October 4th, 2007
08:55 AM ET
7 years ago

Clinton to vow a new approach to science

Clinton tackles science in a speech on Thursday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday will vow to make science a high priority if she is elected president, a subject the New York Democrat claims has been neglected by the Bush administration.

Signing an Executive Order that encourages stem cell research and forbids “political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions in government publications without any legitimate basis for doing so,” are just two of several changes Clinton will promise to implement under her watch.

On the issue of space exploration, Clinton will guarantee to execute “a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.”

She will outline her scientific agenda before the Carnegie Institute on the 50th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s successful launch of the Sputnik satellite.

– CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley


Filed under: Hillary Clinton
soundoff (71 Responses)
  1. laurinda,ny

    COMMON SENSE..NONE..as of yet. That's because these holier than thou Republicans won't permit it. You have common sense?

    October 4, 2007 03:11 pm at 3:11 pm |
  2. Robert, Shelton CT

    To have a president who repsects science and innovation again would be a miracle; half my family works in military science technologies and were actually cut or downsized to divert Pentagon funds to military operations in Iraq.

    Also a President who believes in global warming, evolution and the belief Americans need it in order to compete in this global economy.

    October 4, 2007 03:31 pm at 3:31 pm |
  3. David, Roanoke, VA

    Dark side, first of all "In God We Trust" is a phrase that not one of the Founders ever used. It was a 1950s invention to make the Soviets look bad for their atheist ways. The Soviets were bad people because they killed million (exactly like the Christian Right version... the Nazis), not because of their lack of religion.

    Thomas Jefferson was called an atheist by his detractors when he ran for President in 1800, as if his putting faith in science rather than religion would make him a bad President. He won anyway, two terms.

    I show enthusiasm for the light of science here, and you call me a "dancing monkey". A typical response from a typical Republican... if you can't understand science or scientists, call it names.

    Because that's all you know how to do. Put your faith in someone or something else, because you aren't intelligent enough to think for yourself... and then disparage everyone who does think for themselves and embraces science, because you can't stand anyone expanding their mind beyond your own self-imposed limits.

    October 4, 2007 03:39 pm at 3:39 pm |
  4. Barry, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

    Yes! We need a President who respects and supports science! I don't know if Hillary is my choice yet, but I definitely like her stance on this. We don't need another President that brushes off science like our current one does.

    October 4, 2007 03:47 pm at 3:47 pm |
  5. Common Sense

    OH NO PAT!!!! WHere on Earth would WE be without our precious IPODS! get a clue.

    October 4, 2007 03:47 pm at 3:47 pm |
  6. JP Houston - The People's Republic of Falls Church

    It's time to officially declare "Man Made Global Warming" the zealous religion that it is.

    That way, we can get it banned from schools and the government.

    October 4, 2007 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  7. RR, H-town

    Yeah!!! Hillary is going to get us to the moon again! Who cares! Unless I can take a vacation to Jupiter or we need to go land a crew on a giant astroid to blow it up then quit wasting money on space. The Dems will lose again because as they are always loud to complain and want change it just seems that they can never seem to get to the polls and vote on the day of the election. Then they will act surprised and complain for another four years.

    October 4, 2007 04:40 pm at 4:40 pm |
  8. BCNU purple state, usa

    Hillary is the on candidate that is going to do everything for everybody! How can anyone be so down on her. I know she meant well when she voted on Kyl-Liebermen, and when she voted on Iraq in 2002. Who doesn't want all of this free stuff? 5,000 bucks for kids, not an expenditure, an investment. Universal healthcare, keeps the workers healthier so they can produce more goods and contribute to a more robust GNP. Want to go to the moon, she make that part of the White House travel office when she revamps it yet again. Down in the dumps, she'll tell a joke a let loose with that charming belly laugh (it is contagious and cures many ills) part of lowering healthcare costs is for all of us to start laughing like she does, we'll all be better off. You should really laugh when someone is asking you a question, the next time a cop stops you and says...do you know how fast you were going? Just let loose with a bigold laugh! No doubt he'll see how ridiculous his question was, laugh with you and let you go after all have a good time.

    October 4, 2007 04:49 pm at 4:49 pm |
  9. Anyone but Hillary

    David in Dallas:

    It was my post and I am a life long democrat. I am tired of divisive politics and I want to stand behind a leader of strong character who will unite our country.

    If you spend anytime here at all, you can tell that Hillary Clinton is not this person. You may love her and I respect that, but she brings out hate in people.

    I am a liberal democrat who is willing to believe in a candidate who will reach across the aisle and work for the common good of all of us, not just one party. I don't want any more fights with the "right winged machine".

    I volunteer for a campaign of another democratic candidate and my activities give me the opportunity to speak with republicans who feel the same way I do about this. I have come to believe in the adage, "that which unites us is truly stronger than what divides us". I want them to have a chance to have their voice heard. There is too much at stake in our country to remain divided as we have been for many years.

    There are no tricks here. We live in a democracy and we can switch parties if we want. I have no hidden agenda.

    October 4, 2007 06:05 pm at 6:05 pm |
  10. Anyone but Hillary

    Elizabeth from Lincoln, Nebraska:

    This "Republican Hate Machine" is actually a liberal, anti-war democrat. Take a look at my response to David in Texas if you'd like further explanation.

    It's funny, your post makes my argument about the divisiveness of Hillary Clinton better than I ever could have. Aren't you tired of it?

    October 4, 2007 06:14 pm at 6:14 pm |
  11. WAKE UP, L.A., CA

    "To answer your question, she's served as a US Senator, like Obama.

    In addition, it was pretty obvious that she was actively involved in her husband's presidency. She probably understands the up's and down's of the presidency better than anyone else running.

    I lean towards Obama myself. I think he's more ethical and less tied to corporate America. But you asked about Hillary's experience, so there you have it."

    David, thank you for answering and in doing so you have informed me that clinton does not have more experience than Obama.. Counting her being in the white house as "understanding the ups and downs of the presidency" is absurd. Can you elaborate on the ups and downs? Thats the problem with clinton supporters (not to say you are one), but they give answers that do not answer the question. What ups and downs could she handle better than Obama?? And anyone else who wants to respond, please feel free. Thanks.

    October 4, 2007 07:38 pm at 7:38 pm |
  12. Antonio, Tempe AZ

    Current funding for scientific research in the USA ~ $30B/yr

    Proposed budget for FY08 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ~ $190B/yr

    Someone please explain to me how funding scientific research is tax and spend liberalism but blowing six times the amount to have my friends dismembered in Iraq and Afghanistan is fiscally responsible conservatism.

    Also, here's a link to the Army's 'locate a recruiter' page

    http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp?hmref=cs

    talk is cheap. If you support the war go fight it. If you're not willing to fight in the war shut your trap or work to end it so that other people won't have to fight it for you.

    October 4, 2007 08:12 pm at 8:12 pm |
  13. Chip Celina OH

    Anybody but Hillary!

    Excellent post you made. I'm like you, just approaching from a different angle (the other side of the aisle). I too am fed up with the sophomoric bickering our system has become. My circle of friends and colleagues contain about as diverse a group as you can imagine. I do some contract work for the UN in my speciality so the political conversations can be interesting to say the least.

    Hillary will bring more of the same, but in larger doses. If you think squabbling over semantics is bad now, I can only see it getting worse during her presidency. She's been popping off at the mouth for so long now that if she does get in, folks from all walks of life will have her under a microscope. Most of them with the attitude of, "OK, you talked a great game sister, now let's see some action!"

    The president holds incredible power and the lame excuses about "the other side" or "vast right wing conspiracy" or voting for before voting against, failing to read the FULL briefing aren't gonna cut it. Bush has been skewered during his time in office, and in many cases rightly so. The spending that has gone on in this administration sickens me. This war (the war part) was over on April 9, 2003, but failure to prepare for action after our military mopped the floor in Iraq has us where we sit today.

    This being campaign season, candidates will make promises. All of the HillPraisers think she can get it done and give the "You go girl!" schpiel. I ain't buyin' it. This is the United not Utopian states of America.

    All of these folks come out with their I'll be the education president or the health care president or the working man's president or the teacher's president or the science president. If I had 100 million dollars I could beat them all! I'd just say I'll be your everything president. It's so bogus. We need someone that will be the American president and not Kow-tow to every special interest group under the sun.

    I like the guys that arent the big names because the special interest groups and lobbyists don't have enough dirt onthem to blackmail them and hold sway over them.

    Sorry for the long post but I had to vent because it pains me to see the public hood-winked like this.

    Have a great evening!

    October 4, 2007 08:13 pm at 8:13 pm |
  14. Chip Celina OH

    I need to apologize for lack of proper grammar in my previous post. I guess I just went on a typing binge and didn't feel like going back and proofreading. Had to "get it off my chest" don't ya know.

    October 4, 2007 08:18 pm at 8:18 pm |
  15. Mike, NY

    It seems every time Clinton talks, she's proposing even more spending. Either she's just pandering to a sickening level, or she plans to bankrupt this country.

    You don't get scientific advancement and innovation by the government. Tax breaks for "scientists" or "scientific organizations" would be nice, though I'd prefer tax breaks for all.

    October 4, 2007 08:28 pm at 8:28 pm |
  16. Kevin, Topeka KS

    Once again, Republicans and Hillary haters, complaining of any campaign proposals as a "tax and spend." So must better to "spend and not tax" for things like Iraq. Let's mortgage our children's future on the lives of today's youth, instead of spending tax dollars for things like scientific advancement, health care and education.
    Make sense, Republican sense.

    October 4, 2007 09:23 pm at 9:23 pm |
  17. Anonymous

    Sure Clinton will do all these things and raise taxes as she tries to do it, that cackling old hen needs to go back and get a real job, like a dog catcher.

    October 4, 2007 09:25 pm at 9:25 pm |
  18. Brian Brunswick ME

    It's Union for Pete's sake, they do not get to choose, teachers are pressured to vote Democratic. The Mafia lives on.

    October 4, 2007 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm |
  19. Laura - Tulsa, OK

    I do not like this at all. Hillary's various plans are mostly about control. We can't make laws left and right about these things. She justs wants increased embryonic stem cell research to go hand in hand with lax abortion laws.

    The key words that let you kow this is all about control with her is "scientific conclusions." well ,there is always a seed of doubt in science, isn't there? She just wants to mandate embryonic stem cell research and these little steps are her way of sneaking in her agenda.

    October 5, 2007 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  20. therealist

    "understanding the ups and downs of the presidency"

    Hillary didn't have a clue as to what was going on inside the Oval office..., or did she?

    October 5, 2007 03:35 pm at 3:35 pm |
  21. Frank Virginia Beach VA

    A TRUE LEADER DOES NOT NEED TO DEMAND OR FORCE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN HIS IDEAS AND OPINIONS. WHY DOES HILLARY ALWAYS INCLUDE THESE COMMANDING WORDS?New Approach? There is nothing new about evolution, global warming, etc. FORCE / DEMAND / MANDATORY / WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WOMAN? A real leader does not force, demand, or make everything mandatory for God's sake!!! A real leader leads. His ideas are viable, believable, without hidden gain for himself. CLINTON KNOWS HER AGENDA IS REPUGNANT TO MOST AMERICANS, THUS, IT MUST BE FORCED, AND LAWS MAKING HER "NEW WAYS" PERMANENT AND UNCHAGEABLE IN FUTURE PRESIDENCIES. MY GOD PEOPLE RUN, RUN SWIFTLY TO CUT THIS TYRANT OFF BEFORE SHE CAN CHANGE OUR COUNTRY FOREVER.

    October 5, 2007 05:08 pm at 5:08 pm |
1 2 3