We need a leader who brings people together by listening. That’s Hillary Clinton

The Pollack superpac endorsement.

America needs a leader who embraces rather than resents the growing diversity of our country, who does her homework, who brings people together by listening to people different from herself.

That’s Hillary Clinton. She’s spent the last 45 years working to help children and people living with disabilities, fighting for human rights of women and girls.

Even if she weren’t running against Donald Trump, she’s earned my vote.

Author: Harold Pollack

Harold Pollack is Helen Ross Professor of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. He has served on three expert committees of the National Academies of Science. His recent research appears in such journals as Addiction, Journal of the American Medical Association, and American Journal of Public Health. He writes regularly on HIV prevention, crime and drug policy, health reform, and disability policy for American Prospect, tnr.com, and other news outlets. His essay, "Lessons from an Emergency Room Nightmare" was selected for the collection The Best American Medical Writing, 2009. He recently participated, with zero critical acclaim, in the University of Chicago's annual Latke-Hamentaschen debate.

6 thoughts on “We need a leader who brings people together by listening. That’s Hillary Clinton”

  1. I am not an American citizen and have no vote in this election. But like another 7 billion people in the world, I certainly have an interest in the result. American power and wealth carries a global responsibility. So please, please vote for the grown-ups. Not just Clinton, but Cortez Masto, McGinty, Ross, Bayh, Kander and Hassan. The President needs a Senate that will do its constitutional job.

      1. Yes. If you want to elect a Democrat in Missouri, you'll have to accept a Democrat that isn't pure on gun control. That said, even on this particular issue, Kander is miles better than his opponent.

        1. I don't know what constitutes "purity" on gun control on the Democratic side–there's a lot of variation. The Republicans have taken over the "no restrictions at all, ever!" territory, leaving pretty much the entire rest of the spectrum to Democrats.

          I do think that TWPOD's application of the term "gun nut" is unfair, however, since the support for it seems to be just one commercial in which Kander assembles an assault rifle blindfolded to show he can. One method no-restrictions supporters use to derail discussion of guns is to claim that supporters of any sort of controls at all are peaceniks who know not whereof they speak. Kander's commercial, in which he demonstrates a skill he had to acquire for his army service (you have to be able to assemble a gun blindfolded, because you may have to do it in the dark), establishes his bona fides as a competent user of firearms, thus short-circuiting a possible Blunt line of attack.

          1. Yes. And at the end of the commercial he says he's in favor of background checks. If we actually got background checks, which I assume means closing the gun show loophole and other means of purchasing a gun without a check, we'll have the bill that couldn't get through the Senate after Sandy Hook. (I hope that you youngsters, whoever you are, live long enough to have someone ask you in 20 or 30 years, "You mean 20 schoolchildren and six teachers were massacred in a school, and the Senate couldn't even pass a background check bill? What the heck?" Possible answer, "We were very sick then, but fortunately less sick now."

            PS, it's possible that TWPOD is joking. But if not, then he/she needs to get real. Also, Kander will allow a vote on a Supreme Court nominee, so there's that.

Comments are closed.