NYT: Senator Clinton Calls for Global Plan for Poor Women

[DeepModem Mom]

Sen. Clinton Calls for Global Plan for Poor Women
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: September 22, 2006

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made a star turn this morning at former President Bill Clinton’s conference on global challenges, calling for a concerted attack on the “feminization of poverty” by destroying cultural, political, and economic barriers that trap women and children in desperate conditions.

Before a standing-room-only audience in a ballroom of the Sheraton hotel in midtown Manhattan, Mrs. Clinton gave opening remarks at the conference session “Women and the Power of Economic Opportunity” then moderated a panel that included President Bush’s former secretary of agriculture and three leaders in the development and anti-poverty fields.

“Far too many women are stuck in a cycle of poverty from which there is no escape,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting that women in many countries cannot vote, run for office, or secure credit or equity capital to start businesses. “How do we help overcome that condition of poverty and dependence?”...

***

Panel members said the goals and solutions for aiding women and fighting poverty were fairly obvious. With greater economic strength, women gain greater power to improve conditions for themselves and their families and to press for political reforms — in part by seeking elective office, where they can spur new laws and programs in such areas as education and health....

***

Mrs. Clinton has been drawn to these issues for decades: As first lady of Arkansas in the 1980’s, she helped develop microcredit programs to benefit the poorest parts of the state, and during her husband’s presidency she visited women’s relief programs around the world, led a delegation to a United Nations women’s conference in China in 1995, and wrote at length on women, children and poverty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/nyregion/22cnd-hillary.html?hp&ex=1158984000&en=37435e34334aca25&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[JI7]

1. good for her, i remember she did a lot as first lady on this issue

unlike the robot we have now.

[yellowdogintexas]

2. one thing about Hillary, she takes action. This is a great cause

for her and one that needs her!

She was so not a robot/Stepfordwife first lady

[Erika]

3. It's good to hear about a social conscience and

planning to improve women's lives.

W and Laura have actually made women's lives harder through their lack of family planning funds and bringing war to these women's lives.

[bling bling]

4. 3 responses! How extraordinary.

No wonder nobody ever seems to know about or is able to remember all the good things Hillary does. Nobody pays any attention to it.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. OK, I'll Bite

And what good thing has she done here that I've not noticed? Saying that she's against women being poor? Is this what passes for a bold bit 'o goodness for Ms. Clinton?

Anyone can talk the talk - the rubber meets the road on actions, such as approving (and continuing to support) the war in Iraq, the "Patriot" act, the draconian bankruptcy bill, fleeing from Feingold's censure resolution, refusing to filibuster Alito, not to mention her sponsoring a bill to make flag-burning punishable, and so forth...

Please think about this.

[bling bling]

6. Ok.

Thanks for asking. I've thought about it. I see your point about simply talking about poor people doesn't exactly amount to anything in the big picture. That's true. I was reacting more to the last paragraph that I read, but that was about actions from a decade or more ago so that's still not evidence of anything she's doing now.

My reactionary response stems from bitterness going way, way back. I feel that Hillary Clinton gets treated very unfairly and has ever since she was the first lady. For example.

*I listened to the Republicans howl endlessly about whitewater, vince foster, accepting gifts, and capitalizing on any and all opportunities to assassinate (sp?) her character. The attacks were out of line, uncalled for, and almost always baseless.

*I listened to men AND women rip her apart over the Monica thing. "Well, she's obviously just using him to catapault herself to power, because otherwise she'd divorce him." Always, she's accused of wanting/desiring power. It's really fucking disgusting how people accuse her of that and it's a hot button with me. She has done a LOT of good works throughout her long career for causes that Dems consider important. How is that equate to wanting power? And none of the men get labeled "power-hungry". I can't even go there because I get too pissed off about it.

*A few years ago I read articles in the Newspapers (not the Gossip columns, but the actual News sections) about her first days as a Senator discussing why Hillary wasn't paying as much attention to her hair and make-up now that she was a Senator compared to when she was the first lady.

*Nearly every article I've read about Hillary manages somehow to quote her out of context in a way so as to either fire up the left or fire up the right. Generally, if you see an article written about Hillary it's a good idea to put your investigative hat on and check it out a bit further. Almost every time you'll find that what I've said is true and that she's been portrayed unfairly or quoted out of context. Positive articles like the one here from the NYT are very rare. Honestly, I mean this: I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the last paragraph in the OP. It was really weird to see they voluntarily included the information about Hillary being a long-time advocate on the issue of women in poverty.

Even in the flag-burning situation. If you put on your sleuth hat you'll find that the legislation she co-sponsored was actually intended to be in our best interest. She knew that if the Dems voted against a flag-burning amendment, it would provide the Repubs with perfect ammo for one of their ads: Picture a commercial with a U.S. Marine sans a leg or two with a narrator accusing the Democrat of standing behind those who wish to desicrate the symbol of our great men and women in uniform. Or something along those lines. However, the legislation was written in a way that no Democrat would have wanted to vote for it. Therefore, Hillary drafted her own version of the flag-burning amendment. One that basically didn't change much of anything except to make it illegal to burn a flag on federal property (or something like that). This way, the Dems could avoid the attack ads while voting for something that didn't trample all over the constitution the way the original legislation did.

The feelings I harbor that Hillary is treated unfairly is only re-confirmed inside me every time I see a thread sink like a stone that has anything to do with her either taking a positive action or saying something positive that we can all stand behind as Democrats. People only seem to be interested in threads about Hillary that present her as a centrist, DLC, corporatist "whore", or whatever so that they can launch one-liner verbal assaults on her.

So that is, in small part, where my reactionary remark came from. It wasn't really about her speaking about poor women as much as it was just an opportunity for me to get in a jab. But it was a divisive comment and doesn't do anything to promote Hillary in people's eyes so I shouldn't have said it.

[SOS]

16. There's nothing to remember here

She moderated a conference at the Sheraton Hotel.
There is no initiative. An initiative was "called for".
Perhaps Anne Veneman and the Citibank chairman will get right on it, as they always put exploited labor at the top of their list of concerns.

Meanwhile in New York City, the number of homeless children hit an all time high in 2006:

"In August 2006, there were 32,974 homeless New Yorkers sleeping in shelters, including 13,118 children."

Edit to add link:

http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/

[lumpy]

17. Her audience will listen and then go back

to doing what they have not been doing about the plight of women around the globe.

[Scout]

7. good for her.

this is important work to do.

just waiting for a complainer to show up ... "men are poor too, you know" :eyes:

[Tellurian]

8. Sen. Clinton was working for a Food Safety Protection Act

several years ago, and I thought..hmm.. do we really need some sort of legislation protecting the food we eat?
Is this about herbicides, pesticides, contaminated produce? I've never heard the conclusions to this legislation..what it involved, why it was written in the first place. I tried googling..and went 17 pgs back..they were still posting links to events happening within the last month.

Well, in light of this Spinach scare. I wonder if Hillary's legislation was ahead of her time. How can I find the contents
of her proposed legislation and the disposition of her bill?

[ckramer]

9. How about Iraqi children first?

If she loves them so much she wouldn't be such Iraq war supporter.

What a joke.

[VegasWolf]

10. Or the NY poor. You know, something concrete and real other than these

global flights of fancy. It is hard to take time off from pandering to do real concrete work.

[Peace Patriot]

11. Of the two Corporate Democrats that may be shoved down our throats by

Diebold/ES&S in '08 (if we don't throw these election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' before then), I'd take Hillary over Christopher Dodd. He's one of the architects of the infamous "Help America Vote Act." She voted against it--maybe because of NYers attachment to their old, reliable, unriggable lever voting machines, but still...even if she benefits from Diebold/ES&S in a national election, she was one of ONLY TWO U.S. Dem Senators who voted against that wretched bill, the bill that destroyed our election system. (Schumer was the other. Go figure.) Terry McAuliffe will be hard (nay, impossible) to swallow--reputed to be her campaign manager. If there is any Dem I despise more than Christopher Dodd, it's McAuliffe, for his MIND-BOGGLING SILENCE while Bushite corporations took over our election system with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote tabulation code.

Dodd announced his exploratory bid for president on the Al Franken Show a few weeks ago (with a guest host). He said, Hillary's in trouble with "the antiwar crowd," and we don't want any losers running (Gore, Kerry), so that leaves him.

He gives me more icy shudders than Hillary does. Actually, I kind of like Hillary for all the grief the rightwing gave her. Bill, too. Same reason. Just personally. Their policies totally suck. If Hillary really wanted to do something for poor women, she would pledge to rescind NAFTA, and pull out of the WTO, and other global corporate predator plots to proliferate sweatshop labor worldwide. Women suffer the most for those deals--extremely poor women kidnapped, sold or enticed over to Saipan, for instance, where they become indentured slaves (have to work off their passage), make pittance wages, have no civil, labor or human rights, and are often subject to sexual harassment (including forced abortions). Bad scene, all over the world. Thanks, Bill. Thanks, Hillary.

No illusions about them here. They have also cozied up to the Bush Junta, and have probably made a deal with them, to run the Corporate fallback position regime. 1) Hit us with hideous fascism, torture, unjust war, a $10 TRILLION deficit, the bankruptcy bill and other horrors from Bush; and 2) then we'll be GRATEFUL for mere Corporate Rule and won't rebel against it as we did in Seattle '99.

Total Corporatists. The kind of Dems who think Bechtel Corp. was doing the Bolivians a favor by privatizing their water, and jacking up the prices to the poorest of the poor--even charging poor peasants for collecting rainwater! I mean, someone's got to pay for it, right? (--those CEO salaries).

BUT, it's possible under a Hillary regime (even with McAuliffe as her campaign chair) to at least get benign neglect of the electronic voting coup at the Fed level, so we can reform it at the state/local level. All the Dems really want, I think, is the big electronic gov't contracts, most of the Dems anyway. $$$. They don't really want Bush-Cheney campaign chairs and people who believe in the death penalty for homosexuals "counting" all our votes with secret code. Or maybe they do. Not sure. But I don't think they are as attached to it--and as dependent on it--as the Bushites are. Bushites couldn't win a transparent election in this country now, or any time in the near future--no matter if they turned the entire $10 trillion deficit around and used for campaign ads. They are not electable without Diebold/ES&S software counting the votes in secret. They're out. And they were out in 2004, if the truth were known. The Corporate Dems, on the other hand, CAN win transparent elections, cuz a lot of Americans are still fooled by their bullshit, and, as long as that remains the case, they don't really need Diebold/ES&S. (The official Dem party position is that the touchscreens are bad, but the optiscans and central tabulators--ALSO run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--are okay--by which I think they mean to hold the TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code in reserve, as a fallback position, should Americans start to rebel again--as well they might--against Corporate Rule.)

Upshot: We MIGHT be able to restore transparent elections, under Hillary, for the sake the future, post-Hillary world.

Torture, indefinite detention, spying, no-bid military contracts, unauditable military budgets, and the "unitary executive" (powers of an emperor) will all be held in reserve, in case we get uppity. Hillary won't disavow any of it. But she may put some of it on the backburner. And if and when we are able to restore our right to vote--possibly after they've done the final looting of America, and there is little or no reason left to control us--then we might be able to get our country back, tattered ruin though it may be.

I've had my fill of these Corporate Democrats in California. They are the ones who colluded with the Bushites in "swift-boating" our fine Sec of State Kevin Shelley (who had gone after Diebold), and in INSTALLING a Schwarzenegger APPOINTEE and Diebold shill as Sec of State. The Dems did this. Bad, bad scene. So I am not overly hopeful about Hillary and transparent elections (for the future). She is of their ilk. But she might start thinking "legacy" at some point. What will she be known for? I think she has that capacity. (So does Bill.) I think she might be able to rise above her corporate corruption in ways that someone like Christopher Dodd cannot.

So that's all I'm saying.

As for her concern about poor women--she probably thinks that indentured slavery is better than nothing. They'd probably be sold into prostitution in their home countries anyway. They may be able to make 25 cents a hour in their home country, free and clear, but if they're making $3 an hour in Saipan, even if it is indentured, they might come out ahead eventually.

What are the other possibilities? Gore. Could be corporate stalking horse. (Same deal as Hillary--fascism, then snapback to corporatism and a grateful nation.) Not sure. He's said some mighty fine things about torture, and unconstitutional government, as well as global warming. I think he really would disavow torture and make ironclad law about it. Obama? For some reason, I don't trust him. Too polished. Too much the creature of the Dem establishment, not of his own personal power. Kerry? I would only agree to a Gore/Kerry ticket, in that order--a "restoration" ticket. I believe they were both elected president, and that ticket would confirm it and help to restore order--the will of the people. It would be very heartening to the American people (a demoralized lot). Even if they are both corporatists. Restoring order in this land would take precedence, in that case. And I think that ticket would win by such a landslide, it would swamp the rigged electronics. But Kerry standing alone--no. Gore alone--not yet sure. (In his case, saving the planet might take precedence--even if he still supports NAFTA, and has not said boo about the rigged elections.) Feingold? Edwards? Clark? Boxer? Conyers? Dean (in a comeback)? All pretty good people, I think, truly representative of the American people--all likely would support transparent elections--and they therefore have no chance whatsoever of getting (s)elected. That rules them out--as to this discussion. Who, of the POSSIBLE candidates, would I support, in my sole quest of transparent elections for the future?

Gore is probably the best bet (--if he would still be acceptable to the Corporatists). Despite his silence on the rigged elections, his love of technology, his past support of NAFTA, and other problems, I think he would be way more likely than Hillary (and certainly more likely than Dodd) to support transparent elections. Kerry would be, too, for that matter. (I think he now realizes he got burned--by Dodd and McAuliffe, among others.) I have other probs with Kerry, though, and would only support him as VP to Gore. (For one thing, his weakness in letting himself get burned by the electronic voting coup; also, his silence on torture--a separate matter, but still, it bothered me a lot.)

We need to strategize from a position of reality and truth. That's what I'm trying to do here. People with as much money and power as the above POSSIBLE (Corporate Ruler-approvable) candidates, operating as they are in BushWorld--a world of unparalleled, Byzantine evil--don't really care about poor women, Hillary included. She's really just shilling for the women's rights votes in NY. She may have had her travails as a woman, but she is a power player NOW, right up there with George, Jeb and Daddy Bush, and all the rest. The nasty rightwing assaults on her (and on Bill) may have just been a strategy to prevent them from fulfilling campaign promises regarding the kinder face of Corporate Rule (universal health care; labor and environmental protections in NAFTA, etc.), and a suffocating cloud thrown over rightwing plots for 2000, 2004. Our national life has become mostly a puppet show, a shadow play, an illusion of democracy. It is very, very difficult to know what's really going on, and who we can trust. And we really can't take things at face value--that because Hillary is reviled by the right, she is somehow a woman of the people. I'm inclined to think that way, too--but I've also learned to beware of it. Sometimes the fascists pick out a truth--such as Kerry's weakness and flip-flopping--and twist it round to their own purpose (writing the post-election narrative for why they "won"--when Diebold/ES&S is why they "won). But it's still a truth, or a grain of truth. Would Hillary really be a boon to women? Not if we're all impoverished by her Corporate pals! But could she perhaps do a favor to future genrations, by helping to restore transparent elections, after she does her stint in the Corporate White House? Possibly.

[karynnj]

12. Kerry has spoken more against torture than any of the other

potential candidates. He was the first to call for Rumsfeld's resignation over Abu Ghraib. He also spoke many times in 2004 about violations of the Geneva Convention - what do you think he was speaking of. (Joe Klein, who backed the neocons after 911 made the claim Kerry didn't speak of this - even though it was reported in his magazine and others have repeated it - a simple goggle finds Klein is lying.) Kerry, when asked about it on MTP, in April - listed times he did speak about it. (I seriously doubt anyone hearing Kerry speak of GC violations, which he did in his std stump speech didn't connect it to things like torture - and know he has spoken of this his whole life.

Andrew Sullivan has spoken about the same thing. Who do they both speak well of - John McCain. Can there be an ulterior motive to steal this issue from the Democrats, and John Kerry specifically. Here is an excellent post that lists some of the times Kerry spoke out in 2004 - including a very definative statement to the Washington Post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=101326&mesg_id=101326

Even in the last few weeks when most were waiting for the REp Senator's plan, Kerry has REPEATEDLY spoken out. Here's everything I know for the last 2 weeks:
Sept 6: Senate floor
Kerry mentioned the abuses of Abu Ghraib and treatment of detainees in Senate speech on Senate resolution that Rumsfeld should retire.

Sept 7: Hardball
"KERRY: You‘re darn right. You‘re darn right. These people should have been brought to justice a long time ago. But what it also underscores is that the president had an illegal, unconstitutional structure for detaining people that he was destroying, in a sense, the reputation of our country and hurting the values of our country in other lands where we need people‘s support.

And, finally, he admits what all of us have known under the ground for a long time, that we have these secret prisons which the United States doesn‘t condone. So, finally, he is adopting a policy of common sense that is in keeping with our values and the Congress ought to move rapidly and we ought to do what is appropriate under appropriate standards.

MATTHEWS: What do you think is appropriate torture?

KERRY: There is no appropriate torture, period.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733559/

Sept 9: Faneuil Hall - Major Speech on real security:

"We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. Only this week did the Administration finally recognize that the protections of the Geneva Convention had to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops. Let me say it plainly: No American president should be for torture before he’s against it.

Anyone who understood the conflict we face could never shrug off the imperative of winning the hearts and minds of Muslim moderates.

We must start leading by example. We should never engage in or excuse violations of basic human rights. We must uphold the rule of law in our own conduct. And we should never accept official lying by our leaders. No White House should ever bully the Director of the CIA to make a case he knows isn’t true – and no White House should reward it with the Medal of Freedom"

Sept 14: Op-ed stating some CIA agents left rather than torture people

Letters to the Editor: Insure CIA Agents Against A Reckless Administration

The Wall Street Journal

Your Sept. 12 editorial “Jack Bauer Insurance” was a disservice not to me or to fictional characters like Jack Bauer, but to the very real CIA agents whose commitment to the truth didn’t fit the administration’s neoconservative agenda on Iraq, and to agents endangered by reckless administration policies.

It’s been reported that CIA officers refused to be trained in the administration’s controversial interrogation techniques, and in at least one instance these techniques yielded questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators. The Supreme Court, not Democrats, ruled administration detainee policies out of bounds, and it was the outrage of Republican senators that forced the administration to apply the Geneva Convention to enemy prisoners in order to best protect captured Americans.

...... go to web site to read more.

Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.)
Boston

more at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008939

Sept 18
Pepperdine speach on faith

"It’s in Americas’ interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority — and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture. "

In addition - he answered a question on torture - it's at the very end of the broadcast - it's a very complete answer that essentially says No torture. He admits that may make integation harder - but torture is wrong and it also works poorly as you often get bad information.

Here's the link to the Pepperdine speech:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=103761&mesg_id=103761

I CHALLANGE YOU TO FIND ANYONE RUNNING WHO SPOKE OUT MORE OFTEN - this even ignores that he did do a few radio interviews (Ed Schultz and Santos - where I think it came up)

I could take issue with many other statements you made - but this goes to the heart of who John Kerry is. He had the guts to challange Nixon on this in 1971 as a 27 year old. He also didn't support the US supporting the Contras who tortured or killed thousands in Central America.

[Peace Patriot]

15. Thank you, karynnj! I was unaware of some of these Kerry statements.

And I know he had a hard time getting any media attention on the things he DID say, during the campaign, and that is not entirely his fault.* (They were backpaging and blackholing his statements and the size of his crowds.) But the torture issue is so important to me that I expected more of him during the campaign--a major policy speech that condemned torture and called it what it is, a crime. I also expected this to be THE issue of the debates--or one of the major ones--and I don't think Kerry EVER mentioned it during the debates (let alone brought it home to Bush in the way he should have). I was extremely disappointed--both from a moral and a political point of view. 63% of the American people oppose torture "under any circumstances" (May '04). It should have been the defining issue of the campaign, and yet I gained the distinct impression that Kerry was sloughing it off. I would be willing to admit that some of that impression came from the lack of proper coverage of Kerry's statements by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, but I don't think all of it was. I think he WAS sloughing it off to some degree, for fear that these media Bush lapdogs would criticize him for being weak. But with that kind of support from the American people--who have no trouble understanding this issue--he should have set the moral tone of the campaign.

There he stood--an honorable and highly intelligent man, and a good speaker and debater, with years of experience in public office--next to that little cowardly worm Bush with his perverted and twisted heart, no doubt fresh from viewing some waterboarding tapes, and Kerry said nothing. If he had said what he should have--what I expected him to say, and what he had a right to say (he would have been speaking for most Americans)--no amount of Karl Rove spin could have save Bush from the disgrace. But Kerry let it go by. He could have nailed him then. He could have built himself an anti-Diebold landslide in the debates, by calling Bush out on it. He did not. I think he lost a great opportunity to set the nation on a different course, and to overcome the Diebold advantage to Bush.

I'm glad he's said more now. But he should have given a policy speech on torture during the campaign much like the one Gore gave--a red hot speech that utterly condemned this filthy practice and nailed Bush and the Bush regime to the wall for instigating it. And it should have been a dramatic moment in the debates, much like the line that brought Joe McCarthy down, "Have you no decency, sir?"

In both cases--a major policy speech, or drama in the debates--the corporate media could not have ignored it. Kerry had a captive audience in the debates. That should have been the moment of definition on torture, for all Americans to see and hear. Nothing, as I recall. Not one word. Or nothing memorable. (I don't think he even mentioned the Geneva Conventions--the safe way to say it.)

-----------------------

*(Given the way the corporate news monopolies were dissing Kerry and promoting Bush, there ARE nevertheless ways to gain attention, for a politician willing to take risks, and one with some chutzpah and the fire of his own convictions. I mentioned two--a major policy speech, and drama in the debates. There are others. How about a visit to Guantanamo Bay, for instance? (That's what Robert Kennedy would have done, in the same circumstance.) Kerry played it safe. Too bad. He would have captured the heart of the nation if he had been strong on the torture issue. Nothing defines what America is--to its own people and to others--more than our principled stance on torture. Nothing has more shamed us in the past than our breaches of this ethic. As Gore said, the Bushites have not only harmed and killed people, they have grievously insulted us, and destroyed our reputation, with this immoral practice. Drama and emphasis were needed. Kerry did not do that. His having a position on it--being opposed to it--and making occasional remarks about it, and even a WaPo op-ed, were not enough--not for a candidate representing the majority of the people in this country, and opposing a war criminal. The overall impression I got from Kerry was that the Democratic Party was "winking" at this gross offense. That's how he came across--for whatever reasons, his own fault or that of others.)

[karynnj]

19. i don't think the format of the debates

allowed for what would have been needed to do that. I also did hear him mentioning following international law and the Geneva accords in the debates. Everyone was aware of Kerry's incredible stand in 1971. From my perspective, Kerry needed to say LESS than any other candidate on this. (Note how McCain, who said nothing is not considered to have condoned it - although in his case, he understood torture, but in 1984 he flew to Boston to campaign against Kerry for speaking out against US violations of international (and moral) laws.) To me, Kerry saying "Geneva Convention" in 2004 echoed 1971.

In 2004, with a President with an approval rating near 50%, there was a danger of going too far on this issue. It says the US committed war crimes. No one wants to believe that of their country. Senator Durbin, as genial and nice a Senator as you can find, ended up on the floor of the Senate, nearly in tears, to apologize for his comments that were twisted. Or, remember the fact that the RW tried to distort Kerry's comment on how bad for everyone it was for the US to do the search and seizures. Kerry was very careful and did an excellent job in explaining it from the pov of the soldiers and the Iraqis. On the first 4 or 5 shows he was awesome - what he said was clear and really did allow people to picture the problems. The last time, the RW isolated one sentence and said Kerry was saying that the US terrorized people. (Note - he spoke of the problems when the US did what they were suppose to do and showed that was a problem. Imagine if he would have read out loud newspaper accounts when soldiers were less behaved.)

The Abu Ghraib story was very very well known in 2004. I assume that people who were horrified by this voted Kerry. There was no way they were seen as equal on this. You had Bush - in charge of the administration doing it and Kerry, who as a young man, risked his future career to speak out. (Also note he spoke more and earlier than any 2004 competitor.) The really hard thing to believe is that half of this country were scared enough and angry enough that they didn't think this was sufficient to throw Bush out. I hope people are willing to see the truth - but it's hard to accept that evil was done in your name and you then voted as if it was ok.

[IndianaGreen]

21. And Kerry led the Alito filibuster, while Hillary voted against Kerry

attempt to filibuster.

[karynnj]

23. IG, I think after angrily tell people there

would be no filibuster, she voted for it. She really had little choice because her Senate speech would have been seen as very hollow if she didn't. (For those on line here and Kos, her actions made it look so.)

[EarthNeedsHope]

13. She could start in Iraq

I saw a speech by her in person where she claimed US intervention was advancing womens' rights in Iraq.

A few months later an Iraqi union leader I saw speak said the exact opposite. Who should I trust?

[samsingh]

14. this is a good initiative

[Joanne98]

18. zzzzzzzzz

[IndianaGreen]

20. Hillary's support of neoliberal economic policies have done much

to create poverty in the world, particularly among women.

[w4rma]

22. Yup. These are just feel good words to use while they push more neo-con

economic BS.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Bullshit!

You call knitting sweaters for 20 cents a day poverty inducing?

Horseshit!

:patriot:

[judaspriestess]

24. Great, I hope this also includes education on birth control

give them a choice!!