Skip to main content

questions someone needs to ask hillary clinton

part of the problem with following politics of any kind is having to watch hours of television interviews, desperately waiting to see one or two particular questions asked and just never having it happen.

all candidates seem to get away with softball questions, or avoiding something that should be obvious. there are candidates who get a free ride from certain networks, but there are some who manage to slide by just because people seem to miss the important things in their policies or history. 

i feel like hillary clinton is both lucky and unlucky in this regard, because too many reporters are obsessed with what are really sideshow issues. is there really any point to asking a candidate why they are trustworthy when voters don't think she is? instead, it would make sense to ask her tough questions but ones where her answers would give meaningful insight into her character and her motivations. 

so here are a few questions that i think i'd like to hear the former first lady, senator and secretary of state answer:

1. you have been a strong supporter of the affordable care act, which has resulted in millions of americans getting coverage when they could not afford it before. given that america lags behind other countries in public health access, do you support a gradual transition to single payer healthcare, or do you think that the public/ private hybrid will be sufficient to meet america's needs?

2. you were a major proponent of intervening in libya and creating the conditions for regime change. in the time since the death of colonel ghadaffi, libya has become another highly unstable nation vulnerable to terrorist groups. why did you support a policy of intervention when such policies have proven so problematic in other countries? 

3. as president, would you refer a question to the supreme court to have them overturn the citizens united ruling?

4. you are routinely linked to your husband's policies from his time as president by people who assume that you agreed with all of them. which, if any decisions would you have made differently?

5. while I generally agree with senator sanders that "nobody cares about your damn emails", there are some concerns beyond their content. what precautions did you take to ensure that these messages would be made available to the government [and ultimately to the american people] for scrutiny and archiving? 

those are just a few questions that i think could start a much more meaningful conversation about her candidacy, even if it is little late getting started. 

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…