As an 8-year-old veteran of Capitol Hill and the Capitol itself, the wife of Bill Clinton (42nd president of the United States) is a power in her own right.
Photo:Daniella Zalcman, Creative Commons, Flickr
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer by profession, and twice (1988, 1991) won recognition as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the U.S.
The Clinton money, reported at $108 million, resulted largely from investments in billionaire Ron Burkle’s fund, Yucaipa, which is tied to three funds operating from the Cayman Islands, where taxes are not incurred. This holding was liquidated in 2007 for its ties to pharmaceuticals, oil and defense firms and Wal-Mart stores; all big no-nos in the liberal Democratic arena.
If money is the game, the Clintons play it well. In 1978, Hillary reportedly turned $1,000 into $100,000 by investing in cattle futures. The Clintons, cagey and financially canny, face a big tax bite this year as a result of the fund liquidation, and even larger scrutiny if Hillary becomes president.
Clinton voted against CAFTA, but for free trade with Oman, Singapore, Chile and the Andean nations, and for resuming normal trade relations with Vietnam. She is opposed to such an agreement with South Korea because she fears it would harm U.S. automakers and the jobs they provide. She currently opposes the NTR (normal trade relationship) status of China based on its record of human rights failures, specifically against females. This is a reversal of her 2000 decision to allow China favored nation trading status. In 2008, she openly stated her intent to force China to reevaluate its currency by imposing punitive duties if it fails to do so, but added the proviso that "it is pretty hard to get tough on one’s banker." Trade deficits and China’s current stranglehold on our consumer-oriented economy are likely to cause any future president to rethink the China-trade policy.
Clinton has consistently voted yes to raise the minimum Federal wage standard, but opposes allowing states to set their own minimum wage. She voted yes on HR 800, which would have prevented employers from interfering with workers who want to unionize. This bill stalled in the Senate with Bush threatening a veto if it was passed. On the other hand, she also served a six-year stint on Wal-Mart’s board before becoming a senator, and we all know how venomously that giant retailer opposes its workers unionizing.
She supports the death penalty, and has in the past pushed for "hate crime" penalties stiffer than the ones in existence. On the other hand, Clinton is in favor of relaxing the penalties surrounding drug convictions and choosing rehabilitation over imprisonment. In a weakening economy, this position may be difficult to justify and its attendant costs nearly impossible to meet.
Clinton voted yes to extend the Patriot Act, with reservations, namely giving the government more leeway on domestic surveillance provisions. She opposed the wiretap provision in the Act in 2005, though in 2001 she voted to extend this provision. Like Obama, she favors extending habeas corpus (the right of trial before a judge) to Guantanamo detainees. She is not opposed to torture, declaring that – if a detainee’s information relates to an imminent threat to the nation’s security – the acting president must have the authority to "depart from internationally accepted practices" (i.e., the Geneva Convention). She supports troop withdrawals from Iraq, and challenged General Petraeus’ (commander of Iraq forces) recent request for a 45-day consideration period after the July pullout by citing Basra and the general failure of our armed forces to produce change in that country.
She supports increasing funding to public schools, citing the fact that most children are educated in public schools. She opposes a voucher system on the basis that it would provide superior education only for those who can afford it, but supports the idea of charter schools to challenge the public school system, and has voted with almost 100-percent integrity in favor of every public education bill to come before the Senate, including added teaching staff and better pay.
Clinton favors incentive pay across the board for schoolteachers in schools whose students excel, but not merit pay for individual schoolteachers, and opposes teaching creationism alongside evolution, but would allow the Bible to be taught as part of history or literature. She opposes standardized student testing because of its focus on math and reading, and would prefer state-sponsored performance assessments, though she was a verbal proponent of teacher testing in Arkansas in 1983, when that state ranked 50th in the nation.
Clinton is an across-the-board environmentalist, voting to prevent drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and also voting to remove oil and gas subsidies. She opposes Yucca Mountain storage for nuclear waste, and thus also opposes nuclear power unless storage methods can be secured that prevent terrorist’s using this waste. I tend to agree; Yucca Mountain is a total waste at this point, and the government ought to give the taxpayers back their $21 billion and let nuclear generators work on a solution. No one can give us back the 20 years the Department of Energy has been dragging its feet on the Yucca repository.
In 2006, she voted no to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, and has been given an 89-percent approval rating by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (GLBT) rights group. She is, and has long been, a supporter of Roe vs Wade, and believes abortion is an issue best left to women and their doctors. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) gives her a 96-percent approval rating for her voting on affirmative action, and she continues to support affirmative action programs at and above the high-school level.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, gives her rather low marks for defending the rights of individuals against the power of corporations, and her voting record on government reform is not a great deal better. As a Washington insider, Clinton may suffer from change blindness when it comes to government. In June of 2000, as a result of Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals, 25 people were indicted and 19 convicted. Corporate and government chicanery are clearly gray areas in Clinton’s field of vision.
Where these venues overlap into health care reform, Clinton is likely to choose "the best government money can buy" philosophy, and we know how government oversight has destroyed the intrinsic intent of many social reform programs (like Social Security). Clinton’s current stance on reforming Social Security (by allowing private individuals to invest in the markets against future need) is a clear departure from her 2005 position, which defended the sanctity of the program as it was originally outlined.
When her husband was president, Hillary Clinton led a sweeping grassroots movement to revolutionize American health care. The movement failed in 1994, largely because the lobbying power behind medicine was too great to combat. If elected, Clinton has promised to be the "health care" president, and promised universal health care coverage by the end of her second term. The American Public Health Association (APHA) gives her a resounding 100-percent rating for her work to make health care both a public issue and a public promise.
On the other hand, when re-elected by New York voters (to a Senate seat she barely qualified for the first time around, given her residency status as an Arkansan), she promised to serve out her full term. Yet here she is, running for president. If elected, the Senate seat will again be vacant for half its term.
She also voted to enter Iraq (as did most other senators), yet is now squeamish about staying and recommends rapid withdrawal.
Clinton supposedly coined the phrase, "Vast, right wing conspiracy," which is a term that millions of paranoid/knowledgeable Americans have been using, but coming from Clinton, one suspects she has inside information. Perhaps most telling about Clinton is her recounting of the 1996 airplane trip to Bosnia, which has now been proven a total fabrication except for the airplane. Her attacks on Obama – even if true – have painted her as a person who will stop at nothing to win the coveted primary. If I, a woman, didn’t like her so much for what she has done for women (and people in general), I might thoroughly dislike her.
Lastly, the Clinton and Obama platforms are so similar, if it weren’t for their physical differences, we almost wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. Perhaps instead of fighting it out to the death, they could better serve their constituency by combining forces. Together, they could be a powerhouse for change.
Remember that a candidate’s vote speaks louder than words.
Disclosure: I am registered as an Independent and do not endorse any specific presidential candidate.