Home / HillaryClinton
Showing posts with label HillaryClinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HillaryClinton. Show all posts
Some dumb political quotes from 2011

Some dumb political quotes from 2011

Here are some of the dumber quotes:

1) "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable." Hillary Clinton, 18 days before Mubarak stepped down. January 25, 2011
2) "They have acted like terrorists." Joe Biden on Tea Party Republicans. August 1, 2011.
3) "What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget . . . . We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today." Nancy Pelosi discussing John Boehner's Debt Ceiling bill. July 28, 2011
4) "Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They're impossible to find and don't exist." Harry Reid asserting that there aren't any jobs created by millionaires. December 12, 2011
5) "Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy." Joe Biden, December 19, 2011
"Clinton says no to second term," feed up with Obama's indecisiveness

"Clinton says no to second term," feed up with Obama's indecisiveness

On CNN, Hillary Clinton announced three times that she was not interested in serving in a second term in the Obama administration.

Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?
No
Q- Would you like to serve as secretary of defense?
No
Q- Would you like to be vice president of the United States?
No


Clinton is feed up with Obama's indecisiveness on foreign policy.

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after
2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”
He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”
Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-
Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week. . . .
How appropriate is it for Bill Clinton to get millions of dollars from governments that are dealing directly with his wife as Secretary of State

How appropriate is it for Bill Clinton to get millions of dollars from governments that are dealing directly with his wife as Secretary of State

Is it appropriate that foreign governments give money to Bill Clinton why they are dealing directly with his wife as Secretary of State? Is it appropriate that the exact amount of the donations not be reported publicly?

Foreign countries including Saudi Arabia and Norway gave millions of dollars to former President Bill Clinton's charity as Hillary Rodham Clinton served her first year as President Barack Obama's secretary of state.
A donor list released on New Year's Day by the William J. Clinton Foundation shows that Saudi Arabia and Norway each donated somewhere between $10 million to $25 million to the former president's charity. . . .
The William J. Clinton Foundation works in the United States and around the world on such issues as health care, particularly HIV/AIDS; climate change; and economic development. It also runs the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock, Ark., which includes Clinton's presidential library. . . .


The comparison to other former presidents is quite the same as their wives are not still holding powerful government positions. It is true: "The Clintons were under no legal obligation to identify foundation donors." But it sure raises questions.
Woman who called Hillary a Monster appointed to important NSC position

Woman who called Hillary a Monster appointed to important NSC position

Well, I guess that Samantha Power's removal from the Obama campaign was not quite as sincere as one might have thought. Obama was claimed to believe that Power's statement represented "This is the worst kind of politics." The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

Samantha Power and Hillary Rodham Clinton have long since buried the hatchet over that famous “monster” comment back during the presidential campaign. Now they apparently are about to be drawn even closer. The Associated Press reported today that Ms. Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and a professor of public policy at Harvard University, will be named to a senior foreign-policy job at the White House — one that could have her traveling with Ms. Clinton, the secretary of state.

According to the AP, officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said President Obama had tapped Ms. Power to be senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council. White House officials would not provide any details of that role. . . .
Dems threatened Jewish groups with loss of tax exempt status if Palin allowed to speak

Dems threatened Jewish groups with loss of tax exempt status if Palin allowed to speak

NYC's CBS2 has this story:

Sources: Intense Pressure Led To Palin UN Snub
CBS 2 HD Has Learned Democrats Threatened To Attack Jewish Groups' Tax Exempt Status Over VP Nominee Invite. . . .

"This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, told CBS 2 HD.

Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

"I have never seen such raw emotion -- on both sides," said someone close to the situation.

The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, "it could jeopardize their tax exempt status" if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand.

So all politicians were disinvited, most prominently, Palin.

"It's an absolute shame that this has happened," Hikind said. "To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism." . . .
"I never thought I'd ever get a question like this": What to do about a delegate to the national Democratic Convention who is voting for McCain?

"I never thought I'd ever get a question like this": What to do about a delegate to the national Democratic Convention who is voting for McCain?

The story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is here:

FRIDAY, June 13, 2008, 3:08 p.m.
By Craig Gilbert
Clinton delegate to vote for McCain
As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton's defeat.

She's not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama.

And she's not entirely alone in saying she'll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead.

But what makes her unusual is that she holds these views as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

"I'm sure people are going to be upset with me. I don't want to lose my national delegate status," says Bartoshevich, a 41-year-old emergency room nurse who is a convention delegate, pledged to Clinton, from Waterford in Racine County.

Joe Wineke, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, reacted with disbelief when first told Friday afternoon that one of his state party delegates is now a McCain supporter.

"Not a delegate? To the national convention?" asked Wineke, who was getting ready for the start of the state party convention Friday in Stevens Point.

"We have a Clinton national (convention) delegate who says she's voting for John McCain?" Wineke repeated, for clarification. "I've never heard of such a thing."

Wineke said "almost everybody I know who was for Hillary" is solidly behind Obama now. As for Bartoshevich, he said, "my suspicion is she doesn't know what she's getting into" because "the delegates to this convention will be very upset."

Asked if publicly supporting the other party's presidential nominee could affect a delegate's convention status, Wineke said, "I never thought I'd ever get a question like this." . . .
New Op-ed at Fox News: Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics?

New Op-ed at Fox News: Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics?

The full piece is here:

Are women really discriminated against in politics? Sen. Hillary Clinton surely thinks so.

Indeed, she believes this year's presidential campaign has shown that sexism limits women's influence in politics. She claimed last week that "every poll I've seen shows more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American."

It's possible that Democrats are particularly sexist, but with women making up the majority of voters, one would think that politicians were ignoring women at their own peril. . . . .


Some discussion on this can be found here
PREDICTION: Clinton will win the total Dem primary vote

PREDICTION: Clinton will win the total Dem primary vote

It is pretty clear to me that Hillary will very likely win the popular vote for the Democratic nomination, virtually anyway you cut it.

First note that RealClearPolitics indicates the following vote differences between Clinton and Obama:

Popular Vote Total Obama +417,805 +1.2%
Popular Vote (w/FL) Obama +123,033 +0.3%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** Clinton +205,276 +0.58%

Tonight it appears clear that Clinton will net 150,000 more votes between Kentucky and Oregon than Obama. If that holds when the rest of the votes in Oregon are counted, Clinton could have a 30,000 vote lead in the popular vote with Florida. Then there are only three places voting left.

Note Puerto Rico has about 3 million adults.
Montana has about 728,000 adults
South Dakota has about 587,000 adults

PR thus has 1.68 million more adults than Montana and SD. Obviously, Democratic primary voters would only make up something around a quarter or more of this total. Clinton is apparently strong in PR (ahead by 13 points in mid April). It seems very plausible that even if Clinton loses Montana and SD, she will pick up a couple hundred net votes. I found one poll for SD in April that showed, Obama ahead by 10 points, but things could have changed since then. Clearly she will be clearly ahead with Florida and Florida & Michigan and the total without them would be very close. If she carries SD and or Montana, I think it would likely be that she would carry the total vote without Florida or Michigan.
Are the Federal Election Laws keeping Clinton in the race?

Are the Federal Election Laws keeping Clinton in the race?

John Fund has this interesting bit at today's WSJ's Political Diary:

Why is she still running? That's what Democrats are asking about Hillary Clinton in the wake of her disappointing performance in Tuesday's primaries.

One explanation is that something could always turn up once again to knock Mr. Obama off-stride, just as happened with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Mr. Obama's infamous "bitter" comments. Another possible reason is that she can't afford to leave the race. So far, Mrs. Clinton has loaned over $11 million of her own money into the campaign and still has substantial debts, including $4.5 million to her former chief strategist Mark Penn.

A little-known provision of the McCain-Feingold election law makes her exit a difficult question. If she hopes to get paid back for the money she lent her campaign, she can only accept repayment until the date of the Democratic convention in August. After that she can only accept a maximum of $250,000 from contributors.

"If she wants to be repaid, she'd have to move on that between now and the national convention," former Federal Election Commission chairman Michael Toner told U.S. News & World Report. The longer Mrs. Clinton stays in the race, the greater the chance she can still find some donors who have not already given her the maximum contribution allowed by law. Should she drop out, her chances of raising money from anyone effectively become zero. . . .
Obama unjustified attack on Clinton

Obama unjustified attack on Clinton

Obama claims that Clinton's win in Indiana doesn't count because Republicans crossed over to vote for her, but Obama has himself actively encouraged Republicans to vote for him in states such as Pennsylvania.

Barack Obama’s campaign issued an e-mail on Tuesday night that appeared to relegate Hillary Clinton’s lead in Indiana to efforts by Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc in the Democratic presidential primary contest.
"Obama’s Favorable Rating Drops"

"Obama’s Favorable Rating Drops"

Fox News has some amazing changes in the poll numbers:

Nearly half of Democrats (48 percent) think Hillary Clinton has a better chance of beating John McCain in November — 10 percentage points higher than the 38 percent who think Barack Obama can win, according to a FOX News poll released Wednesday. This represents a significant shift from March, when Democrats said Obama was the candidate more likely to beat McCain. . . . .
Whatever happened to the mantra of counting every vote?

Whatever happened to the mantra of counting every vote?

John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary:

. . . . Barack Obama's campaign says Mr. Obama has won 14.4 million votes compared to 13.9 million for Mrs. Clinton, a 49% to 47% lead. But yesterday in Indianapolis, Mrs. Clinton hauled out her New Math.

"As of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else, and I am proud of that," she told a rally. "It's a very close race, but if you count, as I count, the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that." Indeed, if you count the Florida and Michigan results, she leads Mr. Obama by 15.1 million votes to 15. million.

The status of the rogue Michigan and Florida primaries continues to bedevil Democrats. Delegates from both states have been stripped of their votes at the Denver convention because their state parties held primaries too early. In Florida, no one campaigned and Mrs. Clinton won a 50% to 33% victory. In Michigan, Mr. Obama's name didn't appear on the ballot and Mrs. Clinton won 55% of the vote. An uncommitted slate of delegates favoring Mr. Obama won 40% of the vote.

Mr. Obama didn't put up a big fuss about Mrs. Clinton's numbers. "I guess there have been a number of different formulations that the Clinton campaign has been trying to arrive at to suggest that somehow they're not behind," he told reporters on Wednesday. "I'll leave that up to you guys. If you want to count [Florida and Michigan] for some abstract measure, you're free to do so." His point was simple: He has more delegates and that's what will count in choosing the nominee.

But at least until Indiana and North Carolina vote in two weeks, Mrs. Clinton has a new rhetorical talking point to make with voters and superdelegates -- if you count every vote cast so far in a recognized or unrecognized primary, she is the temporary leader.


Note that there was an advertising campaign in Michigan asking people who supported Obama to vote for the uncommitted slate.
Obama again pretends to be pro-gun ownership

Obama again pretends to be pro-gun ownership

John Fund has this at today's WSJ's Political Diary:

ABC News reported that the Obama campaign sent out an automated phone call message yesterday featuring a gun owner claiming that the Illinois Senator "respects our traditions" while "Senator Clinton voted to allow guns to be confiscated." The call refers to the fact that Mrs. Clinton was one of 16 senators to vote against an amendment barring police from confiscating guns from homeowners during an emergency, as was done with abandon in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Hillary Clinton quickly responded with her own "robocall" that attempted to tar Mr. Obama as an elitist, anti-gun liberal. The call featured a narrator deploring the fact that as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama "supported a ban on all handguns, and he even personally filled out a questionnaire saying he supported the ban. Now instead of telling you the truth about that, he's trying to cover it up, saying he never saw the questionnaire -- even though his handwriting was on it." . . .

It's well known that Democrats decided to soft-pedal the gun issue after being hurt in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. But this year the gun question has come back with a vengeance, with the unusual twist that both major Democratic candidates now are competing to see just how pro-gun each can portray themselves as being.
Obama trying for Knockout blow in Pennsylvania

Obama trying for Knockout blow in Pennsylvania

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are smashing spending records with a statewide barrage of television ads as they near the finish line of their six-week marathon.
Obama is outspending Clinton by more than 2-to-1 on television ads in Pennsylvania during the final week before Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, according to ad tracking sources and Tribune-Review research.

He had been outspending her by about 3-to-1 before she started pouring more money into TV spots last week. Clinton hopes to gain fresh momentum with a Pennsylvania victory, and Obama hopes to make the Keystone State her last stand.

Obama, who trails Clinton in most statewide polls, spent about $3 million on TV in the final week; Clinton spent nearly $1.4 million, according to The Campaign Group, an independent media consulting firm. In the Pittsburgh market, Obama bought nearly $500,000 in spots, compared with about $203,000 for Clinton. In the Philadelphia market, Obama is spending nearly $1.8 million on TV; Clinton, $865,000.

Media experts consider $1 million spent over a week on television in Pennsylvania a strong buy. . . .
Clinton misspeaks about experience with guns

Clinton misspeaks about experience with guns

The Boston Herald has this interesting discussion:

Vice president Dick Cheney has challenged Hillary Clinton to a shooting match to test whether her professed love of guns is real or not.

A day after the Democratic presidential candidate discussed her fond memories of shooting with her father, Cheney threw down the gauntlet.

“To be frank, Hillary Clinton’s stories about her adventures with guns don’t exactly pass the smell test,” Cheney told Tim Russert on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ yesterday.

“If she really wants to show that she knows how to handle a rifle, there’s an easy way to do that: meet me in the woods.”

Clinton touted her experience with guns as she continued a weekend tirade against her Democratic rival Barack Obama’s controversial comments about “bitter” working-class voters, frustrated by economic woes and immigration, who “cling to guns or religion.” Obama later said he “regretted” the comments.

The New York senator called Obama “elitist” and “out of touch” before reminiscing about shooting trips with her father and downing shots and beer with supporters in Indiana.

But shortly after Cheney’s challenge, Clinton said she had “misspoke” about her gun exploits as a child. “I fired a gun once, but I didn’t like it, and I didn’t recoil,” she said. . . .


This is particularly funny given her previous discussion about going duck hunting with a rifle. So her story is that she only shot a gun once, it was a rifle and she took down a duck with that one single shot.

Sonya Jones alerted me this morning that something is strange with this piece in that it was taken down by the Boston Herald sometime during the night.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)