could be presidential material. But in his memoir, he puts a hard spin on his weird and very sad childhood/background, making it sound rosy. The Republicans will go to town with this stuff. I am not saying that the following would make him a bad president or a bad person, I am saying that this is the kind of stuff that will freak out the voters once the Republicans put their spin on it: His dad was a polygamist, already married to one woman (who was pregnant when he left for the U.S.) when he married Obama's mother (which in turn was a shotgun wedding), and then married yet another woman after leaving Obama's mother (sans divorce) (this is not in the memoir but a well accepted fact; the other two wives are still alive). His step-dad was a corrupt government official (source: memoir) working for a genocidal maniac (Suharto). His maternal grandfather, dad and step-dad were all womanizers (source: memoir). He thanks his "Choom Gang" (pot smoking buddies) in his high school yearbook. He did hard drugs; was not just a drug dabbler (did coke in high school, partied through college (source: memoir)). It is well publicized that people he has dealt with in the past have been unethical or even criminal (Tony Rezko, etc.). Likelihood of other skeletons in his closet: very high. Again, all of that stuff in his background would be fine, except for the way every campaign in history has gone down: Republicans spin spin spin, making perfectly nice people seem irresponsible and bad, drowning out all reason. The voters will no longer want to have a beer with him. A conservative will win.
Hillary has been through the ringer already...there's not a whole lot they can say about her (see anti-Hillary sites and anti-Hillary Op-Ed pieces, which almost always grab at straws).
BONUS:
comments from my friend Corey Powell, exec. editor of Discover Magazine:
* the idea that he will be able to get things done because he's a fresh face and will arrive with a blast of bipartisan support might be true...or it might be utterly false. We simply don't know yet, because it depends on evidence of his character (which we don't yet have) and on the tone of the campaign (which has not yet happened).
* his claim to high-mindedness is contradicted by his willingness to distort the "fairy tale" line, the MLK line, and a general disconcerting tendency to allow his supporters to shout racism when the attacks get tough. The fact that he didn't bother to denounce his church's support of Farrakhan until forced to do it by media critics is also unnerving.
* the section about how the GOP will flatten Obama comes across a bit over the top, even though I agree with the basic premise. So far he's been playing to Democratic primary voters, who are strong lefties. Most of the country hasn't yet heard his full, complicated life story. Times are different than they were--Guiliani's life is a mess and it's not clear if that stuff really hurt him (more like his corruption problems and boneheaded strategy). Maybe Obama will get a free pass. The point is that there are a lot of potential points of attack, in addition to a lot of political problems with Obama.
* and to that point--what exactly are his positions, anyway? Broadly speaking his views look similar to Clinton's except a bit more conservative, a bit more directed toward market solutions rather than government-directed ones. If he's elected on the generic mood of coming together, feeling bipartisan, etc, that could fall apart the second he proposes legislation, since so far he is not pushing any idea beyond bit, vague themes.
And on the Clinton side, I'd say that an awful lot of her baggage is with the media. That is a significant problem, actually--they could make it difficult for her to govern, and her own high-minded way of dealing with the press hasn't helped things. But she worked it out in the Senate, so we at least have evidence she can work bipartisan. So far we know nothing about Obama.
Finally, I think you do have to acknowledge the potential for Bill to be a genuine meddler. If he visits foreign dignitaries and floats his own policy ideas--not too hard to imagine--that could work a lot of mischief. But again, this is a matter of contrast, in we know a LOT about Clinton's policy team but not nearly so much about Obama's, and that's what really counts.
SOME LINKS:
-Fantastic article about the media coverage of the race -- Chicago Tribune
-The unknown: Is Obama Ready? -- AP
-An historian's take on Obama as president
-Some falsehoods in Obama's memoir -- Chicago Tribune
-Article about Obama's destitute childhood friend, fresh out of prison, with Obama warning him not to speak with reporters. Worrisome.
THE THING THAT NOBODY WILL SAY:
In this country, we are so scarred by racism, we (rightly) are very sensitive to anything that could possible be construed as racist. But on the flip side, sexism is a joke. We can joke about how weak men are "ladies," we can depict H. Clinton as a witch, the Museum of Sex can make fun of her by displaying a topless bust of her. These kinds of indignities would be looked upon as shocking if they were cast against someone who is an ethnic minority. If you read some of the vicious Op-Eds and posts against HRC, and swap her name for Obama's, you will see how slanted the coverage is--there are things said about Clinton on a daily basis that would never be said by Obama's worst enemy. The truth is, over history, women have been oppressed on a larger scale than any other "minority" and all around the world they continue to be persecuted because they are women: Treated as property, sexually abused as if it were a normal part of life and not a hate crime, treated as "dirty" and "subservient" by religions and cultures. If we are going to be sensitive about race, we should be equally sensitive about gender, since that is the most entrenched prejudice in the history of the world. Conversely, if we can joke or speak negatively about a woman, we should also be able to joke or speak negatively about a person who is a racial minority.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN THIS ELECTION:
If a terrorist attack hit the U.S. right after the new president takes office (which some have predicted may happen) who could best deal with it?
Who might the new president appoint to the cabinet?
How easily will the candidate be able to execute his/her plan upon election?
How honest have the candidates been about their own histories?
Who have the candidates worked with successfully or unsuccessfully?
What might happen during the first year of presidency?
How might the candidates represent themselves to the rest of the world?
How might other world leaders perceive and deal with the candidate?
Who can pull this country out of the quagmire—which includes war, crashing economy, lost ethics, international rep, religious/non-religious division, floundering education system, no health care, etc.—quickly and efficiently?
Thank you for reading.IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN THIS ELECTION:
If a terrorist attack hit the U.S. right after the new president takes office (which some have predicted may happen) who could best deal with it?
Who might the new president appoint to the cabinet?
How easily will the candidate be able to execute his/her plan upon election?
How honest have the candidates been about their own histories?
Who have the candidates worked with successfully or unsuccessfully?
What might happen during the first year of presidency?
How might the candidates represent themselves to the rest of the world?
How might other world leaders perceive and deal with the candidate?
Who can pull this country out of the quagmire—which includes war, crashing economy, lost ethics, international rep, religious/non-religious division, floundering education system, no health care, etc.—quickly and efficiently?
HILLARY CLINTON EXPERIENCE
Below are excerpts from a thoroughly sourced bio of HRC from Wikipedia. I think this clearly shows how much more experience she has than Obama. In fact, I did not even include the presidential years. Please go to the wiki entry to read entire article.
Early Years
Raised in a politically conservative household, at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon, and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964. Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, who got her to read Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative and who was, like her father, a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962.
College
In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science. She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year. However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position. In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty. In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association. She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views. Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination. Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.
In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes. She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement; she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers. That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).
Law school
Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor. In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.
She interned on child custody cases at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes; two of its four partners were current or former communist party members. She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973. The article became frequently cited in the field.
Career (pre-White House)
During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for the newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.
In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, where Bill Clinton also taught. In February 1977, specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law, while also working pro bono in child advocacy
Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.
Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979. Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.
In 1979, she became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.
As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy. She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.
From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it. She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.
[[BECAUSE MANY LIKE TO SAY THAT HER POLITICAL EXPERIENCE DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL YEARS DOESN'T COUNT, I WILL LEAVE THAT OUT, AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. LET'S JUST SAY SHE DID NOTHING BUT SEW BUTTONS DURING THOSE YEARS...]]
United States Senator
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002), Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging. She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (since 2001).
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment. She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.
Senator Clinton voted against the tax cuts introduced by President Bush, including theEconomic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit.
Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress; shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003; advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004; and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.
Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush. In May 2007 a compromise war funding bill that removed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government passed the Senate by a vote of 80-14 and would be signed by Bush; Clinton was one of those who voted against it. Clinton responded to GeneralDavid Petraeus's September 2007 Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq by saying, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief." In September 2007 she voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization", which passed 76-22.
In March 2007, in response to the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Clinton called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, and launched an Internet campaign to gain petition signatures towards this end. In May and June 2007, regarding the high-profile, hotly debated comprehensive immigration reform bill known as the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Clinton cast a number of votes in support of the bill, which eventually failed to gain cloture.
Early Years
Raised in a politically conservative household, at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, finding evidence of vote fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon, and volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964. Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, who got her to read Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative and who was, like her father, a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962.
College
In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science. She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year. However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position. In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty. In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association. She attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program at the urging of Professor Alan Schechter, who assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference so she could better understand her changing political views. Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination. Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention.
In 1969, Rodham graduated with departmental honors in political science. Stemming from the demands of some students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. According to reports by the Associated Press, her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes. She was featured in an article published in Life magazine, due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Edward Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement; she also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally-syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers. That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthy conditions).
Law school
Rodham then entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor. In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.
She interned on child custody cases at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes; two of its four partners were current or former communist party members. She began a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center. Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973. The article became frequently cited in the field.
Career (pre-White House)
During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for the newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal. Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.
In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law, where Bill Clinton also taught. In February 1977, specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law, while also working pro bono in child advocacy
Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.
Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979. Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.
In 1979, she became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.
As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy. She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.
From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it. She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.
[[BECAUSE MANY LIKE TO SAY THAT HER POLITICAL EXPERIENCE DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL YEARS DOESN'T COUNT, I WILL LEAVE THAT OUT, AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. LET'S JUST SAY SHE DID NOTHING BUT SEW BUTTONS DURING THOSE YEARS...]]
United States Senator
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002), Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging. She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (since 2001).
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clinton sought to obtain funding for the recovery efforts in New York City and security improvements in her state. Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in quickly securing $21.4 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment. She subsequently took a leading role in investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders.
Senator Clinton voted against the tax cuts introduced by President Bush, including theEconomic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, saying it was fiscally irresponsible to reopen the budget deficit.
Looking to establish a "progressive infrastructure" to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta's Center for American Progress; shared aides with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, founded in 2003; advised and nurtured the Clintons' former antagonist David Brock's Media Matters for America, created in 2004; and following the 2004 Senate elections, successfully pushed new Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid to create a Senate war room to handle daily political messaging.
Clinton opposed the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 and supported a February 2007 non-binding Senate resolution against it, which failed to gain cloture. In March 2007 she voted in favor of a war spending bill that required President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within a certain deadline; it passed almost completely along party lines but was subsequently vetoed by President Bush. In May 2007 a compromise war funding bill that removed withdrawal deadlines but tied funding to progress benchmarks for the Iraqi government passed the Senate by a vote of 80-14 and would be signed by Bush; Clinton was one of those who voted against it. Clinton responded to GeneralDavid Petraeus's September 2007 Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq by saying, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief." In September 2007 she voted in favor of a Senate resolution calling on the State Department to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps "a foreign terrorist organization", which passed 76-22.
In March 2007, in response to the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, Clinton called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, and launched an Internet campaign to gain petition signatures towards this end. In May and June 2007, regarding the high-profile, hotly debated comprehensive immigration reform bill known as the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, Clinton cast a number of votes in support of the bill, which eventually failed to gain cloture.
[[By the way, vote for vote she is almost identical to Obama (see Washington Post database of senate votes).]]
-Susan Kruglinski (sakrug8 at gmail.com)
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
