Talk:Political positions of Hillary Clinton/Archive 1

Views on capital punishment
What about her views on crime and capital punishment?


 * Against it and for it, respectively.

Immigration and vouchers
Sen. Clinton slams GOP immigration bill Look at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/08/sen_clinton_slams_gop_immigration_bill/

Clinton raps vouchers Look at http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill224636775feb22,0,1447657.story

Look at http://www.swnewsherald.com/online_content/2006/03/032706ov_sob_hilary.php

Look at http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060406T220000-0500_102071_OBS_SENATOR_CLINTON_SAYS_IMMIGRATION_BILL_WOULD_MAKE_HER_A_CRIMINAL.asp

Hello! Iraq War?
Hello! Iraq War? Why is this not talked about here?


 * It's in the main article, under the U.S. Senator section.


 * It is buried in the Senator section with a lot of other stuff.It should be here, in her own words, so all can see clearly now.205.188.116.66 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-doubt
Why is it important to say, "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since"? Otherwise, would you think that she hasn't thought about it? Nbauman 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indicates tendency towards certitude versus capacity for self-doubt. Some people say, 'Once I make a decision, I never look back.'  Wasted Time R 11:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't indicate a capacity for self-doubt, it asserts a capacity for self-doubt. It's meaningless verbiage. Any politician, including GWB, could insert that in any speech about any controversial issue. It's a rhetorical throat-clearing. I've edited articles for publication, and I've gone over thousands of documents marked up for editing and seen how people revise them. This is the kind of phrase they edit out. This is what they call padding.


 * This article is a good job of collecting notes, but as an article, it's repetitive, poorly organized and too long. If you don't edit out phrases like this, it will never be readable. Nbauman 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See below.

Should this article have critical analysis?
This is just a collection of excerpts and direct paraphrases from Clinton's speeches, right? There's nothing critical, no analysis, right? Should there be? Nbauman 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you go back into the Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton archives (back from when all the subarticles were in the main article), you'll see the genesis of this section/subarticle. One of the main and most prolific HRC editors, User:LukeTH, felt strongly that politicians' articles should have a section that just presents their views, unadultered by commentary, analysis or controversy.  Hence the HRC articles overall have three parts: straight biography (factual description of her life), political views (as just explained), and controversies (where everything contentious would go, now contained in two subarticles).


 * Now, I'm not sure if this is really the best structure, and I'm not sure if any other political figure articles ever followed this schema. And LukeTH has since disappeared from Wikipedia.


 * If you accept User:LukeTH's position, it can't be NPOV. It's a collection of her own speeches, which for any politician is necessarily self-promotional.


 * Clinton has taken positions on controversial issues like single-payer health care, and convinced some people that she believes in single-payer, while brushing off single-payer advocates like PNHP. I continue to meet people who believe that she supports single-payer, when she has clearly stated that she rejects it. These are facts, not opinion. There's nothing about health care in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies So where do these important facts go?


 * If someone comes to Wikipedia for information about a candidate who asks them to vote for her, they're entitled to balanced information about her, not just her own promotional material. Nbauman 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But except for lots of quickly-corrected vandalism, the HRC articles have been remarkably stable for some period of time now, so I'm kind of loathe to re-architect them. Wasted Time R 19:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)material.


 * They've been stable because nobody has paid any attention to it. If nobody has worked on it, how is that a reason for not letting anybody work on it again?


 * Nobody's asking you to rearchitect it, I just wonder why you don't want to let anybody else rearchitect it.


 * At the very least, each section should have a summary introductory sentence, and you should have an overall summary at the top.


 * Right now, it's simply a collection of speech excerpts cut-and-pasted in. Do you want it to stay like that? Nbauman 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I'm going to revert my edits to the health care section and include her rejection of single payer -- which will make it more NPOV. Nbauman 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nbauman: Wasted Time R 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with you that this subarticle as currently constructed is largely self-promotional. (I won't get into whether that's NPOV or not by WP's definition, I don't especially care.) It's fine with me if you introduce more critical analysis into this article, and/or reduce some of the blather. (If you go way back into the main article history, you'll see that I yanked some really ridiculous motherhood-and-apple items out of the original incarnation of this.)
 * 2) As you say, if you do this, you will need to add an introduction at the top explaining what this article is and how it approaches dealing with HRC's political positions. We don't want this article to be a debating page about policy, for examples, as that's fruitless.
 * 3) Clinton's positions on hot-topic issues like single-payer do not belong in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, which is intended for allegations of malfeasance and the like. Issue positions are much better dealt with here.
 * 4) Contrary to what you seem to think, I did not revert your introduction of material on Clinton's stance on single-payer, I merely saw that you repeated the same point twice in your original edit and I removed one of them.
 * 5) I disagree that each of these sections needs a summary introductory sentence. I believe that forces her position on a given issue to be reduced to a single sentence sound byte, which is unwise. These sections aren't that long, in any case.
 * 6) I apologise if I gave you the impression that I don't want anyone else to work on these pages. That's not at all true. Your edits made some beginner mistakes, like introducing your name signature on the real page instead of the talk page. So it may look like your contribution was being edited severely, but that isn't really so.
 * 7) In terms of the big picture, I agree with you that the premise of this subarticle is weak in its current incarnation, and that a re-architecture can make things better. You are welcome to proceed.  I will edit things that I think are mistaken, but I will certainly not stand in the way of reshaping this.  Go for it!

OK, I returned my changes to the Health Care section. Nbauman 13:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up several months later — User:Nbauman hasn't done any rearchitecture of this article, and I am assuming further editing of the article should be done according to its original scheme, i.e. to present HRC's views without critical analysis or historical commentary. Wasted Time R 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Model for "Views" page
I think the Views and controversies concerning Juan Cole is a good model for this page. Agree? Disagree? Nbauman 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For the views part, ok (for controversies, no need, already have a page for that). Just make sure that the arguments presented center on something specific to HRC (like your single-payer example above), not something general (such as whether the Bush tax cuts were good or bad).  Wasted Time R 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Views of the Military
For those who have already done the research (or have ample time to do it), I would really love to see a section added to this list about her views of the military. Does she support increased spending and funding of our troops (bigger paychecks), downsizing and streamlining the military, plumping up the numbers in all branches even if its via a draft Mo 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. So do it! Wasted Time R 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't the order of the sections be alphabetical?
what is the current ordering schema? shouldn't the order of the sections be alphabetical? Jerimee 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The ordering is foreign policy then economic policy then social policy. That makes for smoother flow than alphabetical.   Wasted Time R 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also support an alphabetical ordering of the sections. "Smooth flow" aside, it seems to place importance of foreign policy over the others currently.  If the three subsections are still desired, we could use them (and actually implement them into the article's format so that they are clear to the reader) ordered alphabetically (economic policy, foreign policy, then social policy).  I will also alphabetize each section's various issues ("Flag Burning" before "Prayer in Schools," etc.)  An article's intended ordering or format should be clear and easily recognized by the reader. Italiavivi 19:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How did we decide that order would be economic policy then foreign policy then social policy. I myself would order things social, economic, foreign.  On what grounds does one change the order, or acknowledge the existing order? Jerimee 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * E - F - S, it's now alphabetical.  Wasted Time R 15:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protect Page?
Should maybe this page be protected now? Hillary_Rodham_Clinton's protection.

Diss?
Did she actually say "diss people"? lol.

This article format is starting to get popular now
Earlier I commented that other politicians' articles had not adopted this 'Political views of ...' subarticle strategy, but that is no longer correct. We now have So maybe there is merit in this approach after all. Wasted Time R 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Political views of Barack Obama
 * Political views of Joe Lieberman
 * Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs
 * a large Political views section in John McCain that will likely get split out


 * And Political views of Rudy Giuliani, too.  Wasted Time R 12:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mind reading in opening sentence
We have no way of knowing Senator Clinton's real views. I am confident that her remarks and votes express them. However we can not say that on WP. I don't know what else can be said in opening sentence. Steve Dufour 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

School Prayer
Anyone know if the section on school prayer is accurate? The linked source doesn't seem wholly reputable: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/HillarySchoolPrayer.html  [07:14, 19 February 2007 GameFreak42]


 * What's there is pretty much the standard position of American liberalism on religion in public schools, so I'd be surprised if she didn't hold this view. Wasted Time R 12:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Wasted Time R, we went through this before. Simply collecting statements by Hillary Clinton of her views, without reference to contrary viewpoints or critics, violates NPOV. And it violates NPOV for you to delete any reference to contrary viewpoints or critics.

This is simply pro-Hillary propaganda.

You can be sure that, during the campaign, candidates, probably including Hillary's staff, will have somebody monitoring WP and deleting everything critical of them. We know that Congressional staffers have already been editing WP entries, and for all we know, one of the participants on this article is being paid by the Clinton campaign.

If we don't enforce NPOV, they'll be able to turn WP into campaign propaganda.

Why do you think this entry has an exception to NPOV?Nbauman 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your addition (which by the way was sloppy - you put it in the wrong chrono sequence and repeated some points already made in that section) contained HRC's quote that if anyone disagrees with her stance regarding her October 2002 vote, they should support some other candidate. So why bother to quote a letters writer and an op-ed writer who say they disagree with her?  Obviously some people will, she's acknowledging that.  In other words, this particular statement of hers needs no balancing or contrary viewpoint - she provided it herself.   Wasted Time R 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that Political_views_of_Barack_Obama doesn't contain any rebuttal of his position.  Wasted Time R 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Or John_McCain of his. Wasted Time R 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another way of looking at this regarding Political Views articles is, does a politician's statement clearly reflect an operational policy position? For example, if Pol A says "I consider Roe v. Wade correctly decided and do not want it overturned", that's very clear. There's no need to debate the merits of Roe v. Wade here or to include all the other views on Roe v. Wade; that would take forever and accomplish nothing. If however Pol A says "I think abortion is a national tragedy and government should do what it can to minimize its occurrence", well, what does that mean? Could be a variety of things, and some critical analysis or explication on this page would be merited. Wasted Time R 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

 * It appears that a number of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
 * There is a discussion of the merits of changing the name of Political views of Mitt Romney to Political positions of Mitt Romney, or, depending on how the conversation develops, some other name.
 * In case you're interested, go to  Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney.
 * The conversation there might influence other "Political views" articles.
 * -- Yellowdesk 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Crime
The following views of Clinton are not listed on this article.


 * Clinton believes in the use of Drug Courts to address drug abuse problems.


 * Clinton supports three-strikes laws.

—Christopher Mann McKay 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not listed in the article because you put them here instead of there.  Wasted Time R 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added this info under the crime section —Christopher Mann McKay 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

ACLU: Civil Rights

 * "Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record."

—Christopher Mann McKay 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not crazy about these kinds of interest group ratings. I'd rather see her views on the underlying issues or votes.   Wasted Time R 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should this information not be listed then? —Christopher Mann McKay 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you can, but make sure there's a cite with it that goes back to the ACLU ranking itself, so that readers can see what went into it. Wasted Time R 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Content that was removed
I haven't read the book, I got the source from the review of the book,
 * "Clinton has stated that she believes homosexuality is morally wrong. "

I just looked on my local library web site and they have the book in stock, so I am going to pick it up and find the page numbers. Shouldn't take more then a day or two. —Christopher Mann McKay 08:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. But two points for now:  The Berkeleyan book review says that Sheehy says that "Hillary Clinton ... believes homosexuality is not natural", which is very different from saying that it is immoral.  (One is essentially a biological argument, which may in itself be faulty, while the other is a value judgement.)  But let's see what the book actually says.  And you inserted her recent "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude" remark into the beginning of the section, when it is already included (along with her subsequent backtrackings) later in the section (which is organized chronologically).  Please read the whole section first!   Wasted Time R 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember reading something very religious in this article earlier this year, either dealing with abortion or capital punishment. The content on the Wiki page had a reference link to a Christian, political website that included a very large quote from Hillary talking about "what God says/wants" regarding the issue.  What happened to this content? BareAss 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't remember this. You'll have to start at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton&action=history and search for it yourself.   Wasted Time R 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Views on Education
Can someone add her views on Education in general? I think most people think No Child Left Behind is a disaster and are looking for some answers 69.143.11.232 03:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a section, but her views on NCLB are confusing: she writes on her Senate page that she is in support of it and the only problem is lack of funding, but in speeches she has said the entire principle of judging schools by testing is ruining creativity and causing problems. I'm not sure what she thinks on the issue.--Gloriamarie 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what's happening here is that NCLB is up for renewal by Congress this year (I've added brief wording to the article to say so). Thus even if Congressional members support NCLB overall, they are criticizing parts of it they don't like, in hopes of changing it.  So for example, some people want standardized tests done in some years, not every year, and others want some assurance that curriculums won't be slavishly tied to tests.   We can watch for more specific statements from HRC on what she wants ... Wasted Time R 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In a recent push by Clinton to distance herself from the other candidates, she is touting an education program for pre-kindergartens. Moreover, Clinton has proposed a $10 billion program for pre-K education that will address the 80% of children who are not enrolled in such programs. Perhaps this could be added un hte education section or the political positions section ...References: (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2007/05/22/hillary.aspx) + (http://hillaryoversee.blogspot.com/2007/12/fact-sheet-universal-pre-k.html) ... (Oxfordden (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC))


 * I see you've already added this yourself, which is great. There is much that can be added or improved about this article.  Please note however that as of right now the cite template use was botched ... check the error messages in the References section.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gentle persuasion. I think I've fixed it. Given more time, I'll become a 'real' editor and add some more substance. (Oxfordden (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Net Neutrality is an economic policy
Net neutrality is an economic policy; it's not clear why it was removed, although an explanation of why it is an economic policy might be useful. Ante lan  talk  00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything that deals with the intersection of government policy and market forces can certainly be considered economic policy. Wasted Time R 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It can be seen as an economic policy, but I moved it to a Technology section. It's more appropriate there. Other policies, like abortion, also have large economic effects but they are not necessarily strictly economic policies.--Gloriamarie 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Makes more sense for a visitor, too. Thanks for the clarification. (Note: I originally saw the article before the section had been put back in, so I thought it was just deleted.)  Ante  lan  talk  00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Global warming
There is literally nothing, zilch, 0 here about Clinton's position on global warming. Shouldn't something be added Worldthoughts 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Go ahead and do it.  Wasted Time R 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

LGBT section
[87] is broken. --Rotorius.kool 03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Socialism
No mention that her idealism is that. But then she is fooling many people. I could give many examples, but don't have the time. She is for redistribution of wealth, from those who produce, to those who don't develop skills to earn income. Scottit 68.180.38.41 06:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is already dealt with in Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton and especially Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton; if you ever find the time, you could try adding some cited evidence from your many examples to those sections. Wasted Time R 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Reform
Does anyone have information to add to the article regarding a stance on campaign finance reform? If so, please do. Creationlaw 18:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now done. Wasted Time R 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Free-market capitalism
I made this change because the entire quote should be put up front instead of over-blowing her initial sentence. Also, I don't see how you could construe "The market is the driving force behind our prosperity, our freedom in so many respects to make our lives our own" as "dislike". In any case, such an inference should have a citation. johnpseudo 19:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proseline
A lot of content under the Foreign Policy section reads like Proseline, the biggest violator being the Iraq war section. This can easily be summed up to make her views and positions much more clear. --Rhykin 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have been able to discern a coherent underlying philosophy that she has about foreign policy, or a coherent invariant approach that she has had about the Iraq War for five years, then feel free to put that in the article. Wasted Time R 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor quality
This article emphasized on what usually speaks in news and don't contains more important issues which is rarely covered in news. When I read an article of Clinton in Foreign affairs, I found that this article haven't covered many important issues such as dealing with EU, China and Russia. Even in cases which has been covered like Iran, the quality is poor. Also you can use specific words which are common in foreign relation such as Containment and engagement policies. In brief, please try to write an encyclopedic article instead of gathering of news and quotations.-- Seyyed(t-c) 11:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you. So please start writing!  That's how it works here.  Wasted Time R 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, but I don't have enough time. Also I'm not in the U.S. so can work better than me, if you use more professionals sources like Foreign Affairs.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?
Some parts of this article seem to have a mildly anti-Hillary theme. Mainly, the following sentence:

"She favors deploying U.S. forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north, to engage in targeted operations against al-Qaeda, and to train and equip Iraqi forces. In supporting significant U.S. troop levels in Iraq for the indefinite future, Clinton's position is quite close to that of the Iraq Study Group convened by President Bush.[63]"

which seems to imply that her views on Iraq are close to that of President Bush. No mention is made of the fact that many of the Irag Study Group's recommendations, such as large troop redeployments, have not been implemented by President Bush. Additionally, the usage of "significant" with regards to troop levels is a weasel word here; the estimated 5,000 remaining troops vs. a current level of 160,000 may be considered significant by some, and not by others. The actual numbers should be used instead.

Additionally, looking at the articles of other candidates such as Obama and Edwards, no list of statements over time is presented which may or may not attempt to show changes in policy or views. The articles on other candidates simply state what their positions on current issues are, mainly with regards to the 2008 presidential election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.121.94 (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I took out the "convened by President Bush" clause, you are right that that is misleading. I left in the "significant" modifier because the source used here makes no mention of troop levels, 5,000 or otherwise, and those three goals would require significant ongoing involvement, especially if AQI rebounds post-current-surge.  Tracing evolution of views over time of a political figure is an appropriate role for these "Political positions of ..." articles and is done for other candidates, see for example Political_positions_of_Rudy_Giuliani or Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Contrary to the claim of 67.49.121.94, other "positions" articles do show changing positions over time, and those that do not should. There's no point in parroting the current platform espoused by a candidate: a context of past "positions" is essential, and it is not POV to have a well sourced article describing the changes in a candidate's statements, positions, views and actions.  What better place is there to understand the development and changes in a politicians actions and words than to talk about their political positions in historical context of their lives over time than here in the political positions article?  Take a look, for example, at  Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney, which is no model, but is an example of an attempt. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I realize that it's probably the articles that are lacking in past statements that are in error. I did want to highlight one other possible NPOV issue: the section about Gov. Spitzer's Drivers License plan might be off a bit, as it says that in the Drexel academy debate, Clinton "committed to the plan" and then "recanted two minutes later." Perhaps her actual quotes should be included instead (i.e. "it makes a lot of sense") so people can decide for themselves what exactly she was commiting to. Dthx1138 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Dthx1138

ref 99
When I clicked on reference #99, I got a message which read, "We're sorry.

The article you've requested is no longer available." I am not totally sure how to remove a reference from a paper, can someone please do this for me? Thanks, --Megalodon99 (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ap.google is a lousy citation base. I've replaced the dud link with some citeneeded flags; this particular transient proposal isn't worth it for me to dig them up for.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taxes
Can any discussion on political positions be complete with discussing taxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloaken (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's touched on under Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton. Wasted Time R 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Children
As well as needing sources, because of the content of the section, it is better fit under Fiscal Policies. Hobbitguy (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of these issues operate at the intersection of two or more top-level categorizations (immigration, for example, has social, economic, and foreign implications). I wouldn't worry too much

about which one it's in. People naturally think of 'children' as a social issue, so that's the one it was put in. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Please pay attention to this edition. Clinton has accused Iran for "nuclear weapons program, sponsorship of terrorism, as well as supporting Middle East peace, and playing a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq". But some of them are doubtful. In some other cases like "sponsorship of terrorism" there is completely different viewpoint between Iran and US. Iran recognizes Hezbollah as a liberation movement while US considers it as a terrorist organization. Therefor we shouldn't write the article as if these are some facts.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fiscal Policy
Can someone clean up this line?

"On the other hand, she has advocated for federal spending that advocates of less government spending deem nonessential, such as funding a museum commemorating the Woodstock Music Festival."

I have no idea what that means. Did she support nonessential funding, of support less government spending. Did she also directly come out and say she supports that museum, or is that just one of the items that happened to sneak by without her knowing, she voted, ergo she supports it? 67.132.206.254 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it to clarify what the news articles reported. I think it makes sense now.  Dgf32 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Security vs. human rights
This section seems to be taken somewhat out of context. The referenced debate transcript suggests Clinton was speaking about human rights in Pakistan. The way things are currently referenced, her statement could easily be construed as her feeling national security outweighs human rights in the United States. This does not seem to be her intent (again, reference the debate transcript), and should probably be changed in order to reflect the more nuanced view she presents in the context of Chris Dodd's previous comments in the debate. --64.142.82.29 (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Handguns section
The section about gun control has a statement, "During the time period referenced by Clinton, handguns accounted for over 2/3 of firearm mortalities in the US.[92]" Though it somewhat serves as a rebuttal (?) to Clinton's claims, it doesn't really have a reason for being in an article about her views, and it is somewhat criticism. Maybe someone else can illuminate the reasoning surrounding this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.10.117 (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably there because the HRC quote used above it was cherry-picked to try to argue the issue, not illustrate her view, and someone wanted to counterbalance it. It's okay with me if you toss both and start over.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Compared to Bill
If anyone has the time on this one, I'd love to see how her positions compare to those of her husband.--Loodog (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't really matter. She's her own person, her own senator, her own candidate.  In addition, circumstances and contexts have changed, why is why is often fruitless to try to compare Bush 41 and Bush 43's positions as well.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Iraq Study Group
I'm altering the line referring to her similarities to the Iraq Study Group. It implies that the focus of Clinton's strategy is to maintain troops in Iraq, which is misleading. The Iraq Study Group recommended troop redeployments, and suggested that all combat bridages be removed by first quarter, 2008 (i.e. now). Clinton has clearly stated she would begin withdrawing troops immediately upon taking office. Dthx1138 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Dtordini

Iran
The following paragraph states that Clinton has the "toughest stance against Iran," referring to her vote on the non-binding resolution to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. However, the rest of her positions, such as not allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon, taking "no option" off the table including military action, are not different from her Democratic opponents such as Barack Obama. Do I have a consensus edit this?

On the other hand she has the toughest stance among Democrate candidates against Iran.[citation needed] she supports UN sanctions on Iran, and has said that Iran should not be allowed possession of a nuclear weapon.[32] She has clarified at a February 2007 dinner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee(AIPAC) that "no option can be taken off the table", including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force, when dealing with the country.[53] She has said in a speech at Princeton that a nuclear Iran would be a threat to Israel.[32] In the Princeton speech, Clinton said the US "cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."[54] Dthx1138 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Dtordini

Videogames
I read in the Economist that she wants to outlaw videogames. Is this true?Cameron Nedland (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, she's going to outlaw every single one of them, and send all transgressors to the Halo Gulag. Actually, if you look in the Table of Contents for this article, you'll see a section on video games.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, thanks.Cameron Nedland (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding Medical Marijuana/Marijuana Decriminalization section
I'm new to Wikipedia and have never contributed to an article or discussion up to this point, so I was hoping for some validation on an issue I have with one of the sections. In the Medical Marijuana/Marijuana Decriminalization section it states Unlike her main opponent, Barack Obama, Clinton opposes decriminalization of marijuana.[142] It is my understanding that this article is supposed to be a description of HRC's political positions, not a comparison with other candidates' positions. Furthermore, there seems to be a discrepency here because in the article Political Positions of Barack Obama it says that Obama has supported decriminalization but later revised his view, claiming an uncertainty over the definition of decriminalization.

Would it be fair to assert that the portion of the sentence saying Unlike her main opponent, Barack Obama, should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.151.152 (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The article should only describe her positions, not those of others.  Both the "Like all Democratic candidates" and the "Unlike her main opponent" should be removed.  Go ahead and do so.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Energy policy
The article is incorrect to state that Clinton has no position on nuclear power.

I have added the following to the article:

At a February 18, 2007 campaign rally in Columbia, South Carolina, Clinton stated, "I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution... We get about 20% of our energy from nuclear power in our country... other countries like France get, you know, much much more, so we do have to look at it because it doesn't put greenhouse gas emissions into the air." 

The reason that I used youtube as my source is because the mainstream media is biased against nuclear power, and would never publish such a quote from Clinton.

My main point here is that Clinton does have a position on nuclear power, and it should be in the article.

Someone had erased most of the quote, which ended up rendering it meaningless. So I restored it.

I hope that people will stop censoring this.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Clinton subsequently said at the July 2007 YouTube debate that she was agnostic on nuclear power. I've included that as well.  Your assertions about "mainstream media bias" are groundless in this case; if Clinton said today that nuclear power is the answer to all our energy problems and she should start building plants immediately, I guarantee tomorrow's papers would cover it.  But she hasn't said that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to have both quotes in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"See also" link to Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton from Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
This isn't right. Can we either take the link off of the Obama positions page to the HClinton page, or else have a returning link to the Obama page from the HClinton page? I believe the former would be the most appropriate action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.70.82 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There used to be one from here to there, but it was removed. The pages should not link to each other.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? From a navigation standpoint it makes sense if one wants to compare their positions. Both pages as well as similar pages for other candidates running for president should all be contained in the United States presidential election, 2008 box at the bottom. Their positions are relevant to the election and should thus be included. CoW mAnX (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Accountability and Tansparancy in government
During the Bush administration there has been so much secrecy that it has become almost impossible to know what the truth is or even how to ask intelligent questions regarding the truth. I wish to know more about Hillary's position on the Freedom of Information act and how she intends to demonstrate accountability and how she intends to insure transparancy in government.Muddea (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC). Muddea


 * Research it and add it yourself, that's how this works. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Individual mandates
I added a reference to this article about the possible unconstitutionality of individual mandates to purchase health insurance from private companies. I have also added it to the Obama page, as he his plan has mandates too (though not as many).Jewpiterjones (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Boycott of Chinese Olympics
This seems like a story that is getting some traction, but I don't want to put undue weight on it. What are everyone's thoughts about it being included here? Arnabdas (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, include it. It's a non-trivial issue, and the organization of this article makes it easy for readers to find what they are interested in and ignore the rest.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support its inclusion. Happyme22 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Metric System
What is Hillary's position regarding the metric system? [17:55, 19 April 2008 216.68.138.138]


 * Why don't you research it and add it? Wasted Time R (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

iran
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1 article contains some very aggressive statements concerning iran, including the following quote:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

i think this could be worked into the article somehow, any ideas? 128.59.145.123 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. There's already a section on Iran, add it to that.  Just be sure you quote her in full context of whatever point she was making.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

foreign policy
The start of foreign policy has this introduction: "Senator Clinton has been characterized by The Washington Post as having taken a generally "hawkish" stance on foreign policy since entering office" This intro has a "read no further" attitude to it that bothers me. Would anyone object to me deleting it? A lot of this sections don't have or need intros and I feel that applies here, it sets the rest of the section up to be judged in a certain light instead of letting the reader interpret her foreign policy views on their own. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's borderline. I'm okay if it stays or goes.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "hillaryschoice" :
 * "Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care" :
 * / The Reformer and the Gadfly Agree on Health Care
 * "nys11807" :
 * / The Reformer and the Gadfly Agree on Health Care
 * "nys11807" :
 * "nys11807" :