Guess that's what people do when they have nothing else, but still.

What will really take the most money out of the 2016 election is one candiate being the run away favorite.

If you owned media what would you do, how far would you go, to keep The Race close....or else lose out on all that virtually unlimited money torrent of election ad cash?

If a story comes from right-wing or libertarian sources, we Democrats should bag it up with the trash.

You know, that Rupert Murdoch guy?

I've seen more than enough of her over the years, that tell me a lot more about Hillary, than any Faux Nooz or WSJ blurb ever could.

We know exactly who and what she is.

of course Fox News's intentions are not to enlighten, but they are exploiting an issue that is real.

Obama used it against her in 2008, and of course he had lobbyist issues of his own.

What is becoming real noticeable is that any criticism of Hillary is immediately pounced on as a RW hatchet job, while ignoring the content. Doesn't work on Dems, methinks.

Nobody is elected President without that.

donors. Especially for the next round of elections.

More and more obvious the rest of us are not even cogs, we are just the little tiny teeth, and likely soon there will be a way to dispense with all the messy voting stuff. After they figure out how to keep asking for money.

I don't know if I buy this "us v them" over "the corporations" anyway. They employ people, we do business with them, we invest in them. It's just silly stuff, trying to sound hip and leftist. Same with "Wall Street." If fails and we have a depression and nobody wants that. Most people are not would-be revolutionaries and most of those who claim they are would really not in the end want to live the way people have to in that state.

As long as it is not right wingers with their war propensities, the people in office can pay attention to the "corporations" as well. If it was your employer, you'd make an exception for why they should continue to stay in business.

Regulating wall Street would seem to be the best way to avoid that. But no, the regulations are being peeled away.
Sorry if you think it is silly stuff, to worry about more bank failures due to trading in derivatives, to worry about WalMart paying its employees so little that they need to get food stamps and medicaid, letting Big Oil put pipelines all over the place without regard for the environment, letting Big Pharma charge more than people can afford for drugs, letting, really, the Kochs and all who want to be like them run roughshod over the American people.

Really? being against all of that is just trying to be cool and hip?

Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget: Favors topic 11
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students: Favors topic 11
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset: Favors topic 11
YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates: Favors topic 11
YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction: Favors topic 11
NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11

Regulations are needed. The de-regulation has been a bad thing.

But that does not mean we have to view "the corporations" and "Wall Street" as though they were so negative. We want a good economy, most of us. That means Wall Street and the "corporations" will do well, too.

Geez the right wing would probably claim she wants to socialize them all.

get out the vote!

but her record says differently...

Hillary Clinton on Corporations
Click here for 23 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.
OpEd: Disagrees with progressives on corporatism & military. (Dec 2014)
Take back $55B in Bush’s industry give-aways. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Pushed Wal-Mart for women managers & environment. (Jan 2008)
World Bank should impose rules on sovereign wealth funds. (Jan 2008)
Bush defanged the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (Dec 2007)
FactCheck: Yes, Bush shrunk CPSC; but it shrank before Bush. (Dec 2007)
Outraged at CEO compensation. (Oct 2007)
Stop bankruptcies to get rid of pension responsibilities. (Aug 2007)
Enough with corporate welfare; enough with golden parachutes. (Jun 2007)
Close lobbyists’ revolving door; end no-bid contracts. (Jun 2007)
1976 Rose Law: Fought for industry against electric rate cut. (Jun 2007)
Corporate lawyer at Rose Law while Bill was Attorney General. (Jun 2007)
Corporate elite treat working-class America as invisible. (Apr 2007)
Companies get rewarded with hard-working people left hanging. (Mar 2007)
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program. (Jun 2004)
1970s: Potential conflict of interest when GM sued Arkansas. (Nov 1997)
Businesses play social role in US; gov’t oversight required. (Sep 1996)
Family-friendly work policies are good for business. (Sep 1996)
Angry at unacceptable acquiescence to greed in the 1980s. (Jun 1994)
Serving on boards provides ties but requires defending too. (Aug 1993)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 35% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Oh, and I get to think what I want, based on how I perceive things. You may be surprised to know that you are not in charge of how people think, and that no one has to justify their thoughts to you.

but please do go on with this paltry attempt at a smear, that is the antithesis of the actual record of her deeds, as it is mildly entertaining....

your strongly favor stuff, perhaps. If the "smear" is so paltry, why are you still so vehement? Rhetorical question, I will have you on ignore now, for a while.

Stay classy.

Who is "we?"

They take us to Goldman Sachs' New York headquarters, where the former secretary of state spoke to executives recently:

But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Jim O’Neill, the laconic Brit who heads the bank’s asset management division, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).

from someone not objective.

Goggle is your friend. Or Google. it is late, and Lady Gaga just was awesome.
Best part? How we all got into this mess together. No, there were the fuck-ers, and the fuck-ees. The fuck-ers are rolling in our money, free as birds.

Read what you post. Half your cited text undermines whatever argument you're trying to make about Hillary being some kind of liberal Jesus.

We are realists and not expecting a candidate to walk on water....

That's what the Hillary Haters (aka ideologues) are looking for....

Your point, from what I could tell, is that Hillary is some kind of liberal on economic issues. Your laundry list of statements and actions, inaccurately listed as statements only, both argued for and against your point. I used the phrase "liberal Jesus" as a general statement of mockery regarding your list and your badly made argument. Bear in mind, I'm not engaging you on the substance of your argument, I'm engaging you on its inadequacy. If your hope was to paint Hillary as a liberal in economic matters, you failed pretty miserably. In the future, you should try focusing on her actions, not laundry lists of statements. After all, talk is cheap.

that is all...

You didn't list her record, you posted a list of statements and actions that both argued for and against that proposition. If you want to list her accomplishments as First Lady (at both levels), her voting record, and her accomplishments as Secretary of State in an effort to prove that she is liberal on economic matters, have at it. Don't do it like you tried to do here. It's one thing to address weaknesses in someone's record, it's quite another to argue the weaknesses prove their very opposite.

My point is that you have made an argument and have not only failed to prove it, but have actively undercut it by means of your own proffered evidence. In the future, if you post a laundry list, READ IT. It's quite embarrassing when you include items like her support of rate increases for utility customers as evidence of her liberalism (not embarrassing for me, mind you).

its a fact.

Facts require evidence. Evidence must be proved. Your evidence sucked. See the problem?

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases: Favors topic 1
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too: Favors topic 1
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania: Strongly Favors topic 1
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice: Favors topic 1
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose: Favors topic 1
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare: Favors topic 1
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion: Favors topic 1
Supports parental notice & family planning: Opposes topic 1
No abortion for sex selection in China: Opposes topic 1
Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus: Favors topic 1
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women: Favors topic 1
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record: Strongly Favors topic 1
Expand embryonic stem cell research: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women: Favors topic 1
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims: Favors topic 1
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities: Favors topic 1
Ensure access to and funding for contraception: Favors topic 1
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception: Favors topic 1
NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP: Favors topic 1
NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life: Strongly Favors topic 1
NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime: Favors topic 1
YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives: Favors topic 1
NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions: Favors topic 1
YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Favors topic 1

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Some world leaders are still misogynistic: Favors topic 2
Some world leaders are still misogynistic: Favors topic 2
We’ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go: Strongly Favors topic 2
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now: Favors topic 2
Human rights are women’s rights: Neutral on topic 2
Women’s rights are human rights: Favors topic 2
OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism": Strongly Favors topic 2
Equal pay is not yet equal: Strongly Favors topic 2
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action: Strongly Favors topic 2
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all: Neutral on topic 2
Sponsored bill maintaining role of women in armed forces: Favors topic 2
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Favors topic 2
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery: Strongly Favors topic 2
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 2
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements: Favors topic 2
Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue: Favors topic 2
Sponsored bill enforcing against gender pay discrimination: Strongly Favors topic 2

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)

Increase America’s commitment against Global AIDS: Favors topic 3
I re-evaluated & changed my mind on gay marriage: Favors topic 3
DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union: Strongly Favors topic 3
I support gay marriage personally and as law: Strongly Favors topic 3
Let states decide gay marriage; they’re ahead of feds: Favors topic 3
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex: Strongly Favors topic 3
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards: Favors topic 3
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits: Strongly Favors topic 3
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees: Strongly Favors topic 3
YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3

No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)

Partner with faith based community in empowerment zones: Strongly Favors topic 4
Tap into churches to avoid more Louima & Diallo cases: Favors topic 4
Community involvement helps, but only in short term: Favors topic 4
Link payments to good parenting behavior: Opposes topic 4
Allow student prayer, but no religious instruction: Opposes topic 4
Character education: teach empathy & self-discipline: Favors topic 4
Change what kids see in the media: Favors topic 4
Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning: Favors topic 4
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-Family-Value voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation: Strongly Opposes topic 4
NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration: Opposes topic 4

Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites: Favors topic 5
Lower costs and improve quality and cover everybody: Strongly Favors topic 5
Supply more medical needs of families, & insure all children: Strongly Favors topic 5
Medicare should be strengthened today: Favors topic 5
Smaller steps to progress on health care: Favors topic 5
Guaranteed benefits & focus on prevention: Neutral on topic 5
2006: If I can't do universal coverage, why run?: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary: Strongly Favors topic 5
Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term: Strongly Favors topic 5
We need a uniquely American solution to health care: Favors topic 5
Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate: Strongly Favors topic 5
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care: Favors topic 5
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage: Favors topic 5
Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations: Opposes topic 5
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record: Strongly Favors topic 5
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn: Strongly Favors topic 5
NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium: Favors topic 5
NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit: Favors topic 5
NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit: Opposes topic 5
YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics: Favors topic 5
YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug: Strongly Favors topic 5
YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D: Favors topic 5
NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000: Opposes topic 5
YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Favors topic 5
YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare: Favors topic 5

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy: Strongly Opposes topic 6
Social Security protects families, not just retirees: Strongly Opposes topic 6
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency: Opposes topic 6
Create Retirement Savings Accounts: Favors topic 6
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 6
NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security: Opposes topic 6

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)

OpEd: Common Core recycled from Clintons in 1980s and 1990s: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fully fund special education & 21st century classrooms: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice; but not private nor parochial: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers drain money from public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Fight with Gore for public schools; no voucher “gimmicks”: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Charter schools provide choice within public system: Opposes topic 7
Vouchers siphon off much-needed resources: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Parents can choose, but support public schools: Opposes topic 7
Supports public school choice and charter schools: Favors topic 7
Solemn vow never to abandon our public schools: Strongly Opposes topic 7
Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice: Opposes topic 7
Rated 82% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes: Strongly Opposes topic 7
YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors: Opposes topic 7
YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies: Opposes topic 7

Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)

$5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package: Opposes topic 8
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection: Strongly Opposes topic 8
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles: Opposes topic 8
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes: Strongly Opposes topic 8
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up: Opposes topic 8
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act: Opposes topic 8
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting: Strongly Opposes topic 8

Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)

Longtime advocate of death penalty, with restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Address the unacceptable increase in incarceration: Opposes topic 9
Mandatory sentences have been too widely used: Strongly Opposes topic 9
Give kids after-school activities to prevent gangs: Opposes topic 9
Spend more time with kids to prevent violence: Opposes topic 9
Supports citizen patrols & 3-Strikes-You’re-Out: Favors topic 9
Supports “Three Strikes” and more prison: Strongly Favors topic 9
End hate crimes and other intolerance: Favors topic 9
Require DNA testing for all federal executions: Opposes topic 9
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program: Opposes topic 9
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance: Strongly Opposes topic 9
YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program: Opposes topic 9

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers: Opposes topic 10
Get assault weapons & guns off the street: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre: Opposes topic 10
Congress’ failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run: Opposes topic 10
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs: Opposes topic 10
License and register all handgun sales: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Gun control protects our children: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Lock up guns; store ammo separately: Strongly Opposes topic 10
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons: Opposes topic 10
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology: Opposes topic 10
NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence: Strongly Opposes topic 10
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers: Strongly Opposes topic 10

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Rescind tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year: Strongly Favors topic 11
Pay down debt & cut taxes within balanced budget: Favors topic 11
GOP tax plan would hurt New York’s students: Favors topic 11
Rated 21% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes: Strongly Favors topic 11
Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset: Favors topic 11
YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates: Favors topic 11
YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction: Favors topic 11
NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11

Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)

Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days: Strongly Favors topic 12
Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families: Favors topic 12
Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic: Strongly Favors topic 12
Illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses puts them at risk: Opposes topic 12
Oppose granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants: Opposes topic 12
More border patrolling on both Mexican AND Canadian borders: Opposes topic 12
Anti-immigrant bill would have criminalized Jesus Christ: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration: Favors topic 12
Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows: Strongly Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill covering child resident aliens under Medicaid: Favors topic 12
Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens: Favors topic 12
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities": Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on establishing a Guest Worker program: Favors topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program: Neutral topic 12
NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12
YES on comprehensive immigration reform: Strongly Favors topic 12

Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+2 points on Economic scale)

Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Strongly Favors topic 13
TPP agreement creates more growth and better growth: Favors topic 13
Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers: Strongly Opposes topic 13
No fast-track authority for this president: Opposes topic 13
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India: Favors topic 13
1980s: Loved Wal-Mart's "Buy America" program: Opposes topic 13
Globalization should not substitute for humanization: Opposes topic 13
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights: Strongly Favors topic 13
Build a rule-based global trading system: Favors topic 13
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on removing common goods from national security export rules: Favors topic 13
YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam: Favors topic 13
NO on extending free trade to Andean nations: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore: Favors topic 13
YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile: Favors topic 13
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13

Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)

US support & no-fly zone, but UN troops on ground in Darfur: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Support UN reform because US benefits: Opposes topic 14
Engage in world affairs, including human rights: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Keep Cuban embargo; pay UN bills: Opposes topic 14
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N.: Opposes topic 14
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it: Favors topic 14
Urged President to veto UN condemnation of Israel: Favors topic 14
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US: Favors topic 14
Dems believe in fighting terror with cooperation: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror: Opposes topic 14
YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods: Strongly Opposes topic 14
NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)

There is no safe haven for the terrorists: Favors topic 15
Our troops are stretched; so increase size of military: Favors topic 15
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 15
Extend reserve retirement pay parity back to 9/11: Favors topic 15
Improve mental health care benefits for returning veterans: Favors topic 15
YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding: Opposes topic 15
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15

Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)

Presidents should reveal donations to their foundations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Voter suppression revives old demons of discrimination: Favors topic 16
Stand for public financing and getting money out of politics: Strongly Favors topic 16
Move to public election financing, not banning lobbyists: Strongly Favors topic 16
Verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machines: Favors topic 16
Called for ban on all soft money in 2000 campaign: Favors topic 16
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting: Favors topic 16
YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations: Favors topic 16
YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads: Favors topic 16
NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity: Opposes topic 16
NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress: Strongly Favors topic 16

Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)

OpEd: More aggressive than most Dems on foreign policy: Opposes topic 17
Smartest strategic choice is peace: Favors topic 17
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese: Favors topic 17
Foreign aid spending is only 1%; lead by remaining engaged: Strongly Favors topic 17
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have: Favors topic 17
Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq: Favors topic 17
Deauthorize Iraq war, and don’t grant new war authority: Strongly Favors topic 17
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately: Strongly Favors topic 17
Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office: Strongly Favors topic 17
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not: Favors topic 17
Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence: Favors topic 17
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq: Strongly Favors topic 17
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran: Favors topic 17
YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007: Strongly Opposes topic 17
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008: Strongly Favors topic 17

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

$100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation: Strongly Favors topic 18
$100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation: Strongly Favors topic 18
Remove energy dependence on countries who would harm us: Strongly Favors topic 18
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA: Favors topic 18
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health: Favors topic 18
Ratify Kyoto; more mass transit: Strongly Favors topic 18
Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases: Favors topic 18
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy: Strongly Favors topic 18
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances: Strongly Favors topic 18
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence: Favors topic 18
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness: Favors topic 18
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025: Strongly Favors topic 18
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards: Strongly Favors topic 18
Gas tax holiday for the summer: Opposes topic 18
NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill: Favors topic 18
YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Favors topic 18
YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Favors topic 18
YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Favors topic 18
YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Favors topic 18

Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)

Medical marijuana now; wait-and-see on recreational pot: Opposes topic 19
Medical marijuana maybe ok; states decide recreational use: Opposes topic 19
Divert non-violent drug offenders away from prison: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Address drug problem with treatment and special drug courts: Strongly Opposes topic 19
End harsher sentencing for crack vs. powder cocaine: Opposes topic 19
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use: Favors topic 19

Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Wealthy should go back to paying pre-Bush tax rates: Favors topic 20
Want to restore the tax rates we had in the ‘90s: Favors topic 20
Help people facing foreclosure; don’t just bail-out banks: Strongly Favors topic 20
Minimum wage increases haven’t kept up with Congress’ wages: Strongly Favors topic 20
Co-sponsored bills totaling $502B in spending thru 2005: Strongly Favors topic 20
End Bush tax cuts;take things away from rich for common good: Favors topic 20
Social issues matter; wrong time for tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 20
Use tax dollars to upgrade infrastructure, not for stadium: Strongly Favors topic 20
America can afford to raise the minimum wage: Strongly Favors topic 20
Just Say No to GOP tax plan: Strongly Favors topic 20
YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million: Strongly Favors topic 20

I'll use bullet points because they're fun.

1. Read your evidence.

2. Be selective with your evidence. As I recall, the general theme of the thread deals with economic issues. You presented a giant laundry list.

3. I advised you earlier that talk is cheap. Including public pronouncements in this list is the equivalent of the butcher's thumb on the scale.

4. Read your evidence.

5. Source your evidence. Without links, I'm going to assume you made all that shit up.

6. Read your evidence.

7. Walls of text indicate uncontrolled nerdrage. They're also impolite.

8. Read your evidence.

Want to see where it all comes from...here you go..

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Corporations.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Crime.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Drugs.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Education.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Energy_+_Oil.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Families_+_Children.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Government_Reform.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Homeland_Security.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Immigration.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Jobs.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Principles_+_Values.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Tax_Reform.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Technology.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

I don't quite believe you, given that a quick scan of it undercuts your argument about economic liberalism. But hey, it's your argument, right?

You have walls of text that both support and contradict your original, muddled claim of her economic liberalism. You can keep spamming the thread with useless posts if you like, but it's not going to change the fact that you think piling on contradictory evidence is somehow going to magically prove a point that you have yet to make.

where is YOUR thinnest of shreds of evidence by the way? You apparently have nothing more than "what you think"!

What part of this is not documented evidence...

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.
Reference: Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002

She voted for cloture on a hate-crime bill.* Please explain how that makes her a liberal on economic matters.

*Did the motion pass? If so, did she vote for the final bill? This is what I mean when I say you haven't read this stuff. A cloture vote means jack squat when it comes to evaluating someone's position, unless it's their position on unlimited debate.

what do YOU have?

It was just one point to show that MY evidence is DOCUMENTED public record!

Make abortion rare by supporting adoption & foster care

I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Potential for life begins at conception, but don’t intrude

Q: Do you believe personally that life begins at conception?
A: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.
But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Opposed China’s forced abortion & Romania’s forced pregnancy

From my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question [of abortion].
I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government’s one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have.
And then shortly after that, I was in Romania and there I met women who had been subjected to the Communist regime of the 1970s and ‘80s where they were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state. And where abortion was criminalized and women were literally forced to have physical exams and followed by the secret police and so many children were abandoned and left to the orphanages that, unfortunately, led to an AIDS epidemic.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College , Apr 13, 2008
Long-held moderate stance focuses on reducing abortions

When Clinton said that pro-choice and pro-life people could find common ground by trying to reduce the number of abortions through increased access to birth control, it was called "an attempt to move to the center as she contemplates a presidential run i 2008." The Wall Street Journal described her alleged changes in position as a "makeover and move to the center that she's now attempting." NPR saw Clinton spinning in circles: "She is doing what her husband did. Which was not so much move to the center or the right, but figure out a way to bridge the left-wing base of the Democratic Party. And move to the center at the same time."
Yet she was not changing her position on anything. For her entire time in public life, Clinton has been pro-choice and has supported access to birth control. Pointing out that such access would reduce the number of abortions, something anti-abortion forces ought to favor, cannot fairly be described as a shift in any direction.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.134-135 , Mar 25, 2008
Consistently uses Dem. Party line, "safe, legal, and rare"

After Senator Hillary Clinton gave a 2005 speech restating her long-held view that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," some pundits accused her of being "transparent" and taking a "poll-tested path," despite the fact that the formulation had been a consistent part of Democratic rhetoric on the issue for over a decade. The speech was cited again and again whenever a journalist or commentator wanted to show that Clinton was "moving to the center," evidence that she was massaging her actual views for political advantage. Yet McCain's varying statements on abortion haven't seemed to diminish his reputation for straight talk.
Source: Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.166 , Mar 25, 2008
1974: pro-choice fervency not based on any personal abortion

In 1974, Hillary met William F. Harrison, a prominent abortion doctor in Arkansas, who became her gynecologist and friend. In a series of interview for this book, Harrison shed some light on the development of Hillary’s pro-choice.
Harrison is quick to point out that Hillary never saw him for an abortion. Harrison says he met Hillary simply as a result of her yearly ob-gyn exam.
This is an important point, since it would mean that Hillary’s support does not stem from a personal experience in which she had the procedure. Rather, Harrison estimates that a reason for her pro-choice stance is that she is a product of an age “where she would have had friends who had illegal abortions. I am sure that was part of it.”
Harrison says that when he met Hillary, she was already steadfast in her support of Roe v. Wade. He sees her upbringing as a Methodist as no reason to believe she would be against abortion. “Hillary is a Methodist. The Methodist Church is very strongly pro-choice.”
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 49-50 , Jul 18, 2007
1993 health plan included RU-486 & widely available abortion

Mrs. Clinton, during her efforts to revolutionize the health care industry, said 1993 that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.” This prompted anxieties over the prospect of taxpayer-funded abortions, sparking the Coates Amendment, which sought to strip abortion funding from the plan.
The first lady allowed for a “conscience exemption” in which doctors and hospitals would not be forced to perform abortions. Pro-lifers were relieved; still, they could not fathom that their tax dollars might be used to find what they saw as the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.
Mrs. Clinton’s words also ignited fears among moderate and conservative Christians over the availability of the abortion pill, RU-486, under her health care plan. One of her husband’s first acts in office was to push the pill to market through an expedited FDA approval process that was criticized by pro-lifers as allegedly too quick for the safety of the women who would take the pill.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.124-125 , Jul 18, 2007
1999: keep abortion safe, legal & rare into next century

On January 22, 1999, Hillary took an unprecedented step for a first lady by delivering a speech to NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the premier advocacy group for legal, unrestricted abortion. Speaking to the group in DC, she stated her goal of “keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century,” a slogan that would become the mantra for her position. She shared revealing remarks beyond conventional pro-choice sentiments: “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting the decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.191 , Jul 18, 2007
Lift ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases

Later today, the president will veto a bill passed by Congress to support stem cell research. I co-chair the Alzheimer’s Caucus in the Senate. I’ve worked on helping to boost funding for research to look for cures and a way to prevent so many devastating diseases. And we know that stem cell research holds the key to our understanding more about what we can do. When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research. This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference , Jun 20, 2007
1993:Early action on abortion rights ended Right’s dominance

On the 4th day of the Clinton presidency, Jan. 23, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bill Clinton signed a series of executive orders undoing the draconian policies of the Reagan-Bush era relating to abortion, contraception, and family planning.
Hillary had pushed unequivocally for the orders, but Bill’s pollster argued that she was dead wrong on the timing of such a hot-button issue; by acting on abortion policy as one of the administration’s first pieces of business, the president and, worse, Hillary, would be perceived as governing from the left. But Hillary regarded the prohibitions in question as a powerful symbol of Reagan-era policies, and an opportunity to declare boldly that the Clinton era had begun.
The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to suc personal questions was over.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.256-257 , Jun 5, 2007
Personally would never abort; but deeply values choice

The milestone anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in Hillary’s view, was the perfect opportunity to move the new presidency on course unambiguously in terms of women’s rights, signal the religious right that its decade of dominance in regard to such questions wa over, as was the ascendancy of the conservative movement.
Yet, Hillary’s views of sexuality and the exercise of women’s reproductive rights were far more conservative than perceived at the time. While some of her friends had undergone abortions and ha been promiscuous, she had not. The idea of choosing to abort a child she had conceived would have been totally out of character and at odds with her own values. One of the fortunate facts of her life was that she was of the generation whose sexuality was fashioned in large measure by the pill and its easy availability. Her own difficulty in conceiving a child had only intensified her deeply held belief that abortion, for anyone, was a personal choice that should be made with the greatest reluctance.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p.257 , Jun 5, 2007
Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women

Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions, read the New York Times. It was 2005, and the story was about a speech Hillary had given. “Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion and I, for one, respect those who believe that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available.”
Hillary said: “We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”
Hillary is correct. Abortion is tragic. But why? What makes an abortion “sad, even tragic” is that an unborn child loses his life. Her “sad, even tragic” comment is not the first indication that Hillary believes it is indeed a child that is ripped from the womb during an abortion. In 2003, while debating a proposed ban on partial-birth abortions, Hillary referred to the unborn child as “the child, the fetus, your baby.”
[Nevertheless,] Hillary has spent a lifetime fighting to keep abortions legal.
Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p.134-136 , May 14, 2007
Fought for years to get “Plan B” contraceptive on the market

In the last few years, we’ve seen major breakthroughs in research and effectiveness of contraceptives. For example, Plan B is a new emergency contraceptive that can prevent a pregnancy after another contraceptive has failed or after unprotected sex. I fought for years to get Plan B on the market, so that fewer women will face the choice of abortion. It is now available for over-the-counter use by adult women. I have proposed Prevention First, a bill that focuses on prevention of unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive education, emphasizing responsible decision-making and expanded access to contraception. With these efforts, it’s my hope that the abortion rate will fall further.
Source: 2006 intro to It Takes A Village, by H. Clinton, p.301 , Dec 12, 2006
Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too

Hillary has spoken clearly about the importance of respecting such landmark Supreme Court decisions as Roe v. Wade. Her commitment to supporting Roe and working to reduce the number of abortions [includes] reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Hillary is one of the original cosponsors of the Prevention First Act to increase access to family planning. As First Lady, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier and increase support for families in the adoption and foster care system.
Source: PAC website, www.hillpac.com, “Biography” , Nov 17, 2006
Prevention First Act: federal funds for contraception

In 2006 Hillary teamed up with nominally pro-life Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and pushed to increase federal funding to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood in order to “increase awareness” about unintended pregnancies.
Senator Clinton co-wrote an editorial with Reid titled, “Abortion Debate Shuns Prevention.” The piece said, “As two senators on opposite sides of the abortion debate, we recognize that one side will not suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs And we believe that, while disagreeing, we can work together to find common ground.“
The ”common ground,“ was, once again, increased government--in this case government programs to promote contraception. The Prevention First Act, as they named it, would increase accessibility and ”awareness and understanding“ of emergency contraception. They aimed to ensure that sex education programs have medically accurate information about contraception and ”end insurance discrimination against women.“
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 96-97 , Oct 11, 2006
Partial birth exceptions for life-threatening abnormalities

In 2003, Sen. Hillary Clinton [commented] about the anatomically correct drawings I used to demonstrate the partial birth abortion procedure:
CLINTON: The visual aids show a perfectly formed fetus, and that is misleading. We should have a chart that demonstrates the tragic abnormalities that confront women forced with this excruciatingly difficult decision.
SANTORUM: Do we consider a child who may have an abnormality to be less of a child?
CLINTON: Does the Senator's legislation make exceptions for serious life-threatening abnormalities or babies who are in such serious physical condition that they will not live outside the womb?
SANTORUM: No, if--
CLINTON: That is the point.
SANTORUM: Do you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not? The Americans with Disabilities Act says we treat all of God's children the same.
CLINTON: I value every single life and every single person.
Source: It Takes A Family, by Sen. Rick Santorum, p.258-261 , Apr 30, 2006
Government should have no role in abortion decision

Here is the paragraph in Hillary's speech that everyone focused on:
This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult, and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, and preventive services. It's often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
The phrase that the neo-conservative pundits all left out, in describing the speech as remarkable, is that the abortion decision is "also one in which the government should have no role." Put that in, and the rest of her description is totally unremarkable.
Source: The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich, p. 54 , Oct 17, 2005
We can find common ground on abortion issue

Hillary advocates finding common ground with opponents: Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supports, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion--particularly members of religious groups--asserting that there was “common ground” to be found.
Source: What Every American Should Know, by the ACU, p. 87 , Sep 30, 2005
Alternatives to pro-choice like forced pregnancy in Romania

When I defend my pro-choice position in the debate over abortion in our country, I frequently refer to Romania, where pregnancy could be monitored on behalf of the state, & to China, where it could be forcibly terminated. One reason I continue to oppose efforts to criminalize abortion is that I do not believe any government should have the power to dictate, through law or police action, a woman’s most personal decision.
[The Romanian dictatorship in the 1980s] banned birth control and abortion, insisting that women bear children for the sake of the state. Women told me how they had been carted from their workplace once a month to be examined by government doctors whose task was to make sure they weren’t using contraceptives or aborting pregnancies. I could not imagine a more humiliating experience.
In Romania and elsewhere, many children were born unwanted or into families that could not afford to care for them. They became wards of the state, warehoused in orphanages.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 354-5 , Nov 1, 2003
Advocates birth control but OK with faith-based disagreement

Mother Teresa had just delivered a speech against abortion, and she wanted to talk to me. Mother Teresa was unerringly direct. She disagreed with my views on a woman's right to choose and told me so. Over the years, she sent me dozens of notes & messages with the same gentle entreaty. Mother Teresa never lectured or scolded me; her admonitions were always loving & heartfelt. I had the greatest respect for her opposition to abortion, but I believe that it is dangerous to give any state the power to enforce criminal penalties against women & doctors. I consider that a slippery slope to state control in China & Communist Romania. I also disagreed with her opposition--and that of the Catholic Church--to birth control. However, I support the right of people of faith to speak out against abortion and try to dissuade women, without coercion or criminalization, from choosing abortion instead of adoption. Mother Teresa and I found much common ground in many other areas including the importance of adoption.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.417-418 , Nov 1, 2003
Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice

Q: What kind of justice to the Supreme Court would you support?
A: I think the fate of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance. If we take Gov. Bush at his word, his two favorite Justices are Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s right to choose. I could not go along with that. In the Senate, I will be looking very carefully at the constitutional views [indicating] as to what that nominee believes about basic, fundamental, constitutional rights.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk

Q: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice?
LAZIO: I had a pro-choice record in the House, and I believe in a woman’s right to choose. I support a ban on partial-birth abortions. Senator Moynihan called it “infanticide.” Even former mayor Ed Koch agreed that this was too extreme a procedure. This is an area where I disagree with my opponent. My opponent opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions.
CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose

I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant.
Source: New York Times, pg.A11 , Jan 22, 2000
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare

We come to [the abortion] issue as men and women, young and old, some far beyond years when we have to worry about getting pregnant, others too young to remember what it was like in the days before Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s essential that as Americans we look for that common ground that we can all stand upon. [Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century.
Source: Remarks to NARAL, Washington DC , Jan 22, 1999
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion

I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, DC , Jan 22, 1999
Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems

Fewer teens are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions, but there are clearly too many young people who have not gotten the message. Every teenager must be reached. More has to be done to reach out to young men, and enlist them in the campaign to make abortions rare, and to make it possible for them to define their lives in terms other than what they imagine sexual prowess and fatherhood being.
Source: Remarks at NARAL, Washington, D.C. , Jan 22, 1999
Supports parental notice & family planning

If you can presume that a child is competent to make a decision, you still want that child to have parental guidance whenever possible. But realistically, we know that in many cases that is not possible.
I believe in parental notification. I think there are exceptions. There are situations in which the family is so dysfunctional that notification is not appropriate. In general, I think families should be part of helping their children through this.
Source: Unique Voice, p.186-87 , Feb 3, 1997
Cairo Document: right to abortion but not as family planning

The Cairo Document, drafted at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, reaffirms that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.” And it recognizes “the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing, and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so.” Women & men should have the right to make this most intimate of all decisions free of discrimination or coercion.
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p. 63 , Sep 25, 1996
No abortion for sex selection in China

Many on the left advocate a policy of abortion on demand, for any reason, at any time during the pregnancy, with no state regulation or limitation allowed, and paid for by the taxpayers. This extreme position is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans. It means a government policy of allowing abortion as a means of birth control and sex selection. Most people know this is simply wrong. (Even Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke out against abortion for sex selection in China.)
States should have the right to regulate and limit abortions. At the very least, parental consent or notification should be required before abortions are performed on minors; states should be allowed to impose waiting periods; and late-term abortions should be prohibited except to save the life of the mother.
Source: Agenda For America, by Haley Barbour, p.161 , Apr 25, 1996
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record

Voted liberal line on partial birth & harm to fetus

Hillary’s votes all echo the liberal line in the Senate
She opposed the ban on partial birth abortions
She came down against criminalizing harm to a fetus during an attack on the mother
She opposed a travel ban to Cuba
She opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
She backed extending the ban on assault rifles for 10 years
She was against Bush’s tax cuts
She opposed repealing the estate tax
She opposed limits on class action lawsuits.
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p. 85-86 , Oct 11, 2005
Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4233 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S081 on Mar 14, 2008
Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)
Reference: Bill S.Amdt.4335 to S.Con.Res.70 ; vote number 08-S071 on Mar 13, 2008
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.
Opponents support voting NO because:
A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.
The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill S.5 & H.R.3 ; vote number 2007-127 on Apr 11, 2007
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, "Do they want their kids to come to their parents?", absolutely. But if you ask them, "Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?", they say no.
This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.
Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives.

Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
Increase funding and access to family planning services
Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Reference: Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services; Bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-75 on Mar 17, 2005
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.

Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill S.1019/HR.1997 ; vote number 2004-63 on Mar 25, 2004
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.

S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.
Reference: Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-51 on Mar 12, 2003
Endorsed Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women.

Clinton is endorsed by EMILY's list, a pro-choice PAC:
EMILY’s List operates as a donor network, recommending pro-choice Democratic women candidates to its members, who contribute directly to the candidates they choose. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, EMILY’s List members contributed $9.3 million to pro-choice Democratic women candidates. In its 16-year history, EMILY’s List has helped to elect four women governors, eleven women to the United States Senate and 53 women to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Women continue to be the power players in Democratic politics,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. “In 2002, redistricting could result in as many as 75 open seats, creating multiple opportunities to recruit and elect pro-choice Democratic women.”
Source: Press Release on Diane Watson (CA-32) victory 01-EL1 on Apr 11, 2001
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record.

Clinton scores 100% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Expand embryonic stem cell research.

Clinton signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.
We appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001.
However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.
Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the following:
While it originally appeared that 78 embryonic stem cell lines would be available for research, only 19 are available to researchers.
All available stem cell lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.
It is increasingly difficult to attract new scientists to this area of research because of concerns that funding restrictions will keep this research from being successful.
Despite the fact that U.S. scientists were the first to derive human embryonic stem cells, leadership in this area of research is shifting to other countries.
We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.
Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.

Clinton sponsored expanding contraceptive services for low-income women
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends Medicaid to:
prohibit a state from providing for medical coverage unless it includes certain family planning services and supplies; and
include women who are not pregnant but who meet income eligibility standards in a mandatory "categorically needy" group for family planning services purposes.
EXCERPTS OF BILL:
Congress makes the following findings:
Rates of unintended pregnancy increased by nearly 30% among low-income women between 1994 and 2002, and a low-income woman today is 4 times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as her higher income counterpart.
Abortion rates decreased among higher income women but increased among low income women in that period, and a low income woman is more than 4 times as likely to have an abortion as her higher income counterpart.
Contraceptive use reduces a woman's probability of having an abortion by 85%.
Levels of contraceptive use among low-income women at risk of unintended pregnancy declined significantly, from 92% to 86%.
Publicly funded contraceptive services have been shown to prevent 1,300,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and in the absence of these services the abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is.
By helping couples avoid unintended pregnancy, Medicaid-funded contraceptive services are highly cost-effective, and every public dollar spent on family planning saves $3 in the cost of pregnancy-related care alone.The Social Security Act is amended by adding [to the Medicaid section] the following: COVERAGE OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES -- a State may not provide for medical coverage unless that coverage includes family planning services and supplies.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.
Source: Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

Paperback: Ron Paul
vs. Barack Obama
On The Issues
Sponsored bill for emergency contraception for rape victims.

Clinton sponsored for emergency contraception for rape victims
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Prohibits any federal funds from being provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides to women who are victims of sexual assault:
accurate and unbiased information about emergency contraception;
emergency contraception on her request; and
does not deny any such services because of the inability of the woman to pay.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill will help sexual assault survivors across the country get the medical care they need and deserve. It is hard to argue against this commonsense legislation. Rape--by definition--could never result in an intended pregnancy. Emergency contraception is a valuable tool that can prevent unintended pregnancy. This bill makes emergency contraception available for survivors of sexual assault at any hospital receiving public funds.
Every 2 minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in the US, and each year, 25,000 to 32,000 women become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 50% of those pregnancies end in abortion.
By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. In addition, emergency contraception could also give desperately needed peace of mind to women in crisis.
The FDA recently made EC available over the counter for women 18 years of age and older. Despite the ideologically driven agenda against this drug, the research has been consistently clear--this drug is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. Women deserve access to EC. For millions of women, it represents peace of mind. For survivors of rape and sexual assault, it offers hope for healing and a tomorrow free of painful reminders of the past.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.
Source: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act (S.3945) 06-S3945 on Sep 26, 2006
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance.

Clinton scores 0% by the NRLC on abortion issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:
0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)
16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)
85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NRLC (from their website, www.nrlc.org):
The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.
The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.
In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.
Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006
Provide emergency contraception at military facilities.

Clinton sponsored providing emergency contraception at military facilities
Requires emergency contraception to be included on the basic core formulary of the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents for the pharmacy benefits program of the Department of Defense.
Introductory statement by Sponsor:
Sen. CLINTON: Last year, the FDA made emergency contraception available over-the-counter for women 18 years of age and older. Research shows that emergency contraception is safe and effective for preventing pregnancy. More than 70 major medical organizations, including the America Academy of Pediatrics, recommended that Plan B be made available over-the-counter.
Women deserve access to this medically approved drug and our servicewomen are no different. By providing access to emergency contraception, up to 95% of those unintended pregnancies could be prevented if emergency contraception is administered within the first 24 to 72 hours. For survivors of rape and incest, emergency contraception offers hope for healing.
Current Department of Defense policy allows emergency contraception to be available at military health care facilities. Currently, it is available at some facilities, but not others. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act would simply ensure broader access by including emergency contraception on the basic core formulary, BCF, a list of medications stocked at all military health care facilities.
There is a real need for this legislation. According to the Pentagon, the number of reported sexual assaults in the military increased approximately 24% in 2006 to nearly 3,000. We have reports from women & health providers in the military who have sought emergency contraception on an emergency basis and have been unable to obtain it quickly enough.
Ensuring that emergency contraception is more broadly available at military health care facilities is a fair, commonsense step that everyone should be able to agree on. It is my sincere hope that my colleagues join me in supporting this important legislation.
Source: Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act (S.1800 & HR.2064) 07-HR2064 on Apr 26, 2007
Ensure access to and funding for contraception.

Clinton co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception
A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:
Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.
Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007
Focus on preventing pregnancy, plus emergency contraception.

Clinton signed Prevention First Act
Family Planning Services Act: Authorizes appropriations for family planning services grants and contracts under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA).
Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act: Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and PHSA to prohibit a group health plan from excluding or restricting benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, and outpatient services
Emergency Contraception Education Act: to develop and disseminate information on emergency contraception to the public and to health care providers.
Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act: Requires hospitals, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to offer and to provide, upon request, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault.
At-Risk Communities Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act: to award grants for teenage pregnancy prevention programs & prevention research.
Truth in Contraception Act: Requires that any information concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through specified federally funded education programs be medically accurate and include health benefits and failure rates.
Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act: to expand Medicaid's coverage of family planning services.
Responsible Education About Life Act: to make grants to states for family life education, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Prevention Through Affordable Access Act: Expands Medicaid rebates to manufacturers for the sale of covered outpatient drugs at nominal prices to include sales to student health care facilities and entities offering family planning services.
Source: S.21&H.R.463 2009-S21 on Jan 6, 2009

It still doesn't help your initial argument about her economic liberalism. Nice try to bury me under paper, though.

poor you...cannot wade through a mountain of evidence because it might spoil your world view!

Lets try a new topic...How about her cred on Civil Rights...

Women in Public Service Project: 50% of officials by 2050

Everywhere I look today, very promising campaigns and projects are emerging to help women attain positions of influence and leadership. A few years ago, I wrote an article about then-Secretary of State Clinton's Women in Public Service Project, whose ambitious goal is global, political, and civic leadership of at least 50% women by 2050. I also interviewed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand about her Off the Sidelines Project, "to get more women engaged to enter political life and be heard on political issues."
Source: Make A Woman President?, by Marianne Schnall, p. 3 , Nov 5, 2013
1998: Hillary predicted female President in near future

In 1998, Hillary was generating headllines of her own in Africa. Tanzanian activist Gertrude Mongella described her as “the co-pilot” of the US, and at the University of Cape Town Hillary predicted that a woman would be elected President of the United States withing two decades.
Source: For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith, p.274 , Oct 23, 2007
1962: met MLK Jr. preaching a sermon in Chicago

In 1962, Don Jones, the youth minister at Hillary’s church took Hillary and her class to hear a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. The civil rights pioneer preached a sermon titled “Sleeping Through the Revolution,” and the experience gave Jones the opportunity to leave another indelible mark on his pupils. “I wanted them to become aware of the social revolution that was taking place. It was an opportunity for them to meet a great person. Park Ridge was sleeping through the greatest social revolutio this country has ever had.“
In his speech, Dr. King said too many Americans were like Rip Van Winkle, snoozing through the changes happening around them.
That night was one Hillary would never forget, particularly because of the moment after the speech, when Jones shocked the teen and her comrades by arranging to have them briefly meet with King. Later in life, Hillary would remark that these experiences opened her eyes ”as a teenager to other people and the way they live which affected me.“
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 17 , Jul 18, 2007
We’ve come a long way on race, but we have a long way to go

Q: Is race still the most intractable issue in America?
A: It is abundantly clear that race and racism are defining challenges not only in the United States but around the world. We have made progress. You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States. But there is so much left to be done. And for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes. You can look at the thousands of African-Americans left behind by their government with Katrina. You can look at the opportunity gap. So, yes, we have come a long way, but, yes, we have a long way to go. The march is not finished, and I hope that all of us, the Democratic candidates, will demonstrate clearly that the work is yet to be done. And we call on everyone to be foot soldiers in that revolution to finish the job.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University , Jun 28, 2007
1995: Politely criticized China’s human rights

In 1995, Hillary traveled to China to attend the UN World Conference on Women. She hoped “to push the envelope as far as I can on behalf of women and girls,” and her speech was a loud call for women’s rights to be equated with human rights.
Hillary’s idealistic aims were tempered by her pragmatic politics. She did not name the host country or any other country in her speech, though she was aware of China’s efforts to muzzle opponents. Even after the Chinese government blacked out her speech on the closed-circuit TV in the hall, she said nothing.
Hillary told CNN that she had been referring to violations by China. But Bill, eager to improve ties with Beijing, insisted “there was no attempt to single any country out.”
The Beijing speech became, Hillary wrote, “a manifesto for women all over the world.” Indeed, her message was beamed all over the world. Her speech lifted her “from being a really first-rate First Lady,” observed Donna Shalala, “to being an extraordinary one.”
Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p.151-152 , Jun 8, 2007
Developmental thread: tragedy of race must be made right

Betsy, [Hillary’s high-school friend], and her grandfather took Hillary to hear Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak at the Chicago Sunday Evening Club. King talked about racial segregation in the North and the South. It was the first time Hillary, then 14, grasped the notion of Negro children being the country’s poorest and most vulnerable.
If there is a single developmental thread of Hillary’s political, religious, and social development, it is her belief and determination that the tragedy of race in America must be made right. What in part first attracted her to Bill Clinton was her perception that he was an unusual, enlightened Southerner who wanted to go into politics and help right the country’s greatest wrong. Hillary formed many of her closest friendships with blacks; her mentor was Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. Later, in the White House, Hillary chose several African Americans as senior aides.
Source: A Woman in Charge, by Carl Bernstein, p. 31 , Jun 5, 2007
Pushing for privacy bill of rights

Hillary Clinton urged creation of a “privacy bill of rights” to protect people’s personal data. Clinton’s speech on protecting consumers from identity theft and citizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talks billed as “major addresses” by aides. Previous speeches were on energy and the economy. A potential presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton noted her work on a House committee investigating the Nixon administration’s illegal snooping and other abuses.
Clinton said any president should have the latest technology to track terrorists, but within laws that provide for oversight by judges. “The administration’s refrain has been, ‘Trust us,’” Clinton said. “That’s unacceptable. Their track record doesn’t warrant our trust. Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations.”
Source: 2008 speculation in Associated Press , Jun 16, 2006
1972: Worked with Edelman on school desegregation in South

In 1972, I returned to D.C. to work for Marian Wright Edelman. My assignment was to gather information about the Nixon Administration’s failure to enforce the legal ban on granting tax-exempt status to the private segregated academies that had sprung up in the South to avoid integrated public schools. The academies claimed they were created in response to parents deciding to form private schools; it had nothing to do with court-ordered integration. I went to Atlanta to meet with the lawyers and civil rights workers who were compiling evidence that proved the academies were created solely for the purpose of avoiding the constitutional mandate of the Supreme Court’s decisions.
As part of my investigation, I drove to Alabama. At a local private school, I had an appointment to meet an administrator to discuss enrolling my imaginary child. I went through my role-playing, asking questions about the curriculum and makeup of the student body. I was assured that no black students would be enrolled.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Clinton, p. 57 , Nov 1, 2003
Professional woman AND hostess; feminist AND traditionalist

If I was serious about substantive policy issues, why was I talking to a reporter about entertainment? Conversely, if I was really worrying about floral centerpieces, how could I be substantive enough to head a major policy effort? What kind of message was I sending, anyway?
It seemed that people could perceive me only as one thing or the other--EITHER a professional woman OR a conscientious hostess. Gender stereotypes trap women by categorizing them in ways that don't reflect the true complexities o their lives. It was becoming clear to me that people who wanted me to fit into a certain box, traditionalist or feminist, would never be entirely satisfied with me as me--which is to say, with my many different, and sometimes paradoxical roles.
In my own mind, I was traditional in some ways and not in others. I cared about the food I served our guests, and I also wanted to improve the delivery of health care for all Americans. To me, there was nothing incongruous about my interests and activities.
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.140-141 , Nov 1, 2003
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now

Q: Will you support reparations for African-Americans?
CLINTON: We have mental, emotional and psychological reparations to pay first. We have to admit that we haven’t always treated people in our own country fairly. We have some issues that we have to address when it comes to racial justice right now. I’m willing to work hard to be a strong advocate for Civil Rights and human rights here at home and around the world. I want to do everything I can to make sure that the programs and policies that have helped generations of African-Americans have a better life in this country continue. I think we should be focused on the present and on the future. We owe an apology to African-Americans for hundreds of years of slavery.
LAZIO: I believe it is time for us to move past the issue of reparations among African-Americans and work for ways in which we can bring more opportunity and better educational opportunities to African-American children.
Source: Senate debate in Manhattan , Oct 8, 2000
Crack down on sex trafficking of women and girls

Leaders of a coalition of women’s groups and politically conservative groups sent a letter of protest to the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The letter accused the administration of taking a position that was “extremely detrimental to women” in negotiations over a new UN treaty on sex trafficking. They were referring to the administration’s support for wording in the treaty that would define “forced prostitution” - but not other types of prostitution - as a form of “sexual exploitation.” The letter said [that] wording would make it more difficult to prosecute prostitution rings because the definition “would not cover some of the most common methods of sex trafficking, which prey on and profit from the economic desperation of women, girls and their families by securing their ‘consent.’” Clinton has focused on the issue in her foreign travels and has repeatedly called for a crackdown on all types of trafficking of women and children across international borders.
Source: International Herald-Tribune, p. 3 , Jan 14, 2000
Human rights are women’s rights

Traveling abroad on behalf of our country, Hillary has been an eloquent voice for human rights & democracy, highlighting the need for education for girls & boys, and access to health care for women and men. At the 1995 UN World Conference on Women, Hillary said, “We must respect the choices that each women makes for herself and her family. If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.”
Source: www.hillary2000.org “About Hillary” , Jan 1, 2000
Women’s rights are human rights

At the 1995 UN World Conference on Women, held in China:“Women comprise more than half the world’s population. Women are 70% of the world’s poor and illiterate. Much of the work we do is not valued--not by economists, not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders. We need to understand that there is not one formula for how women should lead their lives. We must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to realize her God-given potential.“
The First Lady lambasted China’s Communist government for suppressing free speech and the right to assemble at the grassroots women’s forum [of the UN Conference]. She inspired the women there to make their voices heard against selling girls into prostitution, against rape as a tactic of war, against forced abortion or sterilization. ”Human rights are women’s rights. And women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.“
Source: Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p.277 , Dec 9, 1999
Support National Endowment for the Arts

Regarding cutbacks on art funding]: We will continue to promote the arts. I’ve tried to do that with a sculpture garden at the White House and the crafts collection for the White House, which is on exhibit here in N.Y. We will also support the National Endowment of the Arts. The arts speak to us; they tell us who we are. I think that as a nation we need that today because we’re going through such a changing time.
Source: Unique Voice, p.169 , Feb 3, 1997
Sex selection, prostitution & war rape: human rights issues

It is a violation of human rights:
when babies are denied food or drowned because they are girls.
when women and girls are sold into prostitution.
when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned because their marriage dowries are too small.
when individual women are raped in their own communities and women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
when a leading cause of death among women 14 to 49 is the violence they are subjected to by their own relatives.
when girls are brutalized by genital mutilation.
when women are denied the right to plan their own families and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
If there is one message that echoes forth, let it be that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.
Source: Unique Voice, p.203: UN Fourth World Conference on Women , Sep 5, 1995
Women's suffrage was 72-year struggle, but not a shot fired

In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. In took 150 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence for women to win the right to vote. It took 72 years of organized struggle on the part of many courageous women and men. It was one of America's most divisive philosophical wars. But it as also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot fired.
Source: A Patriot's Handbook, by Caroline Kennedy, p.339 , Sep 5, 1993
Hillary Clinton on Affirmative Action

OpEd: "18 million cracks" meant "lingering sexism"

Her official exit on June 7 had the word "endorse" removed from the speech and then quickly reinserted, one last sign of the divisions in her campaign. Clinton urged her supporters to turn their energies to electing Obama president. "When you hear people saying, or think to yourself, 'if only' or 'what if,' I say--please don't go there," Clinton said, pledging to "work my heart out to make sure that Sen. Obama is our next president, and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort."
In the most memorable line of the speech, she spoke of what her campaign had achieved: "Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope & the knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time."
Many of her supporters believed the opposite: that she had been hampered in her campaign because of lingering sexism in society.
Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p.218-219 , Aug 4, 2009
Heads movement of women looking to America's true promise

A December 2007 memo entitled "Launch Strategy Thoughts" said, "Hillary occupies a completely different ground than past nominees. People see in Hillary Clinton someone who works hard to get results, someone who is tough enough to make decisions, someone who is smart enough and experienced enough to understand the complexities of the modern world and yet passionate enough to fight for causes she believes in. She also heads a movement of women looking to achieve the true promise of America--that a qualified woman could be president of this country."
He went on, "And we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of reliving the past--this election can't be about the old Clinton years, but about the future. Bush did not run on the record of his father, though he benefitted from the name and association. New Times, New Ideas, a New Clinton."
Source: The Battle for America 2008, by Balz & Johnson, p. 50 , Aug 4, 2009
Equal pay is not yet equal

Equal pay is not yet equal. A woman makes $0.77 on a dollar & women of color make $0.67. We feel so passionately about this because we not only are running for office, but we each, in our own way, have lived it. We have seen it. We have understood the pain and the injustice that has come because of race, because of gender. It’s imperative that we make it very clear that each of us will address these issues. You don’t hear the Republicans talking about any of this. You don’t hear them talking about the disgrace of a criminal justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites, and any kind of effort to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities, something that I’m committed to doing to make it clear that these are important institutions that have led the way for so many great leaders to be where they are today. So we have a specific set of policies and priorities that are really part of who we are, as well as part of what the Democratic Party stands for.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate , Jan 21, 2008
MLK recognized that working within the system was necessary

Q: You said recently, “Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when Pres. Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done.” Critics claim you’re saying Martin Luther King’s speeches were a nice sentiment, but it took a white president to get blacks to the mountaintop.
A: I can’t let you get away with that mischaracterization. I was responding to a speech that Senator Obama gave, where he compared himself to Pres. Kennedy & to Dr. King. Dr. King had been leading a movement. But Dr. King understood that there has to be a coming to terms of our country politically in order to make the changes that would last for generations beyond the iconic, extraordinary speeches that he gave. That’s why he campaigned for Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That’s why he was there when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Does he deserve the lion’s share of the credit for moving our country and moving our political process? Yes, he does. But he also had partners who were in the political system.
Source: Meet the Press: 2008 “Meet the Candidates” series , Jan 13, 2008
Compiled “Handbook on Legal Rights for Arkansas Women”

Hillary Clinton has taken hits for her early writings on children’s legal rights’ for her activism in women’s issues (she compiled three editions of a Handbook on Legal Rights for Arkansas Women), and most spectacularly for the failure of her healthcare effort. Media misogynists hold nothing back: the attacks on the First Lady have always been personal and vicious, and for years they wouldn’t let up. Her looks, her parenting skills, her sexuality, even her daughters’ teeth were deemed acceptable targets for right-wing talk radio and the press. To this date there are scores of Hillary Clinton websites, mostly negative.
Source: The Contenders, by Laura Flanders, p. 37 , Nov 11, 2007
Hillary wanted Bill’s cabinet to “Look Like America”

Hillary assigned herself the task of ensuring that Bill kept his pledge to appoint more women and minorities than any previous president, to make his Administration “look like America.” She pressed him to fill half of the senior positions with women. And she urged her husband to make history by appointing the first woman to one of the big four cabinet posts.
Source: For Love of Politics, by Sally Bedell Smith, p. 27 , Oct 23, 2007
Founded Vital Voices Initiative with Madeleine Albright

In 1997, following up on her assertion two years earlier, at the fourth U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing, that 'women's rights are human rights," Hillary and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright established the Vital Voices Democracy Initiative to promote the advancement of women's rights as an explicit goal of US foreign policy. Over the next three years, at conferences throughout the world, Vital Voices brought together thousands of women leaders from 80 countries. In 2000, American women who were involved in the government initiative and who wanted the project to continue formed a new non-governmental organization, Vital Voices Global Partnership, and aligned with other women around the world who began their own chapters.
Vital Voices invests in emerging women leaders to give them the tools they need to advance peace and reconciliation, run successful businesses, participate fully in their nation's political life, and combat trafficking in women and girls and other abusive practices.
Source: Giving, by Bill Clinton, p. 93-94 , Sep 4, 2007
1965: brought black classmates to all-white church

In 1965, Hillary invited a black classmate to attend church services with her at the Methodist church, a move that raised eyebrows. Don Jones later recalled that the Park Ridge Methodist folks were bothered because Hillary seemed to make the move “not out of goodwill” but simply to shock a “lily-white church.” She told Jones she was genuinely interested in her minority classmates, and today, schoolmates like Karen Williamson speak warmly of Hillary: “She was a friend. As a black woman going to Wellesley at the time friends were very welcome. All the black students felt we had a close friendship in Hillary.“ They also sensed something more: ”A lot of us thought Hillary would be the first woman president,“ said Williamson later.
It was Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination that produced one of the greatest shifts. The trauma seemed to catalyze Hillary’s politics. Nevertheless, her classmates insist she was never a radical. Hillary was more willing to work within the system to change things.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p. 28-29 , Jul 18, 2007
1988: Instituted gender diversity Report Card within ABA

In 1987, a commission in the American Bar Association to study women lawyers was created, and Hillary accepted the position to chair it.
The commission held hearings and found widespread discrimination and after one year issued a report urging the bar association to publicly recognize that gender bias exists in the profession and to begin to eliminate it.
The ABA responded to the work of Hillary’s commission by adopting a resolution that committed the association and its members to “refuse to participate in, acquiesce in, or condone barriers to the full integration and equal participation of women in the legal profession.“ The voice vote of approval was unanimous. Hillary told the delegates, ”Despite the progress that has been made, there still exist instances of subtle discrimination against women.“ In 1991, the group created the Goal IX Report Card, an annual accounting designed to measure the progress of women in the association.
Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p. 82-84 , Jun 8, 2007
Create a pipeline for more women in leadership

"There's no way to predict substantively what if any difference would be made [by having more women in power], but I'd sure like to try to find the answer to that. There's such a dearth of women leaders in the vast majority of countries, including our own, that there isn't any doubt that empowering women in poor countries--[and] in undemocratic countries--would make a significant difference in increasing the stability of those societies.
"Our system is about as hard as it can be for both men and woman. We need to recognize that, and encourage more women to run at all levels for elective office, and to be in positions to take appointed office such as secretary of state and federal judges. We need to do more to create the pipeline for women from both the public and private sector to be able to have a greater increase to get a critical mass, beyond the 14% to 20% that we seem to be stuck at."
(Senator Hillary Clinton, Wellesley College, June 5, 2004)
Source: The Case for Hillary Clinton, by Susan Estrich, p. 49-51 , Oct 17, 2005
Argued with Bill Clinton about diluting affirmative action

Only a few months after the 1994 election, Bill and Hillary spoke to me about how they should handle this new hot-button issue. Should they side with those who wanted to end affirmative action, or remain loyal to the core constituencies of the Democratic Party?
At first, the president wanted to explore alternatives to affirmative action. He and I discussed modifying affirmative action to grant preferences to those in poverty, regardless of gender and color.
But Hillary soon ended this flirtation with moderation. She saw great danger in disappointing the black and feminist groups that supported the Democratic Party.
Hillary pointed out that many middle-class blacks and professional women felt they needed affirmative action to get ahead in their workplace or win government contracts. Diluting the program to give preference to poor people, regardless of race or gender, might strip of their privileges, and they are the core of the Democratic Party.
Source: Condi vs. Hillary, by Dick Morris, p.120-121 , Oct 11, 2005
First chair of ABA Commission on Women and the Profession

Robert MacCrate, then president of the American Bar Association, appointed Hillary Clinton as the first chairperson of the newly created twelve member ABA Commission on Women and the Profession. Up until that time, the participation of women in the ABA had been very limited. This was a chance to place women’s issues into the mainstream of ABA activity.
Source: The Inside Story, by Judith Warner, p.150 , Aug 1, 1999
Raised issues of gender compensation gap at 1970s Rose Law

[At Rose Law, Vince Foster] and I became Hillary’s sounding boards, her confidants. We couldn’t do much for her relationship with her public, but we could be her emissaries to the firm just as we were the firm’s emissaries to her.
The office secretaries often came to Hillary with horror stories about the behavior of partners, and Hillary passed those stories on to us. [For example, Hillary came to us with one secretary’s story]: “He told her that if she’d wear the tight jeans more often, she’d get a raise. Webb, you need to talk to him.“
Hillary had been the first lawyer in the firm to post a ”THANK YOU FOR NOT SMOKING“ sign in her office. And she talked to us about the gap in compensation between men and women, treatment of the office staff, the ethics of various partners. She knew she couldn’t raise those issues, so she encouraged us to.
Source: Friends in High Places, by Webb Hubbell, p. 67 , Nov 1, 1997
Affirmative living: involve entire village against racism

There is probably no more important task parents--and the rest of the village--face than raising children not only to tolerate but to respect the differences among people and to recognize the rewards that come from serving others. I call this affirmative living--the positive energy we derive from taking pride in who we are and from having the confidence and moral grounding to reach out to those who are different.
Some of the most effective approaches to promoting affirmative living are those that involve the entire village. An annual event in Boston called Team Harmony brings middle and high school students together with local sports figures and business leaders to take a stand against prejudice and bigotry. After the Team Harmony event in 1994, many students wrote about the positive messages they received. “Since the event, I want to do all that I can to stop racism,” one of them wrote. “I want everyone to live in peace & harmony, where there is no hatred & no violence.”
Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.172-179 , Sep 25, 1996
Hillary Clinton on Gay Rights

DOMA discrimination holds us back from a more perfect union

Bill and Hillary Clinton said in a joint statement: "By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California."
But, of course, Bill Clinton was the president who allowed DOMA to become law in the first place. But as the politics of same-sex marriage have shifted in the 17 years since, Clinton--along with scores of other Democrats--has completed his "evolution" on the issue. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, in their 2008 campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, expressed their opposition to same-sex marriage. Now, both have reversed themselves, and have endorsed gay and lesbian couples' right to marry.
Source: Michael O'Brien, NBC News, "Clintons Hail DOMA Ruling" , Jun 26, 2013
I support gay marriage personally and as law

Hillary Clinton endorsed gay marriage in a new video saying "that her views on the issue have evolved as a result of her experiences personally and as secretary of state," Politico reports.
Said Clinton: "I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law. Marriage is a fundamental building block of our society--a great joy and, yes, a great responsibility. To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters and sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God-given abilities."
Source: PoliticalWire.com, "Clinton backs same-sex marriage" , Mar 18, 2013
Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion

Q: Last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children’s teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?
A: With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country. Tomorrow we’re going to vote on the hate crimes bill. We haven’t been able to get it passed, and it is an important measure to send a message that we stand against hatred and divisiveness.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College , Sep 6, 2007
Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits

Q: What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?
A: Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, & I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges. I want to proceed with equalizing federal benefits.
And I’ve also been a very strong supporter of letting the states maintain their jurisdiction over marriage. I want to repeal Section 3 of DOMA, which stands in the way of the extension of benefits to people in committed, same-sex relationships. I will be very strongly in favor of doing that as president.
I don’t know that we could have defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment if we had not had DOMA. I mean, that is something that, you know, has provided a great protection against what was clearly the Republican strategy, to just cynically use marriage as a political tool.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues , Aug 9, 2007
Let states decide gay marriage; they’re ahead of feds

Q: Why let the states maintain their jurisdiction to ban gay marriage?
A: It’s easy to forget that just 2 years ago we were facing all of these referenda that were enshrining discrimination in state constitutions. Unfortunately, they passed. Now, we’re beginning to see other states take different approaches, because stopping the Federal Marriage Amendment gave the states the breathing room to make different decisions.
Q: In the civil rights struggle, the same argument of states’ rights issue was used as a red herring. Doesn’t marriage as a states’ rights issue resonate the same way?
A: Absolutely. But this has not been a long-term struggle yet, and I think the states are moving much more rapidly to deal with the inequalities than you would find at the federal level. The reason we were plotting strategy to beat the Federal Marriage Amendment is that we were worried it was going to pass. But I don’t know that we could have defeated the Federal Marriage Amendment if we had not had DOMA.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues , Aug 9, 2007
GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade

Q: When your husband was elected president, it was a very hopeful time for the gay community. But in the years that followed, our hearts were broken. A year from now, are we going to be left behind like we were before?
A: Well, obviously, I don’t see it quite the way that you describe, but I respect your feeling about it. You know, we certainly didn’t get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president, the vice president and the rest of us who were trying to keep the momentum going. You know, I remember when I was running for the Senate as first lady marching in the gay pride parade in New York City, and to a lot of people that was just an unbelievable act.
Q: Why not be the leader now?
A: I think I am a leader now. But as president, I think I have an opportunity to reverse the concerted assault on people. It wasn’t just on people’s rights; it was on people. It was demeaning; it was mean-spirited. And that will end.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues , Aug 9, 2007
Supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed

Hillary stated categorically that she opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. She provided a clear explanation that to this day is the most quoted statement enunciating her position. “Marriage has historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship.“
Hillary said she backed her husband’s signing of the Defense of Marriage Act. She said what everyone wanted to know: Yes, if she had been in the Senate in 1996, she would have supported the law.
Source: God and Hillary Clinton, by Paul Kengor, p.189-190 , Jul 18, 2007
Don’t ask don’t tell was an important transition step

Don’t ask don’t tell was an important first step, But talking about this as though there is a reality out there that a president or a Congress can change with the snap with a finger does a grave disservice to the American people. We have a political process. There’s checks and balances, the Congress was adamantly opposed at the time to letting gays and lesbians serve openly. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was the compromised policy.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College , Jun 3, 2007
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex

Hillary’s argument against the Marriage Amendment in her Senate floor speech was a stinging diatribe against divorce & bearing children out of wed-lock:
I believe marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man & a women. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work & challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man & a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history & humanity & civilization, and that its primary role during those millennia has been raising & socializing children.“
It was her rhetoric that was on the minds of gay leaders in 2006. Hillary claimed she had evolved. Hillary indicated she would not oppose efforts to enact a same-sex marriage law in NY.
Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p.148-150 , May 14, 2007
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards

Senator Clinton voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but she has avoided making statements on the issue. When a reporter pressed her, she instead assailed the amendment as part of the “political machine of the White House & then GOP majority.”
Hillary has remained so tight-lipped about her feelings on gay marriage that homosexual groups have threatened to stop funding her.
Hillary’s awkward stance on this issue reflects a need to please her liberal base while not turning off conservative voters. When she does address the issue, she said she opposed gay marriage, supported some form of civil unions, but was against the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution.
“I think it would be a terrible step backwards. It would be the first time we’ve amended the Constitution to deny rights to people.”
When she talks to conservatives, Hillary says she personally opposed gay marriage, pointing to her support for the Defense of Marriage act.
Source: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, by Amanda Carpenter, p. 84-87 , Oct 11, 2006
Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight

One of Bill’s first challenges as commander in chief became the promise he made during the campaign to let gays and lesbians serve in the military as long as their sexual orientation did not in any way compromise their performance or unit cohesion. I agreed with the commonsense proposition that the code of military conduct should be enforced strictly against behavior, not sexual orientation.
Bill knew the issue was a political loser, but it galled him that he couldn’t persuade the Joint Chiefs of Staff to align the reality-that gays and lesbians have served, are serving, and will always serve-with an appropriate change in policy that enforced common behavior standards for all. Bill agreed to a compromise: the “Don’t Ask, Don’t’ Tell” policy. It has not worked well.
I just wish the opposition would listen to Barry Goldwater, an icon of the American Right, who said, “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”
Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p.241-2 , Nov 1, 2003
End hate crimes and other intolerance

I am deeply saddened and outraged by the recent incidents of hate crimes, and I hope our outrage will strengthen our resolve to address these scourges of gun violence and hate crimes in America today. There is no place for violence or intolerance in this country, and it is urgent that we address these issues now.
Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Hate Crimes” , Sep 9, 2000
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits

We ought to be providing domestic partnership benefits for people who are in homosexual and lesbian relationships.
Source: CNN.com , Feb 11, 2000
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation

Fitness to serve in the military should be based on one’s conduct, not one’s sexual orientation.
Source: “Inside Politics” , Dec 9, 1999
Hillary Clinton on Voting Record

Co-sponsored bill to criminalize flag-burning

At the Take Back America conference in 2006, Clinton said, "I do not think it is a smart strategy to set a date certain." The crowd erupted. "Why not?" people yelled amid a cacophony of boos & hisses.
The antiwar base was sending a fundamental message: Clinton's front-runner status was rooted in shaky ground. As wary as she was of being stereotyped as a conventional liberal, Hillary didn't fully apprehend that her split-the-difference stance was reviving an equally damaging narrative. With it, and with a handful of other moves that smacked of cynicism--her cosponsorship of a bill to criminalize flag-burning was frequently cited--Clinton was breathing new life into perceptions that she had done so much to slay: that she was a calculating, expedient schemer wedded to no great principle other than her own advancement.
For many Democrats, trimming, triangulating, and poll-tested centrism were among the least appetizing features of the Clinton years.
Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p. 46 , Jan 11, 2010
Op-ed: Sposnored flag-burning bill for centrist credential

Q: Is Hillary Clinton somebody who can reach the moderates, bring the Party together?
A: She’s a paradox. No one has been more diligent in trying to re-create her image as a centrist, even to the point of sponsoring legislation to make flag- burning illegal, which is a rather naked play for a kind of voter who is not attracted to her. The serious question is whether this can work. Missouri Democrats told me, over and over, that yes, they like Hillary Clinton, they think she’s a good senator, they admire her personal qualities, but the last thing they want right now is for her to come to Missouri and campaign on behalf of their candidates. Missouri is a state that could go for a Democrat in a national election, but they were saying, We hope that the Party understands that nominating Hillary Clinton means that you take Missouri out of play, and when Missouri is out of play, thirty other states are out of play.
Source: 2008 speculation, by Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Yorker , May 29, 2006
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

The Senate voted on a resolution which would recommend a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration (not a vote on the Amendment itself). The resolution states:
the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.
Proponents of the Resolution say:
Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away in 1989.
48 States had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong.
Opponents of the Resolution say:
I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.
I also believe that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created.
Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest.
I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it.
Is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings?
Reference: Flag Desecration Amendment; Bill S.J.Res.12 ; vote number 2006-189 on Jun 27, 2006
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Proponents of the motion say:
If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.
Opponents of the motion say:
This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?
Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 2006-163 on Jun 7, 2006
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.
Reference: Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

Motion to table (kill) the amendment that would provide that in order to conduct roving surveillance, the person implementing the order must ascertain that the target of the surveillance is present in the house or is using the phone that has been tapped.
Reference: Bill S1510 ; vote number 2001-300 on Oct 11, 2001
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all.

Clinton adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Strengthen America’s Common Civic Culture
The more ethnically and culturally diverse America becomes, the harder we must all work to affirm our common civic culture -- the values and democratic institutions we share and that define our national identity as Americans. This means we should resist an “identity politics” that confers rights and entitlements on groups and instead affirm our common rights and responsibilities as citizens. Multiethnic democracy requires fighting discrimination against marginalized groups; empowering the disadvantaged to join the economic, political, and cultural mainstream; and respecting diversity while insisting that what we have in common as Americans is more important than how we differ. One way to encourage an ethic of citizenship and mutual obligation is to promote voluntary national service. If expanded to become available to everyone who wants to participate, national service can help turn the strong impulse toward volunteerism among our young people into a major resource in addressing our social problems. It will also help revive a sense of patriotism and national unity at a time when military service is no longer the common experience of young Americans.
Goals for 2010
Reduce discrimination based on race, gender, national background, religion, age, disability, or sexual orientation.
Shift the emphasis of affirmative action strategies from group preferences to economic empowerment of all disadvantaged citizens.
Expand the AmeriCorps national service program so that everyone willing to serve can serve -- with 1 million participants enrolled by the end of the decade.
Promote character education in all public schools.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC6 on Aug 1, 2000
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.

Clinton scores 60% by the ACLU on civil rights issues
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor. If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled.
Our ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: ACLU website 02n-ACLU on Dec 31, 2002
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.

Clinton scores 89% by the HRC on gay rights
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:
0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)
About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org):
The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.
Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on Dec 31, 2006
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

Clinton scores 96% by the NAACP on affirmative action
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:
0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NAACP (from their website, www.naacp.org):
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked over the years to support and promote our country's civil rights agenda. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels. From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many negative aspects of American society.
Source: NAACP website 06n-NAACP on Dec 31, 2006

It could also be that you haven't read the first bit of it and it's blatantly obvious.

apparently bullshit....but I have mountains of evidence that happen to be public records by the way....but you are concerned about what "I" have or havent't read!


How ironic!

More evidence of the Tone Deafness that is afflicting this site!

Of course, it could be the fact you're posting stuff that has her taking stands that both support and contradict your claim that she's a liberal on economic matters. If you'd read it, you'd have the sense to edit out, or explain, the stuff that contradicts you. That is how actual arguments work.

bit you....

What part of this is not documented public record

Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

Clinton co-sponsored providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees
Sen. LIEBERMAN: This legislation would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.
Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.
The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.
I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.
SUMMARY: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007
Employees and their domestic partners will have the same benefits as married employees and their spouses under--
Employee health benefits
Retirement and disability plans
Family, medical, and emergency leave
Group life insurance
Long-term care insurance
Compensation for work injuries
Death, disability, and similar benefits
Relocation, travel, and related expenses.
Source: Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S.2521/H.R.4838) 2007-S2521 on Dec 19, 2007

I figure it's got to be hard to cut and paste all day long and still not get my point. To be fair, you have the beginnings of an argument here. You have her sponsorship of a bill that deals with economic matters and is a liberal measure. Good work! All you need is an actual argument and you'll have finally done what I've been critiquing throughout this thread: used evidence to support an argument. You're halfway there!

You just do not like what I am posting...and you see...I believe in documenting my words and positions...with FACTS. I don't just pull my opinions out of orifices...I have the public record of this person.

You think I'm contradicting the idea that she's a liberal on economic matters. You couldn't be more wrong. You never made a coherent argument to that effect. We're arguing over whether you CAN make that argument, not whether she's an economic liberal. I hope that helps.

and Public Record supports that...

Posting walls of text and using caps isn't arguing. It's not even evidence. You need to take the evidence, weave it into a coherent narrative, and then present it as your argument. You're just spamming the forum with everything you can find and hoping it proves something. Unfortunately for you, it supports the economic liberal claim as much as it undercuts it. If you'd read the evidence, you wouldn't claim that it all supports you.

You know, the only argument you've made is that all your evidence supports you. A casual glance at your spammed walls of text show otherwise. You continue to insist you've proved your point, but you don't seem aware of the contradictory information you've provided (usually without supporting links, I might add). Are you unaware that not everything, maybe not even half, that you've spammed here supports you? I'm curious.

You understand this....you wrote a Term Paper in High School didn't you? Did you have to cite your sources?

Well here you go...I am citing mine....HRC on Evironment...

$5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package

EDWARDS [to Clinton]: One difference between what I have proposed & what my two colleagues have proposed is I have done something that not only stimulates the economy, but creates long-term benefits, investment in green infrastructure, which creates jobs
CLINTON: I do believe that the green-collar job piece of [the economic stimulus package] is important. That’s why I have $5 billion to do it. There are programs already. In Oakland CA, Mayor Dellums is working to have a green-collar job program. We could put hundreds and hundreds of young people to work right now, putting solar panels in, insulating homes. That would give them jobs and it would move us more quickly to a green economy. And I think that if you look at this from a jobs and justice, a stimulation and long-term planning effort, we need to lay down the markers now. We’ve got to hold the line against President Bush with his ill-advised approach to stimulating the economy.
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate , Jan 21, 2008
Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain

I voted against Yucca Mountain in 2001. I have been consistently against Yucca Mountain, looking at all the reasons why Yucca Mountain is not workable. The science does not support it. We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste. I have consistently and persistently been against Yucca Mountain, and I will make sure it does not come into effect when I’m president.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008
A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot

I have a comprehensive energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power. I have said we should not be siting any more coal-powered plants unless they can have the most modern, clean technology. I want big demonstration projects to figure out how we would capture and sequester carbon. This is going to take a massive effort. This should be our Apollo moon shot. There’s work for everybody to do--the states, communities and individuals. That’s what I want to summon the country to achieve.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008
Advocate a cap and trade system

I advocate a cap and trade system. What the auction of pollution permits is taking that money and invest in new technologies, new ways of getting to our objectives that I’ve outline inside my energy plan. I want to use some of it to cushion the costs tha will come on to the US consumer. It’s not just enough to tackle global warming, we’ve got to enlist the help of the next generation. My fifth grade teacher said it was to study math and science, but it gave me an idea of contributing to my country.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate , Dec 13, 2007
Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials

Q: Toxic chemicals that lace many toys and other products sold in America cause cancer, birth defects and genetic damage. Unlike the European Union, the US does nothing to limit the use of these agents and does not require that the toxic ingredients are listed. What changes will you make, or is this an over-reaction?
A: We don’t do anywhere near enough to try to prevent dangerous materials and products from coming into our country. We don’t even do enough of it within our own country. We have totally turned our back on the information that is available to try to better track the impact on children and others of these kinds of exposures to toxic materials. So, number one, we need tougher standards across the board, something I’ve been advocating for years. Number two, it should be especially applied to any kind of imports, and that requires going and making sure that we have inspectors on the ground and we have tough standards and we exercise recalls.
Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR , Dec 4, 2007
Support green-collar job training

Q: What policies would you implement to make businesses invest in energy-efficient technologies?
A: I have supported a green building fund and green-collar job training with the AFL-CIO that will put a lot of people too work. And it’s important that we do this, because we can create millions of new jobs.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 8, 2007
Put someone in charge of Katrina recovery who actually cares

Q: It’s been nearly two years now since Hurricane Katrina. What is the first thing you would do as president to improve the recovery in New Orleans?
A: Well, the first thing I would do is put somebody in charge who actually cared about the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and was willing to really do what it took. I outlined a 10-point plan--I can’t say it in 30 seconds--but briefly it is put somebody in charge, make sure that the White House has a system where that person reports to the president, which is what I would expect every single day. And my questions [to the person in charge] would be: What have you done to get the hospitals open? What have you done to get people to move back? What have you done to make sure the levees are strong enough to withstand whatever might come next? We’ve got to recognize rebuilding New Orleans is an American problem, not a New Orleans or Louisiana problem alone.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum , Aug 8, 2007
Overcome almost criminal indifference to Katrina rebuilding

Q: Would you support a federal law guaranteeing the right to return to New Orleans and other Gulf regions devastated by Hurricane Katrina?
KUCINICH: Absolutely. The aftermath underscores everything that’s wrong in this country about race.
GRAVEL: Yes.
CLINTON: I have proposed a 10-point Gulf Coast Recovery Agenda, because it’s sort of as a chicken and an egg issue. First, we’ve got to get the hospitals back up, [then] the law enforcement and the fire departments. This administration has basically neglected with almost criminal indifference the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast, in particular New Orleans and the parishes. Even if we were to give people a right, there is nothing to return to. We have got to rebuild New Orleans, and it’s not only the protection from the levees, it is all the infrastructure.
EDWARDS: This is an issue I care about personally and deeply.
OBAMA: Halliburton or Bechtel getting the contracts to rebuild is a further compounding of the outrage.
Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University , Jun 28, 2007
Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero

Hillary found her September 11 issue. Workers had worked literally around the clock at Ground Zero, and many complained about hazardous conditions. Hillary began lobbying to persuade Congress to approve money to monitor how the air around Ground Zero affected the lungs of recovery workers. She hired one of the leading experts on occupational hazards, Dr. William Rom. Rom proved that pieces of glass, asbestos fibers, and fly ash had gotten into the lungs of rescue workers. His findings enabled Hillary to land more cooperation from the White House and EPA. Eventually, research revealed that almost 70% of those who worked at Ground Zero had developed lung ailments.
Taking on the air-quality problem was a brilliant move. She successfully carved out a post-September 11 issue that played to her strengths while also meeting the needs of her constituents. Along the way it also created some space between her and the Bush administration and an opportunity to return to the base of her party.
Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p.238-239 , Jun 8, 2007
Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection

The Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard on animal protection scored Clinton 100+ out of 100, based on:
Clinton co-sponsored the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (S.1915): To bar slaughtering horses for human consumption. Bill had 34 co-sponsors.
Clinton voted for the Horse Slaughter Amendment (9/20/2005): to stop export of horses for slaughter.
Clinton co-sponsored the Animal Fighting Prohibition Act (S.382): To criminalize dogfighting & cockfighting. The bill had 51 cosponsors & passed unanimously on 4/28/2005.
Clinton co-sponsored the Downed Animal Protection Act (S.1779): to ban “downed” (unable to walk to slaughter) cattle, pigs & sheep in human food. Bill had 26 cosponsors.
Clinton signed the Funding Letter to the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee: seeking funds for the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, & federal animal fighting law. The letter was cosigned by 44 senators & sent on 5/25/2006.
Clinton took leadership on animal protection.
Source: Humane Society 109th Congress Scorecard, www.fund.org , Jan 31, 2007
Stands for clean air and funding the EPA

I have worked on behalf of children’s health and the environment, I’ve stood for clean air and worked in the administration to deal with problems from asthma to trying to figure out the possible environmental causes and correlations with breast cancer, but my opponent, on the other hand, stood against funding the EPA to the extent that was needed to do the job that’s required, was in the forefront of so-called regulatory reform, which would have gutted our environmental bills.
Source: Clinton-Lazio debate, Buffalo NY , Sep 13, 2000
Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health

Poor air quality has been linked to many respiratory ailments, including asthma. That’s why last summer the President announced. new standards for smog and soot [which] will safeguard millions of Americans in urban areas, including 35 million children, from the adverse health effects of breathing polluted air. No longer will governmental agencies set air, water or food quality standards without taking the special threat to children into consideration.
Source: “Talking It Over” column , Jun 10, 1998
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.

A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 15, 2005, relating to the removal of coal- and oil-fired electric generating units from the list of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule:
Limits smokestack emissions in a two-phase program founded on a market based capping system
Calls for the first cap to limit mercury emissions to 38 tons in 2010
Requires the second and final cap to begin in 2018 and stay fix at 15 tons
Reference: EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule; Bill S J Res 20 ; vote number 2005-225 on Sep 13, 2005
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior.

Vote to confirm the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. [Ms. Norton generally favors conservative or libertarian stances on the environment.]
Reference: Bill Confirmation vote ; vote number 2001-6 on Jan 30, 2001
Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles.

Clinton signed a letter to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman:
Dear Administrator Whitman:
We would like to convey our strong support for EPA’s proposal to remove sediment contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the “hot spots” in the upper Hudson River. This clean-up plan is a crucial first step towards restoring the Hudson’s tremendous social, ecological, and economic value for the people of NY and NJ.
The Hudson River has been designated as an American Heritage River. Unfortunately, since 1983, 200 miles of the Hudson have also been designated as a Superfund site due to the damage caused by the estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs released by General Electric Company.
PCBs pose a serious threat to public health; they are probable human carcinogens and are known to cause neurological, reproductive, and endocrine disorders. Since 1976, because of PCB contamination, women of childbearing age and children [have been advised] not to eat any fish from any location along the Hudson. Unfortunately, low-income and subsistence fishermen and their families continue to consume fish contaminated with PCBs.
This contamination also adversely impacts longstanding commercial, recreational, and cultural activities on the Hudson River. For example, the commercial striped bass fishery was once a $40 million a year industry. However, due to PCB contamination, the state closed the fishery in 1976, all but ending a way of life along the river.
Environmental dredging in the Hudson will allow future dredging to ensure commercial craft continue to ply the waters of the upper Hudson River, and reduce the adverse affects of PCBs on the aquatic ecosystem. This means EPA’s remediation plan is a critical first step in reducing threats to public health, reviving local economies, reopening recreational opportunities and reinvigorating cultural ties along the river.
Source: Letter to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman 01-EPA1 on Apr 6, 2001
Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

Clinton scores 89% by the LCV on environmental issues
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.
Source: LCV website 03n-LCV on Dec 31, 2003
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up.

Clinton signed a letter from 45 Senators to EPA
To: Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Administrator Leavitt:
We are writing to urge you to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The EPA’s current proposals on mercury fall far short of what the law requires, and they fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. We ask you to carry out the requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect our nation from toxic mercury contamination.
On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals fail to meet the Clean Air Act directives for cleaning up mercury. EPA's proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than the Clean Air Act allows.
The toxicity of mercury has been proven time and again by scientists around the world. The Agency's own scientists just released a study finding that approximately 630,000 infants were born in the US in the 12-month period, 1999-2000, with blood mercury levels higher than what is considered safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.
The newest scientific studies show that controlling mercury emissions works. As we saw in Florida, sharp reductions in mercury pollution are mirrored by reductions in nearby fish populations. A study in northern Wisconsin indicated that reductions in the input of mercury from air corresponded with marked reductions in mercury fish tissue levels in the 1990s.
As the Administrator of the EPA, you have the legal authority and the responsibility to address mercury emissions and protect public health. We do not believe that EPA's current proposals are sufficient or defensible. We urge you to withdraw the entire proposed rule package and re-propose a rule for adequate public comment that meets the terms of the 1998 settlement agreement and is promulgated by the December 15, 2004 deadline.
Source: Letter from 45 Senators to EPA 04-SEN1 on Apr 1, 2004
Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint.

Clinton sponsored giving tax credit to remove lead-based housepaint
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Allows a tax credit for 50% of the costs of reducing lead hazards in U.S. homes built before 1960 in which certain low-income children less than six years of age and women of child-bearing age reside. Allows a maximum credit of $3,000 for lead abatement costs and $1,000 for the cost of interim lead control measures.
EXCERPTS OF BILL:
Congress finds that:
Of the 98 million housing units in the United States, 38 million have lead-based paint.
Of the 38 million housing units with lead-based paint, 25 million pose a hazard due to conditions such as peeling paint and settled dust on floors and windowsills that contain lead at levels above Federal safety standards.
Lead poisoning remains a serious, entirely preventable threat to a child's intelligence, behavior, and learning.
The Administration has established a national goal of ending childhood lead poisoning by 2010.
Current Federal lead abatement programs only have resources sufficient to make approximately 7,000 homes lead-safe each year.
The replacement of old windows that contain lead based paint significantly reduces lead poisoning hazards in addition to producing significant energy savings.
Childhood lead poisoning can be dramatically reduced by the abatement or complete removal of all lead-based paint.
There shall be allowed as a tax credit, an amount equal to 50% of the lead hazard reduction activity cost paid, up to $1,000 per year for certain activities and $3,000 per year for other activities.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Finance; never came to a vote.
Source: Home Lead Safety Tax Credit Act (S.2053/H.R.4464) 05-S2053 on Nov 18, 2005

Paperback: Mitt Romney
vs. Barack Obama
On The Issues
Sponsored bill for commission to examine Katrina response.

Clinton sponsored establishing commission to examine Katrina response
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To establish a congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region, especially in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath, and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future.
EXCERPTS OF AMENDMENT:
There is established in the legislative branch the Katrina Commission:
The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, with not more than 5 members from any one political party.
Individuals appointed should enjoy significant depth of experience in such professions as natural disaster and emergency response experience.
The duties of the Commission are to ascertain, evaluate, and report on the information developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances related to Hurricane Katrina prior to striking the United States and in the days and weeks following;
build upon concurrent and prior investigations;
planning for future cataclysmic events requiring a significant marshaling of Federal resources, mitigation, response, and recovery to avoid significant loss of life;
an analysis as to whether any decisions differed with respect to response and recovery for different communities, neighborhoods, parishes, and locations and what problems occurred as a result of a lack of a common plan, communication structure, and centralized command structure; and
make recommendations for immediate corrective measures so that future cataclysmic events are responded to adequately.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Rollcall vote #229; lost 44-54.
Source: Establishment of Katrina Commission (S.AMDT.1660 to HR.2862) 05-SP1660 on Sep 8, 2005
Sponsored health impact bill for environmental health.

Clinton introduced for health impact assessments for environmental health
OnTheIssues.org Explanation: A classic 1980s study demonstrated that poor neighborhoods are burdened with more environmental hazards than rich neighborhoods. The 1980s study established the field of "environmental justice"; this bill addresses environmental justice and health justice.
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to require health impact assessments and take other actions to improve health and the environmental quality of communities, and for other purposes.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: The Healthy Places Act of 2006 focuses on the built environment, which includes our homes, parks, and transportation systems. Like many other States, Illinois has already begun to take steps to improve the environment. City leaders in Chicago have recognized that many low-income families have no access to fresh foods and medicine because there are no grocery stores and pharmacies in their neighborhoods. Retail Chicago, an initiative of the city's Department of Planning and Development, is now using redevelopment funds to entice local developers to bring grocery stores and pharmacies into these neighborhoods.
The Healthy Places Act of 2006 would expand these and other efforts to improve the planning and design of communities that can promote healthier living. It establishes and supports health impact assessment programs; better addressing environmental health issues; and creating a grant program to address environmental health hazards, particularly those that contribute to health disparities. Finally, the Healthy Places Act provides additional support for research on the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.
Source: Healthy Places Act (S.2506/H.R.5088) 06-S2506 on Apr 4, 2006
Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act.

Clinton co-sponsored grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act
Beach Protection Act of 2008 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to include among eligible grant activities the development and implementation of programs for source tracking, sanitary surveys, and prevention efforts to address the identified sources of beach water pollution. Requires grant recipients to identify:
the use of a rapid testing method;
measures for communication within 24 hours of the results of a water sample concerning pollutants to specified officials with authority to require the prevention or treatment of the sources of beach water pollution;
measures to develop and implement a beach water pollution source identification and tracking program for the coastal recreation waters that are not meeting applicable water quality standards for pathogens; and
a publicly accessible and searchable global information system database with information updated within 24 hours of its availability, organized by beach and with defined standards, sampling plan, monitoring protocols, sampling results, and number and cause of beach closing and advisory days.
Legislative Outcome: Related bills: H.R.2537, S.1506. Senate Reports: 110-414.
Source: Beach Protection Act (S.2844) 08-S2844 on Apr 10, 2008
Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources.

Clinton co-sponsored inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources
A joint resolution expressing the approval of Congress to an inter-state compact regarding water resources. In the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact the Congress finds that:
The Waters of the Basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the States;
The Waters of the Basin are interconnected and part of a single hydrologic system;
The Waters of the Basin can concurrently serve multiple uses. Such multiple uses include industrial, agriculture, mining, navigation, energy development and production, recreation, and the maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat.
Future Diversions and Consumptive Uses of Basin Water resources have the potential to significantly impact the environment and economy.
Purposes of the inter-state compact: To act together to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Waters and Water Dependent Natural Resources of the Basin under appropriate arrangements for intergovernmental cooperation and consultation;
To remove causes of present and future controversies;
To promote interstate and State-Provincial comity; and,
To promote an Adaptive Management approach to the conservation and management of Basin Water resources, which provides adjustments for the uncertainties in scientific knowledge concerning the Basin's Waters and Water Dependent Natural Resources.
Legislative Outcome: Passed Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Source: Great Lakes Water Resources Compact (S.J.RES.45) 08-SJR45 on Jul 23, 2008
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting.

Clinton co-sponsored strengthening prohibitions against animal fighting
Sen. CANTWELL. I reintroduce today the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line.
There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It's all done for "entertainment" and illegal gambling. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.
The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a "cost of doing business" by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide.
These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as "slashers" and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds' legs for fighting.
This is long overdue legislation. It's time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. It's time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. Our legislation does not expand the federal government's reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects states' rights in the two states where cockfighting is still allowed.
Source: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (S.261/H.R.137) 2007-S261 on Jan 4, 2007

This gets better and better. When you cite a source, it means you show where YOU got the information. So, if you cite a website that includes citations for where they got the info, you DON'T use their citations. You cite them. That's pretty basic. The fact that you're citing THEIR sources without providing a link to THEM means you really don't understand the point you tried to make about using citations. Got it?

By the way, the way you keep repeating "public record" sounds like someone trying to argue by saying "it's in the Bible" without ever having read the source. Given that you are so far unable to show that you've even read one paragraph in all the spam you've posted, I can't help making the comparison.

What you've posted aren't true walls of text. A true wall of text has no indentation and minimal punctuation. Even so, I call this spamming walls of text because you're simply cutting and pasting a bunch of stuff you haven't read in the hope that I will either get buried under the spam or that I will read something, somewhere, in this mass of unsourced garbage you've posted and will make your point for you. Bad news, chief. Tons of info doesn't scare me and I'm not doing your work for you.

Bwhahahahahahahaha....that is your takeaway....bwhwhahahahahahahah...OMG!!!



http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm

for example...

Advocate a cap and trade system

I advocate a cap and trade system. What the auction of pollution permits is taking that money and invest in new technologies, new ways of getting to our objectives that I’ve outline inside my energy plan. I want to use some of it to cushion the costs tha will come on to the US consumer. It’s not just enough to tackle global warming, we’ve got to enlist the help of the next generation. My fifth grade teacher said it was to study math and science, but it gave me an idea of contributing to my country.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic Debate , Dec 13, 2007


See there ^^^ where it says source....that's where you can find it....

Though it's pretty funny that you cherry picked words out of what I wrote without any apparent understanding of the words that immediately followed them. It's almost as though you didn't understand what I wrote.

It's cool that you cut and pasted the section on cap and trade, but that doesn't mean you've read it nor does it mean you understand it. Perhaps if you could actually discuss this mountain of spam you've posted, maybe I might, might mind you, believe that you could coherently and intelligently make an argument using it as evidence. That is the entirety of our discussion, after all.

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17:
Stay out10:49 AM 11/28/2014 of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Read your evidence. It doesn't prove what you think it proves. In fact, it doesn't quite prove anything.

Then tell me that with a straight face.

I am just posting the record....not cherrypicking at all...this is how her record is scored...

Public Records...

I hope you don't mind being laughed at.

Did you read what I wrote? I told the other poster that he/she had failed to prove a point because he/she was incapable of making an argument. I didn't talk about the substance of whether Hillary is an economic liberal or not. The entire point was to get the other poster to actually make an argument supported by evidence. He/she chose to spam the thread with unsourced lists of statements and actions that both supported and undermined his/her claim.

Would I make such a claim to a Republican? Maybe. It'd really depend on whether the evidence supported such a claim and whether that particular Republican was an idiot. I wouldn't bother with an idiot because that person can't find their butt with both hands anyway. That being said, who cares what a Republican thinks about Hillary's economic record anyway? Shit, most of them will tell you that Keynesian economic theory has failed and they hate it, but have no clue whatsoever that Bush tried one of the most Keynesian stimuli in our history with his tax cuts. Bearing that failure of knowledge in mind, I don't trouble myself with trying to educate people who can't be bothered to understand what they claim to believe.