The following is the fourth post in my Questions Reporters Should Ask series. My goal for the series is to highlight questions that, to my mind and to the best of my research, the press has not asked (or at least not asked often or insistently enough) of, in this case, the Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton. I’ll be posing questions for other candidates going forward. Next up: John McCain.
Questions for Hillary Clinton
1. Richard Holbrooke, one of your chief foreign policy supporters, wrote in 2005 that the “Global War on Terror” “is not an accurate description of America’s enemy or of what we are engaged in.” But you use the term “war on terror.” Why?
2. Do you propose to preserve American bases in Iraq?
3. Are you prepared to renounce the Bush Doctrine, which permits preventive war? If the answer is “yes,” how do you square that with your vote to brand Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist organization,” and your refusal to take military action against Iran “off the table”?
4. In 1999, your husband withdrew the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty from Senate consideration in the belief that the Senate would not vote to ratify it by the necessary two-thirds vote. Do you anticipate being able to work with the Senate to pass such a treaty, or indeed any arms control treaty? How would you persuade dissenters?
5. Which of the Bush administration’s privacy-invading and government secrecy measures do you reject?
6. To what extent should the money saved by phasing out American combat operations in Iraq be used to reduce the deficit, and to what extent should it be used for creating jobs, environmentally sensible investments, and social programs?
7. One of your chief economic advisers, Gene Sperling, has written that “there are goals—banning child labor in our factories; preventing racial, religious, and gender discrimination in the workforce—that require direct intervention in the market regardless of their efficiency or economic impact.” Is government support for the organizing of unions among the “direct interventions” you favor?
8. Do you believe that the protection of drug company patents is a responsibility of the federal government?
Research assistance by Michael Meyer
So, Hillary should be asked if protecting drug company patents should be a function of government?
Such an inartfully worded question can't be expected to elicit a meaningful response. Patents are provided by governments, so are you questioning whether drug companies, but not other kinds of companies, should be permitted to have patents? Are you asking if the patent system should be abolished? Or, are you suggest that limits on the time period of patents should be changed?
Posted by LongTimeNYT reader
on Mon 21 Jan 2008 at 05:09 PM
I would suggest that Senator Clinton be asked what she intends to do with the Bush E.O. 13233 on access to presidential (and vice-presidential) records -- and why she is not co-sponsoring S.886 (the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007). For the record, Senator Obama is a co-sponsor. She and former President Clinton both assert a desire for public access to the records of his administration, but she has yet to support legislation to address the severe restrictions on public access created by the E.O.
Posted by patricemcd
on Mon 21 Jan 2008 at 06:40 PM
"Which of the Bush administration’s privacy-invading and government secrecy measures do you reject?" Now THERE is a "fair, balanced" question for you from one of CJR's finest self-proclaimed "watchdogs" of "professional journalism"!.
Why not this one? "Sen. Clinton, how will you deal with Chimpy's legacy of Satanism and puppy-killing?"
Posted by padikiller
on Mon 21 Jan 2008 at 06:55 PM
From today's Wash Post:
For years, the Bush administration has relied on an inadequate archiving system for storing the millions of e-mails sent through White House servers, despite court orders and statutes requiring the preservation of such records, according to documents and technical experts.
President Bush's White House early on scrapped a custom archiving system that the Clinton administration had adopted under a federal court order. From 2001 to 2003, the Bush White House also recorded over computer backup tapes that provided a last line of defense for preserving e-mails, even though a similar practice landed the Clinton administration in legal trouble.
As a result, several years' worth of electronic communication may have been lost, potentially including e-mails documenting administration actions in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Posted by Matt
on Tue 22 Jan 2008 at 04:45 PM