The One To Take the Lead


Although stories about reproductive health and politicization of science have made headlines recently, stories of how these problems are solved are less often told. On August 31, 2005 I resigned my position as Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) because the agency was not allowed to make its decisions based on the science or in the best interests of the public's health. While my resignation was widely covered by the media, it would have been a hollow gesture were there not leaders in Congress who stepped in and demanded more accountability from the FDA. Today, women are able to access emergency contraception, a safe, second chance option for preventing unintended pregnancy in a timely manner without a prescription. Senator Clinton is the leader that made this happen, and I can tell the story from having watched it unfold.

I have been working to improve health care for women and families in America for nearly 20 years. In 2000, I became the Director of Women's Health for the FDA. I was rather quietly doing my job when the debate began in 2003 over whether or not emergency contraception should be providedover-the-counter (OTC). As a scientist, I knew the facts showed that this medication, which can be used after a rape or other emergency situations, prevents an unwanted pregnancy. It does not cause an abortion, but can help prevent the need for one. But it only works if used within 72 hours and sooner is even better. Since it is completely safe, and many women find it impossible to get a doctor's appointment within two to three days, making emergency contraception available to women without a prescription was simply the right thing to do. As an FDA employee, I knew it should have been a routine approval within the agency.

Plan B emergency contraception is just like birth control pills – it is not the "abortion pill," RU-486, and most people in the United States don't think access to safe and effective contraception is controversial. Sadly, in Congress and in the White House, there are many people who do oppose birth control. And although this may surprise you, this false "controversy" not only has affected emergency contraception, but also caused the recent dramatic increase in the cost of birth control pills on college campuses, and limited family planning services across the country. The reality is that having more options for contraception helps each of us make our own decisions in planning our families and preventing unwanted pregnancies. This is something we can all agree on.

Meanwhile, inside the walls of the FDA in 2003-2004, the Bush administration continued to throw road blocks at efforts to approve emergency contraception over the counter. When this struggle became public, I was struck by the leadership that Hillary Clinton displayed. She used the tools of a US Senator and fought ardently to preserve the FDA's independent scientific decision making authority. Many other senators and congressmen agreed, but she was the one who took the lead, saying she simply wanted the FDA to be able to make decisions based on its public health mission and on the medical evidence.

When it became clear that FDA scientists would continue to be overruled for non-scientific reasons, I resigned in protest in late 2005. I was interviewed by news media for months and traveled around the country hoping that many would stand up and demand that FDA do its job properly. But, although it can help, all the media in the world can't make Congress or a President do the right thing.

Senator Clinton made the difference. The FDA suddenly announced it would approve emergency contraception for use without a prescription for women 18 and older – one day before FDA officials were to face a determined Senator Clinton and her colleague Senator Murray at a Senate hearing in 2006. No one was more surprised than I was. I hope all of those who benefited fromthis decision know that it wouldn't have happened if it had not been for Hillary Clinton.

Sometimes these success stories get lost in the "horse-race stories" about political campaigns and the exposes of taxpayer-funded bridges to nowhere, and who said what to whom. This story of emergency contraception at the FDA is just one story of many. Senator Clinton saw a problem that affected people's lives. She then stood up to the challenge, never wavered and worked to solve it. The challenges we face in health care, our economy, global climate change, and issues of war and peace, need a leader who has those skills and commitment. This is my view.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    You are right, Hillary is a great Senator and should be Majority Leader. She has a legislative mindset and we’re all lucky to have her in Senate. But anyone who would agree that Florida means nothing and then try to turn it into something just because she got beat by more than 2 to 1 in South Carolina, is someone who can not lead a new politics. She is entrenched in the divisiveness of the ’90’s, she is being held back by her husband (yet again) and she is not the visionary leader these times so desperately call for.

    She’s a great legislator and she should stay there. With women Governor’s like Napolitano and Sebelius, and women Senators like McCaskill, and women philanthropists and icons like Caroline Kennedy all endorsing Barack Obama it is clear that women of Hillary’s generation see much to like in Barack Obama. Women’s issues will be advanced by changing not only who resides in the White House, but by making sure that our politics is no longer divided as the Clintons will continue to do.

    Most importantly, with John McCain the all but nominee, he takes away every electability argument Hillary has in a head to head match up. The best chance to beat McCain is looking to the future, not the past. Barack Obama is good for women and good for America.

  • susan-wood

    She's got equally impressive endorsements, and will take her expertise, not just in women's health, but in all health care policy, international policy, education and the economy with her as President.  She has stood up for good science and good government in a truly impressive way, and it will make a dramatic difference from our current President and his administration.

  • invalid-0

    You make my point exactly … Hillary would be much better than the current President but he is not on the ballot, and the Clintons seem hell bent on looking backwards, not forwards. They are running the same kind of campaign they always have, parsing every word, tokenizing people, doing things (like Florida) for appearances just to salve their ego. This election is not about them, it is about what is best for the future of the country. It is not about Bush, but how we can pick up the pieces from his disastrous and divisive administration. Turning the clock backwards to divisiveness lead by Democrats is NOT the answer. Turning the page on the past and seeing that we’ve already crossed the bridge to the 21st Century, and that it and the Clinton are in our review mirror, is what we must do in this election.

    Hillary Clinton cannot beat John McCain, she will unite the GOP behind a conservative that is loved by independent voters. Liberals are consigning this nation to another 4-8 years of GOP rule, with the possibility of Vice President Huckabee, and all that means for the US Supreme Court, by nominating Hillary.

    She could have run a different campaign and been the kind og visionary change leader the times demand, but she did not. She used her husband’s playbook and turned him loose. We see the results, and even if she could win, how do we know her administration would not be sidetracked by his antics, just as his was. Liberals should not squander another opportunity by hoping the Hillary can control Bill. It hasn’t happened yet.

  • http://www.caitlainscorner.com invalid-0

    with No More Bill. While I believe having Hillary in the WH would be a great thing for women, as NMB has pointed out, she continues to be divisive, rather than taking the high road and focusing on the future exclusively – hardly an example for someone who claims to want to bring “change” to DC. The same with her husband, which I am very sad to see.

    Up until a couple of weeks ago, I had planned to vote for Hillary, but with the way things have gone in the past month or so, I have switched my allegiance to Obama. He’s got a record of supporting women’s rights as well, and I think he would better represent the way of the future for the country.

    Let me also say, Dr. Wood, thank you so much for taking a stand with respect to the Plan B debacle at FDA. We need more people like you in government. I can’t begin to tell you how much respect I have for you because of the way you handled yourself on this issue. Good luck.

  • invalid-0

    For the love of all that is holy and good, will someone please back up this statement from above?

    “Barack Obama is good for women”

    What has he done for women in this country? Has he co-sponsored Prevention First like Hillary has? Has he introduced a Pay Equity Act like Hillary has? Has he created a children’s health care plan like Hillary has?

    I keep hearing over and over and over that Barack “is good” for women, that he “supports women’s issues”. *Please* give me evidence of this that is on par with the evidence we have from Clinton. I feel like I have entered a political warp that my fellow feminists are supporting a run-of-the-mill man over a woman who has consistently, over her entire senate run, represented and forced through women’s issues.

  • invalid-0

    Barack Obama has been supportive of women's issues. Please see his Election 2008 candidate page for more information.

    For more information on where Obama stands in relation to women's health, you can read his campaign staff's answers to the questionnaire we sent out to all of the candidates.

     

     

     

     

  • invalid-0

    Thank you, Dr Wood! And thanks to all those tireless advocates for women’s health and reproductive freedoms. We need you, and we certainly need Senator Clinton. I am and will remain grateful for her contributions. But I also resist the definition of “women’s interests” as just those that focus on women’s particular needs as women — women’s health is not just gynacological, important as that dimension is, but access to health care financially (women are disproportionately poor), good geriatric care (ditto old), etc. Women also need to see this country renounce its imperialist ambitions in the Middle East, stand up for civil liberties, etc. There are a complicated mix of priorities in this election to be considered, because (a)there is really NO area in which this country is going in the right direction now and (b) no one can change everything all at once, much as we might like to imagine this new dawn breaking. So we are going to differ on what matters most to us, not because we are feminists or not, or care about women or not, but because at any given moment we will make different calls on what needs to change first and foremost. For me, the biggest and most important issue is a return to a rule of law, not of people who think themselves above the law. The more Bill gets involved in Hillary’s campaign, the less promise I see of that. Sorry.

  • invalid-0

    If Hillary wins the nomination, the GOP can appeal to sexism, the social conservatives who think it’s wrong for a woman to be in charge, AND those who still hate Bill. As much as I would LOVE to see a woman president, Senator Clinton carries too much political baggage to win. (Unless the GOP overstepped the boundries of good taste and did something blatantly disgustings)
    Barack Obama doesn’t have the same sterling record on “women’s issues” as Hlllary Clinton does, but he has proven he is supportive. Plus, as the nominee, the GOP will have a much harder time smearing him in the general election. Sure, they can appeal to racism and “Islamo-phobia”, but both are likely to be viewed by the voters as pandering smears and cause a backlash.

  • susan-wood

    I'm sorry you disagree, and that certainly is your prerogative.  I must point out that Hillary Clinton has laid out and championed restoring competency to government, based on the law and on good science and good medicine and prevention, and I believe she can do it. She has also laid out an strong agenda on strengthening our nation in science and technology to the benefit of the public good.

    I'm entirely with you on the comprehensive view of women's health and men's health for that matter, it's what I worked on for most of my career, before the nonsense around emergency contraception.  Sen. Clinton has been involved on all of those issues as well, so I would not pigeon-hole her actions as limited to reproductive health.  I was just telling one particular story that I know directly as factual – not just secondhand.

    Finally, I have to say that the comments (not just here) that people don't want to support her because of Bill disturb me.  Please, just listen to what that says – one won't support a strong, capable, intelligent, experienced woman leader who has been working on our issues and delivering for us time and again, because one doesn't like (or is mad at) her husband?  (Would that statement be made if the genders were reversed?)  It's a time to acknowledge and celebrate the fact that there is such a leader and she might actually become President.  Wouldn't that be fabulous?  I think so.

  • invalid-0

    Susan, you’re a bit misleading when you write, “one day before FDA officials were to face a determined Senator Clinton and her colleague Senator Murray at a Senate hearing in 2006″. The “hearing” was the confirmation of Andrew von Eschenbach. It would have taken strength to actually defeat his nomination, but she did not. He was, unfortunately, confirmed. Her lame ploy may have even facilitated this.

    As far as I can tell, von Eschenbach never backed down on the issue that he inherited from Lester Crawford. It was Barr that eventually yielded and resubmitted with the 18 year old age restriction, wasn’t it? Wasn’t this the outcome the administration was after all along?

    Ever since the confirmation of the new commissioner, the agency has been riddled with scandal, and Clinton’s so-called “leadership” is nowhere to be found. Henry Waxman, Chuck Grassley, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Mike Enzi, and others have actually tried to perform oversight. What has Clinton done?

  • invalid-0

    Thank you, Susan Wood. I was very grateful when you took the stand that forced U.S. media to report what the government was doing to women. It takes courage to speak from and about your own experience and your own convictions. I think of it as the existential concept of good faith.

    Unfortunately, too many women in the U.S. lack that courage. They know that every woman who fights for her own rights and her own integrity will also cover them. And they also know they risk falling out of whatever their social group is if they stand up to men, especially white, middle-class, progressive-on-any-issue-but-women men. So they continue to parrot the double standard of bigotry and continue to consider their own life, health and safety “lesser issues”.

    I only wish there more like you.

  • invalid-0

    Sorry, Georgia but you’re dead wrong about the timing of FDA’s decision and the influence of Eschenbach’s confirmation hearing. Here’s the timeline from the Center for Reproductive Rights website

    July 31, 2006: Von Eschenbach announces the plan to make Plan B available without a prescription to women age 18 and older.
    August 1, 2006: The Senate holds a hearing for von Eschenbach wherein Senators renew their “hold” on confirmation until the FDA acts on Plan B.

    http://www.reproductiverights.org/crt_planb_timeline.html

    So, you see it was Clinton and Murray’s threat to block von E’s nomination that saved the day.

    As for the Kennedy/Enzi effort to reform the FDA, Kennedy’s role here was to steamroller a massive compromise bill through the Senate – with industry help – that, while it brought some reform, left intact the user fees that many former FDA Commissioners maintain is the source of FDA’s conflicted decision making process. Yes, that’s progress but not the transformation that we need for the future.

    Believe me on his, Georgia, I was there. I have to confess, that, like Bill, I share a relationship with the author of this blog!

  • invalid-0

    This comment thread underscores even more why it is time for REAL change and BARACK OBAMA. Everyone wants to litigate the past, parse the present and pretend the future will change by taking a return trip on the Bridge to Bill. Senator Clinton is an outstanding leader but she is not the right candidate to face John McCain and she is not the right leader for this moment. This is not about identity politics, it is about moving beyond identity politics. It is not about the FDA, Plan B, or any of the other horrors we’ve all suffered during the Bush years, it is about recognizing that many of those horrors are the logical result of polarization, the type of polarization the Clintons bring with them everywhere they go. Bill Clinton is responsible for squandering his second term, let’s make certain he doesn’t put his interests ahead of real progress once again. America can’t afford to take a chance on Bill not distracting us all again … once burned, twice shy.

  • susan-wood

    Please see my earlier reply to anonymous on this subject.

  • invalid-0

    Check out Hillary’s website for her whole reproductive health policy initiative:

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5404

  • http://lesstalkmoreactivism.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

    Obama tries to replace reality with words. He throws around words like ‘past vs. future.’ How is having the first woman president the past? How is Hillary’s ‘green jobs’ plan the past? How is universal health care the past?

    Rhetoric flows out of Obama’s mouth with amazing ease. Like in the debate. He throws around words like ‘only I stood up’ for immigration reform. Then Hillary hits him with the facts: she sponsored immigration reform before Obama was even in the Senate. Ooops! A perfect example of how words flow out of Obama’s mouth.

    And if Obama is so opposed to the past, why is he campaigning on memories of JFK? Bill Clinton was President in the recent ’90s. If you’re 50 today, you were in diapers when JFK was President. Again, it’s just Obama throwing words around.

    I’ll give Obama this much — he does make beautiful, inspiring speeches. Obama is more suited to play the important inspirational role that the great Princess Diana played.

    Or maybe we can make Obama our national poet laureate after Maya Angelou retires. Maya Angelou, who certainly understands the power of words, supports Senator Clinton for President.

    Hillary is the future! Obama may be the distant future–or maybe not.

  • invalid-0

    hey hillary supporter. i was for hillary; i thought being a women she could understand but as i read and watch more about her, i began to have second thought about her. that she see say anything to get elected. i’m not juging her and just think everyone who is a woman and thinking she is for them; they should think again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

  • invalid-0

    Hillary indeed has an impressive history of service to this country, and to children and women. I believe she has earned my vote on her merits alone. I trust her judgement, her breadth and depth of knowledge on the issues, and her strength to handle the presidency of the United States. And yet, I am torn. We Democrates have two OUTSTANDING candidates. I can envision Hillary choosing Obama as her running mate, but not vice versa. She is just too experienced and accomplished to be #2. And yet, she is divisive, (I think primarily because she is a strong women)? Should I withhold my vote for her as a consequence? This hardly seems fair. And yet Obama is this amazing orator who inspires and unites, and yes, this DOES matter. I’m sure he too, would be an exceptional president, perhaps even more effective as a result of his ability to unify and build consensus. But… on principle I think Hillary has earned my vote. I don’t hold Bill against her. I applaud his presidency (with the exception of his fidelity slip). Heck, he balanced the budget THREE YEARS EARLY! What is that deficit now? And Hillary gets major kuddos for her graceful handling of that mess and public humiliation! Thanks to all of you who have chimed in here and helped those of us struggling with this most difficult but wonderful of choices! May the best candidate for our country emerge the victor. And thanks Susan. What you shared puts another + in my Hillary column. This administration’s treatment of science took us back to the middle ages (and I know! I work with leading scientists on climate!). Hillary’s got the best policies proposed to address climate change and energy independence I might add.

    Thanks to all once again.

  • invalid-0

    In science the validity of new theories about how certain phenomena will behave in the future is examined against the available evidence. Do educated people employ a similar methodology in accepting or rejecting the claims that are advanced during political campaigns? Consider, for example, the claim that “Senator Obama is a uniter.” Here is a question: What has Obama done to unite the democratic voters? According to Rasmussen Report, in the national poll, Senator Clinton’s points have been, roughly, equal to the sum of Senator Obama’s points and Senator Edwards’ points. Now that Edwards is out with an implicit endorsement of Obama, Democrats seem to be DIVIDED in half between Clinton and Obama. What has Obama done to unite us democrats?

    NV

  • invalid-0

    I don’t see what I’m dead wrong about. As you showed yourself, the FDA decision was released just prior to the confirmation hearing, and the “hold” was lifted. It never should have been.

    You can see from depositions (see pages 10-11) that the administration had long held the view, even when McClellan was commissioner, that Plan-B should be approved only for those 18 and older. Apparently, Plan-B OTC interfered with Tommy Thompson’s “goals and strategic objectives”. (page 14) The final FDA decision was no change from the administration’s policy. I don’t see why Clinton is being credit for accomplishing anything.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you about the FDA reform bill. Real leadership could have made a difference. That’s one of the things that begs the question, where was Hillary?

  • susan-wood

    The administration's (and the organizations that support them) position throughout was that EC should not be approved at all for anyone.  Within FDA Center for Drugs, the leadership there, under pressure, had moved from complete approval for all, to a 16 yearold cutoff, to a 17 year old cutoff, over the objections of the scientific and medical staff.  None of these "compromises" were allowed to go forward (this is the part where I resigned).  The partial approval aspect is one that I didn't go into on the blog, but it remains a problem with only those 18 or older allowed to purchase emergency contraception OTC. 

    That being said, I was stunned at the partial approval for those 18 and older (I have witnesses amongst all of the advocates for EC to my shock at the turnaround).  We have to acknowledge that was real progress.  And I am convinced that this progress to partial approval was because of the leadership by Sen. Clinton and Sen. Murray.  The reason the FDA was allowed to announce that they would partial approval was because of the hearing the next day.  Without real movement (and the partial approval was real movement), Dr. von Eschenbach would not be confirmed, and they knew it.  We have more to do.  When she is president, FDA will be allowed to do it's job based on the science and on usual FDA approval processes, correcting the current situation.

    In terms of FDA reform, Sen. Clinton was very active. In fact her leadership on pediatric drug testing was clear, effective and much needed.  She was very involved in getting provisions on increased transparency and strengthening the science and supported all the increased labelling and drug safety provisions.   In addition she is out there leading on the next big FDA issue which is on creating a legal way for "follow-on biologics" (generic like biologic products) which currently doesn't exist.  Her legislation and her leadership on this issue is the main force in this effort.

    Susan Wood

  • invalid-0

    Thanks for the response Susan. I’m hoping that either Clinton or Obama will support the changes that need to be made.

    I know there are plenty

  • invalid-0

    I know I’m straying off topic now, but… isn’t it odd that von Eschenbach paid Chuck Schumer a spontaneous visit regarding generic biologics? I can’t help wondering if this is somehow related to the Clinton campaign. It would seem that someone was trying to take the wind out of her sail. It would, that is, if this was a campaign issue, but it isn’t, so I’m left scratching my head.

  • http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/01/30/the-one-to-take-the-lead invalid-0

    Thank you for endorsing Senator Clinton. I’m a volunteer escort at a womens clinic constantly under seige by anti-abortion fanatics. Among the many lies these viscious hatemongers yell are so called scientific and medical “facts”. Things like “Abortion causes Breast Cancer”, “You’ll be infertile if you get an abortion”, “The abortion pill will make you bleed to death at home all alone”, “The morning after pill just proves you’re a slut”. These people are the foot soldiers in the war against contraception and reproductive choice of any kind. I am so grateful for courageous scientists like you who took a stand against this and for Senator Clinton’s leadership on this issue. When it came time to actually produce, Senator Clinton did just that. I will vote for Hillary in our upcoming Pennsylvania Primary.

  • http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/comment/reply6336/2669 invalid-0

    Hey Anonymous: Yes, you are judging Hillary. And, actually I think you SHOULD be judging her and all the other candidates for President. Who won’t “say anything” to get elected? In this case, Hillary isn’t saying anything at all; her actions do the talking.

  • invalid-0

    just because he co-sponsors something doesn’t mean he has committed to making it work. He hasn’t had the time to make it work yet. What was the end result of his sponsored bill? I’m sure he hasn’t had time to make it pass because he’s been too busy campaigning… Why does he deserve credit for something that hasn’t been resolved?

  • invalid-0

    Oh, get off it! If Hillary is best suited for Congress, exactly WHAT is Barrack Obama best suited for? Let me guess. A lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry? Obama isn’t anything new. So stop the intellectual dishonesty by suggesting that Hillary has not prepared herself, does not deserve the nomination, and somehow is flawed contrasted against your self-righteous indignant stuck-in-the-muck-resume-lite-gonna-need-a-learning curve candidate. I’m a Democrat. If Obama is the nominee. I will not vote for him. I don’t like or trust what I see coming out of that hype-hole of a campaign,

  • invalid-0

    What, pray tell, has Obama done for ANYBODY? The platitudes and rhetoric sure do make for great drama, don’t they? The guy has not done anything long enough to have any real in-depth experience. And didn’t we just have no experience, a uniter, all hat – no cattle, gonna manage the bureaucracy, chip on the shoulder, on-the-job training? Hmmm. How’d that work out for us? That’s not change. That’s more of the same.

  • invalid-0

    Well, aren’t you dumber than a box of rocks? Then again, the Obama campaign certainly hasn’t been about the issues, has it? I mean, when a guy running for president says he wasn’t invested in the battles of the sixties, I suppose that means he doesn’t understand that many of the battles are still being waged? The guy is Democrat-lite. And you obviously don’t get it either. The Clintons didn’t create the right-wing lunatic fringe – the left-wing lunatic fringe did! What are you guys going to do if you get the White House? Ignore the FDA because, like, hey, man, it’s just toooooo polarizing and all that hard stuff. The horrors we’ve all suffered during the Bush years are the result of polarization? No, it’s the result of a guy who had no experience, was intellectually dishonest, said he was a uniter and a decider, and had to bring along the grown-ups to do the heavy mental lifting. Sounds like your guy.

  • http://www.americaisforwomentoo.com invalid-0

    If you think for one second that Obama is the candidate to beat McCain in the general election, think again. Once the republican machine gets a hold of Obama they will swiftboat him swifter than they did Kerry.

    The republicans will take the Obama-Odinga connection and that will completely dominate the media and perhaps rightfully call into question the national security issues surrounding the Obama-Odinga connection.

    http://www.americaisforwomentoo.com

    Hillary is the candidate to beat McCain, NOT Obama.

  • invalid-0

    Swiftboaing on Obama by the GOP will be a cake walk compared to what the Clintons have tried to do to him, before many in the party stood up and reminded them that when it comes to negative attacks, they should be thankful Obama is not choosing to run a negative campaign against them. If Clinton is the nominee, no issues will be discussed because we will re-parse, re-litigate, and re-hash every aspect of the Clintons past and present, and once again the nation will limp into an election dispirited, sad, voting for the lesser of two evils who have ravaged each other. Hillary’s argument that she can stand up to the GOP attack machine is like making an argument she the better spear catcher. The reason she’s had so much practice is because of they way she and Bill conduct their politics.

    Lastly, to suggest Obama has done nothing in his career, or in this campaign seems to be lost on millions and millions of Americans who look at his record and see success, look at his platform and see no difference from Hillary’s and look at the two candidates and see only one who can win.

    What is most fascinating by the anger women stuck in identity politics are manifesting as they come to realize she is not the candidate that any of us hoped she would be, is that the arguments made by Bill against Obama in South Carolina ring true now for Hillary, except her base of identity politics (women) is shrinking, where and Obama’s alleged base (race, but recall Hillary was once beating him in those categories too) is growing and diversifying.

    I too want to see a woman President, and think the future is bright with leaders like Gov. Gregois in WA, Gov. Napolitano in AZ and Gov. Sebelius in KS and many other wonderful women leaders, accomplished, successful and concerned about the future that are all backing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

  • invalid-0

    I have to say I am a supporter of Hillary, I really don’t understand why all the people for Obama, seem to force their views, I think we all need to be tolerant of each other, what Michelle Obama, said about Hillary, sealed the deal, I will never vote for Obama, if he is the candidate,I will not vote, I am Afro-American, his wife and him put me off, he whines anytime someone brings up race, and well he should he is not one of us!!
    I think the only country Obama really loves is Kenya, I want to see what all these people think that support him, when their money is going to Africa, to support Odinga, and his radicals.
    Thanks Hillary, for not only standing up for women’s right but all of us, you are “The Change And Voice We Need.”
    We Love You Hillary

  • invalid-0

    Hillary is the best canidate for the job. Obama has no experience at anything. This is not practice time and it’s a shame that people are falling for his pep rally and cheerleading. Obama’s words are empty!
    How do you explain to your children that you are voting for a person that was an admitted illegal drug user? That’s a contradiction to what we teach our children. Obama is not a role model I would want for my daughter!
    I will not be responsible for putting our troops in the hands of an inexperienced person. How wrong is it of Obama to bamboozle people into voting for him during this time of war?

  • invalid-0

    I will join you and say i will never vote for Obama if he is the nominee! I feel most Hillary voters feel the same way. So how will he beat John McCain? The republicans will certainly not vote for him. The media is not understanding that we are totally devoted to Hillary. The Obama campaign has turned me off. The media is pro Obama. CNN and NBC. Hillary is my hero.

  • invalid-0

    Hillary is a full member of the Senate Armed Service Committee. Take a look at the website and see what wonderful things she has been doing. Hillary is the role model for all people. She has devoted her life to helping children and fought for all minorities. Do not turn your back on her and the well being of the peolple in this country. Hillary is an angel!

  • invalid-0

    As a pro-choice woman I am disappointed to see so many Clinton supporters saying they will not support Obama. That is your choice, but the fact that you are trying to undermine support for Obama in the primary by saying you will not support him in November will do more to harm the pro-choice cause than anything the GOP will ever do. I support Obama because I’m tired of the hostility and division on politics and believe Obama can bring people together in ways it is obvious Clinton cannot.

  • invalid-0

    Why must people demean someone who inspires people and draws large crowds? Isn’t that why most politicians get into public service, to motivate people, to bring more people into the process? Hillary is very talented and I’ll be proud to support her in November if she is nominated, but the furor starting to rise up from Clinton supporters sounds angry, unapologetic, anti-democratic and defensive. I think Obama’s ability to build a coalition is impressive, his policy ideas smart, and the fact he’s a fresh face very exciting. It’s time to have people from outside Washington inject new ideas, and while Obama is a Senator, the fact he is not jaded by Washington is a plus in my book. I supported John Edwards and have not yet made up my mind who I will vote for in Ohio next month, but I know which way I’m leaning if this discussion is how Clinton supporters truly feel.

  • invalid-0

    The vast right wing conspiracy or the horrible liberal media that is to blame this time for the Clintons troubles? Why is it never the Clintons taking responsibility?

  • susan-wood

    We want a candidate who supports women's health and rights.  Unhelpful remarks all over the blogospere and media have the potential to divide those who are allies (from both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters).

    Clearly I think Sen. Clinton is our strongest candidate, both in terms of her leadership and her ability to get things done (and her ability to win in the general election – as I think prochoice. moderate republicans, especially the women, will cross over to support her).  But I will actively support any candidate who stands up for us.  We are fortunate to have such choices.

  • invalid-0

    Have people forgotten about the dishonesty of Hillary and Bill Clinton throughout all their years in politics? Have we forgotten about her shredding of documents, her lies and her taking money from special interest groups and lobbyists?
    I haven’t forgotten! That is why I am voting for Barack, he represents honesty and integrity. He is a true example for us all! I just don’t understand why people want the same old Washington groupie in the White House. This is our chance to have a president that isn’t the typical politician!!

  • invalid-0

    Thanks for stating your support clearly for Mrs. Clinton and for whomever the party nominates. Thank you also for all you’ve done to bring smart and fair policies to the FDA. We need more people like you, no matter who Democrats nominate.

  • invalid-0

    THANK YOU!