Tag Archives: Hillary Rodham Clinton

national news, political news

Jeb 'misheard' question about Iraq War?

Mind-reading isn’t my thing.

Therefore, I cannot pretend to know what Jeb Bush heard or “misheard” when Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked him whether he would have gone to war in Iraq “knowing what we now know” about the absence of any weapons of mass destruction.

The former Florida governor and presumed Republican Party candidate for president said he would have gone to war.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-aide-says-jeb-bush-misheard-iraq-question/ar-BBjFW9y

Then he said, “And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everyone. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”

Well.

Let’s just review for a moment. Then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton did vote to authorize war in Iraq. President Bush ordered the invasion in 2003, our troops toppled Saddam Hussein’s government then looked high and low for the WMD. They didn’t find any. They captured Saddam, pulling him out of that spider hole. He was tried and convicted of crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Clinton then said while running for president in 2008 that she was wrong to vote for the war authorization, based on what we now know.

Gov. Bush said he misheard Kelly’s question. I won’t quibble with that point.

I will quibble, though, with his characterization of what Hillary Clinton would do. She’s said she made a mistake.

His bungled answer has angered those on the right, who don’t like him too much anyway.

Time to hit the reset button, Jeb.

 

political news

Diversity marks GOP field in 2016

You want diversity in a presidential campaign?

The growing Republican Party field is turning to be as diverse as any I’ve seen in oh, maybe forever.

http://news.yahoo.com/former-hp-ceo-fiorina-announces-white-house-bid-003353798.html

Carly Fiorina has just announced her candidacy; she’s the first woman in the GOP field.

Ben Carson followed her into the arena later in the day; he’s an African-American neurosurgeon.

Ted Cruz is running; he’s a Cuban-American.

Marco Rubio also is running; he’s also a Cuban-American.

Mike Huckabee is going to run; he’s a former Baptist preacher.

And … what about the Democrats? They’ve got Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I suppose you can say that a card-carrying socialist — Sanders — gives the Democrats a scintilla of diversity.

But the Republican field is looking like a diverse bunch. It’s ethnically diverse. There’s a hint of gender diversity. Occupational diversity is showing up as well. Many of the rest of the expected GOP candidates, though, appear to be run-of-the-mill politicians.

I do like the looks of the GOP field as it’s developing.

 

national news, political news

Stop making me laugh, Mr. Speaker

John Boehner might be the most unintentionally funny politician in Washington, D.C.

The speaker of the House of Representatives, for instance, told conservative journalists that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Benghazi/e-mail kerfuffle just won’t go away.

Imagine that. They won’t vaporize. Become old news. They won’t be relegated to the back burner.

And why do you suppose that’s the case?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boehner-on-hillary-emails-these-things-just-dont-go-away/article/2563850

It’s because Boehner and other Republicans won’t allow it.

That’s the short answer. Indeed, it’s the only answer I can figure at the moment.

The Benghazi matter will stay in the public eye for as long as Congress wants it to stay there. Boehner, according to the Washington Examiner, intends to keep the focus on Benghazi and the e-mails that have been called into question by the House Select Benghazi Committee chaired by Republican Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

Boehner said this: “They deleted all the (former IRS director) Lois Lerner e-mails, but they keep finding them. You know, these things just don’t go away. So I don’t know where the server is, I don’t know what condition it’s in, I have no idea, but the American people deserve the facts. That’s all. Just tell us what the facts are.”

So, the hunt will go on. Benghazi will remain in front of voters. Boehner wants the truth, by golly, no matter what.

I don’t know whether to dismiss Boehner’s ridiculous assertions about why these matters won’t fade into oblivion or whether to enjoy watching these fishing expeditions. On one hand, the Benghazi tragedy — in which four Americans were killed in that September 2012 fire fight launched by terrorists at the U.S. consulate in Libya — has been settled. Members of Congress, though, keep looking for more … and then more after that. They seem intent on finding something — anything — that’s going to derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

That, I submit, is why the Benghazi e-mail tempest will keep going.

Correct, Mr. Speaker?

 

national news, political news

Socialist could do HRC a huge favor

Bernie Sanders’s campaign for president next year is likely to produce a huge favor for the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sanders is an unapologetic socialist. He’s an independent U.S. senator from Vermont. He’s going to attack Clinton from the left as the two of them seek their party’s presidential nomination.

The favor? It will be that Clinton will be seen as the mainstream candidate and — perhaps — more palatable to the vast middle-of-the-road sea of voters who dislike extremists on either end of the political spectrum.

Socialist to snap at Clinton’s heels

Republican candidates and members of the TEA party wing of the GOP try all the time to label Clinton as some kind of “closet socialist.” Well, she’ll be running for her party’s nomination against the real thing.

Sanders has no qualms about extolling the virtues of wealth redistribution, which is a socialist tenet. Clinton doesn’t say such things — out loud, at least. That doesn’t stop her fervent critics from hanging the socialist label on her.

So, look for Hillary Clinton to welcome Sanders’s attacks. She’ll parry them easily and possibly deprive her Republican foes a key weapon in their own arsenal against the probable Democratic presidential nominee.

 

International news, national news, political news

Benghazi report timing is, um, dubious

This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi will release its report to the world sometime in, that’s correct, 2016. That’s right smack in the midst of a presidential campaign featuring the No. 1 principal in that investigation, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who — by the way — will be running for president of the United States.

I know. You just can’t believe the timing of it all, right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/house-benghazi-report-release-2016-117231.html?hp=r3_4

The panel’s chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, had wanted to release the report no later than the end of the current year. Legal staffers, though, said they needed more time to assimilate everything and compile into a comprehensive report on what happened on Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Libya.

What did happen? Some terrorists launched an attack on the consulate, a fire fight ensued and four Americans were killed, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Clinton’s State Department has been accused of covering up key elements relating to what they knew and when they knew it. Previous findings have concluded there has been no deliberate cover-up. But the Republican-led House launched a select committee probe anyway.

This is certain to muddy Clinton’s presidential campaign, particularly if it produces a proverbial “smoking gun.”

What did she know? When did she know it? Did the secretary deliberately mislead Americans?

I’ve long thought this congressional panel already had pre-determined culpability, but was looking for the path that would reach that conclusion. Then again, I’m not in the hearts and minds of those who are conducting this investigation.

I’ll accept Chairman Gowdy’s assertion that he wanted to release the report prior to the election year.

My hope now is that we can choose the next president on the merits of their full public record, their campaign rhetoric and their pledges to lead the country toward an even brighter future.

My fear is that the Benghazi report is going to plow all of that noble intent into the ground.

 

national news, political news

No diversity on Democratic bench? C'mon!

The Hill newspaper has a headline that shouts that actual and potential Democratic candidates for president lack “diversity.”

The Democratic “bench” is too, um, bland … or some such thing.

Hold on here.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/239460-democrats-have-no-bench-and-no-diversity-in

The trio of mug shots that accompany the news story attached here tell me something quite different.

* Hillary Rodham Clinton is, quite obviously, a woman. She was first lady for eight years from 1993 until 2001. She served in the U.S. Senate and then as secretary of state. Enough said there.

* Jim Webb is a former U.S. senator from Virginia. He’s a Vietnam War veteran. He saw combat as a Marine. He served in the Reagan administration, not exactly a bastion of progressive principles.

* Bernie Sanders is an independent U.S. senator from Vermont. He’s a card-carrying, say-it-loud-and-proud socialist. He makes no bones about his share-the-wealth philosophy.

I won’t mention Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who keeps saying she isn’t running.

Oops. I just did.

Those three individuals look pretty diverse to me. They each bring a different set of governing principles to a presidential campaign.

Only one of them, Clinton, has declared her candidacy. Webb has formed an exploratory committee, while Sanders is keeping his options open.

I get what The Hill means, though, about the lack of “diversity.” It refers to the Republican field that so far has two Hispanic candidates — Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. There well might be a woman, Carly Fiorina, in the mix as well. An African-American, Ben Carson, is likely to run.

Let us not dismiss the potential Democratic primary field as being bland and one-note boring.

Among the possible field of three — Clinton, Webb and Sanders — one can find plenty of ideological diversity.

national news, political news

Why do media keep referring to 'Hillary'?

I don’t intend to belabor this point, but it’s worth noting nevertheless.

The media seem quite comfortable referring to the presume favorite for the Democratic Party presidential nomination only by her first name.

It’s “Hillary says” such and such, or “Hillary need to explain” this or that, or “Hillary has hit the road.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-election-media-strategy-117118.html?hp=t4_r

Is it a sexist thing? Or is it just that the former first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and 2008 presidential candidate has become so familiar that only a first name is needed. Or are media representatives seeking to knock her down a peg or two by using the first-name-only reference?

Athletes often ascend to that status: Wilt, Arnie, Magic, Julius, Mickey and Reggie come to mind.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has achieved some kind of mysterious air of familiarity with the media.

The task ahead of her, though, is to build some familiarity with average Americans. Folks like you and me.

I dislike referring to the first declared 2016 Democratic presidential candidate by her first name. I continue to believe that to treat her the same way one should treat all the men who will run for president, it’s good to refer to her in precisely the same manner we do those men.

But think about this for a moment. Republicans might have a female candidate of their own to consider during the primaries. That would be Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett/Packard and one-time GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate in California.

Is she going to become “Carly”?

Somehow, the ring of familiarity just isn’t there as it is with Hillary.

 

national news, political news

Is HRC 'likable enough' to get elected?

A young U.S. senator, Barack Obama, uttered arguably one of the signature lines of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primary campaign when he told fellow Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

I’m betting that Clinton didn’t appreciate the “compliment.”

Now, eight years later, she’s launching another bid for the presidency.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/12/clinton-campaigns-challenge-make-her-likeable/

And as the Wall Street Journal reports, her task is to make her “likable enough” to get elected president of the United States next year.

As the WSJ reported: “She needs to try to humanize herself, because in some ways she’s kind of become a cardboard cutout figure,” said Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University.

So, the campaign begins anew for the former first lady, senator and secretary of state.

Many in the media refer to her simply as “Hillary.” Just a mention of that name and you know to whom the reference is being made. Does the first-name familiarity make her likable? Hardly. I continue to believe she needs to translate likability into authenticity.

She remains a political powerhouse. The strength, though, doesn’t always connect with voters in a tangible manner. Clinton at times appears evasive, which hardly lends itself to likability.

I will be among millions of voters looking for signs that she’s capable of understanding the problems, worries and concerns of average American citizens. If she does, she’ll prove she’s for real, that she’s authentic.

And likable.

national news, political news

HRC needs to prove she's authentic

Authenticity.

That’s the one word, I believe, that sums up Hillary Rodham Clinton’s major hurdle as she begins her second quest for the presidency.

It starts once again on Sunday. She’ll convene some small-group sessions. She’ll talk to voters who about herself, which is what all politicians do when they discuss campaigns for public office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-begins-her-entry-into-the-2016-presidential-race/2015/04/10/f5f08ef0-df9c-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html

I’m left to wonder, though. Just who is this person?

I also am going to venture a guess that a lot of Americans are going to seek to find the real Hillary Clinton, whoever she is.

The email kerfuffle and her delayed reaction to it just stokes the flames of those who think she’s a phony. She’s got all that big-time money backing her, yet she’s going to say that the Citizens United case — which allows corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians — needs to be overturned. She told us a while back she and her husband, the 42nd president, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in January 2001; well, a lot of Americans define “dead broke” differently than the way Hillary Clinton defined it.

Is she for real? Does she really connect with me, or you, or most Americans?

Her campaign begins once again in about 24 hours. She’s going to be the Target No. 1 of every Republican running, or thinking of running, for president in 2016. She’s going to draw fire from those on the far left wing base of her own Democratic Party who are looking for signs that she isn’t too cozy with Wall Street.

What’s more, on top of all this, she’s got the baggage she’ll be lugging around from her time as first lady, when the entire Republican Party establishment — and before we knew about the TEA party wing of the GOP — was out to get her husband tossed out of office. She drew her share of enemy fire during that time. Is she ready to take more of it?

Just who is the real Hillary Rodham Clinton?

We’re about to find out.

 

national news, political news

HRC is going to run for president

1 Comment

Anyone who thought that Hillary Rodham Clinton was going to decide against running for president next year — and I believed that was a possibility — well, you’d better put those notions into the trash bin.

It looks as though Clinton is in. Email controversy and all. Criticism from the right and from the far left, too.

She’s in.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-atlantic-city-speech-116236.html?hp=c2_3

Clinton gave what everyone in the know says is the last speech she’ll give for money. She spoke to the American Camp Association and collected her usual handsome speaking fee.

After that, it’s done. No more money for speaking. We’re going to hear from the former secretary of state about why she wants to run for president and why she’s the best candidate out there.

Honestly, her political stamina is utterly amazing.

She has been battered almost beyond recognition from the day her husband, Bill, took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 1993. It never let up during President Clinton’s two terms. He got impeached but was acquitted of “high crimes and misdemeanors” by the Senate. When the president left office in January 2001, Hillary took office as a senator from New York, serving with the very people who sought to get her husband kicked out of office; I “predicted” back then she wouldn’t do it … silly me.

Her 2008 presidential campaign was another exercise in political battering. The man who defeated her then named her secretary of state — and she’s been dogged even more by harsh criticism.

Now she’s going for the Big One.

An announcement is expected soon, perhaps within the next month.

This ride will be a rough one.