Candidate Challenge: Hillary Clinton
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Thursday, November 15th, 2007
Right now Senator Hillary Clinton is on stage at the CNN Democratic Debate, but earlier she took time to become the latest presidential candidate to respond to the Why Tuesday? Candidate Challenge. That brings the total number of candidates to respond and discuss the state of our voting system to 13 out of 16! Senator Clinton’s plan for election reform is largely based on the Count Every Vote Act, which she introduced to Congress.
Senator Clinton says she believes Election Day should be a National Holiday, she wants a rejection of “extreme” voter ID requirements and a specific criteria for the number of voting machines per precinct, and a federal program for training poll workers, amongst other proposals. You can read all the details of S.804, her bill, courtesy of Thomas.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
January 1st, 2008 at 12:27 am
While this speech was well done and i respect the senator for her outspoken stance on Voter Reform, i find candidate interviews to be more meaningful and interesting. I much rather see an interview than a scripted speech.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:37 am
I agree with Miguel. I also think that interviews allow the candidate to respond in a more spontaneous way, where perhaps his (or her) true beliefs have more chance to be observed. Also, independently of which method of knowing the candidate’s stance on a point, I think it should be the same. I don’t think it is fair to allow one candidate to prepare its speech on the issue, and interviewing another without warning.
January 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
@ Phil & Miguel: Thanks for your input. We gave each candidate the option to submit a formal to-camera response to the Candidate Challenge. The candidates that didn’t respond we tracked down and interviewed on the spot. That is… the candidates that would talk to us… because not everyone would.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I respect the stance that an interview would appear “more human” (excuse me for paraphrasing your position).
However, I am very pleased that she took the time to fully formulate a thoughtful response that directly and cohesively answers the questions put forth by this group.
This is what you want in a President. Though I am not a centrist Democrat, I am discouraged at people’s inclination to vote based on personality. We are not electing a somebody to be our buddy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Blame it on the voting machine. This is a very technocratic analysis.
Hillary, what about campaign funding? In the US you buy your votes by raising money. Isn’t that an issue? What about lobbys and their overbearing power and influence? No mention of it.