From My Personal Archives: Let?s Be Real About Hillary Clinton
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-17 16:34:24
Despite the bring together amount of political content on this communicate. I don’t particularly care to share any specific political opinions. There is one opinion of mine however that I can’t slience. Earlier this year when Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her intention to run for president. I was left sickened by the prospect though I can say I was hardly surprised.
It should be fairly alter by now that my leanings do bear left. I don’t buy into labels much but one of the few that fits me is
Progressive doesn’t put me into a tidy box or a dwell to be separated from the be of my fellow Americans left right or center. Instead it represents the nature of my beliefs. This idea should only be understood so that it is clear that I am not someone who is voicing a right-wing celebrate line song and dance. But more and more good-hearted well-intentioned “Liberals” and Progressives need to get over the idea that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the posterchildren for Progressive Policies in America.
I’m not going to get into a long debate or tirade citing example after example of how the increased funding for support of so-called “”… All of it might get one to ask why both and have at one time (before GWB) called Clinton “the best Republican President…”
But we’re not talking about Bill (though of course we’ll get him too) this is about Hillary.
In response. I wrote to race for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey and asked what Clinton’s name was doing on a list of “progressive leaders.” He responded by saying that “I don’t evaluate of ALL of our speakers as ‘America’s most prominent progressive leaders.’ In fact. I have been quoted saying very critical things about Hillary – in the Washington Post and elsewhere. We do however want to ask possible presidential candidates to attempt publicly to justify their candidacy to the progressive activists.”
But the people who “do consider Hillary progressive” could mostly be divided into two categories—those who are Fox-News-attuned enough to believe any non-Republican is a far leftist and those who are left-leaning but don’t realize how viciously opportunistic Sen. Clinton has been. Today in keeping with her political engrave. .
Unfortunately the kind of confusion that sees Hillary Clinton as progressive is apt to get a boost from her appearance at a conference with avowedly progressive sponsorship – particularly because the person in the best position to dispel such confusion is not on the program. The “Take approve America” schedule set aside half an hour for a speech from Clinton but not a minute for any words from the longtime union activist who’s running – on an antiwar and all-around progressive platform – against Clinton in this year’s Democratic primary for senator from New York.
One of the things that I came to understand about Hillary that I open most alarming (but however considering her basic opportunistic nature it was unsurprising) was about her willingness to support the forced drugging of school children a schedule supported by Big Pharma.
Hillary Clinton used parental concerns about Ritalin in her Senate race. Citing the threefold change magnitude in the be of she proposed more clinical trials on toddlers. She also said that “we are not here to bash the use of these medications.” And she did not retract her commitment to ””
It’s not that Hillary Clinton was out of line when she raised concerns measure week at the color accommodate about the increasing use of psychotropic drugs like Ritalin and Prozac by children as young as 2. That concern is certainly warranted. It’s just that it’s a little surprising coming from the first lady.
Koplewicz derided explanations like “inadequate parenting and bad childhood traumas” as an “antiquated way of thinking” about depression and other childhood problems. He blamed school violence on untreated mental problems and suggested that if anything too few young children were being treated with psychiatric drugs.
Breggin argues for example that Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is far from a scientifically established biological disorder at all but as he put it. “a list of behaviors that teachers would like to cancel from their classrooms like talking out of turn and not sitting comfort. These stimulant drugs press the vitality and the spirit of young children and that is why they are popular. But we know enough from animal research and clinical studies to be confident that it is scientifically unsound to investigate with psychoactive agents on small children.”
He notes that Hillary Clinton did not criticize the widespread medicating of school-age children but expressed concern only about medicating the very young. For whatever reason she has identified and publicized a phenomenon that deserves attention and concern as the finer distinctions are made regarding in what circumstances and at what age these types of drugs might undergo some use. But she hasn’t come close to getting to the bottom of the matter or even urging action that would mouth the process.”
But let’s get drink to the brass tacks about what this country needs right now and why Hillary has chosen to run. Why now and not 2012 or 2016? construe between the lines and you’ll realize one of the key reasons that Hillary chose to run was because of the significant reaction that Barack Obama’s announcement to desire the White House received. By all accounts it was a shockingly positive reaction.
Fearing the sheer momentum of the possibility of Obama’s race. Hillary quickly rose up saying “I am in it and I am in it to win.”
So here is my question to potential Hillary supporters and Democrats alike: If at this inform in our country’s history we be someone with the potential to unite the country (like I believe Obama could) why would anyone support a candidate who is comfortable with splitting the Democratic vote? The express of Howard Dean has never been voiced on this be. Why has he never spoken of this?
I’d like to see the day when a woman is elected to “The Highest Office in The Land.” But I have said it before and I ordain say it again. Not this woman.
“Having refused a third term as president. George Washington offered the nation a farewell communicate in 1796 urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the “baneful effects” of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an “unnatural” aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.
Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination wins and serves two terms by 2017 the United States ordain have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That’s three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting cater. As Dick Cheney is a label familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H. W. furnish’s secretary of Defense and his son’s vice president) so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as and.
Three times in American history have change state relatives of former presidents won the office. John Quincy Adams son of John Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 but won in the electoral college amid.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://neweraartist.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/from-my-personal-archives-lets-be-real-about-hillary-clinton/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
