Clinton receives thanks from American Indians

May 28, 2008

FLATHEAD INDIAN RESERVATION, Montana – Hillary Clinton took her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination to an Indian reservation where she received applause, thanks – and new footwear.

“You’ve gone a million miles for the Indian people — here are a pair of moccasins to help you on your journey,” Joe McDonald, president of Salish Kootenai College, said on Tuesday in presenting Clinton the gift.clinton1.jpg

A crowd of several hundred roared approval.

Drawing more applause, Clinton said, “We need a president next January who understands the obligation that the United States government has to the tribes that represent the first people of the United States.” 

As first lady, and now a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton has worked to upgrade health care, education and economic opportunities for native Americans, many of whom live in poverty.

In Montana, there are about 56,000 American Indians among seven tribes, making up  6.2 percent of the state’s population. 

Clinton recalled that when her husband was president, he held a meeting with more than 500 leaders of Indian tribes nationwide, marking the first such talks “in many, many years.”

Clinton vowed to reverse what she said was the rollback in relations between Washington and American Indians since President George W. Bush took office in January 2001. 

“I will stand with you,” she said in asking for their support in Montana’s Democratic presidential primary next week.

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage.

Photo REUTERS/Ana Martinez.  (Clinton, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter Chelsea attend a Memorial Day event in San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 26, 2008)

4 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Hillary is bad medicine

Posted by Margaret | Report as abusive

Hey! A positive story on Clinton.
I look for any morsel I can read on this interesting candidate.

As an international employee assigned here, I am watching the campaign unfold.
I’m not sure how voters evaluate a candidate, maybe on the basis of American Idol?

On the world stage, the Clintons were heralded. We were impressed by the energy and international appeal of the husband/wife team.

One thought comes to me many times over:
With such a proven candidate, the American people just may not be able to get over the gender hurdle .

This is an important election for the Americans, yet to grapple with pettiness and lose a focus on qualities of a good leader shows little awareness of this importance.

This must be how Bush came to office, eh?

It is good, however to see that the Clinton energy has not abated.
She is actually a very beautiful and intelligent woman.
At least it appeals to half her party’s voters,
AND the native Americans.

Posted by benjamin | Report as abusive

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Reader…

What in the world does the following mean?

“Clinton vowed to reverse what she said was the rollback in relations between Washington and American Indians since President George W. Bush took office in January 2001.” Thomas Ferraro, Reuters, May 28th

Likewise, what does this mean?

“’I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,’ said Obama” Deborah Charles, Reuters, May 28th

The preceding reminds me of something that King Théoden said to Aragorn in The Lord Of The Rings, i.e., “Last I looked, Théoden was king of Rohan…not (the uncrowned) Aragorn.”

The point is that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are neither one in a position to do anything that they suggest…as much as they might like to.

Naturally, I for one would love it if one or the other could do what they suggest, but it is a fantasy.

Thankfully, we Americans have separation of powers (executive, legislative, judicial). Therefore, a president cannot overturn a law. Of course, if the majority in both houses of congress vote to repeal a law, that is a different matter altogether…assuming the president goes along with it. On the judicial side, if the majority of supreme court judges (with or without the concurrence of the chief justice) declare a legislatively generated statute unconstitutional, that’s another way of overturning a law.

Reversing the course that Mr. Bush (much of the time through executive orders) and a republican controlled congress and republican controlled supreme court (and a bunch of wimp democrats) took this great nation down will be an all consuming task for both a democrat controlled congress and for Mr. Obama.

No, Mrs. Clinton isn’t going to be the nominee for the democrat party.

Said course reversal could take anywhere from 4 to 8 years or more (the “or more” being relevant if a democrat succeeds Mr. Obama in the White House).

What Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid (what I call the rainbow coalition) ought to be concentrating on during the first 100 days is beginning to reverse the fiscal/financial idiocy that Mr. Reagan and a democrat controlled congress instituted beginning in 1981. Mr. Reagan compounded said idiocy in 1986. Mr. Bush the father went along with said idiocy for his 4 years. Mr. Clinton managed to make a slight dent in said idiocy during his 8 years. However, Mr. Bush the son and a republican controlled congress restored the dent.

The only way to restore fiscal/financial sanity to the United States of America is to do just the opposite of what Mr. Reagan pulled off in two stages, i.e., 1981 and 1986.

That is, the top marginal personal federal income tax rate must be restored for the privileged class and super privileged class to the pre-Reagan level of 70% (I would momentarily settle for the post-1981/pre-1986 rate of 50%) AND the top marginal rate for the middle class must be restored to the pre-Reagan level of 11% (I would momentarily settle for 15%). The working class should have a top marginal rate of no more than 5%.

Then, of course, the top marginal corporate federal income tax rate must be raised to its old levels…likewise the top marginal capital gains tax.

Along with that, the top marginal small business rate must be capped at 15% (I would momentarily settle for 20%).

Below is what I see as the way the economy in this country should work (which just so happens to be the way it did in fact work before a perfectly good progressive income tax system began to be tinkered with before the 1980′s, primarily by Messrs. Nixon/Ford/Carter, AND before corporations were allowed to move their operations offshore (and avoid U.S. taxes) or to other countries while closing manufacturing facilities and causing the unpatriotic evaporation of American working class and middle class jobs.

Here is the way the American economic system should work and did work.

The working class and middle class consume domestically produced goods and services with mostly tax-free dollars. What they consume are goods & services that they themselves manufacture or otherwise produce at facilities owned by the privileged class…said consumption revenue providing the money to pay the salaries, wages & benefits of the working class and middle class…while also providing the profits to the privileged class which are mostly taxed dollars (personal, corporate, capital gains). Said tax revenues are then used by the government to pay America’s bills.

What Mr. Reagan, his cohorts and successors have basically done is to raise taxes on the working class & middle class; lower taxes on the privileged class and super privileged class; and pay America’s bills mostly by borrowing from the working class & middle class social security trust fund, and from foreign governments and investors.

That’s why I call it idiocy. Most of the tax burden in this country is on the shoulders of the working class and middle class through FICA payroll taxes and income taxes.

Let’s do the top marginal math, shall we…7.65% + 35% + say, 10% state income tax = a minimum 52.65% middle class tax burden on virtually all of their income (not including sales, i.e., consumption, taxes and user fees).

The privileged class pays little FICA payroll taxes and relatively little in the way of income tax. One must remember that while the middle class and working class spend virtually all of their earnings on consumption, income taxes and consumption taxes…the privileged class does only discretionary spending above a certain level.

The super privileged class pay little if any taxes on such cool little items as “trust funds”, e.g., Bill Gates today, and Andrew Carnegie when the income tax became constitutional prior to World War I.

Best Regards,
Oklahoma Jack

Posted by Oklahoma Jack | Report as abusive

Hey! A positive story on Clinton.
I look for any morsel I can read on this interesting candidate.

As an international employee assigned here, I am watching the campaign unfold.
I’m not sure how voters evaluate a candidate, maybe on the basis of American Idol?

On the world stage, the Clintons were heralded. We were impressed by the energy and international appeal of the husband/wife team.

One thought comes to me many times over:
With such a proven candidate, the American people just may not be able to get over the gender hurdle .

Posted by shanmarsh | Report as abusive