I read/heard two interesting reflections on the election this morning.
First, I heard someone (name unknown, surely a Democratic spokesperson) ask the question on the radio: Why is breaking into the email of John Podesta different from the Watergate burglary where Republican operatives broke into the Democratic National Committee offices to steal its documents and plans?
Then I read this article in the Washington Post written by a professor of international relations who read the transcripts of Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs and found them unremarkable.
Since the future of our nation is at risk, I can’t stop thinking about what is at stake if a sociopathic billionaire wins the Presidency, and what is at stake as he crisscrosses the country telling his followers that our electoral system is “rigged.” He offers a choice: Elect me and I will jail my opponent, or if I lose, the entire electoral system is a sham.
This is an attack on America. I heard Douglas Brinkley, the historian of the presidency, say this morning that Trump has turned against democracy itself. He is now in a rule-or-ruin frame of mind.
But I return to the original point about Watergate. When a group of conspirators broke into DNC offices, they were trying to help President Nixon get re-elected. When their identities were revealed, as well as their ties to the Nixon re-election campaign (CREEP–Committee to Reelect the President), the media went into overdrive and public opinion joined in outrage. How dare they break into the files of the opposition party?
What is the difference between the Watergate burglars and Wikileaks today?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Watergate crew were indicted, convicted, and jailed.
LikeLike
To all these comments Hillary would simply ask: “What difference does it make now?”
That’s the problem.
LikeLike
Wikileaks is a foreign operation added and abetted by the Russian government as opposed to Watergate being perpetrated by a domestic political party trying to keep a president in power. The facts are murkier because neither the Russians nor Wikileaks is accountable to anyone as the Republicans were in 1972.
Political norms that existed in 1972 are now rather quaint. Our political discourse has long past smashed many political norms that would make the Wikileaks scandal as resonant as Watergate was then. Occurrences in political speech and action that are commonplace today would have been unthinkable then.
There is a different attitude about secret information because of mistrust in political institutions that arose from Watergate and the Vietnam war. Transparency was not as valued then as now.
There’s not as much outrage about a foreign government hacking campaign emails and distributing them through Wikileaks because the electorate does not have the capacity to sustain outrage at this and every other outrageous event in this election. It’s too exhausting.
LikeLike
Right on, Mark. Assange is definitely determined to interfere with the American election. And I suspect he is working with, and maybe for, Putin who does not hide his desire to anoint tRump as Prez. tRump seems to idolize Putin, and has expressed his wish to use him as a “strong leader” role model aka “dictator”. Assange probably will spend his life as a resident of Russia.
In retrospect, the Nixon years now do look “quaint” in comparison to Wikileaks and a 24 hour (too often manufactured) news cycle today.
And yes, Mark, the American public, our electorate is both exhausted from the media bombardment, and is generally uninformed beyond 10 second sound bites, and seems to lazy to study the issues so their vote is meaningful. Many could not even define the word “transparency”….so are these the folks who should be urged to come to the polls?
The tRump voters who now threaten mayhem to Hillary, and civil war if he loses, are beyond deplorables….they are insurrectionists and should be subject to prosecution under our laws. You cannot threaten to kill a candidate. You cannot be a candidate who urges your supporters to assault and possibly murder others.
Has technology really improved all aspects of our lives?
Some who have commented here below should read the Ted Koppel book on our energy grids which tells of the real and potential Russian impact of hacking, and our responses.
LikeLike
Ellen,
I disagree about voting. Everyone should vote. The people who don’t turn out are usually those with the most to lose. Trump is doing his best to suppress turnout by making the election so disgusting that people feel turned off by the whole process and stay home. You can bet that his deplorables will vote. We can’t let the racists and Klansmen and white nationalists gain control of the government.
LikeLike
Diane…I was focused on other issues with my last comment…however, it is more worrisome to me that Reps will hack the still flawed Diebold machines and change votes, as they have done before.
And it is not only Dems who vote from sound bite pleas, but rather far more registered Reps believe their Citizen United puppet masters sound bites. Data has been collected on how people choose to vote, for at least the past two decades.
This election is unique in that the female population which now includes non college educated women, seem to be fleeing from tRump. However, whether they vote for Hillary remains to be seen….but this potential voting block joined with millennials, would push Hillary over the top.
I am on local community college campuses (there are 5 within a one hour drive) each day now and to Nov.7, speaking with students about the need to register and vote (Oct. 24 is the cutoff date here for online). Those who are determined to vote seem to all be voting for Hillary, with some few still going Green. Very rare that I speak with a registered Repub at city colleges, unlike some university student voters who can be very strong on the conservative issues but usually are horrified that tRump is their candidate. These discussions are a joy to an old war horse such as I.
BTW..there is a looming problem with the tRump supporters being urged by him to be at the polls to watch for ‘fraud’ since these deplorables with loud mouths cannot legally do electioneering at the polls. I hope all police departments are on alert notice to fend off voting disruptions. tRump continues to add to his insurrectionist behavior.
it makes my stomach turn each time someone calls him The Donald when all he is is a lying mentally deranged Rump-of-a-huckster.
LikeLike
Wikileaks isn’t trying to help Trump. They’re trying to expose the truth about the likely next president of the United States.
LikeLike
This so much. I don’t think anyone is under the guise that wikileaks will upset the balance in this election. However, it does hold the democractic party accountable to shady backroom dealings, which is very likely to hold a lot power after this election and the GOP eating itself.
LikeLike
The wikileaks are unlikely to change the outcome of the election. For one thing, there is no “smoking gun,” just a daily dump of emails about campaign strategies and the usual political gossip. The speeches are unremarkable. No one has found a line where she promised the 1% that she would never raise their taxes.
The issue at hand, I think, is whether everyone’s emails are now fair game for hackers.
Is privacy dead?
Watergate brought down Richard Nixon. He resigned because of the crime and the cover-up.
What has changed?
In 1972-74, we had the capacity to be outraged by a burglary that targeted the opposition party.
Now, we have a candidate saying that the candidate of the other party should be arrested and jailed (before or after trial is not clear); that comedy shows like SNL should be canceled; and that the entire electoral process is a sham.
We have lost our capacity for outrage.
When evangelicals can listen to Trump’s 2005 boasts about sexually assaulting women (a crime) and then believe his claims that he said it but he never did it, then morality is irrelevant, non-existent. And our democracy is shuttering under the weight of a 270-pound monster.
LikeLike
Surprised that you are surprised. Over the last 20 years, campaign ads have been stooping lower and lower. Where else but “here” could it end? When we have ads that are targeted against the other candidate without telling us what he is actually FOR, we have lost the right to complain.
LikeLike
“We have lost our capacity for outrage.”
Are you kidding me? We’re addicted to outrage – we get dozens of daily doses of it from the right-wing, mainstream and left-wing media every single day, around the clock. I can’t count all the things I’m supposed to be outraged at Trump about (some of which I am, some of which I’m merely disgusted by, and some of which are obvious distractions to anything of real importance).
Where we seem to fail in the outrage department is about real events that impact real people, especially people who are different from us. We can be outraged about Trump’s casino deals, but not about hundreds of thousands of poor women and children losing their benefits under welfare “reform”. We can be upset about what Trump says about beauty contestants, but not about invading and destroying sovereign nations, engineering coups, suppressing the minimum wage for workers in one of the poorest countries on earth. We can be upset about Trump’s treatment of women, but we can’t say anything about the women who are being droned in Muslim countries. We can be upset about Trump’s comments about immigrants, but not about the millions of mostly-minority people already incarcerated in this country. We can be outraged at Trump’s shady dealings, but Hillary’s quarter million dollar speeches to the banks that bankrupted the entire country (and which continue to prey on people through foreclosure and false-account scams) are just “unremarkable”.
But poor Hillary is the victim of a double standard. Sheesh.
LikeLike
“Are you kidding me? We’re addicted to outrage”
Yeah, but we’ve developed such an outrage tolerance that we need increasingly outrageous things to get outraged about.
LikeLike
Dienne, I’m glad you posted this. I heartily agree with the sentiment. I really think media coverage has much to do with the skewed outrage-triggers. In the ’60’s, every major network brought VN combat footage into our living rooms. Today coverage of Syrian war seems brief & spotty. I count on BBC & sometimes PBS Newshour to get a real look at our policies on the ground. At PBS we are just beginning to hear (but not see) the holocaust of starvation & civil war going on in Yemen for 1.5 yrs (where we find ourselves on the wrong side of things,
I expect the main issue w/ jounalism is that during the era of internet challenge, mainstream media has become big-biz commercial outlets pandering to the lowest common denominator. Hence multiple outrage-triggers of venial & sensational nature. But I also think that we are seeing what happens to ordinary folk during extended economic decline. In the ’60’s there were plenty of jobs & one could expand one’s concern to the global stage. Today, the average media consumer is angry over scrabbling to put food on the table, & fearful for their kids. So it’s a perfect storm.
LikeLike
Dienne
Expose it all, however where are the leaks from the RNC and the Trump campaign. They must have better encryption. I assure you that as outraged as you and I both are by NDC triangulating Democrats,we would be looking for flame throwers if we had a release from the RNC.
We don’t need a release of emails from the Trump campaign. Every time he opens the ass on top of his shoulders he shows what a despicable deplorable he is.
LikeLike
I don’t know how many times I can keep saying this. The Republicans don’t need to be exposed. They expose themselves on a daily basis. It’s the Democrats who pretend to be reasonable while backing most of the same toxic policies and actions that Republicans support. The Democrats just do it without the blatant racism/sexism/etc., so they come across as reasonable.
LikeLike
How’s this for “unremarkable”: Clinton promises to “ring China with missile defense” – http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-china-idUSKBN12E29T
LikeLike
The article is about protecting the US against North Korea, which has threatened to send nuclear missiles to the US and boasts that it now has the rockets to do so.
LikeLike
And I’m sorry you don’t understand how this is saber rattling with China (on top of what she’s doing with Russia). Do you think China is going to sit idly by while we ring them with anti-ballistic missiles? You do understand that China has nuclear capability, right? Do you think they’re going to let us disarm that capability lightly? Do you think they’ll just shrug when we say it’s all about containing North Korea? Mutual Assured Destruction might be MAD, but true insanity is trying to unilaterally mess with in an act China is sure to perceive as hostile.
LikeLike
Dienne,
Clinton is a very smart woman. She is not saber rattling with China. China is not at all happy to see a nuclear-armed North Korea run by their version of Donald Trump. Anything she might do would be done in close consultation with the Chinese government. That’s the way diplomacy works when intelligent people are in charge.
LikeLike
The Russians and Wikileaks are not accountable in the way that the Republicans were in 1972.
Political norms that existed in 1972 have been long since smashed. The Russians stealing information from a US political party and leaking it to sow doubts about a presidential election would have brought us to DEFCON 3.
There is a much higher value placed on transparency today than in the past because of widespread distrust in political institutions that arose from Watergate and Vietnam.
It’s hard for the electorate and the political media to sustain outrage at this in addition to every other outrageous event that has happened in this election. It’s exhausting.
LikeLike
Mark, that is what Trump is counting on. He thinks that if he drag Hillary as low as where he is, then it will suppress voter turnout among her supporters.
No one can go as low as Trump. He is under the sewer.
LikeLike
Blaming WikiLeaks is a diversion, from the supposedly neutral DNC favoring one candidate over another.
LikeLike
Patricia,
I was not surprised that the DNC favored Clinton. She is a lifelong Democrat. Bernie joined the party so he could run. It may seem shocking, but the DNC were/are Clinton loyalists. But the vote was not rigged. Not even Senator Sanders said the vote was rigged. She won more votes and more delegates than he did (not even including the super-delegates). He ran an amazing race, and he is an important voice in American politics today. He will continue to be, especially if the Democrats gain control of the Senate, and he heads the Senate Budget Committee. I think Elizabeth Warren will inherit his mantle and the revolution he began will live on.
LikeLike
So you’re justifying unfairly tilting the field by the very organization that is supposed to be neutral among all Democratic candidates?? Denial is the first stage. I guess rationalization is the next.
LikeLike
But the emails show that the system WAS rigged – at the top level of the DNC! When the DNC decided to pretty much put all their push behind Hilary – what can you call that BUT rigged?
LikeLike
Rudy,
The DNC did not affect my vote. Hillary got millions more votes than Bernie. You sound like Drumpf.
LikeLike
I want to know all the actions that the DNC did to make sure that people who supported Bernie were disenfranchised. Did they change the rules especially for this election in state primaries? Were there rules that weren’t there when President Obama won more votes in the primaries against Hillary Clinton 8 years ago? Were the new rules to oppose Bernie specially put in place when the DNC found out Bernie was running against their favored candidate?
Some staff members preferred Hillary Clinton. What new rules did the DNC staff members suddenly put in place to insure that Bernie Sanders voters were disenfranchised in a way that Barack Obama voters were not 8 years earlier?
LikeLike
NYC Parent,
My understanding is that the rules for the election were written long before Sanders became a candidate. Whatever the rules were, I know of no evidence that millions of Sanders’ voters were disenfranchised. Why would Senator Sanders be campaigning for Clinton if that were true?
LikeLike
That’s what I thought. But I am leaving open the possibility that the people who believe that these e-mails were a sign of some larger conspiracy within the DNC to “steal” the election when Bernie had more votes. But no one seems to be explaining how this was done. It’s similar to the multiple Benghazi investigations where there is a lot of innuendo but nobody was actually trying to act corruptly.
No doubt 8 years ago some DNC members sent e-mails in which they revealed their preference for Hillary Clinton. Or perhaps for Obama. But it’s actually impressive that despite their preference, the DNC tried to have a fair election and not suddenly invent new rules for this election so that one candidate would win.
LikeLike
“Wikileaks” isn’t transparent at all, which seems to me to be a huge problem for a transparency org.
I have no idea who these people are or what their objective is- I’m also frankly confused on why so many politicians are cheering on theft.
It’s wrong to break into accounts and take people’s communications and “Donald Trump winning an election” isn’t a justification for it. It’s stealing. Maybe stealing is justified in extreme cases but what is the public good they’re serving here? They decide when it’s okay to steal? That seems..problematic.
LikeLike
Thank you, Chiara. You are the voice of reason. It is wrong to hack into people’s email accounts and steal their emails.
I suppose someone could hack into mine, so I try never to write anything in a private email that I would be embarrassed to see published.
But it is sad to have to live with the expectation that your telephone may be tapped, and your computer may be hacked.
What next? Video cameras in your home to watch for criminal conversation or activity?
LikeLike
You are in more danger from the government hacking your email, etc. than any private hackers like Anonymous or Wikileaks (which, actually, doesn’t do its own hacking – they publish what is provided to them). The government hoovers up every scrap of information on the internet and phone lines and sorts it all out in a massive, obscenely expensive, facility in Utah ( https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ ). Private hackers like Anonymous are not remotely interested in ordinary every day citizens. They are interested in exposing the power elite.
LikeLike
Dienne,
I don’t approve of theft of emails, tapping phone lines, or other invasions of privacy
LikeLike
Assange’s biggest crime is that he has not pulled the shower curtain down on so many other politicians and the GOP as well. What a genius he is and what an idiot he is. He has exposed corruption brilliantly and incompletely, which makes him a meddler in my mind.
I am taking the good of what he’s done and utilizing it, and at the same time, enough is enough. If he can’t give equal time to the GOP and all their filthy dealings, then he needs to shut down, which for now, he has been neutralized.
LikeLike
It just seems crazy to me that all these people are saying “yay! they took all these emails from my political enemies! Great!”
Do they not see this coming back around to bite them? It will. It will be Wikileaks or it will be someone else, but Hillary Clinton isn’t the only person or politician who uses email.
The recklessness always amazes me, as if they can’t imagine this happening to them.
It will. Bank on it. And they won’t be able to complain or raise privacy concerns because they were all cheering when it happened to Clinton.
LikeLike
Here’s a better question: why did Hillary Clinton dangle the idea in the first debate with Sanders, et al., that she would reveal the content of her Wall Street speeches and then pointedly fail to do so? What did she fear the American people would learn about her that would have harmed her efforts to be the Democratic nominee?
As for the views of professor of international relations on whether those speeches (as thus far exposed against the will of Team Clinton) are remarkable or not, I think most of us would expect that a professor of economic policy would be more on point, or a professor of political science, or a professor of ethics, or a professor of business law, or. . . anyone who was well-positioned to analyze what she was saying about Main Street v. Wall Street, rather than, say, the US v. Iran. If she gave secret speeches to, say, the Israeli cabinet, I would want to hear from said professor, but not on what she told Wall Street. And that’s without knowing the political leanings of the person in question.
And finally, as has been stated by others, there is literally no basis for comparison between Wikileaks and the Watergate burglars. There is no attempt in this case to gain access to what should be public knowledge in order to sway the outcome of an election for a particular side, but rather to shed light on what Sec. Clinton should have been willing to share with the public to begin with. I don’t hear anyone who supports Clinton or despises Donald Trump comparing the leaks of his inane 2005 comments about women or anything else negative about him to Watergate or other actions that have been found to be criminal in courts of law. It’s simply not an apt analogy. Wikileaks does not appear to be partisan. And as for the idea that the RUSSIANS are behind any of this, I’m afraid that dog won’t hunt, though I do enjoy seeing ‘liberal Democrats’ demonizing our old Cold War enemies while claiming that that former Communist-bloc nations are maneuvering to put the Republican Party back in the White House. If that were the script for a political satire, I don’t think you could sell it to the most desperate studio in Hollywood.
LikeLike
WikiLeaks has not leaked anything about Trump. It has a daily dump of leaks about Clinton. Is that nonpartisan?
Stealing Podesta’s emails, in my humble opinion, is no different from breaking into the DNC offices in 1972 and stealing DNC documents.
I personally think she should have released the transcripts of her speeches. Now that they are out, big deal. I haven’t read or heard anything in them that is toxic to her personally or politically. Has she taken different positions on some issues than she does today? Yes. So what, all politicians do. Is it criminal? No. Did Obama tell us when he was running for office in 2008 that he would adopt George W. Bush’s agenda for education? No. Did he tell us that he would put the might of the federal government behind the privatization of American education? No. Did he tell us that he would increase the burden of standardized testing? No. Did he say that he would appoint someone who believed in standardized testing as the holy grail and would demand that all teachers be evaluated by the test scores of their students? No.
Had you known then what you know now would you have voted for McCain instead?
The leak of the tape where Trump boasts about sexually assaulting women is directly relevant to his character and shows him gloating about committing criminal actions. No one has said that came from Wikileaks. Was Trump unaware that he was wearing a hot mic? Probably. Best not to boast about criminal activity.
Kurt Eichenwald tweeted today that McCain says that a GOP senate will never approve any of Clinton’s choices for the Supreme Court, if she is elected.
That is the Trump Effect. Bring down the system. Burn down the house if you can’t have it, no one can.
LikeLike
“WikiLeaks has not leaked anything about Trump. It has a daily dump of leaks about Clinton. Is that nonpartisan?”
Again, I’ll ask, what good would it do to leak anything about Trump? What is there that we don’t already know? What is there that he himself doesn’t openly brag about? Trump – for better or worse – is a known quantity (a known quantity of garbage, in my opinion). It’s Hillary who tries to project a progressive image that is at significant odds with her actual actions and historical positions.
LikeLike
“It’s Hillary who tries to project a progressive image that is at significant odds with her actual actions and historical positions.”
As someone who watched Hillary Clinton from the time that Bill started running for President in 1992, I find this the most INCREDIBLE statement I have ever read.
If someone had told me in 1993 or 1995 that Hillary Clinton would someday be characterized as being HISTORICALLY in the pocket of Wall Street, I would have laughed and said “yes, in the bizzaro world created by Fox News where up is down and left is right.”
I am not trying to convince you that Hillary Clinton is “progressive” but she is probably the most progressive Democrat to win the nomination in a very long time. I was fooled into thinking President Obama was progressive, but in fact, he has done more to undermine public education than any right wing Republican President could have done (believe me, many of them tried). But Hillary has a long history of fighting for progressive issues. She is certainly practical and willing to compromise, but I believe her compromises will be far less than the Obama administration did, since they didn’t seem to believe in the progressive agenda to begin with. Hillary does. And when she compromises, she will be starting as someone who believes the government can work for good. I don’t believe the Obama Administration ever really believed that.
LikeLike
Dienne
Trump is not a known quantity . He refuses to release his income taxes which would reveal many things. As disturbing as the video was
about his sexual improprieties,can you imagine his comments about blue collar and other working class voters, that are voting for him.
We both know that Trump despises “lowly” working class people. Takes joy in in proclaiming “your fired”. Fights unionization at his Trump hotels,has sought to build non Union where he could, takes pride in stiffing contractors and thus their employees. I would love to be a fly on the wall in Trump tower.
I happen to agree with you that Hillary nor Obama is a progressive. We know exactly who they are . I agree with you that the DNC rigged the primary, they didn’t alter the vote, they didn’t change many rules. They rallied the party around Clinton much like CEO’s use the proxy to control the board. Making it difficult for Sanders to gain support within the party. The Clinton’s used their ties to certain media outfits from the Daily News to MSNBC to shaft Sanders. All a given.
Here is another given as bad as Obama/Clinton are they are a better choice for working class Americans than any Republican. Not being a rabid lunatic as Trump is, does not make you an acceptable choice.
Every Republican out there is not a moderate. I am taken back to the Bill Maher take down of Reagan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2y7xPgp89k
LikeLike
Joel,
Trump is a known quantity. He has been in the public eye for at least 30 years. He loves publicity. The only thing we don’t know about him is his full tax returns, although someone sent pages from his tax returns to the New York Times. We now know that he lost nearly $1 billion in 1995 and didn’t pay taxes for at least 18 years. We also don’t know how many women he has sexually assaulted, but since he boasted about it on tape, it seems likely that it happened many times. We may never know.
LikeLike
Diane
Those are the “known knowns”. Things that we have been able to put together. I am fairly certain the Billy Bush tape would look like child’s play. His megalomania leads me to believe that he would be quite disdainful of most of his base.
LikeLike
Joel,
Absolutely. He lives a gold-plated existence. He has germophobia and never shakes hands. He is a classic demagogue. He loves the roar of the crowd but has no compassion or empathy in his heart.
I have trouble watching him or listening to him, because he is no longer running for president. He is trying to bring down the system. If he can’t win, he will burn down the house.
LikeLike
“Obama, announcing nation’s record-high graduation rate, heaps praise on @dcpublicschools and Banneker High”
Now why would Obama pick a magnet school to talk about graduation rate?
I mean seriously- are they innumerate in ed reform?
My public high school would have a “100% grad rate” if they could pick their students!
100% OF WHAT? The Obama Administration has been doing this for 8 years. 100% of 20% admitted is not what most people think of as “100%”- it’s wildly deceptive and it’s not fair to public schools who admit all students.
LikeLike
I agree. Obama should know better. I can’t figure out if the nuances of this are just not of interest to him, or if he so admires his billionaire pals in the reform movement that he believes without question everything they tell him with no curiosity whatsoever to learn himself why there might be criticism. Can you imagine Obama hearing that the NAACP vote to oppose charter school expansion and having no interest whatsoever if learning why they might do so. Just listening to the reformers telling him “oh, the NAACP is owned by the teachers’ union and are happy to sell out their own children to them.” It’s outrageous that he doesn’t care enough to learn the other side’s point of view.
I was disappointed that Bernie Sanders also showed a serious lack of interest in why people opposed the proliferation of private charters. This is where I think Hillary Clinton could be better than either of those candidates. She is a wonk and she cares about learning the nuances of those issues. It may turn out that she is just as pro-charter as Obama and Bernie might have been, but I suspect that she will listen to the other side in a way that President Obama never had any desire to do. His friend Arne Duncan and his billionaire pals told him charters were amazing – no oversight necessary — and that’s all Obama needed to know. Give those charters everything they want and then some and don’t mention oversight at all because his pals told him the states will do just fine. And 8 years and many scandals later he STILL believes that because his pals have told him it’s all good.
LikeLike
I agree that it’s annoying (tho’ typical) that Obama would choose to trumpet another record-breaking hs grad stat from the campus of a selective public school. But the stat reflects all states’ hs grad stats. And every major article covering this news notes that NAEP scores reflect flat (not increasing) academic achievement.
There’s a pretty good npr article here briefly unpacking what hs grad stats mean (published during the last recod-breaker of 81%; now we’re at 83%): http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/06/12/411751159/the-story-behind-the-record-high-graduation-rate
LikeLike
Watergate was a criminal act undertaken on behalf of a sitting president to get an unfair advantage over his opponent. Wikileaks, at least as I understand it, is an effort to expose the corruption of our elites, though the means may be illegal. I don’t think they are trying to help Trump per se, though that is certainly open to debate and interpretation.
The alleged Russian connection further complicates the matter. In this era of cyber warfare it is very difficult to trace back the cyber trail of hackers, and those with the ability to do so are often not innocent parties themselves. Ordinary citizens are at a loss as to whom to trust. Certainly when Hillary and her supporters emphasize the Russian connection, it can be viewed as an attempt to deflect attention from the contents of the hacked material.
But let’s get real: It’s no surprise that Hillary gets along well with political and corporate insiders like Goldman Sachs. Running against Bernie Sanders in the primary that information was important. Now, up against Trump, the Wikileaks “revelations” are an irrelevant footnote to history. Readers of this blog know that the struggle for economic and social justice will continue after the election. “Our side” will have a much better chance of success with Hillary in the White House instead of the madman.
LikeLike
YES…
LikeLike
The cover up.
LikeLike
The event to compare Trump to is the Army-McCarthy Hearings, read “Roy Cohn”.
LikeLike
It was tRump’s close friend, the infamous and degenerate Roy Cohn of HUAC/McCarthy fame, who played/socialized with tRump and introduced him the Mafia lords who eventually did business with him. This is ALL documented.
LikeLike
The bigger question with Clinton to me is why these companies are paying speakers so much. It’s insane what they’re paying people for speeches.
I don’t think public service was intended to turn into this wildly profitable lifetime job.
What could she possibly say that is worth millions of dollars and why don’t they mix it up a little? Why is it all football coaches and former Presidents?
Surely the people at Goldman Sachs could stand a little exposure to someone who ISN’T hugely rich and powerful? Maybe they’d learn something new.
LikeLike
Speaking fees are a way of legitimizing payoffs to powerful people for their influence.
LikeLike
That’s not really true. I get speaking fees and it has no influence on my views. Michelle Rhee got $50,000 a speech and she spoke to groups she already agreed with.
LikeLike
Ellen is right on that one. “they aren’t paying for the prose” they seek influence. There does not have to be a quid pro quo. Their interests become the interests of the politician they donate to. Paid speeches a form of donation. In Rhee’s case consider it a salary for a job well done.
You or I have little access to our political leaders. My calls to Steve Israel’s office go to some poor intern who has to endure my wrath on issues like the TPP. I assure you that Steve picks up phone when a major corporate donor calls. Like the Pharmaceutical lobby one of his largest contributors. No wonder he can’t announce a position on TPP. He claimed to hate the fund raising lets see what the former head of the DCCC does in retirement. In addition to his congressional pension.
Thus the Princeton Gilens study showed corporate /wealthy desired policy (trumped) voter opposition . The conclusion we are heading toward oligarchy.
LikeLike
Have to agree w/ Joel here. Inordinate speaking-fee offers are part of the pay-to-play game; they are essentially thanks for services [policies] rendered, or instead-of campaign donations to encourage future services [policies]. This is one of the ways ‘echo-chambers’ are maintained.
It’s all part of the same game observed in the ‘revolving door’, where govt officials plump their salaries by accepting huge campaign donations [‘fund-raising’] & listen to lobbyists/ accept their favors, all in exchange for favorable legislation & the promise of a high-salary job in the industry when they leave govt service.
When I see Hillary doing this stuff, I don’t conclude ‘hey she’s immoral & not fit for presidency’. I say, this is what our govt has become, & how do we change it?’ We must push grass-roots campaign reform & legislation to overturn the Cit-United decision.
LikeLike
Has anyone read this piece in the New York Times – And for My Second Act, I’ll Make Some Money? It’s dated 2007.
“Ronald Reagan was excoriated for taking $2 million for two speaches in Japan …
And this from the History News Network: When Did American Politicians Begin to Cash in on Their Fame?
“Since he left office former President George W. Bush was earning up to $150,000 a speech.”
And “Gerald Ford is credited with being the first ex-president to ‘sell the presidency.’ Within a year of leaving office, he made a substantial amount of money from paid speeches.”
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161600
LikeLike
If Wall Street offered me $200,000 to give a speech, I would gladly accept and tell them what’s on my mind. I wish. Even for $100,000. And it wouldn’t change my views one iota.
LikeLike
“This* too shall pass!”
This = 2016 presidential campaign
LikeLike
I hate to say it, too, but politicians position on speaking fees and donations makes no sense.
If the fees and donations have absolutely no effect on policy, then why do they want to reform campaign finance?
If it doesn’t matter, at all, who gives them money and how much they give, then why regulate campaign finance at all? They just told us it doesn’t make any difference.
Clinton’s position is unsustainable. If campaign donations don’t lead to corruption then she shouldn’t be worried about anyone taking any donations from anyone.
What they’re really saying is this “all these other politicians can be corrupted, but not me! I’m unaffected by donations”.
LikeLike
Citizens United should be overturned by a new majority on the Supreme Court so that campaign contributions from billionaires and corporations are regulated.
Clinton is on the record against Citizens United.
According to a tweet from Kurt Eichenwald, Senator McCain says the US Senate will never approve any judicial nomination by Clinton, if she is elected. That would paralyze our judicial system. There are vacancies every year. If another one or two Supreme Court justices should die or retire, the Supreme Court might be down to only 6 or 7 members.
This is the kind of thinking that produced Donald Trump. If you can’t win, burn the house down.
LikeLike
“Clinton is on record against Citizens United”.
Yes, but she’s the one benefiting to the tune of millions from big banks and corporations.
LikeLike
It is astonishing to me that you are demonizing the whistle-blowers who are pointing out how corrupt BOTH PARTIES in our government have become. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the modern day equivalent of Daniel Ellsberg’s leak of the Pentagon Papers! Your assertion of anything other than that is, quite frankly, utterly embarrassing. When WikiLeaks leaked news about the Republicans or about the Bush family, many liberals were ecstatic. But when news comes out about how extra-ordinarily corrupt Hilary Clinton and the Democratic Party are, you start talking exactly like the “other side” you claim to be so different from.
I’m not sure what drives this extreme addiction to the Democratic Party. But I do know that when the basic moral values of individuals and groups shifts and changes depending on whether their perceived team is in charge, we are in BIG trouble!
True democracy comes from constantly keeping your elected officials in check and NOT automatically giving them a pass just because you think the other party is worse. In fact, it is MORE noble (and effective) to call out your own “team” when they do wrong. That is the only way to prevent fascism. Trump is only one man, but it is the Trump phenomenon we need to fight and it requires having ONE standard for everyone and holding ALL parties equally accountable! It requires having MORE voices and MORE choices. MORE active participants, MORE REAL DEMOCRACY. Not less.
It is quite incredible to me that when I have been out campaigning for my candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka of the Green Party, it is the upper middle class white Democrats who spit at me, scream at me, and insult me. Yet although they claim that I MUST vote for Clinton they are not out in the street campaigning for her or registering voters (as I and many Greens have been). Humm, interesting.
So, its ok with you that Clinton promoted and pushed Fracking and GMOs all over the world while she was secretary of state. Its ok with you that Clinton gave the thumbs up for a coup in Honduras of a democratically elected president which is still causing chaos and migration to the US border. Its ok that Clinton then allowed the CIA to kill Berta Caceras at the behest of Exxon Mobil in Honduras as well. Its ok with you that Clinton’s war-mongering and saber-rattling have created failed states, more refugee migration, deaths of innocent children and families, and more terrorism. Its ok with you that the Clinton Foundation actually MADE A PROFIT in Haiti after the earthquake and did not deliver ANY resources or services to those in need. Instead, all the Clinton Foundation did in Haiti was help some of their wealthy contractors build luxury compounds for a few rich people. Its ok with you that Clinton was against equal marriage until 2009. Its ok with you that Clinton supported and promoted the Crime Bill and the Welfare Reform Act……All these things are ok?!
I would really like to know from all Clinton and Democratic Party apologists what their final breaking point is? Is there ANYTHING that Clinton could do that would cause you to speak out? Or, will she even get a pass when she goes to war (quite possibly with nuclear weapons) with Russia? I hope I get to ask that question when the time comes.
Daniella Liebling
Brooklyn, NY
LikeLike
“Or, will she even get a pass when she goes to war (quite possibly with nuclear weapons) with Russia? I hope I get to ask that question when the time comes.”
Excuse me, but that is just rank propaganda, wild speculation and nonsense.
LikeLike
Sorry, Daniella, but I have seen nothing inthe Wikileaks’s data dump to show Hillary’s corruption. I see evidence that she is a politician. Last time I heard, that was not a crime.
LikeLike
Wikileaks can be compared to Daniel Ellsburg…trying to keep us from entering even deeper into the Middle East quagmire.
LikeLike
Daniel Ellsberg released public documents. He did not invade anyone’s private email.
LikeLike
This is simply false. The Pentagon Papers were classified documents that Ellsberg secretly copied and eventually gave to the NY Times, Washington Post, and other newspapers. He was indicted for theft, conspiracy, and espionage.
LikeLike
In the era of big data analytics, privacy, including email, is a myth.
One small example from a footnote in this 2012 USDE publication “Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: An Issue Brief,”
“Starting with a list of about 10.4 million email addresses, Balduzzi et al. (2010) were able to automatically identify more than 1.2 million user profiles associated with the addresses. By searching through these profiles, they collected publicly available personal information about each user. After being exposed, this social network’s vulnerability was repaired. “
This publication is worth reading if you want to get a sense of the interlocking systems of surveillance already available and in the works.
Then take a look at this 2016 USDE marketing campaign for all tech, all of the time in “Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education.” This reimagining exercise is full of product-pushing enthusiasms and recommendations for “closing the digital divide.”
I take this to digital divide-speak to mean marginalizing the role of schools as a location for learning in favor of many possible sites for 24/7/365 learning in “real-time.” The phrases “ecology of learning” and “learning landscapes” are common and they are intended to convey the basic idea that that face-to-face encounters with real live human beings are a“nice, but not necessary” feature of becoming educated. Moreover, the digital learning initiatives are represented as if cost-effective.
With the digital dived closed (and digits are not fingers) the wonderful world of comprehensive data analytics becomes possible. Analytics can be harnessed to secure continuous improvement in learning. Teachers, students, parents, all “stakeholders” should be able to access multifaceted dashboards (looking especially for color coded clues about what to do (red, green, yellow) or predictions of likely outcomes.
I am not a luddite but I find this publication nothing short of a marketing campaign with few cautionary notes about the cost, obsolescence of tech, the invasions of privacy, the dubious assumption that because “delivery” of instruction is mediated by tech, it is better.
Future Ready gives some token attention discussion of privacy, and data security but to date, the USDE and other narratives about tech-enabled learning are pushing the whole responsibility for privacy on teachers and school systems. The risks of losing privacy altogether are minimized. Tech for “personalized” and “adaptable” and “real-time/any time” learning is all rosy.
Already of course, the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation is revving up support for a more comprehensive, national system for gathering and using data. The USDE report offers these citations as examples:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Innovation in education: Technology & effective teaching in the U.S. Seattle, WA: Author.
This report is also mentioned. It is really a thinly veiled case of marketing research for product developers. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2015). Teachers know best: Making data work for teachers and students. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/edtech-production/reports/Gates-TeachersKnowBest- MakingDataWork.pdf.
See also the whole series of Gates-funded papers on postsecondary data systems and the wish lists at http://www.ihep.org/postsecdata/mapping-data-landscape/national-postsecondary-data-infrastructure
Of special interest is that series of Gates-commissioned papers is “Understanding Information Security and Privacy in Postsecondary Education Data Systems” Joanna Lyn Grama MAY 2016
LikeLike
The difference was Reagan in 1987 got rid of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine and that ave birth to the far right hate media machine that clearly educated Donald Trump to think like he does. Without the Fairness Doctrine, misinformation, misleading easy to fool people, and lying became an industry. The U.S. has now had 29 years of hate pouring out of the right-wing extremist media industry without any law that requires them to allow the other side of an issue a voice.
Donald Trump is right. The media is rigged, for idiots like him. If you want to see how large this beast is, click the link and quickly scroll to the bottom.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_media
LikeLike
Mrs. Ravitch,
Have you ever considered asking:
Has history determined if George Washington’s Farewell Address comments about the future of political parties proved to be correct, or wrong?
LikeLike
Great point, no one in the media seems to be concerned about this violation of privacy or about the fact Bush2 erased or got rid of thousands of emails during the 911 time and refused to turn emails over when ordered by a court to do so. This is where the double standards are glaringly obvious. Hillary is being held to a higher standard than Repubs and Demos in the past were held to. That Trump can trash everyone and everything, even our electoral system and get away with it is irritating. We don’t have a voter fraud problem but a voter suppression problem lead by Trump and some right wing, racist states. To indict the electoral process is to trash state gov’t since they are responsible for the conduct of elections .
LikeLike
As a public servant Clinton’s emails are public property and should be available to FOIA requests. Anarchists must sometimes enforce the law.
LikeLike
John Podesta is not a public servant. Nor is the DNC.
What happened with Wikileaks and the hacking of the Democratic party’s emails is no different from Watergate.
In one case, the files were stolen in a clumsy burglary. In the current case, the emails from inside the Dem party were stolen electronically.
Hillary’s emails are not an issue. As far as making the emails of the President or the Secretary of State public, I think that is not allowed on grounds of national security.
LikeLike
Only materials that are marked as classified can be held back. Everything else is subject to FOIA
LikeLike
True, except for information that relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency; information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law, trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged; communications within or between agencies subject to the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, or the attorney-work product doctrine; information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy; information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual; information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions; and of course geological information on wells.
But other than those things, you’re totally right.
LikeLike
As a public servant, the President of the United States’ emails are public property and should all be publicly posted on a web site.
LikeLike
What is the difference – back then Watergate had 2 journalists that actually did investigative journalism – they must have went to Journalism 101, Besides one sided journalists views from main stream social media, backing Clinton, has become a source of news for many and comedy late night “comics” provide the “news” We see minus if any seconds of Wiki dumps by the mainstream versus the pathetiic tens of minutes on Trumps’ sexual comments.
The difference – the Wiki dumps give an email chain of conversation showing the Clinton campaign openly debating in emails how to cover-up the Benghazi emails.
It shows them talking about giving the story, the whole Benghazi story to a friendly reporter so that they can shape the narrative before Republicans on the Benghazi committee realize how explosive the real story is. This email document dump indicates that the Clinton campaign knows their Benghazi story is a bunch of cow chips.
Catherine Herridge at Fox had a story of a pay-for-play quid pro quo story involving the State Department and FBI. And essentially it was that if you look the other way on all this Clinton email stuff, the FBI would give you plum overseas appointments. And then fast came the denials. That didn’t happen, nobody ever got any appointment.”
Nobody ever said they did. What they said was it was offered, it was talked about. All it has to be is discussed and talked about for there to be near criminal activity. What we’re finding as more and more comes out is that there was collusion between the Clinton campaign and the FBI and the State Department, the DOJ, rather, on these emails and there was never, ever gonna be a prosecution primarily because Obama was using an alias and was chatting with Hillary on her server while lying to the American people. He claimed he didn’t know about it ’til he read about it in the news, but he did know about it, and he was using her server under an alias.
And people are hearing and learning things that they are not reporting. Most of America doesn’t hear it from mainstream channels. And these people are running this campaign as they always have. They have their handbook and there are plays that they execute. But they’re up against somebody about whom it may not apply. Trump’s an outsider. He doesn’t have political fingerprints, political record. They can’t tie him to any failing policy, for example. They can’t tie him to any Republican action, so all they can do is claim he’s the usual, average, everyday Republican, which is racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe and now abuser. And that’s it.
LikeLike
But they can tie Trump to numerous frauds, scams, tax avoidance, and cheap schemes to cheat working people. Trump has been in the news for over 30 years as an adulterer, a playboy, and a man with no principle other than greed. Think Trump University.
Trump also has a record of being uncharitable. He hasn’t put any money into his “foundation” for the past 8 years. He has used it for paying legal bills and political payoffs, not for charity.
In his decades of luxury, he has never been associated with any public service or giving back. He takes and he keeps.
During the campaign, he has also demonstrated his racism, sexism, and contempt for everyone else but his family and sexual gratification.
He is a man without ethics, morals, or principles.
LikeLike
I have been looking all over the Internet and through publications because I want to know if the media ever was either given or tried to get access to DNC stolen documents?
If so did they have ethical concerns about privacy?
Aren’t the Wikileaks released as of late actually Russian state sponsored hacked private emails between American citizens? Aren’t they being released in an attempt to fix this election in favor of Donald Trump?
Also, isn’t there a huge problem with these communications even when a transparency argument is used by media as a reason to use them in reporting the news? Since the released emails can be chosen selectively and even altered doesn’t that show a complete lack of transparency by Wikileaks and shouldn’t that be a compelling argument against using them as an informational tool.
Would hacked emails between a reporter and her sources (let’s say that the reporting of this example have international implications) not be shunned by press at large and in turn also the public?
Shouldn’t Russian espionage being deployed in order to effect results of US election be THE story instead of a footnote?
LikeLike
This nation elected a known womanizer as President, in Bill Clinton. Even when the impeachment procedure was going on, people STILL voted for the man. Now we live with the consequences.
What was the “value” in releasing Trump’s “locker-room” tape? What was the advantage of NYT publishing (only) 3 pages of a Trump tax return?
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
This is one of the expected results of the downward trend in American politics.
Both Clinton and Trump are “hurt” – but there seems to be a lot more forgiveness for Clinton.
What people do not realize, is that November 9 is too late to be “shocked” about what is coming out of the email leakage.
Jumping to conclusions as to who is responsible is not a good way to get daily exercise, however.
In both situations, whether the statements from the women accusing Trump or the leaking emails, it is the PERCEPTION of wrongs committed, so they do not even have to be true. Although, I have as little doubt about the authenticity of the emails as as I have about the authenticity of video clips. Ask gary Hart about that one, btw…
LikeLike
Rudy,
Revulsion for Donald Trump is greater than for Bill Clinton because Trump is not just a sexual predator. He is also a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe, a con man who cheats working people of their wages, a failed businessman who relied on the banks to keep him afloat, a man who boasts about not paying taxes. He is a fraud, a phony, a man who lies every time he opens his mouth.
Compared to Trump, Bill Clinton is a saint.
LikeLike
This nation has elected many womanizers for president. You might want to do a bit of valid research to discover who. The only thing that changed was after Richard Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached, the GOP broke tradition and the gloves came off and what was taboo became fodder for the masses who love to hate and condemn.
http://allday.com/post/4030-infidelity-in-the-white-house-us-presidents-and-their-many-mistresses/
There is even evidence that George Washington messed around. And we know Jefferson did.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/washington.html
In most countries, outside of the U.S., it is accepted that most men with wealth/power mess around, but what really counts is if they can lead the country, not the number of women they have had consensual affairs with.
What Donald Trump did and probably still does was and still is not consensual. He gropes and fondles them with his hands and lips without consent.
The Daily Mail published this: Why powerful men will never be faithful …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-503142/Why-powerful-men-faithful–I-know-says-mistress.html
And: Jennifer Fitzgerald, Described as George H. W. Bush’s ‘Other Wife’
http://tca-reference-desk.blogspot.com/2004/04/jennifer-fitzgerald-described-as-george.html
But who keeps getting dragged through the mud that so many have wallowed in?
Bill Clinton because there is a far-right industry dedicated to attacking the Clinton.
There is an exception: Kenneth Starr, Who Tried to Bury Bill Clinton, Now Only Prraises Him.
LikeLike
Bill Clinton is actually a rapist. And Hillary went after the women he raped to silence them. Or don’t you believe these women’s stories? Or you just don’t care because Bill and Hillary are Democrats? As bad as Trump is Bill and Hillary are worse. In terms of Syria and Libya she actually has blood on her hands. I’m not waving flags for Trump. Just sayin’. the truth.
LikeLike
Your truth.
The fact is, we don’t know what the truth is, because both The Trump and the Clintons have never been found guilty in a court of law for any crime, but then in the vigilant court of biased public opinion, you know, old fashioned witch trails, both have been found guilty of this or that. You are proof of that, bobklein608
This is what I do know. I don’t like The Trump at all! What has he ever done the help anyone else but himself?
While Hillary Clinton has a long history of advocating for children and women, a long history.
And I know this. If Trump is elected president, and there is a call to arms from sensible people to protect the U.S. Construction and our Republic from that monster and his deplorables, I will lock-and-load.
LikeLike
Bob Klein,
Bill Clinton is not running for President.
Hillary Clinton is. She is not a sexual predator.
So far as Bill is concerned, he was accused of consensual relationships. I don’t approve.
But he is not running.
Trump is on the ballot. He has admitted that he assaults women whether they want him or not. He thinks he is so sexy that no woman can resist his unwanted advances.
He is wrong.
I suspect you are a Trump troll.
LikeLike
Her vote for the Iraq war really helped a lot of women and children. Destroying Libya and killing Qadaffi helped a ot of women and children Has she pressured Walmart to pay full wages? That would help women and children. Has she called for a tax on Wall St.? That would help women and children. Has she called for prosecuting the torturers in Iraq? That would help women and children. Has she called for the ending of arms funneling to Syrian ‘moderates’ so the fake CIA (admitted- look it up) war can stop and women and children can go home? That would help women and children. NO and there’s much more so did not and will not do. Your above is all posturing meaningless words or corporate ass kissing.
I am not a Trump troll. He is disgusting. So is Hillary, if not worse because she has had real power. Vote Jill Stein.
LikeLike
Only 5, bob klein 608?
Her China speech on women.
Her role in killing Osama bin Laden
Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China, aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen), and the effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran—helping to lead us to the current agreement.
American foreign policy was stronger when Hillary Clinton left the State Department than when she arrived. She took the reins from a Bush administration that had left America’s reputation deeply damaged and planted the seeds for the foreign policy successes we see today. From the agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, to the landmark normalization of relations with Cuba, nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.
Her accomplishments extend to health care, as well. As First Lady, she helped create and guide through Congress Children’s Health Insurance Program, a key program that brought health care coverage to millions of children.
As a Senator, she worked across the aisle to provide full military health benefits to reservists and National Guard members.
Secretary Clinton was also an outspoken champion for women around the world. She set records for travel while leading the State Department and used every trip to empower the women of the 112 countries she visited. She made gender equality a priority of U.S. foreign policy. And she created the ambassador at large for global women’s issues, a post charged with integrating gender throughout the State
After universal health care failed in 1994, the Clinton Administration was reluctant to go anywhere near healthcare again—Democrats lost the Senate and the House in 1994, losing the House for the first time in 40 years. Then-First Lady Hilary Clinton ended up being the White House ally and inside player who worked with Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch to create the SCHIP program in Clinton’s second term, which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children
Hillary Clinton was instrumental in helping secure $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after 9/11. She fought tooth and nail to protect the first responders who rushed into danger when the towers collapsed and was pivotal in the passage of legislation that helped those first responders who got sick get the care and treatment they deserved. She worked night and day to protect and create jobs in New York, whether that was at the Niagara Falls Air Force base or the Center for Bioinformatics at the University of Buffalo. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act, which is now the law of the land.
As Secretary of State, she negotiated the cease-fire in Gaza that stopped the Hamas from firing rocket after rocket into Israel.
In the Senate, she was on the HELP Committee where she authored the Pediatric Research Equity Act. This law requires drug companies to study their products in children. The Act is responsible for changing the drug labeling of hundreds of drugs with important information about safety and dosing of drugs for children. It has improved the health of millions of children who take medications to treat diseases ranging from HIV to epilepsy to asthma. Millions of kids are in better shape and alive because of the law Senator Clinton authored.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-debate-hillary-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157
And if you are open minded enough, I suggest you sacrifice some time to educate yourself by reading the long list of bills she co-sponsored and-or voted Yea or Nay or didn’t vote on.
The list is long and it’s on Vote Smart.org.
And I even did some counting.
Hillary Clinton sponsored five bills on her own, and co-sponsored 65.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton#.WBKvkvkrKUk
LikeLike