Hillary

The Hillary-vane tells you which way the wind is blowing.

I wasn’t planning to vote for Hillary Clinton. I don’t like her. A lot of people on the right dislike her for irrational reasons that I’ve never completely figured out. I dislike her, because she is one of the slimier politicians. She’s extremely opportunistic, determining her position based on whichever wind looks like it’s blowing the strongest. How can I support someone who I can’t trust and whose positions I don’t really know?

Well, at least she has finally done something to begin to change my opinion of her. She has released a statement regarding her stance on important science issues. It’s titled “Ending the War on Science”.

The Bush mis-administration has been one of the worst in history, in regards to science. They have interfered with and manipulated the conclusions from government-funded research, and they have created government policy based on bad science, no science, and superstition.

Here are some highlights of how Hillary claims she will be different (this quote is from her press release):

Hillary will restore the federal government’s commitment to science by:
• Rescinding the ban on ethical embryonic stem cell research
• Banning political appointees from unduly interfering with scientific conclusions and publications
• Directing department and agency heads to safeguard against political pressure that threatens scientific integrity and to promote transparency in decision-making
• Appointing an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy and strengthening the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Reviving and enhancing the national assessment on climate change
• Enhancing American leadership in space through investments in exploration, earth sciences, and aeronautics research
• Pursuing a comprehensive innovation agenda, including establishing a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund

The other candidates need to release similar statements telling us exactly where they stand on important scientific matters.

4 Responses to “Hillary”

  1. Intergalactic Hussy Says:

    I agree. I don’t like Hilary all that much..she’s not nearly as liberal as conservatives give her credit for. Maybe fiscally, but socially she’s in the middle. She is an opportunist and I wish she would just be “her”…whoever that is. But I also hate the bashing on her because she’s not that bad. I don’t want her to be the next president, but if she’s the nominee, I’m not saying I wouldn’t vote for her.

    And anyone trying to end th war on science deserves some credit in my book. The Bush administration has been the worst for scientific and medicinal (not to mention social) advancement. (Well, its hard to compare and say “worst”, George Washington could never had foreseen stem cell research. But Bush is definitely taking us backwards.)

  2. Brian Says:

    I’m torn about Sen. Clinton. On the one hand, I resent how she’s being portrayed as the inevitable next president. There are other candidates in the race with a lot better ideas than her, and after 8 hellish years of George Bush, I care a hell of a lot more about ideas than the sense of political entitlement that has been bestowed upon her. This is what the Republican heirarchy did in 2000 with Bush. Clearly McCain (at least at the time) was a far superior choice to be president, but the RNC had other ideas. I see the Democrats following the same path.

    On the other hand, however, Hillary Clinton is not George Bush. In fact, when I look at the slate of Republican candidates, I can’t see myself voting for any of them, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who stands no chance at all. I could live with another President Clinton, or President Obama for that matter, especially after her encouraging support for science. Yes, all of them blather on endlessly about how strong their faith is, which only makes me wonder how strong it really is. But to hear a rather unexpected show of support for good science is very reassuring.

    In the end, while history is sure to belittle us for allowing Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidencies, it could be a lot worse. Bush #43 might decide to declare himself president for life. There’s a lot of world left out there to fuck up……

  3. ericsan Says:

    RON PAUL? You can’t possibly be serious. Talk about fundie douchebag.

  4. ParrotLover77 Says:

    Hillary is not liberal. I’ve heard the conservative pundits call her socialist before, which really makes me laugh! She’s a corporate Democrat. There’s not necessarily anything “wrong” with that (after all, hubby Bill was the same way and the 90s overall were a pretty good decade), but she is certainly the “rightest” leaning lefty. That being said, seeing that statement by her about restoring the integrity of how science is viewed in the White House really makes me feel a lot more comfortable about her. I agree with most of you — I want a more left-wing moonbat personally, but if she gets the nomination, she’s got my support, especially if she keeps making (and keeping) promises like that.

    Regarding Ron Paul — douchebag yes, but at least he’s honest. That’s why he won’t get the nomination. But that’s also why disenfranchised conservatives (especially of the libertarian variety) like him so much. I’d never vote for him, but at least he is telling you what you’ll get upfront, unlike “Rudy!” or Fred “what’s for supper?” Thompson, or, worse, John “doubletalk express” McCain.