General Discussion

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts) Fri Apr 24, 2015, 11:22 AM Apr 2015

Hillary Clinton rouses women's summit with first big speech of presidential run

Having pledged to be the champion of everyday Americans, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton came out swinging during a speech in New York on Thursday night that expanded her personal doctrine – “women’s rights are human rights” – to the plight of mothers, fast food workers, immigrants, retirees, students, gay and transgender people and victims of sexual abuse.

In her first big speech since declaring her presidential run, Clinton took jabs at Hobby Lobby for opposing employer-covered contraception, chided the World Economic Forum for not exactly being a “hotbed of feminist thought” and slammed Republicans for stalling the nomination of Loretta Lynch, whom the US Senate confirmed on Thursday after a lengthy delay.

....

Earlier in the day Clinton earned celebrity endorsements from Barbra Streisand and Helen Mirren.

“I’ve always said how incredibly important Margaret Thatcher was – although I didn’t agree with her politics,” Mirren said on Thursday. “She was a role model for a little three-year-old girl [to think] that she could become the prime minister of England. It’s so incredibly important. So go Hillary!”

First-generation college student Alexa Reghenzani, who managed to snap a selfie with Clinton, said she was pleased to hear Clinton raise the issue of women’s education.

“It was really amazing to see that she wants to close the wage gap, that’s she’s so supportive of American families, that she’s supportive of the gay and transgender communities,” Reghenzani said. “It’s so amazing to hear all of that and to see her in person just was so touching and exciting.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/24/hillary-clinton-rouses-womens-summit-with-first-big-speech-of-presidential-run

1 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton rouses women's summit with first big speech of presidential run (Original Post) DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 OP

I'm reminded of when she spoke with "Unreasonable Women for the Earth" in 2003. NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #1

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)

1. I'm reminded of when she spoke with "Unreasonable Women for the Earth" in 2003.

Reply to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 11:40 AM

Apr 2015

I respect her for trying to address a kind of difficult audience and she's all alone, and might not know it's being recorded.

This is primary season, we need to vet our candidates and move forward with as much knowledge and transparency as possible. I do not support this candidate.

She makes the case for war with Iraq. She parrots the claim that Iraq has WMDs and only the US can stop it, and must stop it.

Excerpts:

If he was serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming coming. There may be progress, we may be destroying the Samoud missiles, but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. And I just respectfully disagree about what the proximate cause of any action that may be taken is.

Now I also believe that for now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. And it is a — it is a very unfortunate situation for the Iraqi people that they have been so horribly misgoverned for so long.

And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part this decision.

And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.

The comments start at around the 6:40 mark.

Reply to this discussion