“But compared with the monumental flaws of Trump, Clinton is in great shape. You don’t need the oratorical gifts of Barack Obama, the élan of John F. Kennedy or the kinetic spark of Teddy Roosevelt to be president.What you do need is a big idea, something much greater than the personality of the politician. As John Kasich admitted on Wednesday: “If you don’t have ideas, you got nothing, and frankly my Republican Party doesn’t like ideas.” ”
Source: Hillary’s Big Idea – The New York Times
I was disappointed that Tim Egan didn’t suggest which big ideas Hillary should make her big idea. The problem is complexity and interconnectedness.
I decided to take a stab at this request. Here is a candidate for Hillary Clinton’s big idea:
We can fight income inequality, and climate change, and restore the American middle class with investments in renewable energy, conservation and American infrastructure. If you want quick results, give me a Democratic majority in congress.
Hillary Clinton is running for president to be a champion for everyday Americans. Support Hillary for America by donating today.
Source: Donate to Hillary for America | Donate | Hillary for America
I am appalled by Hillary Clinton’s web site, which has the ultimate bad breath forcing you to give your email and then a donation, just to get to the website from google. It is heavy handed, aggressive and stupid. My support has been solid. But how could anyone with taste and manners have such a hand out in your face and aggressive, money grubbing introduction. Don’t any of her her advisers recognize that some undecided voter might just show up at the website, to read about her positions and her political biography.
“And here is a third choice. Will we keep working toward a negotiated peace or lose forever the goal of two states for two peoples? Despite many setbacks, I remain convinced that peace with security is possible and that it is the only way to guarantee Israel’s long-term survival as a strong Jewish and democratic state.(APPLAUSE)CLINTON: It may be difficult to imagine progress in this current climate when many Israelis doubt that a willing and capable partner for peace even exists. But inaction cannot be an option. Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity. And only a negotiated two-state agreement can survive those outcomes.(APPLAUSE)If we look at the broader regional context, converging interests between Israel and key Arab states could make it possible to promote progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Israelis and Palestinians could contribute toward greater cooperation between Israel and Arabs.I know how hard all of this is. I remember what it took just to convene Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas for the three sessions of direct face-to-face talks in 2010 that I presided over. But Israelis and Palestinians cannot give up on the hope of peace. That will only make it harder later.All of us need to look for opportunities to create the conditions for progress, including by taking positive actions that can rebuild trust — like the recent constructive meetings between the Israeli and Palestinian finance ministers aiming to help bolster the Palestinian economy, or the daily on-the-ground security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.But at the same time, all of us must condemn actions that set back the cause of peace. Terrorism should never be encouraged or celebrated, and children should not be taught to hate in schools. That poisons the future.”
Source: Read Hillary Clinton’s Speech to AIPAC | TIME
After the Brussels attacks, the G.O.P. front-runners offered bravado, while Clinton articulated a sensible approach to counterterrorism.
Source: Hillary Clinton and Other Candidates on Counterterrorism – The New York Times
David Lindsay Hamden, CT Pending Approval
Bravo New York Times for pointing out that Hillary Clinton is the clearest, smartests, and most experienced voice on foreign policy and how to combat the threat of terrorism. Thank you for an informed and articulate editorial. I would have given Obama some of the credit.
The Bernie Bros have a point that Saint Sanders deserved at least an honorable mention. I took seriously the complaint of one commentator, that Hillary Clinton caved in to the Jewish lobby with ignorant pandering at Aipac. I am outspoken in my condemnation of Israel for their illegal land grabs using settlers. So I looked up Hillary’s speech, and her words are not ignorant, or uninformed, or giving the Netanyahu government the cover they crave for their disgraceful behavior.
Hillary said: “And here is a third choice. Will we keep working toward a negotiated peace or lose forever the goal of two states for two peoples? Despite many setbacks, I remain convinced that peace with security is possible and that it is the only way to guarantee Israel’s long-term survival as a strong Jewish and democratic state.
It may be difficult to imagine progress in this current climate when many Israelis doubt that a willing and capable partner for peace even exists. But inaction cannot be an option. Israelis deserve a secure homeland for the Jewish people. Palestinians should be able to govern themselves in their own state, in peace and dignity. And only a negotiated two-state agreement can survive those outcomes.”
“But Mrs. Clinton does have an ambitious vision, and it’s one that should be inspiring. The fact that it remains mostly hidden from view reveals more about our current political environment than it does about her — more about how we understand (or misunderstand) our nation’s past and present than about the comparative merits of her governing philosophy.A few decades ago, Mrs. Clinton would have been seen as a common political type: an evidence-oriented pragmatist committed to using public authority to solve big problems. Her proposals clearly indicate that she believes in an active and responsive government that supplements, channels and polices markets. Moreover, unlike Mr. Sanders, she sees this role as primarily focused on correcting the shortcomings of weakly regulated markets rather than redistributing income and wealth. In a phrase, Mrs. Clinton believes in a “mixed economy” in which government serves as an essential supplement to and regulator of markets, using its strong “thumb” (as the political economist Charles Lindblom once described it) to assist and counterbalance the nimble “fingers” of the market.”
Source: Clinton’s Bold Vision, Hidden in Plain Sight? – The New York Times
“Mrs. Clinton’s falsely parsing Mr. Sanders’s Senate vote on a 2008 recession-related bailout bill as abandoning the auto industry rescue hurt her credibility. As soon as she uttered it in Sunday’s debate, the Democratic strategist David Axelrod registered his dismay, tweeting that the Senate vote wasn’t explicitly a vote about saving the auto industry. Even as reporters challenged her claim, she doubled down in ads across the state. As The Washington Post noted, “it seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact-checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.” ”
Source: A Lesson in Hillary Clinton’s Loss in Michigan – The New York Times
My comment at the New York Times:
HIllary Clinton does well when she bravely explains complexity, which is hard to do in short 1 minutes clumps in a TV debate. I have read economists defend NAFTA. It wasn’t the big job killer, the jobs leaving the country was happening any way. NAFTA lessened the pain by getting trade partners to lower some of their tariffs, so the US might compete in parts of the market. She should not back down from tough stands that require more than a tweet to explain. She had better be careful not to appear to curry too much to Hispanics who want us to let in all immigrants. Some of us progressives are serious environmentalists. Zero Population Growth is now called Population Connections. We want to end illegal immigration, and out of control population growth. We want to rewrite the 14th constitutional amendment, that says any child born in the USA is automatically a citizen. It appears that Hillary is taking bad advice. Trying to trash Bernie Sanders with half truths and twisted reports, is bad for her image, and reduces the number of his supporters who will help take the fight to the Republicans. besides being unethical, it is harder to use cheap dirty political tricks with the scrutiny of news organizations and fact-checking organizations. Her positions are more likely to happen than Bernie’s. Both candidates need to spend more time attacking the Republicans as anti-science, and build each other up.
“March 10, 2015“When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” Mrs. Clinton said in March. “Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone.” Mrs. Clinton said that since a vast majority of her work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, they would be archived by the government.”
Source: How the Story of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Has Changed – The New York Times