Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Hillary Clinton Tag

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 23, 2014 12 Comments
Wow. It's not often that I can say it but this new video from the GOP is really powerful. Whoever made this video deserves a promotion. The ad uses an audio track of Hillary Clinton criticizing George W. Bush's so-called "imperial presidency." Via the Washington Free Beacon:
An Imperial Presidency A new video released by the GOP on Friday calls out former Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for her hypocrisy on the issue of executive action. In 2008, Clinton said the George W. Bush administration was transforming the executive branch into an “imperial presidency.” In 2014, Clinton said she supported President Obama’s decision to grant citizenship to more than four million illegal immigrants. Clinton unknowingly provided the narration for the GOP’s newest video. “Unfortunately our current president does not seem to understand the basic character of the office he holds,” Clinton said of Bush in April 2008. “Rather than faithfully execute the laws, he has rewritten them through signing statements, ignored them through secret legal opinions, undermined them by elevating ideology over facts. Rather than defending the constitution, he has defied its principles and traditions.”
Check it out:
“This administration’s unbridled ambition to transform the executive into an imperial presidency in an attempt to strengthen the office has weakened our nation.”
But that was then. This is now:

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 16, 2014 10 Comments
Liberals in politics and media are placing all their eggs in Hillary's basket for 2016 but remember: When it comes to presidential elections, Iowa is a very important state and as Lee Rood of the New York Post points out, Hillary may have a problem:
Is Iowa already sick of Hillary Clinton? DES MOINES, Iowa — If you’re a die-hard Democrat in New York hoping to overcome the disappointment that was Nov. 4, you’re worried. But here in Iowa, where the first-in-the-nation caucuses are a mere 14 months away, some are breaking into a cold sweat. Most party leaders here will assure you all conversations about the 2016 presidential nomination still begin and end with Hillary Clinton. The former first lady and secretary of state is a sentimental favorite. Though she has not formally announced her candidacy, her well-oiled super PAC may be the most deeply rooted ever at this stage in the Hawkeye state. “I don’t know of any party regulars or activists who are really pushing anyone else,” says Jerry Crawford, who co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 campaign in Iowa and helps lead Ready for Hillary in the state. But that may be the problem. Familiarity breeds if not contempt, then frustration.
Do you know who else isn't excited about the prospect of a Clinton run? Joe Biden.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 27, 2014 29 Comments
Remember when Hillary, just a few days ago, said that Businesses Don’t Create Jobs, Gubmint does:
“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs”
http://youtu.be/1nbFYP3xB6k?t=36s That was then. This is now. Via Buzzfeed:
When Hillary Clinton fumbled a line at a rally last Friday — “Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs” — the comment caused a minor outrage among political observers. Republicans said she’d been pandering to liberals. Democrats wondered if she’d been trying too hard to channel Elizabeth Warren, the populist senator who also spoke at the event. On Monday, Clinton went out of her way to correct the comment at a rally for Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the Democrat up for reelection in this Hudson Valley district. Clinton said in her speech that corporations that outsource jobs or move profits overseas should not be granted tax breaks. The clarification made clear that the remark was a botched line — not new messaging from Clinton, who has honed a new stump speech during a series of rallies ahead the election next month.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 25, 2014 26 Comments
Wow. While campaigning for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton took a jab at trickle down economics and in the process of doing so, claimed that corporations and businesses don't create jobs. The Washington Free Beacon has the story:
Hillary Clinton: Corporations and Businesses Don’t Create Jobs At a Democratic rally in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton’s attempt to attack “trickle-down economics,” resulted in a spectacularly odd statement. Clinton defended raising the minimum wage saying “Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs, they always say that.” She went on to state that businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America. “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” the former Secretary of State said.
Here's the video: On a related note, do you know who's a big fan of trickle down economics?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on October 23, 2014 13 Comments
Elizabeth Warren has said many times that she "is" not running for President. Yet still the progressive movement doubts her, convinced that she is just waiting for the right moment. Because in their heart of hearts, they believe that Warren would crush Hillary. I believe Hillary knows that too. And so does Elizabeth. The polls mean nothing now because Warren "is" not running. Progressives want her so much, they have reached the point of Kremlinology when it comes to Warren:
During the Cold War, lack of reliable information about the country forced Western analysts to "read between the lines" and to use the tiniest tidbits, such as the removal of portraits, the rearranging of chairs, positions at the reviewing stand for parades in Red Square, the choice of capital or small initial letters in phrases such as "First Secretary", the arrangement of articles on the pages of the party newspaper "Pravda" and other indirect signs to try to understand what was happening in internal Soviet politics.
[caption id="attachment_103768" align="alignnone" width="575"]http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/post_493.html (Photo via Classical Values)[/caption] A recent article in The Nation reflects this technique, Did Elizabeth Warren Just Change Her Tune on Running for President?:

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 17, 2014 40 Comments
At a recent appearance in Detroit, a city which is falling apart at the seams after decades of Democratic Party rule, Ms. Clinton stuck up for the Obama administration's auto industry bailouts while making an underhanded jab at Mitt Romney. Dan Merica of CNN reported:
Hillary Clinton subtly swipes at Mitt Romney over auto bailout Hillary Clinton cribbed a page from President Barack Obama's playbook on Thursday by taking a swipe at Mitt Romney's 2008 oped, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." At an event outside Detroit, where the former secretary of state endorsed Democrats Mark Schauer and Gary Peters, Clinton spoke glowingly of their support for the 2008 auto bailout that invested billions into the United States struggling auto industry. "Now, they could take the safe way, they could line up with those saying 'Let Detroit go bankrupt,' let manufacturing just wither away," Clinton said to a chorus of boos. "They could be on the side of those who were criticizing what they called government motors." Though Clinton never mentioned Romney by name, the comment appeared to be directed at him, as well as Schauer's and Peters' Republican opponents.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 15, 2014 20 Comments
We've seen so many Benghazi bombshells to date that have been deep-sixed by the media or flopped (60 Minutes), that I'm skeptical that this new report will damage Hillary. There will be Clintonesque attacks on the whistleblower and spin of the story as part of a vast right wing conspiracy. But if it's true, the inevitability of Hillary is seriously in doubt. From Sharyl Attkinsson, at The Daily Signal, Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review:
As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.....

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 10, 2014 17 Comments
If Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016, will she pull an Obama, and blame everything on her predecessor, the way Obama still blames Bush for everything? Even if it's a President from her own party?  And an administration she participated in? And a Foreign Policy she helped develop? From recent interviews, looks like Hillary has found her George Bush, and it's Obama. A new report from FOX News seems to indicate that when it comes to foreign policy, she she'll be running against Obama's legacy:
Clinton critical of Obama foreign policy, says 'failure' to act in Syria created vacuum for jihad Hillary Clinton, the front-runner among potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates, is sharply distancing herself from President Obama's foreign policy, particularly in Syria, as Americans appear to continue losing confidence in his handling of key international affairs. Clinton, who as secretary of state was Obama’s top diplomat, suggested during an in-depth interview with The Atlantic magazine that the president’s foreign-policy mantra of “don’t do stupid stuff” lacked sufficient depth. “Great nations need organizing principles,” she said in the roughly 8,000-word interview released Sunday. “And ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” The interview comes as Americans’ opinion of how Obama is handling crises in Israel, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, continues to sink. A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released Tuesday, three days before Obama ordered airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops in Syria, showed a record-high disapproval rating. Sixty percent of those polled disapprove of Obama’s foreign policy efforts, compared to 36 percent who approved. The interview also could help or hurt the former first lady’s effort to burnish her own foreign policy credentials ahead of an official 2016 campaign.
The significance of Hillary's position wasn't lost on Maggie Haberman of Politico:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 18, 2014 21 Comments
John Dickerson at Slate makes the case that Elizabeth Warren Should Run for President:
If Warren joined the race, she would not win [waj - I disagree], but she would till the ground, putting grit and the smell of earth in the contest. She would energize the Democratic Party’s liberal base, which would then stir up other Democrats who seek to moderate or contain that group. Warren would challenge the Democratic Party on issues like corporate power, income inequality, and entitlements. She would be a long shot and she would have nothing to lose—which means she could keep talking about those ideas out loud. Because Clinton is close to Wall Street and finance executives and Warren is gunning for them, she has the potential to put campaign pressure on Clinton that other candidates can’t. Clinton and other candidates would be forced to explain where they stood more than if Warren weren’t in the race.
The concern, according to Dickerson:
The reason a Warren candidacy should have broad ideological appeal is that if you’re a conservative there’s something in her campaign for you, too. It will either expose Democrats for the socialist one-worlders that they are or bruise Clinton for the coming general election fight.
I think Warren should run and challenge Hillary. But that's just me. Meanwhile, if Warren does run, she's going to have to do a much better job at being responsive to reporters and speaking off the cuff rather than in pre-programmed contexts (like Senate hearings where she gets to ask but not answer the questions), via Capitol City Project: Reminds me of this:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 15, 2014 26 Comments
I know, you thought I'd been trolling you these past few months with all my writing about how Elizabeth Warren might actually run for President, and how she would crush Hillary if she did (and they both know it). But I wasn't trolling. Warren's surge in the Wisconsin delegate straw poll was noticed mostly only by us, but was a sign that there could be a groundswell of support. Despite all her present tense denials, there is no doubt in my mind that Warren is seriously considering running but waiting until Democrats demand it. Warren is a unique political talent, in ways we have been documenting since early 2012. There is no one on the political scene today who plays upon and preys upon a sense of victimization and envy as well as Warren. So it doesn't surprise me that Ready for Warren has formed, as reported at HuffPo:
An enthusiastic band of activists has launched a campaign to slow the momentum of Hillary Clinton and convince Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that she should run for president in 2016. "I think there's an opportunity for us to convince her if we're really able to make the case as to why we think she's the right person," said Erica Sagrans, who has signed on as the Ready For Warren campaign manager. The group already has a Facebook page, Twitter account and a new website with a petition encouraging Warren to run. Sagrans, who worked on President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, will be joined by political activist Billy Wimsatt, who previously founded the League of Young Voters and is going to be a senior adviser to the new group. Reached for comment, Lacey Rose, Warren's press secretary, told HuffPost, "No, Senator Warren does not support this effort."
They are not intimidated by the well-monied Ready for Hillary:

Posted by New Neo on July 10, 2014 24 Comments
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer, and a smart one at that. So she knows better than this statement she made about the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision:
It’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.
Politifact rates Clinton's statement as Mostly False. The WaPo's fact-checker gave it 2 Pinocchios. But although both articles say Clinton is dissembling to a certain extent, they both give Clinton's statement a more generous interpretation than it deserves, with the WaPo even insinuating that her error might have been inadvertent. Absurd; as I said, Clinton is a razor-sharp lawyer when she wants to be. She should have gotten the maximum number of Pinocchios and then some.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 08, 2014 27 Comments
Hillary didn't have to defend the child rapist. Once she took the case, she had to do everything ethical to provide the defense. But she didn't have to take the case. Hillary could have just said no. And she didn't have to cackle about getting the guy off easy. There's nothing funny about it. Nothing. It's Mitt's dog, haircut, and secret tape cubed. If the media wants it to be. It also goes to a core political issue, Hillary’s sisterhood questioned again as rape victim speaks out. This will be a big f-ing deal if and when Hillary runs. It already is. (video via Free Beacon) Added:  Some background on the MSNBC segment, noting Hillary's explanations are inconsistent with past statements and correcting errors, from the Free Beacon:
Accessibility by WAH