Hillary Clinton on Policy…Wiki…

Wikipedia has a good piece on how the probable 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee feels about a host of issues…

As described by herself….

On July 23, 2007, Hillary Clinton described her own political philosophy, in a CNN/YouTube Democratic primary debate; in response to the question of whether she would describe herself as a liberal, she said that: “I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family. So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”

As described by others….
H. A. Goodman of The Huffington Post described Hillary Clinton as “neither a liberal, nor a true conservative. Rather, she’s an electable Democratic candidate who leans to the right. She’s the Democratic version of Mitt Romney. President Hillary Clinton will be a conservative Barack Obama and a somewhat liberal George Bush.”

Chris Matthews of Hardball with Chris Matthews described Hillary Clinton as “more of a conservative in a sense of more of a traditional politician from the center, center.”

The Wiki piece goes on to list specific policy positions HERE.

image…casino.org

Share on Facebook

10 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton on Policy…Wiki…”

  1. No James, did you read what you posted? She declined to take a position on it as Secretary of State (as she should have done). Stop with the Wiki please – it isn’t always accurate. How about researching her campaign webpage – that might be a better source of accurate information.

  2. Although I’m not so active now, I have over 10,000 edits on Wikipedia (under a different handle).

    In the process, you learn some of Wikipedia’s very great strengths but also some of its inherent weaknesses.

    Every assertion in Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up by a “Reliable Source” with a reference in the footnotes. It’s of course far better to use that source (be it an original document, a scholarly work or an established periodical such as Nature or The New York Times) than the second-hand summary or paraphrase in Wikipedia.

    One of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars is against Original Research, and there’s an active band of volunteer editors who search out and suppress any examples of it. So by itself Wikipedia is not really a source for anything, just an informative and very handy (in fact often indispensable) tool.

  3. I fact she DID support it
    Had to as Sec of State
    Her actual reason given for no comment is she was involved in the process
    I gave Wiki AND another link
    I will continue to give Wiki
    As the easiest reference
    And sure they can be biased
    No one here seems to have taken the time or effort to go to her site
    Of course everyone here says they don’t trust her anyways
    Does that mean they’ll trust her site more?

  4. I confess that I also use Wiki as I don’t have the time always to do more thorough research. But even if I had a research job, I would still likely use it to some extent, but I would not rely exclusively on it.

  5. It isn’t without its merits, but it can be very, very wrong because, as Dave points out, it can be edited by folks that may have an agenda. I use it for historical reference tons – I referred to it today on something from Wolf Hall. But, I think it is less than reliable when trying to make a political point since it can be very biased.

  6. Yes, I also use it for historical reference ,but I agree it is not an accurate source for many contemporary political players or issues.

  7. Understood
    For me it just a way to get a fast handle on something….
    There ARE footnotes…
    I will try to additional links when I can here when I use it…

Comments are closed.