Hillary Rodham Clinton has already helped to define one presidency. The Yale Law School graduate was instrumental in the triumphs and trials of her husband's political career in Arkansas and in the White House. Now Senator Clinton may be poised to shape another presidency, but this time it would be her own. Hillary Clinton will make a fundraising stop in Utah next week, and Wednesday Doug talks to Carl Bernstein who has written the new biography A Woman in Charge.
Voting for Hillary
Would you vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election? Why or why not? Continue the conversation ...
I am voting for Hillary because she is the smartest of all candidates. Her thinking ability, her depth of understanding of the people of our country and their personal needs is outstanding. She also has a broad background and insight into our country's relationships on the international level. I am voting for her because of the inept decisions the Republicans have made during the past years and only hope we can get our country's reputation back on a respectful level. I am voting for her because I believe a woman can get people to find solutions with dialogue and negotiation instead of warfare and destruction.
Absolutely I am voting for Hillary. She is smart, experienced, etc., but more importantly, she evokes such strong feelings from people, her election may lead to the GOP taking back the House or Senate (hopefully one and not both). Then we would have glorious gridlock again, and more of the legislation that passes and is enacted will be good. Remember our balanced budget in 2000? There is hope for that again with gridlock. When one party controls all, as we had from 2001 to 2006, the government gets way out of line.
While Hillary is very intelligent, and would probably do some great things for our country (as her husband did), I would prefer a different democratic candidate. I really don't want to vote for anyone who was for this war. It seems to me that sometimes Hillary uses her intelligence more for political purposes than to make the best choices for our country. Maybe its necessary to do this in order to stay in the running, but in my opinion it ruins her credibility. It really took her a long time to admit that she made a mistake in voting to give the president the authority to pursue this war. It would be great for our country to have a woman as president, and I wouldn't be totally disappointed if she does make it.
There was a time when I would have voted for Hillary for President, beyond a doubt, and if she becomes the Democratic nominee, then I still will. Whatever her flaws, I still find her to be very intelligent, capable, compassionate and wise, with honorable motives -- all qualities that have been sorely missing in the present administration.
However, the problem lies in her husband's legacy. Will she be able to move forward and act objectively, without the need to protect and/or defend the parts of his policies that, in retrospect, have not worked or have had negative, even dangerous, unintended consequences.
Most notably, there is the use of depleted uranium in U.S. military weapons. It didn't start with Bill Clinton. On the contrary, it began with Bush/Cheney, only it was George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney as Defense Secretary, who first bombed Iraq on January 17, 1991, using penetrators made effective by the extremely hard heavy metal, which would burst into flames and sharpen on contact with its target, leaving tiny radiating particles in the air, and eventually making their way into the water and land, there in Iraq, as well as travelling upon the currents of the great dust storms that Iraq is famous for. The radiation, called "low-level", is no less intense or damaging for being "low-level" -- it just means that the range of the constantly emitting bursts is small, but once particles enter the body, by inhalation, the mouth or through an open wound, that emission range is perfect for attacking nearby cells as the particles work their way through. The kinds of cancers that occur depend on the size and solubility of the particles, and where they get stuck along the way. Doctors in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen the greatest increases in leukemia, and cancers of the liver and lungs, as well as the previously rare occurence of multiple separate cancers. With the sanctions against Iraq in the 90's, treatment was almost impossible, and losses were great.
Then, under President Clinton, there was the crisis in Kosovo and Bosnia, and NATO moved in, armed with U.S. and British weapons. In January 2001, the NATO countries exploded with stories of cancers suffered by the troops who had served in the former Yugoslavia, and demanded an investigation. The United Nations sent a team from the Environmental division and the World Health Organization. Meanwhile, the Pentagon squashed scientific evidence linking DU and medical effects. It was years later that those who were still paying attention learned that Dr. Keith Baverstock of the WHO, their best expert in radiation, filed a report in 2001 acknowledging enormously harmful effects, but, under pressure from the U.S., it was shelved.
Even more horrible, then, is the fact that the U.S. military, no longer capable of pretending to be unaware of the effects, still uses depleted uranium in its missiles, penetrators, shields, tanks, and more. Yet few in Congress are courageous enough to try to introduce and support legislation to stop its use or even seek testing for every soldier who serves in the Gulf. Congressmen Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Kucinich (D-OH) have been leaders in this effort. But even Democrats have been reluctant to take this on, even though the greatest use by far has been ordered by the two versions of Bush/Cheney, in 1991 and from 2003 to the present, because in between the Bushes is Bill Clinton, their most successful President since FDR.
I don't know that Senator Hillary Clinton would be willing to face these truths and stop what so many in the rest of the world recognize as the kind of long-term, boundary-less destruction that qualifies as a war crime. It is the ultimate torture -- to watch your loved ones, especially those who are most vulnerable -- your children, suffer through cancers and birth defects.
We need a leader who will end this.
And we need citizens who will demand to know what the candidates will do about it.
Hilary voted for the Patriot Act and has done nothing to repeal it. I don't believe she will prevent the US from going to war with Iran. Hilary is on the Arms Committee. Where do you think her loyalty lies? "Watch Why We Fight." You can rent it on NetFlix.com.
I was going to vote for Barrack Obama, but he hasn't done anything to repeal the Patriot Act, wants to increase foreign spending by 50 Billion, and has talked about invading Pakistan. It's 5 years too late to go charging in there now. NO MORE PREEMPTIVE WARS.
I am a woman, but will not vote for Hilary because she is a woman. That's no reason to vote for someone.
I am voting for Ron Paul. The man voted against the Patriot Act. This is a man with a 10 year voting record who does what he says he's going to do, will get us out of Iraq, and will not send the US into Iran.
Why should the Patriot Act be reversed? And what is your reference for HEARING (I don't trust everything the media prints it's better to hear it from the source) Sen. Obama say he will increase foreign spending by 50 billion..and if he does...so what? How many millions/billions are spent on sending robots to mars? Yeah, that helped American jobs and health coverage. Money is money. It's supposed to be spent and belly aching about it doesn't change a thing. Politicians always spend money and never have to pay it back. Let's find a real solution to all Americans having affordable health coverage...and yeah, it's gonna cost a few BILLION.
The national NPR station did one of the most biased stories about the Fox Presidential debate the other day. They only reported that the so called front runners were arguing with each other. They failed to mention, Ron Paul the only anti war candidate won the text poll by a wide marine.
I will vote for her as the most experienced and hard working, informed--because she does her homework, candidate, and I hope that her husband whose presidency actually developed successful steps in bringing down the national deficit will be highly involved in her leadership. And don't say he was a sleezeball. Okay, he was. If it is a moral issue: Please--give me a womanizer over one who lies to cause mass murdering of our military.
Hilary will sell us down the river. She is a pro war, pro military industrial complex candidate. She is on the Arms Committee. Pick a Democrat that's not in the pocket of corporations like Dennis Kucinich.
We are in really big trouble. Hilary voted for the Patriot Act and she will probably vote for this.
If H.R. 1955 passes, war protests may be considered terrorists. Read the Bill: http://www...=h110-1955
This bill has passed Congress and is in the Senate. It wouldn't be bad if it specified threats to US citizens, but this bill specifies any US citizen that poses a threat to the US Government, so people who are marching on the White House to impeach Bush could be considered terrorists.
If you don't think this could be a real problem check out this N a o m i W o l f video http://www...jALf12PAWc
You can use congress.org to put in your zip code, and get the contact information for your representatives. I called Hatch's office and verified this is real.
10/16/2007 4:39:23 PM
© 2009 KUER, 101 S. Wasatch Dr., SLC, UT 84112