Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 4

Endorsements for president

 * Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a fierce critic of the Bush administration, said Saturday that he's pulling for U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the White House. "I'd be very pleased if Hillary Clinton would become the next American president," Schroeder said to applause from a largely Saudi audience at the Jeddah Economic Forum, which opened here Saturday.Schroeder made the statement during a discussion of global women leaders at a gender-segregated theater where a plastic barrier separated women from men.Look at http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--schroeder-clinton0211feb11,0,1792602.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
 * Schroeder is on the Russian payroll these days (which destroyed his credibility in Germany). Maybe Putin like Clinton more than Rice? Rjensen 15:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an offical endorsement for Hillary Clinton and I do not see any reasons why this should be cencored. This is the opinion of Schroeder and he is a former chancellor. He is an important politican.
 * I don't see any evidence that this is an "official endorsement". He's just saying he'd be pleased.  Also, consider that he's speaking during a discussion of global women leaders and that he says "But don't quote me too loud. I hope I'm not harming her by saying that."  Obviously, it's not a strong endorsement as he's trying to downplay it as soon as he says it. I don't have a problem with a mention of this going in the article, but to create a separate section called "Endorsements for president" is too much. - Maximusveritas 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not too much. An endorsement is an endorsement and your talking point is bad. Schroeder endorsed her and he knows what this means.
 * She's not a candidate. Schroeder knows it is a SEVERE violation of protocal for a foreign politician to officially endorse an American candidate. Cleveland got in real trouble on that point in 1888. The language of endorsement does not include "pulling for", either in English or German. Rjensen 14:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly, it is not an endorsement. If asked, Schroeder would probably (diplomatically) say that he would also be pleased if Condoleezza Rice or John McCain were elected president. In any case, Schroeder's opinion is irrelevant as far as the U.S election is concerned, and I don't see why it should be mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article.


 * I second Rjensen. This is ridiculous. It is not an endorsement. If it were, he would have said "I endorse." He didn't becsause he knows what this means. Also, your point is isn't being helped by the fact that you are violating Newsday's copyright. &mdash;WAvegetarian TALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 14:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an endorsement because he wants that "Hillary Clinton would become the next American president," and the article is named Germany's ex-chancellor backs Hillary Clinton for president
 * You guys have been fighting too much over this. It is, roughly speaking, an endorsement.  It perhaps merits one short sentence, which is what I've now rewritten it to, thereby escaping the Newsday copyvio issue as well.  It certainly didn't merit its own section, or being put in twice, which is the state I found this morning.  Wasted Time R 11:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

controversies
1/2 this article is about controversies. this is quickly reaching the point where it should be spun off into a daughter article with a reasonable summary. that way the controversies can be more fully explored without completely dominating what is supposed to be a basic biography. see e.g. bill frist, george w. bush, al gore, & john kerry for precedents. comments? Derex 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You exaggerate. I've just done a word count.  The whole article is 11,877 words, of which 2,667 in Controversies,  which is 22%.  Another 1,050 words are in Cultural Matters, or 9%.  2,035 words or 17% are in the Political Views section, which is generally pro-Hillary fluff.  The rest, slightly over half, is pretty straight biographical material.


 * As for splitting out the controversies, most of them don't need additional exploration. It's generally, somebody accused Hillary of something, the proper authorities investigated, Hillary was cleared.  What more to say?   Wasted Time R 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * umm, i didn't mean a literal word count. where i'm from, that's a figure of speech meaning a hell of a lot.  sorry, didn't mean to be misleading (as anyone can just look at the page).  let me explain my position a bit more.  as to whether they need exploration, it looks to me like they're growing rapidly. last i looked at this article a while back, it didn't have near this much stuff.  to me, it looks sort of like the standard scandal-mongering swampage of a political article is well under way here.  one (undesirable) way of handling that is to remove extra details as they are added.  another is to move it to a daughter article to handle the pressure.
 * at any rate, i see an awful lot of really petty 'scandals' included that are just plain silly in the main biography -- 4 paragraphs on the word "plantation", a complaint by bill o'reilly about funeral attendance, a poor joke, 4 paragraphs on using a ghostwriter (like that's unusual)?  what's the standard for inclusion?  there are _endless_ such trivialities that can be included.  i don't think that means there's no place for them in wikipedia, documenting them help illustrate the political culture of the times.  but, as you say, most of them end up nowhere.  so, why devote 1/5 of a biography that's pretty much tangential to her notability?
 * and i guarantee you it will grow, if my experience on other political pages is any indicator, see e.g. Bill Frist medical school experiments controversy which I successfully excised from the main article with a reasonable summary, after it started swamping it. see also, John Kerry military service controversy which i helped spin off after it was in danger of sinking John Kerry. both the main articles and the controversy discussions are much the better for it.  frankly, i feel the same way about discussion of her hairstyles & sports teams -- simply inappropriate for a main biography encyclopedia entry.  anyways, that's a hell of a long answer i just wrote, i'll leave it with you more regular editors of the page for the time being. Derex 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but I don't think these sections are in any danger of sinking the Hillary article. There's tons of straight stuff about her career and her politics before you even get to them.  Indeed the "design" of the page is to permit a straight exposition about her life while segregating the controversies till later.  I agree the 'plantation' remark has gotten too much coverage; once it simmers down I plan to trim that section.  But like it or not, she's a controversy magnet, her career as it is sitting on top of a couple of major fault lines of American culture and politics.  They're a part of the Hillary story, as much as anything else in the page.  I would hate to ghettoize them in a separate article.  Wasted Time R 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * not disagreeing in general, just responding to your last line. in none of the cases i mentioned are the controversies ghettoized; they are still summarized at reasonable length in the article.  it's just that one to two sentences on each of these 'scandals' is probably sufficient for the reader to understand that she is, as you say, a controversy magnet.  the interested reader can then find more detail elsewhere.  i can't think of any other article about a significant politician, except maybe Karl Rove (which should be changed), that has so much 'controversy' in the main bio _including_ Bill Clinton.  even Iran-Contra, a constitutional crisis, is handled in a couple sentences in the Reagan article, with a summary and a link. less space is even devoted to Nixon controversies in the main bio.  again, i'll respect the call of the present editors.  but, i don't think 'ghettoize' is a fair characterization of the way most articles handle even large scandals around politicians, much less picayune criticisms by pundits. Derex 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Bill Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon examples you point to are handled correctly by separate articles. I just don't think any of the controversies/scandals in the Hillary article rise to that level; partly that's because she was a First Lady, not a President, and thus there was a limit to how much trouble she could land in.  Now if she gets herself into some major, significant ethical brouhaha as Senator, that would be different, and could well warrant a separate article.  But so far, that hasn't happened.   Wasted Time R 17:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 'plantation', I've trimmed it down now. I removed the Laura Bush comment against and the Barack Obama comment for, as neither was really needed. Wasted Time R 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Obama comment was needed to balance the previous statements about Clinton's comment being condemned with one showing that many defended her comments, which doesn't always happen when politicians make controversial comments.  You could shorten it by taking out the quote and just saying that black Democrats, including Obama, defended Clinton's comments.  I don't really think this section needs to be shortened at all.  If anything does need shortening,  it's probably the section about Ghostwriters. -Maximusveritas 18:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Obama comment isn't especially relevant, since he's a Senator not a House member. Indeed Hillary is a Senator as well — what does she know about what it's like to be in the House?  That's why this whole thing is silly to begin with ... in a couple of years no one will remember it ... so the less space devoted to it here, the better.  Wasted Time R 19:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Obama is relevant as a prominent black politician who defended Clinton's statements. You don't have to be in the House to comment on it or know what's going on.  It provides balance in showing that many people defended and even applauded her comments.  Leaving it out presents a one-sided view of the reaction to her comments, so I think it should be put back in (albeit, a condensed version of it).  Meanwhile, I'll condense the first paragraph of the section. - Maximusveritas 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * just to be obnoxiously repetitious, none of it belongs here at all. it's not a long-run notable event. i missed the news that week, and didn't even hear about it till here -- and i'm a news/blog junkie. Derex 20:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, at least by the standards of what qualifies as a controversy so far, I think this should be on the page. Wikipedia is always going to skew toward more recent events. Time will eventually take care of that as we gain a better historical perspective on these events, but I don't think we should rush that process prematurely.  As far as the controversies section in general, I do agree that it is way out of proportion to other articles on political figures.  I'm not sure what the general consensus is for dealing with this, but something should be done.  - Maximusveritas 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right that this article is unlike those of other political figures. Not only is there the separate Controversies section with a number of entries, there is also a separate Political Views section, where a number of entries present HRC's views and philosophies at some length. The architect of all this was LukeTH, who felt strongly that isolating both views and controversies away from the bio/historical mainline would benefit readers and increase fairness. And at the time, LukeTH was praised by several admins for his work in doing this. Even though I partially argued against it at the time, I am kind of loathe to tear this structure down now. It's also worth nothing that almost every time we've eliminated one of the Controversies entries, someone else has come along and re-introduced the issue, invariably with inferior citing and npov compared to what is here now. Wasted Time R 14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ok. that's interesting to know; it did look like someone had taken a much-needed restructuring axe to this since i had last looked. i agree luketh made an improvement. ... regarding praise from admins, i think it's important to note that being an admin doesn't make your opinion about content special. i imagine i've been here (and in good standing) longer than the majority of admins, and mine's not special either. ... btw, your last line goes to my point about pressure. Derex 14:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone has an idea for a positive restructuring, we should definitely consider it. The Controversies section is longer now than at any other point in the article's history. Most other articles, for example George W. Bush, place controversial issues on separate pages (if they are important enough to be covered at all.) I think it's time to take an axe to the structure and get our coverage out of the gutter. While I do think the article has generally been maintained very nicely by WastedTime, the original article, which was a compromise with editors who were interested in covering baseless attacks on Clinton, should not be set in stone. Now that the pro-sliming editors are gone, we should consider covering Clinton with the same fairness accorded by Wikipedia editors to other political figures of her stature. I would be strongly in support of any restructuring attempt by Derex to improve this article. luketh 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we add a section for the Walmart controversy? She was on the board while she was the Governor's wife? Now she speaks against it. I think this is relevant, considering how large Walmart is, and how unions are a traditional Democrat base.


 * Add it to, and discuss it on the Talk page for, Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton, not here.  Wasted Time R 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

this controversy stuff is absolutely ridicolous. it's unfounded whining. [06:03, 21 April 2006 137.99.179.149]


 * Discuss it on Talk:Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton and be specific about which controversies you object to.  Wasted Time R 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when is controversy a bad thing? Have you noticed that the least controversial presidential candidates of the last 100 years were not elected, and their more controversial adversaries were? Michael Dukakis, Adlai Stevenson, and Edward Mondale are mostly forgotten history at this point. It's the hell raisers that get into history books. So she's controversial. So what? That just means she's able to get people to think about her seriously. Wandering Star 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys argue about the stupidest shit. It doesn't matter that much. I'm more annoyed by you knuckleheads than any possible bias. [15:51, 21 January 2007 68.164.60.5]


 * (1) No one is saying controversy is a bad thing, we're just describing them;
 * (2) If we annoy User:68.164.60.5 then at least we're doing one good thing.  Wasted Time R 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Extraneous material
I shortened the section on carpetbag issue because the extra verbiage said nothing. I deleted the section about other elections because it is misleading, and irrelevant. This is not the place to analyze state politics --there already are articles on Shumer and D'Amato. And it's based on original research that's a no-no Rjensen 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On carpetbagging, the text you omitted did say something — it made clear that she had never done anything in the state before, and when and where she moved to the state, and gave detail on the voters' reaction to the issue. This is highly relevant to this particular campaign, and not to NY State politics in general. Your shortening removed the most important element in the campaign, and even removed the wikilink to carpetbagger, making readers wonder what it is.  I am restoring this text.   Wasted Time R 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On comparing her winning margin to other margins, I commented out everything other than the Gore 2000 comparison. That one makes Hillary look bad, and so should satisfy all objectors. Wasted Time R 17:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The carpetbagging text is POV and false. HC was a major player in New York politics for years--in fund raising for example. I'll rework it. Rjensen 18:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that extraneous material should be removed. I'm very concerned about the article becoming too long. I put this tag: toolong on the article, expessing my concerns that the page should be shortened. SNIyer12 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2005 (UTC)

Shortening
I think that this article should be shortened and/or new articles should be created. I'm very concerned about this article becoming too long. SNIyer12 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is long compared to most other Wikipedia articles, but why is this bad? There is a very clear Table of Contents for the article, so readers can easily find the sections they are interested in and ignore the rest.  Splitting it out into multiple articles would not improve on the overall structure and would risk duplication of material creeping in.    Wasted Time R 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article should definitely be shortened. It's turning into a bunch of close-to-slanderous garbage. I vote that Controversies gets its own page. If fact, along with my vote, I'm making this change. Please don't change it back without discussion. We need to get the admins off our backs. luketh 02:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with luketh. This article MUST be shortened. I'm very concerned about this article becoming too long. I did this with Pan Am Flight 103, warning that the article was becoming too long and asked that sub-articles be created. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sniyer, you write this as though nothing has happened recently ... in fact, four separate articles have been split off, reducing the size of this main article considerably.  Wasted Time R 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice the "Speculation about possible 2008 presidential bid" is a particularly section that could be shortened or spun off. Within the next 12 months it could either grow into an article about her campaign, or be deleted if she doesn't run. -Will Beback 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed.  Wasted Time R 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The controversies and cultural section have been spun off, and I think the current article is surprisingly excellent and NPOV as is. Aroundthewayboy 23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

President v. Former President
Read President of the United States, first sentence. I'm Canadian and even I knew that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That's in reference to this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is betwen a title and a position. Bill Clinton still has the honorary title of "President", but he is no longer the president. In this case, we can probably drop the title entirely. -Will Beback 01:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need to drop the title. Look at the other recent First Lady articles — they all say "President" in their intros and no one bats an eyelash.  It's only the magic name "Clinton" that gets people turning silly.  Leave it the way it should be.   Wasted Time R 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be consistent. If the husbands of other former First Ladies get a title then this one should too. Thanks for checking that. -Will Beback 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty clear that it should be "President Clinton" per precedent from related articles. Readers can walk themselves over to his article if they're not sure whether he's out of office :) Adrian Lamo ·  (talk)  · (mail) · 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, "Wife of"
I had already changed "is the wife of..." to "is married to..." in the opening paragraph on Jan 19, 2006, and am glad to see that there is implicit agreement to this. I feel this is important, since she is a person in her own right, and language such as "wife of" hearkens back to the days when wives were their husbands' property. Incidentally, Encyclopedia Britannica still calls her the "wife of" Bill Clinton -- you backwards closed-source encyclopedia, you! ;) --RealGrouchy 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

new design
To meet the standards of Wikipedia, I have created the following three subpages: 1) Political Views of Hillary Clinton, 2) Controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, 3) Cultural Matters of Hillary Clinton. Please remember to improve these subpages when you improve the main article. Thank you. -Luketh. luketh 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again Luke. Even though I was content with the one big article, I agree that a consensus had formed to split subarticles out, and I agree that you picked the right three to break out.  However, I have adjusted the subarticle titles to Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton.  That's because the name used in the subarticles should match the main article name (HRC not HC), and because WP article title conventions use lower case unless proper nouns are involved.  Wasted Time R 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wasted. Good to see you. Yes, you're right that HRC is better than HC for the subarticle titles. luketh 03:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Balance" in Further Reading list
LukeTH edit comment: "we talked extensively about balance. there are 1 million clinton books. please list equal number of anti- and pro-. if you add an anti- add a pro- and vice versa."

Luke, during one of your absences, this policy of yours was abandoned. Instead, the books were explicitly split into separate "By Clintons", "Pro-Clinton", "Anti-Clinton", and "Mostly Neutral" groups.

When we did this, we quickly realized that there are far more anti-HRC books than pro-HRC books out there. Why? Simple human nature. People riled up about a controversial person are a good deal more likely to buy a book criticizing the subject, than are people who admire that person likely to buy a book praising the subject. It has nothing to do with ideology — a look at the List of books and films about George W. Bush will show that his Anti- list is a good deal longer than his Pro- list too.

So for this article to try to artificially impose a limit on listing anti-HRC books is wrong; it denies reality, and the ultimate NPOV application must be towards reality, not your perception of "balance". I will restore the book list accordingly. Wasted Time R 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Have done. Also added an explanatory note at the top of the section, saying that anti- numbers will inevitably be larger than pro- numbers, with a link to the GWB parallel. Also added publisher and year of publication to all the entries, something that was sorely lacking. Wasted Time R 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Have tried to add notable entries to the "Mostly neutral" list, since there really are a lot of these; there are some more obscure ones that I've left out, as well as a passel of pro- or neutral children's and young adult bio's. I've also created a new category for well-known books that come across as somewhat anti-HRC but are not partisan attack screeds; I've put the Roger Morris and David Brock books in there. Wasted Time R 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Discarding the "balance" policy is OK, I guess, because you have good arguments to do so. The new category, "somewhat anti-Clinton, but less partisan," doesn't seem like a good idea to me because it's entirely subjective. Personally I would consider the Morris and Brock books to be VERY partisan. I'm folding these two categories together because the degree of partisanship in anti-Clinton books is too subjective for consensus. If the book was written to damage Clinton, then it belongs in the anti-Clinton category. Readers can debate whether the book damages Clinton a lot or a little. luketh 03:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Morris book is not really partisan, it's more about how money corrupts politics — he takes off on Reagan and other Republican administrations as well as the Clinton administration. The Brock book was supposed to be partisan, but he wrote it in the middle of his political turnabout, so it's really more of a mishmash.  I thought both authors deserved better than to be grouped with the by-the-numbers Regnery screeds.  I agree, though, that these kind of judgements do easily fall into subjectivity.  Wasted Time R 04:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the reading list was so long and not interesting to people who are not interested in further research, it seemed appropriate to create a subpage for it as most other political figures articles have done. luketh 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Article title
...should be Hillary Clinton? Middle names are rarely included in article titles for disambiguation. ed g2s &bull; talk 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not her middle name, it's her last name before marriage, and she uses it as part of her standard name. See http://clinton.senate.gov/ for example.  So the article is correctly titled.  Wasted Time R 18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as well all know naming an article is not about what is "correct". "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". Compare and . ed g2s &bull; talk 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I try not to get too hung up on this stuff.  Whichever one is picked, the other will redirect to it.  You're a longtime admin, you get to decide.   Wasted Time R 22:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for "Hillary Clinton" for the sake of common usage and self-reference. luketh 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's my choice because I'm and admin, but as long as there are no strong objections or special reasons, then I think it should be moved. I'll give it another day or so then move it? ed g2s &bull; talk 20:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that you need to move not only this article, but also the four recently created subarticles, the Wikicommons article, and the Wikiquote article (any more that I'm not thinking of?) (yes, the Category). Wasted Time R 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)   Wasted Time R 22:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is the title of her official Senate website and we should use that. It's POV to shorten the name.  Rjensen 20:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually people who are uncomfortable with Hillary's feminism, feel more at ease when she's referred to as just "Hillary Clinton", therefore it's less POV to shorten the article name. Wasted Time R 21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to Republicans who want to stress the "Clinton" part for political gain. We always use the name people prefer themselves. Rjensen 21:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It should not be changed, she made a special point to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton when she bedcame 1st lady, Wikpedia says call people by what they call themselves.152.163.101.8 22:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikpedia says call people by what they call themselves", where? To say that leaving out her birth name is some sort of anti-feminist POV is a little OTT. In the UK, I've never heard her referred to as "Rodham Clinton", by liberals, conservatives, men or women. She may prefer personally prefer Rodham, but it is still a minority who refer to her as this, and a smaller yet minority who deliberately leave this out for political reasons. ed g2s &bull; talk 22:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify for our Brit admin friend here, it's not a compound last name — as the British often use — so you will never see a reference to "Ms. Rodham Clinton" or anything like that. Nor is it a middle name.  Rather, it's a three-part name formed by adding her husband's last name to her original first and last name.  Another well-known American who used this form is the late Coretta Scott King (born Coretta Scott).   Wasted Time R 22:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * For further clarification, most U.S. newspaper articles, broadcasts, will refer to her as "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton" in first usage, and then as "Senator Clinton" or "Mrs. Clinton" afterwards. The whole issue of her name is riddled with political baggage, as you'll see by reading the articles here on her and looking back in the Talk archives.  Wasted Time R 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

wow. her actual name is hillary rodham. she has never changed it to clinton. it's a shame ya'll are too busy with your agendas. [00:25, 18 April 2006 151.201.43.192]


 * And your citation for this is ...?  Wasted Time R 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no 'agenda' here. Only the desire to be accurate. Just for further clarity on this issue, I have added a few more citations here:


 * In Hillary’s autobiography, Living History, she said, “I learned the hard way that some voters in Arkansas were seriously offended by the fact that I kept my maiden name.” During the winter of 1980, she began to use Clinton as her surname, at Vernon Jordan's suggestion. When Bill announced his campaign to regain the governor's office in 1982, she adopted the name Hillary Rodham Clinton and sometimes referred to herself as “Mrs. Bill Clinton.” Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name was fully established by the time she became first lady of the United States, and she has continued to use that name. www.u-s-history.com


 * Also, She signs her name as 'Hillary Rodham Clinton. (see signature on her official page Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator from new York)


 * There is also the fact that her official disclosure documents use this name as well as her signature on them United States Senate Financial Disclosure Report


 * I would have to say that there is abundant citation for using "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as her official name within these articles. Druac Blaise 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Druac Blaise 04:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there is, but whilst her "official name" is highly relevant for the opening of the article it's pretty much irrelevant for the title. I see no reason why this article should ignore the "common names" policy (and it's very clear from Google results which is the name she's commonly known by.) Proteus (Talk) 07:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Coretta Scott King, Ada Louise Huxtable, Billie Jean King ... it's an American thing. Wasted Time R 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what it is, thank you. The only relevant factor is whether it's how she is commonly known, which it isn't. Proteus (Talk) 21:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation, sourced at. She polls better as Hillary Rodham Clinton than as Hillary Clinton, and she is always on ballots as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Who are we to take her preferred name away? Wasted Time R 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another data point: I got robo-called by HRC today (midterm elections), and she identified herself both at the start and end of the call as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". Clearly she thinks it's her common name. Wasted Time R 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
I'm not sure if this is notable enough to add to the article, perhaps to the 2008 presidential speculation section: according to the Federal Elections Commission, in the March 2, 2004 presidential primaries in Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton got 52 write-in votes. And then in the 2004 presidential election in Rhode Island, she got eight write-in votes. Perhaps she'd gotten votes in previous presidential primaries and elections too, I don't know.Schizombie 11:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the least notable thing in the history of notability.205.188.117.12 13:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a no! Still, I think it's interesting as trivia and might be worth adding in the future if she does end up running (ugh). I think I can think of plenty of things that are less notable in the history of notability, though.Schizombie 06:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess she decreased in popularity? Baboo

I found this the other day on FECs webpage. I dont know if this means that she has already filled for the 2008 Presidential election... http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P00003392/

subtitles
The new excessive use of subtitles breaking the reasonably-sized paragraphs into a few senteces per subsection is very ugly. I've returned the original, superior, format. Please leave it as it is unless you can indeed build a consensus that such a ghastly format is good for this article. luketh 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 03:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote
Does this quote really belong in this article? Wanda5088 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In March 2006, high-voltage actress Sharon Stone cast doubt on Clinton's presidential chances, saying "Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening." [74]


 * The quote has gotten a lot of attention in the press and among pundits, so yes, it's reasonable to include.  Wasted Time R 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps its worth noting but is the phrasing "cast doubt on Clinton's presidential chances" really appropriate? Does Sharon Stone have that much power? Neil --67.158.69.83 16:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No it should be removed. [06:04, 21 April 2006 137.99.179.149]


 * "Cast doubt" just means that she expressed doubt, not that that doubt itself has an effect on the candidacy itself. But I'll rephrase it a bit.   Wasted Time R 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section
SERIOUSLY...why would a picture of a poorly photoshoped topless Hillary even appear on this article for ONE edit? Let's grow up a little.

This section clearly needs expansion. It looks like a whitewash. By the way, from a quick glance at the article, it's pretty telling that the term "Whitewater" does not come up even once. 172 | Talk 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the fourth section of Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton is entitled "Whitewater scandal". Methinks you didn't follow the link!   Wasted Time R 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Each of her controversies is being defended by heresay, quoting lack of proof confirming or denying, or outright questioning of the sources without counterdefense. It's clear at this time evidence of PR dumping and history rewrites by supporters in prep for the 2008 race. In several places there is clearly been no attempt to even hide this massaging of historical data. This is not the purpose of Wiki and degrades the quality of its reliablity to the public. [14:42, 2 July 2006 Sheepdog tx]


 * This discussion is being moved to the proper Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies page.  Wasted Time R 15:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This section was cleary not neutral and designed to slander and present bias toward HRC. No other living political without a conviction or criminal record has been subjected to such attacks. --24.215.230.63 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't anybody read? If you object to something in the Controversies page, discuss it at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, not here.  If you object to something in the Cultural matters page, as apparently you do, discuss it at Talk:Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Your one criticism relative to the main article is discussed below.  And as for your edit comment claim that these articles 'maintained a dedicated "bias" page more extesive than her contirbutions', please take a look at Hillary_Rodham_Clinton, Hillary_Rodham_Clinton, and Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton.   Wasted Time R 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is teh suk. [19:55, 15 August 2006 155.246.11.160]

This is great. Has anyone noticed that the articles spouting revisionist history are always locked? That's because an opposing viewpoint is called vandalism, according to liberals. This article is entirely one-sided and an embarrassment to the Wikipedia cause. [02:17, 6 November 2006 68.4.70.65]


 * It's only locked to anons like you, because as a group you've proved yourselves incapable of useful editing. And Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies isn't locked at all.  Wasted Time R 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry for reverting this, I read the title and missed the "talk:" in the front. You have my apologies. i kan reed 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Father was conservative?
This sentence in the article is unsourced: "Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, a conservative, was an executive in the textile industry...". Doesn't sound right to me. [05:52, 5 June 2006 66.98.131.128 ]


 * It's elaborated upon in the Hugh Rodham, Sr. article.   Wasted Time R 11:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Relationship With Bill
If the Lewinsky and Flowers relationships are relevant, then so are all Bill's other relationships. I actually admire some things Hilary believes in, but it is wrong to whitewash her marriage as perfect. The old piece looks like it came from a Hilary PR piece  [21:42, 6 July 2006 70.110.156.83]


 * The Lewinsky and Flowers relationships are ones that Bill had admitted to having; the others are all denied by Bill. That's the difference.  This section is about Bill and Hillary's marriage in the light of his admitted infidelities.  The other ones belong in a Bill Clinton controversies article or the like, not here.  The existing article does state, "For much of his political career, President Clinton was dogged by rumors of extramarital affairs. These rumors gained credibility following the Lewinsky scandal." That's hardly a whitewash.  Wasted Time R 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with Bill Clinton
Shouldn't this be "marriage with Bill Clinton" instead? I think it sounds more sensible. [03:00, 7 July 2006 72.75.211.97]


 * Well, the idea is to not just discuss the fact that they're married, but the human relationship between them - are they friends? political partners? toxic lock? what keeps them together? is it all a charade? That sort of thing. 'Relationship' captures this a bit more broadly than 'marriage'.  Wasted Time R 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well aren't those all aspects of their marriage? [03:22, 10 July 2006 72.75.216.64]

(cur) (last) 08:16, 11 July 2006 24.215.230.63 (Talk) (→Relationship with Bill Clinton - NPOV Too focused on Federal prosecution Bill Clinton gives "Relationship Heading" implies a study of the larger union)


 * This section doesn't actually mention federal prosecution at all. But since this anon doesn't like the section header either, I'll change it as requested.   Wasted Time R 12:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but notice how utterly bizarre it is to have this section at all and simultaneously not discuss any of the relevant facts, while leaving in what appear to be rebuttal facts in response to an unstated argument. The rest of the article looks great, however, and the spinoff of the controversies business seems appropriate. If it is thought that these issues are not relevant to her public persona or are purely private, then why have the section at all? Presumably one can figure out that she is married to Bill Clinton from the First Lady material? And if there's supposed to be a juicy gossipy section, let's have it. If not, why do we have a "see? no juicy gossip here!" section? I'm pretty nonpartisan these days, but this just looks weird. Agent Cooper 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the current state is ridiculous. As you can see from the talk section just below this one, I was going to rewrite the section based entirely on HRC's words from Living History.  Haven't done that yet.  I would be happy enough just to restore it the way it was, don't know if Francespeabody is still around to object.   Wasted Time R 17:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For now I've just restored the old content. We'll see what happens. Wasted Time R 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the Marriage section be here?
The marriage Controversy should indeed be pushed to the respective section whichis precisely why it should be removed from here. Either the conversation should follow here courtship and other factual truths related to her actions in the marriage or the citations should be moved to the "Bill Clinton Controversies" page or within the Controversies page added here. Otherwise this just reads like a tabloid and is in clear violation of the NPOV rules.--Francespeabody 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the 2006 NYT story on the state of their marriage was single-sourced and was criticized by many in the media at the time, so it should go. However, you are wrong about the rest.  It is about Hillary's reactions to what Bill did ... so it indeed is not a Hillary controversy, it is important biographical detail about how she handled Bill's admitted infidelities ... do you seriously think the main Hillary article should never mention Lewinsky once?   Wasted Time R 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note that Hillary's biography Living History deals with this whole subject in some emotional depth, and there's a quote in this section from there. If Hillary's willing to discuss it, we should be willing too.   Wasted Time R 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The topic and the discussion is well covered in the more appropriately titled Controvery section. If you want to "Dish" on her do it there and not in the general Biography. That is sexist as you don't hold many men to the standard of how they treat their wives in a Wiki biography let alone be critical of them.


 * This is a POV decision to put this throughout the main article as well as to develop dedicated sections to issues and controversies. Since you have decided to create section dedicated to just such things, it is obvious that you should place them there. This section deals with her Marriage which almost know one can answer to nor would she detail in full in a biography. Would you detail your familial dealings to the public and how would you have the public record reflect your "supposed" reaction to a witch hunt or a federal prosecutor going after one thing and only finding a personal infidelity of your wife. That is your wifes action, not yours therefore it does not define "Your" relationship, it defines your wife's and should be discussed there.


 * The quote from the book tells why she stays with her husband and does not in anyway give weight or conversation to what she said or did regarding Lewinsky directly. Everything mentioned has to do with elements surrounding the event politically but not her direct involvement in the scandal.


 * If she received a blow job from Monica you might have a point, but only then you could include it in the "controversy" section.


 * Finally, if this were your mother, and your father did something behind her back, does that action define your mother? Does it define her relationship to your father? Does it strip her of all lifelong commitment? If your mom cheated ok, but that is not the case and you are attempting to pass the sins of the husband on to the wife as a sort of shaming tactic but we don't live in Puritanical times. Sorry, I guess we do, but we should not.


 * If you really feel in your heart that your own mother should bear the responsibility in public record for your fathers transgressions, this conversation will end here and now, and you can keep all the nastiness you want in here. --Francespeabody 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Francespeabody, you've at least twice used an anon sockpuppet of 24.215.230.63 to put on the pov tag instead of putting it on yourself, which is against WP practice. It's easy to tell because both accounts are in an editing war on the Condi Rice article, and your edits here seem to be trying to make some point relative to that war.


 * Regarding what you wrote above. This material is not currently in the Hillary controversies article (it was briefly when an anon put it there, but I moved it back out), nor should it be.  The Hillary controversies article is about things that Hillary was accused (whether true or not) of having done that are illegal, unethical, or otherwise improper.  Her marriage is not such a thing, as you point out; it was Bill who was doing bad things. Hillary was not charged with anything in connection with the Lewinsky scandal, nor was she impeached; she was the victim of it.  So that's why this section does not belong in the Hillary controversies section.  Can we agree on that?


 * So then the question becomes, does it belong in the main article, or should it be removed completely, or should it be modified? Your position, from your edits, is that the story of her marriage covers only their buying a house in 1975 and his heart surgery in 2004.  Everything else is eliminated.  I maintain that's an absurd position to take.  You will not find one biography of her anywhere that jumps from 1975 to 2004 in her marriage and says nothing about what happened in between.


 * As to some of your other points. It's not "sexist" to include this; the Bill Clinton article does indeed cover it too, in Bill_Clinton, in Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton, in Monica Lewinsky, and so forth.  This material does not pretend to read her mind, but rather addresses some of the public questions related to her marriage, and then quotes her.  In Living History she addresses the whole episode at some length, not just the quote here; have you read it?  This material does not seek to invalidate Hillary's whole career or her accomplishments, both of which are listed in great detail (for example, there's more in this article on her specific accomplishments and roles as First Lady than in almost any of the other First Lady articles; and there's more her on her one term in the Senate than almost any of the other Senator articles, including some who have served many terms).


 * The bottom line is, that if you want to suggest specific wording changes to this section, I'll work with you on that, but to just remove all this material and toss it down the memory hole is unacceptable. Therefore I'm restoring it, yet again.    Wasted Time R 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My roommate and I share internet access and opinions regarding political matters. The assumption of the contributions being all mine is erroneous. He chose not to edit but suggested the article POV was not neutral and modified the article.


 * OK, I was mistaken. But tell your roommate that if he puts a "pov" tag on an article, he's got to also explain why in Talk he did so.  Otherwise there's nothing to go on, and the tag will just get removed.  The most recent tag was put on by you, and you've had lots to say in Talk, so I won't remove it.   Wasted Time R 10:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, the citation belongs in Bill's article since it was his action. That was the point I made earlier. If she indeed commit this action put it here but she did not. I notice you did not address any of my points instead "reverting" all without including any new information. I have the book in question and it is not a source to be cited for the topic of "her marriage" as a single source on the topic nor does the book devote or expand on the topic in any significant length. The scandal is purely an OUTSIDER view of Bill's infidelity and in know way defines her marriage. It defines public opinion of "Bill's action" and the "Republican" use of public funds to engage in the witch-hunt that lead to its uncovering but it does not speak to "Her actions" in "Her Marriage" thus has no place in the article speaking to who "She Is" and what she has done.

I asked a simple question, do the sins of the husband transfer to the wife and you have ignored it.


 * I thought you would see that I agreed with you when I said Hillary was the victim in what happened. But just to be clear, yes, you are right, the sins of the husband do not transfer to the wife.  I agree 100% with that.   Wasted Time R 10:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review the articles of former first ladies and the dignity applied to them. Pat Nixon Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. In both cases the section related to marriage does not exapand in any detail the husbands transgressions yet in almost any such case, I see that if a Democrat has done amazing things for humanity the more likely there is to be some jab at the wife and the more pathetic the presidential job, the softer you all will be. What I see is the ongoing revisionist POV being applied to make things more Red. The "Wiki" way fails at this level because it offers no final NPOV oversight to settle such matters.


 * (Your point is a bit incoherent given that JFK was a Democrat.) Regarding Pat Nixon, I wasn't aware that there was anything pertinent to this issue. Maybe you are thinking Mamie Eisenhower? Regarding Jackie O, the article says, "The marriage had its difficulties arising from John F. Kennedy's affairs and debilitating health problems, both of which were hidden from the public."  That's the key difference: Bill Clinton's infidelities became a big story at the time of his presidency and were thrust into the public limelight, whereas with JFK it was all swept under the rug.   Wasted Time R 10:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You repeatedly want to disparage Hillary for the actions of the Husband. The section does not belong because it does not contain a single action she carried out. It is that simple! There is no need to edit a section that is added purely to disparage or stain and has not merit in the section. Further, public scandal does not speak to their marriage, it speaks to the public sentiment, perception, federal prosecution but no citation that is accessible provides her direct and comprehensive discussion on the subject of her marriage as it specifically relates to Monica Lewinsky. Nothing you have cited even quotes her saying or making mention of the topic.

Unless you can cite something that quotes her directly about her relationship, and can provide the quote than all of the rest of it is supposition. You link only to "the scandal", "Monica Lewinsky", and her book "Living History" which you assert she discusses "at length" the story yet you don't include the discussion, the page the quote is taken from and how it describes the marriage in terms of her actions.


 * OK, I'll get Living History back out from the library when I have a chance and rewrite the section based on your points and her quotes.   Wasted Time R 11:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You just cite generally therefore none of it should stay. The idea that "False, and Scandalous" contributions should be edited to make them "More" false is a fallacy of arugment. AS well, until such time as this debate is concluded, the POV should remain and I will place it back.--Francespeabody 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to Pat Nixon and Jackie Kennedy
In relation to : Pat Nixon Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Their husbands had "Issues" can we agree? Nixon was impeached and John F had reported affairs but neither of their Wiki bio's contain, dignify or assign the "Husbands" misdeeds to the wife. I should say that in the case of Mrs. Nixon, she was not blamed in her marriage for her husbands failings as a president or as a man. However on the Democratic side for Mrs. Kennedy, they do make mention of a transgression.

Even here there is bias, if you compare the two presidents sins, Nixon's is gravely more dangerous yet nothing stains his wife but Jackie has to wear that badge on her? But even in Jackie's case the issue is related without the venom that HRC is being subjected to here. Many more stories exist about Jack and the details are the stuff of legend but those stories do not stain "her impeccable reputation" nor should they.

Simple!!!--Francespeabody 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are comparing apples, oranges, and a truck. Nixon's (almost) impeachment, unlike Bill Clinton's, had nothing to do with his personal life and thus nothing to do with Pat.  JFK's affairs were of course relevant to his and Jackie's personal life and relationship within the White House.  But both were conventional First Ladies.  Hillary was not; she was a politician-in-the-making, who later became a politician.  Hillary is bound to have more controversies written about her than any other First Lady.  By the way, if you want a Wikipedia article that discusses Republican First Lady controversies, check out Nancy Reagan.    Wasted Time R 22:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If Hillary becomes the President
What will Bill Clinton be then? She was "The first lady",will he be "The first gentleman"???

Ice Cold 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. There is already precedent for this title. There are cases where the husband of a female State Governor has been called or has accepted the title of "First Gentleman".


 * It is also mentioned as a possible title in the wiki article First Lady


 * I would personally call him "President Clinton and First Gentleman". Druac Blaise 17:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * he would be president clinton that is the title of former presidents. unsigned comment by User:Tfmurphhk


 * Yes, but that's confusing - George H.W. Bush is called Bush Senior or Bush 41 by the media because they're both "George", and  Former President Bush when they want to be more formal - it's not so complicated.  Bill Clinton would likely be called President Bill Clinton, or maybe Former President Clinton.  I doubt the "First Gentleman" tag is going to fly in this case, and it's probably time to give it a rest anyway.  Tvoz | talk 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

English American
Please stop removing this catagorey. Both of Mrs. Clinton's paternal grandparents are English immigrants, and, as such, she comfortably qualifies as an English American. Manticore126
 * Is this really relevant? I mean, that means she is a third-generation English American. She is already in many, many categories. Has she made reference to her English heritage as an important part of her self? Theshibboleth 07:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protect this page
Can't something be done to PROTECT this page, at least from anonymous users, since it has repeatedly been the victim of vandalism? JimmB 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. I am new to Wikipedia and was wondering why Wikipedia allows anonymous edits in the first place? Why do they not require that a user be registered and logged in to edit??? Nevermind, I found information on this after digging around for some time. I understand now that this is a fundamental attribute of wiki and isn't something that is going to be changed easily. I also do have to say I have noticed, at least in regards to this article, that vandalism is dealt with very swiftly and I am impressed at that. I only wonder how it is dealt with on less read and watched articles within wiki. Druac Blaise 07:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of vandalism, I want to add that I think Hillary is hot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.121.190 (talk • contribs)


 * Damn straight she's hot. I'll put my name to it too.  Pyroponce 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like a press release from the Hillary Clinton Campaign. How about some balance? There's more than a critic or two out there. --12.74.187.177 06:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies. That's also where the the charges of anti-Semitism (that you were trying to include in the main article), are already discussed.  Am taking off the pov tag since clearly you never saw the controversies article.  Wasted Time R 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. I saw it. This article is a whitewash and burying criticism of Hillary's controversies is furtherance of the whitewash. I'm restoring the censored text. --12.74.187.120 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you want to change. Just putting up NPOV tag without specific suggestions is useless. The article now links to controversies in opehing section. What more do you want? 24.120.168.55 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put those into that.24.120.168.63 14:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In fairness the 12.74.187.177 was right, it can be hard to find the controversies in this article, if you don't read all way the bottom to. So I have put mentions them of into the beginning. Better now.24.120.168.63 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Critics of George W. Bush
But she was previously one of his major and strongest supporters in the foering policy.

I thhink this category should be for longitime and not flip-floopers critict (Byrd, Gore) 83.24.194.186 01:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The category is stupid and hopefully will be deleted soon, so don't worry about it.  Wasted Time R 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Courageous anon
She was in some lesbian porn flick back in the 70s Naru said so!!!!!! PWN bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [12:17, 16 August 2006 69.29.253.96]

Hey, I wanna watch that, too.

Praise
Great praise to User:Ricky81682 for converting all the citations to the proper references format!

I hesitate to mention that there are four subsidiary articles that also need conversion ;-) Wasted Time R 11:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?
- 	Wouldn't that be her full name after marrying Bill?--Folksong 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC) - 	:Or more logically, Hillary Diane Clinton - she hasn't hyphenated it, has she? Dave 11/11/06

Split-out of 2008 presidential speculation section
I moved the 2008 presidential race speculation section into its own article, Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation. It was getting too long and disjointed to be here, and it will only get bigger. If she does eventually run, the new article can be renamed to her campaign article. Wasted Time R 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Performance on employment creation in NY
I notice some edits coming in on Clinton's performance around job creation. In particular what looks like an attempt to show she may not have met her pledge to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate NY. Unfortunately the current section ends up being a bunch of facts that aren't really related. 200K new jobs is not necessarily contradicted by 170,000 manufacturing job losses, or a rise in over all unemployment. I think this is in part due to the nature of many political promises. It can be hard to hold any politician to most the letter of most promises they are likely to make. Nevertheless it's not unreasonable for readers of this article to want to see a well balanced evaluation of the state's performance in areas Clinton specifically identified as being important to voters through the pledges she made.

How about making that part of the article less focused on trying to refute a specific pledge (the 200K jobs) and more focused on general issues around NY employment and Clinton's actions? -- Siobhan  Hansa  02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, what's there now is a logical jumble of mismatched comparisons. I would have yanked it but I felt bad for User:Russellsquire who after being reverted a bunch of times is at least trying to provide some citations. Although Senators, like all public officials, are limited in the actual effect they have on the economy, an examination of the actual economic data versus what their campaign goals were is certainly a legitimate subject.  Wasted Time R 03:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

First Lady section v. Marriage section
I'm suspecting that the marriage section may have a case to be mentioned first. Especially since the gap between the college section and the first lady section is pretty big. --RobbieFal 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your confusion is because we lost the entire 'Marriage and family, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas' section two days ago due to a race condition between a double vandalism and a reversion. I've restored it now, everything makes sense again.  Why the powers that be don't put articles like this under better protection from daily vandalism attacks is beyond me.  Wasted Time R 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported statement on political spectrum
"In 2004, the National Journal's study of roll-call votes assigned Clinton a rating of 30 in the political spectrum, relative to the current Senate, with a rating of 1 being most liberal and a rating of 100 being most conservative.[61][62]" Actually going to these references I don't see Hiliary getting a rank of 30. This needs to be corrected or deleted.Sad mouse 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * almanac of Am Politics 2006 p 1152 gives her 2004 NJ scores:

Most Liberal = 100, most conservative = 0: Clinton Economic = 63, Social = 82, Foreign = 58. Average = 68 (or on a 100 = most conservative scale this would be 32, pretty close to the 30.) Rjensen 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem here was the original passage had two cites, but the second one was for a different study altogher. I've restored those, clarified the cite, and added Rjenson's material too.  Wasted Time R 03:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture reference
The rap song Grillz by Nelly makes a fairly distasteful reference to Clinton (verse 3, this part by Ali):

"''Where I got 'em you can spot 'em,

On da top and da bottom,

Gotta bill in my mouth like I'm Hillary Rodham"

An interesting tidbit, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.203.14 (talk • contribs)
 * not really related to this article though its rap its going to be about sex and have horrible grammar.

Same sex marriage issue
It might be incorrect to put her in the "same-sex marriage opposition" category. If you'll check her voting record on ontheissues.org, you'll see that she voted against a proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Treybien 17:08 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First Lady section on main, controversies at end and in its own article?
It strikes me as odd that the First Lady section is entirely composed of positive statements, with the various controversies pushed off both to the end of the article and even then set as a link to another article. Surely some of the bigger controversies, particularly the health care task force and Tammy Wynette/cookies references, should appear in the main article. 69.250.29.200 [02:39, 22 November 2006]


 * You're wrong about the health care task force - that takes up the entire second paragraph of the First Lady section. You're right about the Controversies page, where Tammy Wynette/baking cookies and a lot of other things are sequestered.  That was the result of a compromise with some other editors active at the time, who felt that to interleave those controversies with the straight biographical account was POV.  To me, it could be done either way, but the main article is already very long as it is, so splitting out material is a good thing.  There's no standard here - other Wikipedia articles on politicians do it every which way.   Wasted Time R 12:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I couldn't have been MORE wrong about that health care thing. . . how embarrassing. Aside from that, however, the First Lady section still reads, to me, like a puff piece. But a lot less so. 69.250.29.200

No point to the Dole and Obama mentions
Wasted, I'll disagree with you about the relevance of Liddy Dole and Barack Obama, which I removed and you put back. For Obama in particular, to compare his situation to that of a spouse of a president, and to mention him alongside a former cabinet member and spouse of a long-time Senator/presidential candidate, seems like quite a stretch. Just calling him "nationally visible" doesn't mean he was -- one keynote speech does not a famous person make. I still believe that this entire comment is unnecessary and un-illuminating. 69.250.29.200


 * Obviously the parallels are not exact. But Obama was and is nationally visible - just recently there's been a whole lot of speculation about whether he might run for Prez in 2008, he's got a new book out, lots of national press profiles, etc. - just look at the length of his Wikipedia article and compare it with any other freshman Senator's elected in 2004.  But, as the cite given here says, upon entering the Senate he took "the Hillary approach," which he himself confirmed by name later in the cite.  Clearly Hillary found an effective means of starting life in the Senate despite already being a celebrity of sorts, and Dole and Obama both imitated her approach.  That's worthy of mention.   Wasted Time R 13:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think that the fact that Obama had to be described in this article as "nationally visible" shows that the writer of this section knew he/she was reaching. There doesn't seem to have been any need to say "the 'nationally visible' Elizabeth Dole".  The lengthy Wikipedia article you mention on Obama does not say a word about him taking "the Hillary approach", so apparently those writing about him don't think it's that important -- yet it's important enough to mention here?  I don't think that holds up.  In five years this mention will look ridiculous; might as well remove it now.  69.250.29.200