Lady Clinton
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Throughout the ages, life has been but an allegory for the Shakespearean drama Macbeth. When people observe the strength of a wedded woman, they wonder. Might she be the spouse behind the man? Couples whose passion for power burns brightly may be reminiscent of those who perform in the tragedy played out on many a theatre stage. A pair, married partners, in the present, may be as characters in a revival of the this best-known of William Shakespeare's tragic productions. The tale, written in centuries long past, often evokes reverie of today's truths. Only the characters differ.
If this dramatic piece, were to be performed today, possibly, Hillary and Bill Clinton would be cast as the main characters. The two are slightly more modern, and a bit less morose than the actors in years gone by.
Pray tell or protest; Hillary Clinton and husband Bill have captivated an audience. Spectators ruminate on what is no longer a rumor. The Clinton family, who may have temporarily surrendered or suspended a campaign for the White House, will stand center-stage throughout the Democratic Convention. Indeed, Barack Obama, the man many believed was cast in most powerful role in this play, may have learned what others never doubted, the mesmeric Clintons never go away.
This couple can coerce concessions and compel compromise. The two can kill with kindness or cause carnage with finesse. History harkens back. Bill and Hill have slain mighty dragons. They also enthusiastically destroyed darlings. It seems the desire for absolute power invites this prominent pair to act with intent.
About a decade ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton persuaded the American public of her purity when she stood by her man. Not long after, she charmed citizens of New York State. Lady Clinton convinced her constituency she was not a carpetbagger. As she planned for a Presidential campaign, the supposed fragile female showed a hesitant public, she, Hillary could stand strong with the soldiers. Now, several say the New York Senator has served admirably on the Hill.
Some may ask, what of Bill. Did the former President not bring us peace and prosperity, supporters inquire? In her stump speeches, Lady Clinton avows, indeed he did, she did. They did it together. The duo, brought this country back from debt and a deficit too great to fathom. Surely, this couple is not corrupt, or coercive. They have given the audience, Americans a reason to believe that they are altruistic.
Softly swayed by seemingly selfless actions, those charmed by the Clinton charisma do not recall that the Clintons helped to create the financial debacle the electorate now experiences. An audience content with celebrity, dazzled by a drama, and grateful for fiscal favors sees no reason to reflect upon what might have been had the Clintons not repealed the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company Acts.
Today, there is no time to ponder in retrospect. The play, even a revival is new. The time is now. Hence, observers only wish to move on. Those who watch this most recent reenactment of Macbeth might muse; just as the beloved monarch King Duncan was murdered, metaphorically, Barack Obama has been essentially eliminated. What was to be his climatic performance, will be but a whisper in the wind as Lady Clinton, her husband Bill, and child Chelsea deliver their lines. Truly, what is scheduled to occur could be classified as theatre of the absurd.
Granted, the Presidential hopeful may naively believe he chose to do as he did, However, those who have been victim to the marvels of a magnificent manipulator and her husband know, the presumptive nominee has been played for the fool. Senator Obama was deceived into thinking he prevailed. In truth, Barack Obama is victorious in name only.
We know not how long his triumph will last. Lest the audience forget. This theatrical production is as it has been since the primaries began. It is a tragedy. Barack Obama is but a pawn in this drama. Lady Clinton was and is confident; the Illinois Senator can be moved and maneuvered!
The wondrous woman from New York understood this from the first. She did her research. Hillary Rodham read Barack Obama's most recent book, the Audacity of Hope. . As she perused page after page, the studied First Lady Clinton could not contain her excitement.. Senator Clinton saw more than she could wish for. Her rival, the man who could deprive her of her dreams admired her husband. Even more helpful, Senator Barack Obama genuinely thought well of her.
In his prose, Barack Obama often spoke highly of the pair. When Mister Obama spoke of either of the Clintons, he was complimentary. Indeed, Lady Macbeth, or the former First Lady Clinton had the presumptive nominee in her clutches before she even began to coddle a relationship. Hillary recognized, she could use his adulation of her, and her husband, to her advantage, and so she has.
The woman, who on rare occasions was "too full of the milk of kindness" knew that in her fervor for supremacy, she could call for dark forces to "unsex" her and fill her with "direst cruelty." Hillary Clinton acknowledged that if she felt it necessary to gain control, she could. She would do whatever needed to be done. The former First Lady could be wily, clever, and keenly manipulative. Barack Obama, she grasped before the Presidential campaign began, would be putty in her hands. It was there, in print, as if etched in blood. Deeply felt veneration cannot be easily washed away. This benevolent soul, Senator Obama, would not be a brutal opponent. He could not crush the Clintons. Barack Obama had too much respect for the twosome.
Hillary Clinton understood long before the final days of her Presidential bid. What most thought a loss for the Clintons, was in some regards, a gain. Indeed, as Hillary Rodham would reflect further, she determined, her defeat might be a gift. The public and Presidential hopeful Barack Obama might feel great compassion for the woman who almost won.
In fact, during a debate Barack Obama smiled and said he expected Hillary Clinton would be among his advisors. Some thought he had her in his grips. However, it was then Hillary knew, with greater certainty; the Illinois Senator could be played like a violin, or a harp cradled gently between her thighs.
The former First Lady saw his weaknesses, and she, as a master at manipulation, could and would use the vulnerabilities Senator Obama exposed over and over again..
She did so, even on that night. The American audience may remember. It was Scene One, Act Two, when Lady Clinton responded to the remark that she might serve as his counsel. Seemingly stunned, Hillary smiled. She laughed with a lilt in her voice. Her face may not have revealed the joy in her revelation. Hillary Clinton knew, she could, and would conquer. She, with the help of Bill could reduce her rival to tears, or destroy his will to dominate. In her heart, Hillary Rodham was sure she would survive, and perchance be President. Pooh-pooh the naysayer. The Clintons would prevail, of this the Lady was convinced.
When Bill expressed his distress, and asked what if they did not succeed in their attempts to demoralize and destroy the opposition, Obama, the former First spouse reassured her husband. She said, to his inquiry of what if were to fail, "We fail! But screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we'll not fail . . . What cannot you and I perform upon the unguarded Duncan or Obama?" A man unaware is always defenseless.
The frailty of faith found in the exaltation expressed by Barack Obama whenever he spoke of the Clintons helped Hillary to achieve her success, or at least hold the possibility in her hand. Today, former First Lady Clinton is assured her name will be placed in nomination on the floor at the Democratic Convention. Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton may secure the votes necessary to anoint her as the Democratic Party's nominee.
For years, the talk has been telling. "She is stronger, more ruthless, and more ambitious than her husband. Women, the play implies, can be as ambitious, and cruel as men. Yet, social constraints deny the feminine among us the means to pursue aspirations on their own. Perchance that is why initially Hillary Clinton called upon her husband to help her campaign. She needed Bill, or thought she did. Then, in New Hampshire, she found her voice. Once the New York Senator found herself, and realized her strength, she was able to do what Lady Macbeth could not. Hillary Rodham could do away with her challenger and leave no trail of blood,.
Barack Obama maybe cast as the Democratic contender. The Illinois Senator may presume that he won his Party's nomination. He could and would be prominent at the August Convention. However, if this is his belief, he is mistaken. Perchance, he has not had the opportunity to read the full script. Senator Obama may not realize that he is but one in a cast of characters in a Clinton drama.
The Presidential hopeful could not have known how cryptic the character who appeared so genteel could be. Nor did he have reason to realize how persistently tenacious the former President Bill Clinton was in actuality. Prior to the primaries, Senator Obama may not have fully grasped, the change we can believe in occurred in 1992. Nor could he have known the Clintonistas would contain any threat to their supremacy.
Presumptive nominee Obama did not fully understand, once the Clintons took the stage, transformation, as authored by Bill and Hill would become a constant. It continues, even on into Denver. Ultimately, it seems Barry had to bow to the truth he referenced in his most recent book. Hope was first born in a small town in Arkansas. Its name was Bill. Bill brought along Hill. Each gave birth to Chelsea. The Clintons, now a complete set of auteur, will author any change we can believe in.
Barack Obama was not the one who had the courage to make dreams come true. Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill holds the honor.
The Clintons would have it no other way. In the past, the former President has proven himself formidable. His First Lady fearless. Neither will accept no for an answer. They never said die before, that is unless the death of others, even children, would benefit them. Nor would the two, or three, think to go away quietly now. The theme adopted by this dynamic duo has always been "Yes; we, he, or she can!" Inevitably, they do. Today, once again, the masterful directors of this delicate drama, Hillary and Bill showed us all, they believe, and they achieve.
A presumed loss in the Democratic primaries does not deter her or his confidence. They are the Clintons, passionate and powerful.
Each trusts the climatic conclusion in this comic tragedy remains hidden. The audience does not suspect; indeed, they love the suspense. Hillary has yet to deliver the monologue penned in the final manuscript. When Lady Clinton is ready, she will reveal what she knows to be real. The catharsis will be realized when the crafty Hillary Clinton stands alone as the hero. The speech will not be as the one she delivered when she mocked her rival Barack Obama.
Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified.'" . . ."The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” . . .
Her words will be beautiful and brilliant. For Hillary has "lived a little long[er]" than Senator Obama. She has "no illusions about how hard this is going to be" to realize her dream of dominance. "You are not going to wave a magic wand to make special interests disappear," she told a crowd of delighted supporters months earlier. Hillary has no desire to have those who funded her campaigns vanish. She can control the Capitalists, just as she directs the Democrats. Even the esteemed Barack Obama, who some say is now the Democratic Party leader, can be brought under her spell.
After all, this drama has been carefully staged, produced, and directed by the sly Hillary Rodham Clinton. This clever Lady can tame the shrewd, or symbolically slay a mild-mannered man name Barack Obama. She has clout and ultimately, in this performance she will retain the crown. She has her wily ways to convince the people of what she wishes them to believe. Please review the research. Pew. For the People and the Press.
If Hillary wanted her name placed into nomination, it would be done. If the Presidential aspirant yearned for a delegate vote count, so be it. Keynote speeches from her husband, daughter, and herself, in primetime, of course. The Clintons came. They dominated. They conquered just as they always have.
Since Bill and Hill first stormed onto the Washington scene, there has been one drama after another. With the Clintons in the White House, in the Senate, or in the political theater, Democrats have been mired in melodrama. No one, not Barack Obama, least of all Barack Obama, can escape Clinton escapades. The presumptive nominee is now the focus. Hillary and Bill envision Senator Obama as the flawed hero. The Illinois Senator must fall.
Infidelity, imprudence, impeachment, and improbabilities, all the stuff of dramas. Bill and Hillary have realized all. Implausibility and improbability; these are the Clinton signatures.
Today, it was announced. The next step in the comic tragedy would occur. The expected Obama coronation would be canceled. Hillary, Bill, and daughter Chelsea would appear at center stage. The Clintons could be expected to perform as no one in history has.
The former Presidential candidate, her husband, and daughter would be allowed to perform at the Democratic Convention. Each was offered a prominent place on the playbill. The three would deliver keynote speeches; regardless of the fact that none were the presumptive Democratic nominee. Once again, Bill, Hilary, and Chelsea are the main characters on stage.
As the Denver Democratic convention approaches Americans are again in awe of what the Clintons create, chaos!
For days we, the people have heard Clinton campaigners clamor. Her name must be placed on the short list. She must be on the speakers' panel. Finally, those who love Hillary insisted, the candidate's name must be placed into nomination. Hillary has to be honored; the Denver Group demanded. After all, the New York Senator did receive eighteen [18] million votes, regardless, of the veracity of intent.
The Presidential aspirant, Lady Clinton, said, a catharsis is necessary. A week ago, the female Clinton told a small gathering that she is in negotiations. This sharp-witted Senator would not be stymied. Nor would her devotees be dissuaded. Democrats for Hillary would be able to vote for the candidate of their choice at the Denver convention.
"It's as old as, you know, Greek drama," she said. "There is a catharsis. I mean everybody comes and they want to yell and scream and have their opportunity, and I think that's all to the good."
For Hillary, and husband Bill it is. Good is realized when history does not hearken. When mesmerized by memories of times gone by the public does not question what was in the past. Good, is when Lady Clinton and President Bill can call upon friends who benefited from bank laws rescinded to create a fervor. Good is when the presumptive winner of a nomination loves your legacy more than he wishes to create his own. Good is the greatest drama revived. It is all good when Lady Clinton is in the limelight.
Clinton and Lady Clinton References Revisited . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 16, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Bill Clinton, Former President , Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Presidential Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Clinton; Husband Claims Popularity "Preconditioned." Former Supporter Says "No"
Bill Clinton Defends Hillary On Today Show, September 05, 2007, Part 1
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Dear President Bill Clinton . . .
I apologize Sir. I voted for you in two Presidential elections, and while on the first occasion you were not my first, second, or third choice, by the time I cast my second ballot, I was proud to do so. I admire your scholarship and some of what you did while in office. However, I must admit there are times, this being one of them, when I question your wisdom, or at least I realize I do not relate to your impression of "truth."
Days have past and I said nothing. However, I can no longer remain silent. I learned in years past that none of us benefit from what is not stated. I will not, I cannot remain quiet. Just as your wife brilliantly made reference to the words of the Honorable Doctor Martin Luther King Junior months ago, today, I too quote the sage advise of a this great leader.
For me, the future of my country, the United States of America matters. Who leads it and how, is of utmost importance.
Last week, I saw and heard you on the Today Show. In an interview with Host, Matt Lauer you discussed your latest book. I appreciate, "Giving" is good. Then Mister Lauer asked of your wife, the Senator from New York, and Presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton. Lauer addressed the issue of likeability.
Host, Matt Lauer offered poll results to demonstrate Senator Clinton has high negatives. He mentioned her proposed policies do not define her as polarizing. Hillary Clinton is probably a "shoe-in' for the nomination for the Democratic Party. However, Lauer stated, many admit they are not comfortable with her personality.
You Mister Clinton were prepared to discuss the issue. In an earlier statement you said the topic was a "canard and not worth a hill of beans." President Clinton, you defended your wife; you offered she has been demonized. I heard your words and stood stunned. The expression on my face must have mirrored my total disbelief. I recount the conversation so we each may reflect.
Mr. Lauer: [T]here’s a poll that just came out in Iowa that deals with your wife. And when people there were asked about who they respect most and who they trust most in the areas of leadership, handling of Iraq, protecting against terrorism, Hillary Clinton ranked tops out of four candidates. When they asked the people in Iowa, “Who do you like?” she ranked fourth out of four candidates.Statistical evidence may offer some insight into what is; however numbers can be interpreted to fit any scenario a person prefers. May I submit some anecdotal assessments. Of course, I can only speak for myself; however, you may find this information enlightening.Now, this has got to be something that puzzles you, not only as a keen political observer but as a husband. Why do you think, when asked on a number of occasions, people simply say they’re not sure if they like Hillary Clinton?
Mr. Clinton: Well, because she’s the only person running who, for 15 years, has been regularly hit by the swiftboat tactics of the Republicans — the first year when I ran for president, the eight years I served, the six years she was in the Senate. I guess 16 years now. None of the others have been subject to that. They will be if one of them’s nominated.
Mr. Lauer: But it seems personality. It doesn’t seem about policy. It doesn’t seem about ideology. It seems that there’s something in her personality people are saying they’re not comfortable with.
Mr. Clinton: Yes, but it’s something they’ve been preconditioned to think about by 17, 16 years of attacks. And the reason I know this is true — I have two pieces of evidence for you. When she ran for re-election in New York, she carried 58 of the 62 counties, 36 of the 40 counties President Bush carried in 2004, with 60 percent of the vote.
In elections, often a voter will cast a ballot against one candidate, rather than in favor of the person, they endorse. As I stated, in 1991, I did not support your candidacy. As a then resident in Orange county, California, I was appalled to read of . . .
head-swelling raves coming in -- even from Republicans. In December, Clinton was invited to breakfast by 60 California executives, several of whom had contributed as much as $100,000 to the 1988 Bush campaign. A few are hedging their bets this time around by pledging money to Clinton.I recall, as I have often stated, that you Mister Clinton are far too conservative for me. While in office, it became clear, you believe in war. That alone is a traditional value I think highly flawed. I trust that there is strength in peace.
President Clinton, when your Secretary of State, Madeline Albright justified the deaths of half a million Iraqi children in support of Clinton imposed embargos, I lost all faith.
As I assess the business-backed North America Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and your efforts to secure solidarity with corporate moguls, I am reminded of how the conservatives courted your campaign, or how you embraced their continued support.
The profound connection between you, Mister Clinton, and those on the "right" cannot be ignored. The Welfare Reform program you so proudly initiated gives further reason to pause. Men, women, and children were profoundly affected by alterations in the plan, and not for the better. Women on welfare were further separated from their families with the introduction of novel requirements. Forced to work for meager wages, the dire circumstances of impoverished Moms often placed these caregivers in a more precarious position. Fathers continued to be subtly removed from homes; standards demanded they not be in the house with their wives and progeny. As you spoke of "family values," in practice, your policies further destroyed the familial unit. Again, children suffered immeasurable pain. The scars still linger. Indeed, the wounds increase. What occurs in our formidable years has a lasting effect.
Conservatives applauded your efforts to change the system, and they still do.
Clinton's rhetorical boldness helped create a climate where serious welfare reform could take place. "You have to get the values right," Clinton told his aide Bruce Reed during the early stages of the process. "If you get the policy right and the values wrong, the whole thing will fail; but if you get the values right, then this whole thing will work out."Granted, President Clinton, you are not the subject of this campaign, or are you. America understands that this may be a two-for-one proposition,. and would that not be wonderful. It may be for some however, for me, more likely it is not. As the Democratic dance develops before our eyes, the veils are peeled away, and Americans wonder.To a large extent, Bill Clinton "got the values right" on welfare reform. And because he did, Clinton not only helped end welfare as we know it, but he helped end welfare as we know it before anyone even knew it.
Robert Rector is senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a leading Washington-based public policy institution.
The Complicated Legacy of Bill ClintonIt seems to me there is too much that went unquestioned in the Clinton years. After a two-term Reagan Reign and the Bush Forty-One Blast Back to the Past, American liberals were pleased as could be to have a democrat in the White House. They could hardly contain themselves, and admittedly, your characteristic charismatic charm helped. Even I was enamored when I met you at a fund-raiser in Santa Monica, California. You touched my shoulder as we hugged, you on the stage and me in the crowd. I met your wife, current Presidential candidate, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on that evening. I shook her hand. On that evening, I was honored to make her acquaintance.
Bill Clinton's Legacy May Be a Double-Edged Sword for Hillary Clinton in '08
By Rick Klein
Aug. 23, 2007 —President Bill Clinton is his wife's not-so-secret weapon -- the single most popular Democrat on the planet, a campaigner who ranks with the all-time greats, and one of the best political minds in the country.
But, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., is learning every week, his legacy can be a mixed blessing -- a reminder of peace, prosperity and Democratic victories, but also of scandal, gridlock and "triangulation" that frustrated many liberals.
On the campaign trail Thursday, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards delivered a speech filled with coded language aimed at reminding Democratic voters of the less-than-pleasant aspects of the Clinton administration. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate," Edwards said in Hanover, N.H., in a not-so-subtle reference to a famous fundraising scandal.
"The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't," Edwards continued. "It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today -- it's that the system that produced them was corrupt."
The Clinton campaign dismissed the thinly veiled swipes as a ploy by a desperate candidate.
"Running against Bill Clinton isn't going to improve Mr. Edwards' flagging campaign," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.
"Bill Clinton was a great president, and his presidency made America a better place," said Wolfson.
But it's not the first time that Clinton has been confronted with aspects of her husband's presidency that many Democrats view unfavorably. At recent presidential forums, she's faced pointed questions about the failure of her health care plan, her husband's support of NAFTA -- which is loathed by labor groups -- and Bill Clinton's decision to sign the Defense of Marriage Act, which many gays and lesbians consider an affront to equal rights.
In several areas, Clinton has distanced herself from steps taken under her husband's administration. She has vowed to support a partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, for instance. She has also expressed disappointment in NAFTA, and said she would rescind the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
"I've concluded that it is not the best way for us as a nation to proceed," Clinton said when asked about "don't ask, don't tell" at a Democratic debate in June.
Nevertheless, times have changed or more accurately, the physical presence of the Clinton couple, the formidable man or the now former First Lady no longer moves me. As a former supporter of yours, I have come to question much that I missed when the lights were low. Actually, your wife helped me to reflect on the future in a manner I had not. Well over a decade ago, I thought Hillary Rodham Clinton exceptionally strong. I admired her, infinitely.
Even during the Monica days, Hillary was undaunted. She did as I would have done, she chose to consider more than the circumstances. She felt a need to seek counseling, for you and for her. [President Clinton, you may remember I wrote to you and your wife on what I thought was a need for therapy.]
Prior to Hillary's entrance into the Senate, I was not only a sponsor of her cause and a contributor, when my Mom passed, my father and I asked that donations be made to the Hillary Clinton for Senate Campaign. However, once in office I observed a woman whose philosophies rarely parallels my own.
I hear the eloquent rhetoric Hillary Clinton recites on numerous occasions. However, it was not difficult to read between the lines. Senator Clinton spoke on the floor of the Senate in 2002 just before she cast a ballot to authorize our current war effort. Her words were carefully crafted.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.Today, her hawkish supporters use the text to defend her position as a person who seeks peace. Yet, in truth, Senator Clinton knew; she understood as we all did, President Bush was intent on war. It does not surprise me that Hillary might have advocated in favor of combat then. She does so now. In 2003, Senator Clinton, in Afghanistan, Calls for More Foreign Troops. Only months ago, Senator Clinton reiterated her hawkish position,
Bayh, Clinton Call for More Troops in Afghanistan. The Senator may wish to appear strong; however, I never doubted that she was.
For me, authentic strength comes from within. Genuine empathy, I think is veritable power.
I accept that many disagree. The majority thinks martial might wins wars. Those that endorse this philosophy believe the best Commanders-In-Chiefs fight for freedom. Hillary has proven she is there for the battle. Thus . . .
It is no accident that hawks inside and outside the military are reconsidering Hillary Clinton. She may have entered the Senate in 2001 with three strikes against her—she was a woman, a Democrat and a Clinton. But Senator Clinton immediately began a methodical campaign to undo her image as a dovish liberal with no interest in military affairs.Post 9/11, she was quick to recognize that Democrats—and especially one all but openly running for president—were vulnerable on defense issues. It was a trap she has seemed determined to avoid. She supported the Iraq invasion and has resisted the call for a quick withdrawal championed by Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha. "In the wake of 9/11, America will not vote for anyone they do not trust to protect them," says national-security analyst Lawrence Korb. "She grasps that." In New York, Clinton's pro-military posture helped broaden her appeal beyond liberal-leaning Manhattan.
The Military Industrial Complex wants a woman that believes in their business. Building bullets and bombs is profitable. Hillary Clinton definitely asserts financial assets are important to her campaign.
During numerous debates, the former First Lady happily flaunted her desire to accept donations from big business lobbyists and their ilk. Indeed, her own top adviser in intimately intertwined with industry Goliaths.
Sen. Clinton: Big business liberalHowever, there is no inconsistency for Hillary Rodham Clinton. As a six-year member of the Board of Directors for the mega-conglomerate, the infamous, and noted " union-busting behemoth," anti-labor Wal-Mart. Hillary Clinton may praise Teamsters and other unionized workers, but her heart lies with the wonders of Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. He raises funds for her campaign and advances her stature among the rich and influential. What could be better?
Timothy P. Carney
The Examiner
July 13, 2007Washington - Journalists left and right recently have noted that Mark Penn, the top adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, continues to work full time as a public relations consultant for corporate giants from the oil, pharmaceutical, software and tobacco industries. Clearly, there is something contradictory, these journalists assert, in Penn’s running the campaign of a liberal politician while also laboring in Washington for the biggest companies in the most controversial industries.
In truth, Penn seems to be serving both of his masters well, as Sen. Clinton backs a series of regulations that would aid these industry giants, sometimes by hurting smaller competitors.
A veteran Democratic pollster who first hit it big on Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election, Penn is the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, after having served in key roles in her 2000 and 2006 Senate elections. He’s also the chief executive officer of Burson-Marsteller, one of Washington’s top PR firms, with clients that include Microsoft, Royal Dutch Shell and Altria. Penn has made it clear that he will keep up his corporate work while serving, by some accounts, as Clinton’s de facto campaign manager.
Bloomberg News has commented on this arrangement, pointing out “contradictions between Penn’s private business dealings and Clinton’s public policy positions, which Penn helps formulate. …” Similarly, The Nation, a liberal monthly, says Penn’s double-hatting “cast[s] doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion,” contrasting Penn’s “corporate ideology” with Clinton’s “consistently liberal voting record.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Conservative understands.
“Corporate ideology” often includes such “liberal” or “progressive” positions as stricter federal regulation and more environmental or health mandates. Rather than seeing contradictions in Penn’s work for both big business and the liberal senator from New York, a cynical observer would suspect that Penn is having Hillary do the bidding of his big business clients. More likely, he’s a typical “third-way” liberal like her, who sees that big business and big government mesh very well.Thus, she does not struggle when confronted with talk of conflict. Hillary, the Hawk welcomes the battles here, aboard, and on the campaign front at home. This stalwart Democrat knows how to walk the line between Left and Right with distinction. She is a Conservative Democrat, a Progressive with an eye towards profits. She is a woman, a hard-worker, she is part Bill, and with the dynamism only a duo can secure, she is Billary!Penn personally works on Burson-Marsteller’s Microsoft account, which at first glance appears odd — given that it was Hillary’s husband who prosecuted the software giant for anti-trust violations in the late 1990s. But that unpleasant experience taught Microsoft CEO Bill Gates a lesson: You can’t beat big government, so you may as well join it.
Today, a top item in Microsoft’s $8 million lobbying campaign is support for “net neutrality” legislation — which would impose new federal regulations on Internet service providers so as to help Microsoft and other content providers such as Amazon from having to pay higher rates in the future. Google and eBay are also on board with this unprecedented federal regulation of the Internet, of which Hillary Clinton is an original co-sponsor.
Mister Clinton, President, Bill, no; I was not unduly influenced by Right-Wing Republican rhetoric. Indeed, from what I read the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” for the most part, is staying on the sidelines. –They do not find Hillary as vile as they did. Actually, some say even you were good for them and too them. After greater examination, it seems Republican realize as did I, you, and perhaps more so your wife have corporate interests at heart.
Sir, President Clinton, I am not preconditioned to believe there is reason to dislike or distrust Hillary Clinton. The First Lady herself fashioned my opinion. As I stated, when she said, I'm In, I, Mister Clinton replied "I am out!" I will not support your wife, the Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While I still receive every mailer you and she send, these only serve to further alienate me.
Perhaps you might consider, "actions speak far louder than any words" might.
Clinton, Clinton, the Candidate, or the Canard . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 11, 2007 at 07:45 PM in Afghanistan, Bill Clinton, Former President , Elections, Hillary Clinton | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hillary Clinton or Her Husband; War in Iraq
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Hillary is resolute even while campaigning in Iowa. She will not apologize for her position on Iraq. The Senator from New York spoke in favor the war in 2002. She voted for the invasion, and she still supports the effort. Missis Clinton prefers we adjust the strategy. Last week she called for a troop increase into Afghanistan. However, for the Senator, the war must be won. She as he, George W. Bush thinks we must succeed in Iraq. Neither proposes a swift exit from this battle. President Bush wants a temporary surge in Iraq. Hillary believes we must extricate the troops slowly. Bush must bear the burden and clean up his mess before he leaves office in January 2009.
Clinton has stayed steadfastly on a centrist path, criticizing President Bush but refusing to embrace the early troop withdrawal options that are gaining rapid favor in her party. This careful balance is drawing increasing scorn from liberal activists, frustrated that one of the party's leading lights has shown little appetite to challenge Bush's policy more directly and embrace a plan to set a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.
Perhaps, Presidential candidate Clinton believes as she does because her husband Bill intimated "regime change" when he was President. Former President Bill Clinton "hinted" that under Saddam Hussein the people of Iraq would never be able to "rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member." In 1998, William Jefferson Clinton proclaimed . . .
Statement By The PresidentPresident Bill Clinton acted on his beliefs and his Statement. He ordered an attack on Iraq. Operation Desert Fox was born. The official intent of this mission was to “degrade” Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. The targets were vast. Facilities thought to be associated with chemical and biological weapons production were bombed. Missiles were aimed at buildings intelligence sources claimed housed the regime’s secret police and elite Republican Guard forces. Airfields, air defense sites, and a Basra oil refinery were all hit.
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
William J. Clinton
The White House
October 31, 1998.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz reported 62 military personnel were killed and 180 injured. Yet, there was more. Many deaths occurred because the United Nations with the blessing of the United Sates imposed cruel and inhumane restrictions on the people of Iraq. These sanctions were imposed while George Herbert Walker Bush was in office. However, Hillary's husband Bill did nothing to lift the authorizations. Clearly, from his statement in 1998 a reader can only conclude he endorsed such horrors.
With "thanks" to sanctions against this Middle Eastern nation, one-half a million children perished in Iraq! Children were slowly slaughtered, starved in mass! Apparently, that was all right with the Clinton Administration as is evident in this article. A Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting journalist offers . . .
"We Think the Price Is Worth It"Perchance, Senator Hillary Clinton agrees. The ends justify the means. Hence, she supports a 'successful' combative mission, as long as it does not continue into her [possible] watch.
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects- there or here
By Rahul MahajanLesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).
We can presuppose that Senator Clinton, who openly states her support for brutal battles, can stomach sanctions that destroy young lives. Unlike former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and I, war and death are options this Presidential candidate endorses. For me, Mister Clark says it all.
Neighborhood BullyI thank you Ramsey Clark for speaking out when others do not. I appreciate that you advocate peace and policies that do cause no undue harm. While I might admire former President Bill Clinton, and I do, on domestic issues, I have deep reservations when assessing his policies towards Iraq. I cannot and do not support strategies that cause death, slow and sustained. War and sanctions hurt the innocent. Civilians, even or especially the children suffer when sanctions are imposed. Imagine what a surge in Iraq or Afghanistan might do.
Ramsey Clark on American Militarism
An interview by Derrick Jensen
The SunClark is founder and chairperson of the International Action Center, the largest antiwar movement in the United States. A vocal critic of U.S. military actions around the globe, he calls government officials "international outlaws," accusing them of "killing innocent people because we don't like their leader."
[Clark] He has traveled to Iraq, North Vietnam, Serbia, and other embattled regions of the world to investigate the effects of American bombing and economic sanctions there. The sanctions, he says, are particularly inhumane: "They're like the neutron bomb, which is the most 'inspired' of all weapons, because it kills the people and preserves the property, the wealth. So you get the wealth and you don't have the baggage of the hungry, clamoring poor."
After the Gulf War, in 1991, Clark initiated a war-crimes tribunal, which tried and found guilty President George Bush and Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, among others. Clark went on to write a book, The Fire This Time (Thunder's Mouth Press), describing the crimes he says were committed by U.S. and NATO forces during the Gulf War. When asked why he focuses on the crimes of his own country, instead of those committed by Iraq, Clark says that we, as citizens, need to announce our principles and "force our government to adhere to them. When you see your government violating those principles, you have the highest obligation to correct what your government does, not point the finger at someone else."
I, for one, think if world leaders wish to argue over their differences, let them. They alone can sit in a room together, perhaps, play a game of chess, or chat. One never knows what might occur when communication is the first, last, and best option.
As for Hillary, when Senator Clinton is sincerely ready to begin a conversation, to be part of a discussion that stimulates a solution, I'll be there. I will be in her camp. Until then, I will continue to talk, to chat. I will start a dialogue about her ideas and mine. Dear reader, if you are wondering, I believe sanctions and war cause great suffering, even death. These are not options! I ask for peace. Might we give it a chance!
I thank you Max for once again, stimulating my mind. May I present Back To The Future, By Max Sawicky. MaxSpeak. January 29, 2007
Why, for me, War is Not an option . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 29, 2007 at 10:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Aggression, Bill Clinton, Former President , Current Affairs, Defiant Diplomacy, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, Middle East Resolution, Military Missions, Pathways To Peace, Political Campaigns, Presidential Politics, Spread Democracy, War and Peace, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], War, The Last Option, Wars Bush Commanded, Weapons of Mass Destruction, “War; Not an Option” | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Childhood Obesity. Adult On-Set Diabetes. Osteoporosis. Soda ©
Mr. Clinton realizes conditions such as theses are more prevalent in today’s society because people are drinking more soda. Scientifically there is connection between our sweet sodas and our failing health. I offer much of this research at the conclusion of this treatise. However, my concern goes beyond what I believe is a superficial solution to the problem. Having been a person saturated in soda water, I think removing the culprit from our schools, may not alter the effects.
The Former President, along with the American Heart Association, negotiated an agreement with the three largest soft-drink manufacturers. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Cadbury Schweppes, will willingly stop selling fattening sodas and sugary drinks in American elementary and middle schools. The companies will no longer offer the larger sized sweet beverages in the high schools. The elder students will be able to buy diet drinks, sports beverages, and brews that are lower in calories. The President and the producers propose, if young people have less access to the high caloric carbonated beverages, they will drink less and be healthier. Possibly that is true; perhaps, it is not.
The hazards soft-drink consumption is a subject I have thought of for decades. I, as Mr. Clinton did imbibe great quantities of soda. I knew as the President discovered, this action had its effects. I am famous among hundreds of students for my “Mountain Dew Story.” For close to a decade students have asked me to write and publish the tale. This week as Former President Bill Clinton and soft drink manufacturers get much press for the simplistic solution they are presenting I feel compelled. I will share the oft-told tale in writing.
For me this story is not about soda, though superficially some may see it as that. It is about choices, habits, and the decision to be healthier. I offer this narrative to classes at the beginning of each term. Students call it the “Mountain Dew Story.” However, they know that is not the lesson of this tale. They can quote the real reason for this narrative. The lesson it teaches is, “The manner in which we think, say, do, feel, and are is a choice.”
We often think that who we are and what we think, say, do, and feel is our nature; we were born this way. We are not. We learn these habits at a very young age; so young we do not recognize that we are learning. We do not know we have other options. Therefore, we choose what we know, what is familiar, and what our families teach us, knowingly or not. We adopt habits and assume these are personifications of us. They are our nature; they are not.
I offer this my own story in an attempt to illustrate that we can choose to change. We can choose wisely; we can become healthier and happier. Your habit may be one of zillions. When I offer this thought to students I relate their possible habits to classroom conduct or aspects of life that relate to school. I might suggest procrastination as a habit. Nervous energy may be the practice I mention. For those of us older; yet barely wiser our conventions may be different. Whatever your custom may be the correlation is clear, if we decide to consider these.
I grew up in a family that did not drink milk. We had milk in the house; it was only for cooking and baking. The first time I ever ran away from home was when my Dad decided I needed to drink the milk remaining at the bottom of the cereal bowl. I did not want to do that. I did not like milk. I used it only as a conduit to moisten my cereal and to soak up the sugar. After the cereal was gone and I had slurped up all the sugar, I was done. My Dad thought not; he said so. I fled from home with him hot on my tail. However, that was only a moment, it occurred later in my life. I was eight years of age at that time.
When I was younger, very young, I began walking, talking, and I toilet trained my self. I did all this by the age of eight months. Therefore, I could be easily left with a babysitter. The sitter my family and I preferred was my Grandfather. My Grandpop owned a pharmacy and in those days, pharmacies had what were called soda fountains. These were counters with stools in front of them. Behind the counters were grills for short order cooking. Soda was on tap. I could have all that I wanted. Happily, I would sit all day. I read comic books, ate candy, and drank a lot of soda.
I suspect my sisters did similar in their youth. I am uncertain. However, I have reason to believe that my eldest sister might still be drinking soda for breakfast. I can relate.
My grandfather did not like the way Coca-cola did business. He worked with and sold only Pepsi products, and yes, I knew the difference. In discussing this, my Mom shared, he had posters hanging in the back of the store. They were pro-Pepsi and anti-coke banners. I got the message.
Years later, my family moved from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Lexington, Kentucky, Bluegrass Country. This was the same year Pepsi introduced Mountain Dew. Though I was a loyal cola drinker, I was interested in the new product, as was my Dad. The company began advertising eight weeks before they brought the merchandise to the shelves. I was anxiously awaiting it.
My Mom theorized I was hooked on the advertisements; I was not. I hated these, thinking them silly. Originally, the soda was promoted as one bottled by “hillbillies” Patsy and Bill. The slogan was, “Yahoo, Mountain Dew.” Now, living in hillbilly country, I thought I must be meant to try this.
Finally, the drink hit the shelves and soon appeared at our dinner table. It was bright yellow. Yes, I heard the chuckles and the words comparing it to urine. These had no effect on me. I indulged and indulged and indulged. I changed my preference, my “poison,” I switched from cola to Mountain Dew.
When I was living with my grandparents for a summer, in Florida, my grandmother became quite concerned. She called my parents and said, “Betsy seems to be drinking an awful lot of soda.” My father and mother did not share her apprehension. They assured her, it was all right. She relented, allowed me to, and I continued to drink. In my mid-to late teenage years, I began freezing the liquid ambrosia. I would pour the fluid into plastic cups. I prepared five to eight of these nightly. The next day, I would then eat them.
Once frozen, the Dew developed a layer of syrup on the top. The carbonation kept it from freezing as a hard as a rock; there were air pockets. It was a delicacy. I would run home at lunch, during breaks, and after school to grab a frozen “Dew.” I was in a hurry as I dashed for my delight. On these occasions, I could not be stopped. I was on a mission.
By the time I reached adulthood, I was an addict, a devotee, and an aficionado. Those in the grocery store would insist, ‘You should do ads for the company or buy stock in it.’ They knew, as did I, I could sell Mountain Dew to anyone. I could profit from my own purchases. We would laugh.
Later in life, I hurt my back, then my arm. I could no longer lift large bottles from the grocer’s shelves. Nor could I push shopping carts loaded down with the quantities I drank daily. Thus, I would call ahead to the request that these bottles be made ready for my arrival. I would say “this is Betsy.” and the voice on the other end of the telephone would reply saying, “How many?” I would answer twenty-four.
That meant, "Please put twenty-four two liter bottles in a cart.” Place these in the front of the store, I would be right over to pick them up. I back-stocked. The stores knew me so well that they gave me my own blue crates. Typically, there is a deposit on these; yet, for me, there was none. I would store three crates in the trunk of my car and more in my pantry. I worried; I did not want to run out.
I realized this was ridiculous, as was my consumption. I read and read of the effects of soda, what the caffeine, sugar, phosphates and more were doing to my body. I knew and I was scared. I wanted to end this cycle; I wished for the cascade of effects to be eliminated, or at least reduced. With time and age, these were increasingly apparent. My teeth alone were evidence. There were other maladies. I suspect these too were related to my consumption. However, I did not think I could stop. I did love the drink.
I would think of what I was doing and justify. At least I had never had a drink of alcohol; I did not gamble or do “drugs.” Though I wondered, what were sugar, caffeine, and phosphates for me? Were these not my trappings? Corn syrup and high fructose were other topics I could discuss. However, I will leave these for another investigation. I told myself Mountain Dew was a health drink. Among its main ingredients was orange juice. A friend that traveled to China said in that country, it was advertised as such. That worked well for me. Rationalizations, are they not quaint?
More than seven years ago, closer to eight, which seems a significant number in my life, I began saying aloud, “I need to quit.”
Each day I would go to the store to retrieve my drug of choice and instead of simply laughing with the cashers of my habits, I would say aloud, “One day I will give this up.” The question was would I or could I? A year and one half went by, and for no specific reason of note, I decided to stop consuming caffeine. I would switch to a soda without that. It was April 30, 1999. It was a challenge. I really did not enjoy the other options; nevertheless, it was important that I do this. I needed to try to stop the flow of caffeine.
I continued to read of the effects of soda. Instantly, I realized eliminating Mountain Dew would not improve my worn tooth enamel. The calcium was still being leeched from my bones. Soda was the source of much of my concerns. It was not merely the ingredients in the Dew.
By May 25, 1999, I was done. I stopped drinking all soda. I digested no more empty calories. I thought I would go through withdrawal. I expected the sight of soda to stimulate salivation. I though I would be as Pavlov’s dogs. Surprisingly, I was not. None of what I was told would happen occurred. I did have an eyeball headache for a few hours; that was all.
Actually, I began slowly, to eat better, to improve my habits in other avenues of my life. I felt empowered. I had made a choice and followed through. Imagine that.
More interesting to me was that I did not white knuckle this. I never went back to soda. I did not substitute another addiction for this one. The years of thinking of this habit, telling the story had helped. Working on me was the wonder. The reflection was the labor; the change was my love. I gave up nothing. I gained so much. Words will never accurately describe this. It must be felt from within.
Therefore, I have a sneaking suspicion that I could share more statistics, offer more facts, promote greater fear, and still do nothing to help those of you with a craving. I believe that facts are futile, interesting, and possibly might stimulate thought and a decision. However, only you can cast your habits aside. I will not remove distractions, soda, or the source of your addiction. Bill Clinton may have the power to do this; I do not.
I only ask you to think of yourself. Please do so before you do much more damage. I know the process is slow and you can and will progress at your own pace. Please do not be discouraged; do not rely on the government or manufacturers to help you work through your habits. They may offer a quick fix, a simple solution; however, typically, these are short-lived. While I appreciate Mr. Clinton’s attempts and I am awestruck by the soft-drink companies willingness to reduce soda sales in the schools, I do not think in the end, this plan is a solution.
We are familiar with the process. Persons on diets empty their homes of the foods they fear eating. They find these same sweets elsewhere, or purchase them again later. Individuals that want to quit smoking do, some do this time Habits are a challenge; change is not a whim. Much conscious thought goes into altering who you are, or who you thought you were. You have long believed what you think, say, do, feel, and are is your nature.
I offer this. A thought stimulates action. Without our thoughts, we remain as we are, as we were before we knew more. Think through your habits and chose those that are healthy.
Maybe the research will be your motivation, thus I share some of this.
The sugar from soda takes a great toll.
James A Howenstine M.D. writes in A Physician's Guide to Natural Health Products That Work
"In an interesting experiment the sugar from one soft drink was able to damage the white blood cells' ability to ingest and kill gonococcal bacteria for seven hours."
"Soft drinks also contain large quantities of phosphorus, which when excreted pulls calcium out of the bones. Heavy users of soft drinks will have osteoporosis along with their damaged arteries.”
Caffeine has replaced calcium in America diets. The effects of this are documented.
Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influenced Nutrition and Health (California Studies in Food and Culture) offers, “caffeine has replaced calcium in American diets.” She believes there is cause to worry. In her text, she continues . . .
"Soft drinks have replaced milk in the diets of many American children as well as adults. School purchases reflect such trends. From 1985 to 1997, school districts decreased the amounts of milk they bought by nearly 30% and increased their purchases of carbonated sodas."
"The relationship between soft drink consumption and body weight is so strong that researchers calculate that for each additional soda consumed, the risk of obesity increases 1.6 times."
"Adolescents who consume soft drinks display a risk of bone fractures three to four-fold higher than those who do not."
"Sugar and acid in soft drinks so easily dissolve tooth enamel."
"Americans drink 13.15 billion gallons of carbonated drinks every year."
"Soft drink consumption in children poses a significant risk factor for impaired calcification of growing bones.”
Soft-drink consumption leads to calcium loss via the kidneys.
Dr. Neal Barnard, MD reinforces the earlier stated sentiments in Foods That Cause You to Lose Weight: The Negative Calorie Effect
"Another advantage of avoiding sodas is that you will avoid the caffeine that is in many of them. Caffeine is a weak diuretic that causes calcium loss via the kidneys."
Soft drinks lower calcium and raise the phosphate level in the blood.
Michael Murray ND and Joseph Pizzorno ND, write in the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine, Revised Second Edition
"Soft drinks have long been suspected of leading to lower calcium levels and higher phosphate levels in the blood. When phosphate levels are high and calcium levels are low, calcium is pulled out of the bones. The phosphate content of soft drinks like Coca -Cola and Pepsi is very high, and they contain virtually no calcium."
"Many general dietary factors have been suggested as a cause of osteoporosis, including: low calcium-high phosphorus intake, high-protein diet, high-acid-ash diet, high salt intake, and trace mineral deficiencies. It appears that increased soft drink consumption is a major factor that contributes to osteoporosis. A deficiency of vitamin K leads to impaired mineralization of bone. Boron deficiency may contribute greatly to osteoporosis as well as to menopausal symptoms.”
Diet soda drinkers do not escape harm as they too consume empty calories.
According to Carol Simontacchi, author of The Crazy Makers: How the Food Industry Is Destroying Our Brains and Harming Our Children presents this.
Weight Gain Occurs, with or without exercise. Reduced caloric intake does not change this.
Greg Critser, penned, Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World.
He offers . . .
"A joint study by Harvard University and Boston Children's Hospital researchers in February 2001 concluded that such excess liquid calories inhibited the ability of older children to compensate at mealtime, leading to caloric imbalance and, in time, obesity."
"One extra soft drink a day gave a child a 60 percent greater chance of becoming obese. One could even link specific amounts of soda to specific amounts of weight gain. Each daily drink added .18 points to a child's body mass index (BMI). This, the researchers noted, was regardless of what else they ate or how much they exercised. "Consumption of sugar [high fructose corn syrup]-sweetened drinks," they concluded, "is associated with obesity in children."
There is much to consider, more to reason to choose wisely. Please, be happy and healthy.
References for your reveiew . . .
• Soda Ban Means Change at Schools By Mary Otto and Lori Aratani. Washington Post Thursday, May 4, 2006
• School's Out for Soda By Sora Song. Time Magazine. May 4, 2006
• Expelling Pop From School: Sugary soda could vanish by 2009, By Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki and Chastity Pratt. Detroit Free Press. May 4, 2006
• Soda—A Look at the Effects It Has on the Human Body By Erin Sanders. Missouri Baptist University. October 28, 2003
• Soda Consumption Puts Children at Risk For Obesity, Diabetes, Osteoporosis, and Cavities Northern and Southern California Public Health Associations. August 2005
• The Real Dangers of Soda to You and Your Children, By Dr. Joseph Mercola with Rachael Droege
• The health effects of drinking soda - quotes from the experts By Mike Adams. NewsTarget Network. Saturday, January 08, 2005
• “A Physician's Guide to Natural Health Products That Work" By James A Howenstine M.D.
• "Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influenced Nutrition and Health" By Marion Nestle
• Foods That Cause You to Lose Weight: The Negative Calorie Effect
• Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine, Revised Second Edition Michael Murray, Joseph Pizzorno
• The Crazy Makers: How the Food Industry Is Destroying Our Brains and Harming Our Children By Carol Simontacchi
• Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World By Greg Critser
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 4, 2006 at 10:01 PM in Bill Clinton, Former President , Childhood Obesity, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Cadbury Schweppes, Diabetes, Food Folly, Nutrition, Osteoporosis, Short-term Solutions, Soda, Soft Drinks, William Jefferson Clinton | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
