OPINION & EDITORIAL
Hillary successful, independent
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- No gap in theClassConnection (February 20, 2008)
- Obama endorsement lacking logic (February 19, 2008)
- Editors discharge duties dishonorably (February 17, 2008)
- Cartoon anti-Semitic (February 15, 2008)
- Herald unfair to Mikolajczak (February 14, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Tackling Taboos (December 3, 2007)
- Clinton an apparition of progress (February 21, 2008)
- Make Chelsea's mom president (February 17, 2008)
- Exploring the issues: Race - Your online responses (November 16, 2007)
- Give graduates a little, give UW a lot (May 8, 2003)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, February 22, 2008
In response to “Clinton an apparition of Progress,” Feb. 21 by Andy Granias:
She was the first-ever student commencement speaker at
Wellesley College. She was a pioneer in securing children’s rights at Yale,
creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children when
they had virtually no rights at all. At the Children’s Defense Fund, she
pressed educational funding for students with disabilities. At only 26 years old,
she was one of three women lawyers of a staff of 42 to the House Judiciary
Committee considering the impeachment of President Nixon, one of the most
important investigations in Washington’s history.
All before she married Bill Clinton.
She ran a legal aid clinic for the poor, became a law
professor and was appointed to the board of the United States Legal Services
Corporation by President Jimmy Carter, creating a program that funds legal
assistance for the poor.
All before she became first lady of the United States.
As her husband became governor of Arkansas, she fought for
improvement in education and continued the battle for children’s rights. She
was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. Twice. And as first
lady of the United States, she fought for health care for every single
American, helped craft the Children’s Health Insurance Plan, insuring seven
million vulnerable children and wrote an international best-selling book.
All before she became a United States senator.
As senator she fought for the people of New York and drew support
from Democrats and Republicans alike on her way. She fought to expand
children’s health insurance, secure a woman’s right to Plan B and gave families
of the Sept. 11 attacks care and compensation.
As president she wants to push “class-transcendent” policies
to lower taxes for middle income families, strengthen unions, provide universal
health care for everyone, increase funding for head start programs and pledge $700
million a year for autism research.
It’s a shame that Mr. Granias has reduced years of dedicated
public service and profound achievement to the success of Sen. Clinton’s
husband’s years in the White House.
It is about time the public and media recognize everything
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has accomplished in her own right and resist the
ignorant, sexist tendency to dismiss over 30 years of her work, progress and
popularity as a woman changing the country to “only a residual effect stemming
from the widely popular Democratic presidency of her husband.”
Nancy McMurray
UW senior, journalism and English
nmcmurray@wisc.edu
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 2:03am):
Hillary sucks. Get over it.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 6:32am):
She's qualified to be President, all right. I just disagree with most of her policy positions.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 8:02am):
Hillary would be even more independent and successful if she divorced Bill. Nah, she had her chance eight years ago.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 9:19am):
It's not that Hillary hasn't been successful, it's that her presidential race is a flawed test of female progress in America because of Bill.
I am a fervent feminist and I very much agreed with Andy's article yesterday. This country is a long way from being ready for a female president and HIllary would be a flawed measure of progress, which may even hurt the cause.
Mind you, not only has Bill helped her to be viably elected but he has also hurt her cause. It is a shame, and I think that's what the editor's point was, regardless of her qualifications.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 10:09am):
1) Why didn't she run against Bush 4 years ago? Too scared, too weak, too calculating?
2) I don't think I could vote for Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush. There should be a clause in our constitution against back-door extra-term presidencies.
3) Except for Obama, why do people wait until they're damn near geriatric to run for president?
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 12:24pm):
Job well done. Credit to the writer. Say want you want, but Hilary represents the most polished candidate in the Democratic race. Time will tell if Obama can deliver when facing the questions that Hilary has faced time and time again throughout her career. I think Cindy McCain is much better looking than Nancy or Barbara by the way.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 12:47pm):
1) Why didn't she run against Bush 4 years ago? Too scared, too weak, too calculating?
-No, unlike Obama, she waited until she had enought experience and was qualified.
Anonymous (February 22, 2008 @ 2:49pm):
About Hillary's shining debate moment:
"For her supporters, moments like those reveal why much of the criticism of her candidacy and personality are simply not true."
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN22536300
Anonymous (February 23, 2008 @ 10:32am):
"No, unlike Obama, she waited until she had enought experience and was qualified"
Hey, Tiger, all the experience she claims to have came BEFORE her senate career. Honestly, a senate seat does not prepare you well for presidency; McCain, Clinton, and Obama are equally unqualified.
McCain, for example, claims to not no much about the economy... HE'S BEEN VOTING ON BUDGETS SINCE 1983! I know there's a learning curve, but you think you'd absorb something through your pasty white skull in 25 years.
Thank goodness for qualified cabinet members, which will be a nice CHANGE from our current gaggle of sycophant ideologs.
Anonymous (February 23, 2008 @ 4:49pm):
Yeah, I'm sure that a Chicago ward heeler will bring in a whole bunch of "qualified cabinet members" - LOL.
Anonymous (February 24, 2008 @ 10:30am):
"Yeah, I'm sure that a Chicago ward heeler will bring in a whole bunch of "qualified cabinet members" - LOL."
He's able to chose from anyone in America.
You do have faith in America, right? Or are you unpatriotic commie swine?
Anonymous (February 24, 2008 @ 4:03pm):
Faith in Amerrica, sure.
Faith in Obama, not so much.
Anonymous (February 24, 2008 @ 8:51pm):
"Clinton is a terrible manager of people. Coming into a campaign she had been planning for, what, two decades, she was so not ready on Day One, or even Day 300. Her White House, if we can glean anything from the campaign, would be a secretive nest of well-fed yes-people, an uncontrollable egomaniac spouse able and willing to bigfoot anyone if he wants to, a phalanx of flunkies who cannot tell the boss when things are wrong, and a drizzle of dreary hacks like Mark Penn."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-clintons-la.html
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
