She seems to have been a successful advocate for science and mathematics, and for education in general with a great track record since her days in Arkansas.
I was a child in Arkansas while Hillary was empowered to make a focused effort on improving outcomes for children. From fourth through ninth grade, I attended a “gifted and talented education” (GATE) class, a program built as part of Hillary Clinton’s reforms by the Standards Committee. The classes were loosely structured, with no rigid testing schedules or rote memorization, but they encouraged critical discourse and embraced creative divergence. GATE opened my eyes to a world of opportunity.
Hillary Clinton’s educational reforms were year-round. From seventh through 12th grade, I was able to attend multi-week, residential summer learning programs at small universities across Arkansas that offered middle- and high-schoolers immersive camps in fields like mathematics, theater, geology and more. Charismatic professors taught all of the programs. Most importantly for my family, they were provided by the state of Arkansas at no cost to students. The programs, known as “Academic Enrichment for the Gifted in the Summer” (AEGIS) started in 1984, a year after Hillary Clinton assumed the chair position of the Standards Committee. By the 1990s, AEGIS had ballooned to more than 25 programs serving thousands of students every summer. The program would not have existed without Hillary Clinton’s leadership.
Mathematics and sciences (or what we call “STEM” today) were of particular importance to Clinton. In a 1983 interview with the Associated Press, she remarked, while suggesting that Arkansas had overemphasized athletics, “I think it’s time for getting a little fanatic about math and sciences.” STEM is the foundation of today’s technology industry, and only a handful of pioneers in the public education space had the foresight to appreciate its value for future members of the workforce. By far the most significant impact Hillary Clinton’s educational reforms had in my life was through her work to create a free public boarding school for math and science nerds like me: The Arkansas School for Mathematics and Sciences (ASMS).
That also explains why the Republicans hate her so much. She fought ignorance, which is the core of the Republican party platform.
This seems like the appropriate thread to talk about Hillary, in general. [?derail?]
I never “got” all the talk of her being a criminal, traitor, grifter, etc. With all the talk, I’ve never seen any evidence for the accusation brought forth to accompany it. Seems to me, it is all accusations only, with no evidence to support them. I’m probably missing all the details, so I’m quite willing to be shown all that I’ve missed. I just keep chalking it all up to a profound dislike to being “ruled by a woman”. So any little thing she ever did wrong will be used as reason to disqualify her. My bet is that if the two resumes of our candidates were brought forward with no names attached the opinion poll results would be radically different than with the names attached. I keep seeing her record as making her far more qualified for the position than our last 20* presidents.
Why all the opposition? (flies way over my head).
Like one point I saw was:
– Clinton foundation accepts millions of dollars from Arab countries that oppress women and gays etc. [end of line]
::::::my response: so. what? The foundation will spend those millions helping people, not giving special privilege to the donators. Why is she responsible for who contributes? No evidence the foundation help them continue their oppression.
– – – – – – –
done for now, thanks for reading.
————————–
* exaggeration for emphasis only
@1: Of course she’s overqualified. Women in top positions have to be, to overcome the friction imposed by misogyny. Just as Black people have continually said they need to be twice as good to get half as much, so it is for women too.
@#1, there never has been any evidence whatsoever behind any accusation on either Clinton.
http://www.snopes.com/tag/hillary-clinton/
Trust me, Snopes has plenty more pages on both Bill and Hillary., debunking every BS accusation out there.
As for the Clinton Foundation, Hillary is as responsible for donations or spending as Obama is responsible for the Port Au Prince earthquake. She doesn’t micromanage that charity, it’s self-supporting and has an independent staff.
Detractors complain when the US government steps in to help brown foreigners, griping that NGO’s should fulfill that role, save when that NGO is associated in any way with a democrat. Then, it’s evil and having people starve to death and die of exposure is superior to any help that that NGO can provide.
Responsibility for donors is a thing: a charity taking significant money from the KKK to improve poor schools in the South would get some odd looks. Similarly, the AGU is getting plenty of flack for taking money from Exxon.
It’s a constant conversation in the NGO world: is the money too tainted? All money stinks, so it’s hard to draw the right line.
But wouldn’t the typical Republicans be too ignorant to know that?
I’m just appalled at the level of lying & misinformation in politics in our modern world. It’s not just in the West either. I’ve read recently that it’s just come to light that South Korea’s leader has been taking advice from a family of religious charlatans.
@dick #5:
Surely most leaders around the world have been doing this for most of human civilisation? It’s only been in the last few centuries that some countries have mostly broken free of the soothsayers, prophets, astrologers and priests.
I would quibble with that a little. Ignorance is the result of the party platform and makes up a sizable proportion of it.
As we have been hearing the results of this all year. The repubs have a negative thing for the elites in their messaging the followers are being short changed and they feel that they are being oppressed by the “elites” which has some truth in it but they seem to be unable to recognize the “1%” as the elites in any consistent way. They have a profound distrust for everyone but them selves. Look at how they react to education directly they want local control above all else even down to who is hired and fired not forgetting the effect that has on what is being taught. They sloganeer about teaching the basics but without ever looking to see just what the basics are and just fear what they do not know connecting it to the problems that are effecting their lives and livelihood . They cry that they do not want to pay for everyone else’s education all those bad shiftless people whose kids are taking their places in the work force. They are right that the tax burden is to high on them because the “elites” they do not recognize are being carried by them The end result is a poor education.
ignorance is the result which reinforces all the negative results and makes feeding their resentment far easier.
as clearly illustrated by the bloviating puffed up sales man now vying to be king of the dung hill!
I once got into an argument with a reactionary guy about the “huge cost” of a new school he could not understand how a school could cost so much when houses and apts could be built for far less neither of which are built to handle the 100’s of people a school has to withstand nor the the safety standards the average house can get by with, we being in earthquake country and all. He did not have any children himself of course.
uncle frogy
Rich, yes, but….
I was complaining about the mendacity endemic in modern politics. In the past, some politicians were honourable people. There don’t seem to be as many in that mould now. (Could it be that Bernie lost out to Hillary because too many people saw him as too honourable?)
no I think we just know more now a days. The media has learned that it sells well in the market place and there is little of the blow-back that would have formerly been experienced. They were often just as we find then now .
uncle frogy
I keep hearing the most absurd propaganda about Hillary and the most alarmingly idiotic things from people (most of whom, fortunately, will not bother to vote). Hillary has always been a progressive in a vein similar to Nelson Rockefeller (minus the drunken drugged-up debauchery). She may not really understand America’s poor but she tries and she genuinely wants to improve society in general, and her voting record shows that. Don’t forget that “Obamacare” was something which Hillary had been lobbying for long before Obama was president and that’s just one of her many campaigns over the years. I’d been hearing a lot of idiots parroting “I can’t trust Hillary”, though they can’t give any sensible reasons why, and any reasonable person who had a valid reason not to trust Hillary would have far more reason not to trust the depiliated orangutan.
@1 Jesus Christ and the Buddha could run on a Democratic ticket, and they’d still be demonized as they’re democrats.
I’ve admired Hillary Clinton since she was FLOTUS. I’ve followed her career and I’ve always been impressed with the way that she has fought for women and children since her very first job after college. I was something of a feminist hippie girl when I was young, and Hillary represented what I believed in.
My mind has never changed, and I’m proud to be supporting her now.
Her past is encouraging, and she’s talked about education during the campaign. I would add that she’s also talked about mental health care, which is in a very bad state in this country. Hopefully she wins, and she can get things through Congress.
@magistramarla, Hillary is a bit right of me in some areas, per her votes in Congress and publicly supported positions. Interestingly enough, that, even when I was a republican (thank the tea party for getting me away from that group of unicorn fart worshipers).
That said, I do quite clearly recall Bill’s inauguration celebration, with the line going around the block and one person noticed the delay…
“Bill, we’re screwing these people. Look…”.
And I do recall her bang up job at SecState, following the POTUS’s policies, which was her duty.
I also recall that Saint Bernie has been in national politics for close to the same number of years as Hillary has and has accomplished about as much major change.
Meanwhile, I see her primary opponent, as a third party winning has a one in three chance of winning, so long as it’s slim, fat or none.
So, it’s Trump or Clinton.
Out of this nation of 320 million people or so, there is one person that I’d trust less than Trump as POTUS and that’s me and I’m a bit more qualified than he is. At least I understand Presidential authority and limitations, things military, the nuclear triad and due to the latter two parts, I’d not trust myself in that position. ;)
OK, there isn’t enough money to tempt me into that thankless job.