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?

i agree, smedley [or, smokers totally saved our planet in 1983]

so this conversation happened [via text, so i have evidence and possibly so does the canadian government and the nsa].

dom and i were trying to settle our mutual nerves about tomorrow night's conversion screening, remembering that we've made a fine little film that people should see. which is just about exactly what dom had said when i responded thusly:

me :: i agree smedley. [pauses for a moment] did you get that here?

dom :: no?

me :: the aliens who were looking at earth and then decided it wasn't worth bothering with because people smoked even though it was bad for them?
come to think of it, that might mean that smokers prevented an alien invasion in the seventies.

dom :: what ?!?!?

me :: i've had wine and very little food. [pause] but the alien thing was real. [pause.] well, real on tv.

dom :: please eat something.

of course, i was wrong. the ad in question ran in 1983. this is the part where i would triumphantly embed the ad from youtube, except that the governmen…

it continues... [part one]

so we're back at it with the democratic debates. last night saw cnn take their first crack at presenting ten candidates on one stage after msnbc led the charge last month. a lot of people were critical of the first debate because it seemed there were moments when moderators got such tunnel vision about keeping things moving that they stopped thinking about what was happening on stage. [the prime example being kamala harris having to insist that she be allowed to speak on the issue of racism, being the only person of colour on stage.] the other problem that many identified was that the time given to candidates wasn't even close to equal. i feel like cnn wasn't a lot better with the former, although they avoided any serious gaffes, and that they did an excellent job of fixing the latter. [that said, some of the outlying candidates might be wishing they hadn't had as much time as they did.] as with last time, i'll start off with a few general observations.

how importa…

white trash

yes, my lovelies, i have returned from the dead, at least for the time it takes me to write this post. this is not just another piece of observational drivel about how i haven't been taking care of the blog lately, although i clearly haven't. on that front, though, the principal cause of my absence has actually been due to me trying to get another, somewhat related project, off the ground. unfortunately, that project has met with some frustrating delays which means that anyone who follows this blog [perhaps there are still a few of you who haven't entirely given up] would understandably be left with the impression that i'd simply forsaken more like space to marvel at the complexity of my own belly button lint. [it's possible you had that impression even before i disappeared.]

ok, enough with that. i have a subject i wanted to discuss with you, in the sense that i will want and encourage you to respond with questions, concerns and criticism in the comments or by em…