How Hillary Clinton is using old photographs to make herself more 'relatable'
In a bid to burnish her image with voters, the Clinton campaign is flooding the Internet with nostalgic pictures of the Democratic front-runner.
By ANNIE KARNI
09/15/15, 05:08 AM EDT
In a bid to burnish her image with voters, the Clinton campaign is flooding the Internet with nostalgic pictures of the Democratic front-runner.
By ANNIE KARNI
09/15/15, 05:08 AM EDT
Splashed across social media and the airwaves, the photos are hard to miss.
Follow Hillary Clinton’s Instagram feed, and you’ll see her as a toddler in Park Ridge, Illinois, riding a tricycle. On Facebook, you’ll meet her as an almost unrecognizable young Arkansas mother with brown hair, big glasses and loafers, spotting her daughter on a pony ride; on the website Medium, she stares out at you, just another earnest face in a crowd posing for a 1965 high school class picture. In the first television ads of the campaign, she is seemingly from another era, pictured in grainy black and white, about 10 years old with a half-smile on her face, hair pulled back in a pollyanna, holding her mother’s hand.
Since launching her campaign last June, Clinton has flooded the Internet and filled her TV spots with surprising, little-known images of the candidate pulled from old family photo albums, all part of a larger campaign strategy to make Clinton more relatable to voters. The nostalgic pictures are designed to present her as an average person — rather than a global brand — and to neutralize the negative image Clinton can sometimes project as the untrustworthy political insider campaigning in a rich lady's uniform of bold-colored pantsuits and a helmet of blonde hair.
At one time, the images might have been too loaded to be advertised. The Clintons' student activism was still the source of some controversy in the 1990s; their 1960s and 1970s attire and hairstyles might have served as a reminder of cultural and generational battles still fresh in some voters' minds. But those concerns have faded with the passage of time.
Clinton’s campaign tried a similar strategy on a significantly smaller scale in 2008, when her ad man at the time, Jimmy Siegel, shot a 30-second television spot titled “Scranton.” The commercial featured gauzy footage of Clinton as a toddler in 1950, running around the working class city where her grandfather worked at a lace mill. “There was no heat or indoor shower,” Clinton narrates in a voiceover, describing her stays at a cabin there every summer, “Just the joy of family."
The ad ran only in Pennsylvania, a state Clinton won in the 2008 primary. But in general, former aides said, Clinton’s last campaign was resistant to the softer focus, choosing instead to highlight her strength and experience.
This time around, however, the campaign is all in on the nostalgic memes as it tries to humanize a candidate who has stumbled through a difficult summer, with the controversy over her emails reinforcing the most negative stereotypes of the Clintons as paranoid and secretive, playing by their own set of rules. In polls, a majority of voters think Clinton is untrustworthy, and describe her as “dishonest.”
The goal in highlighting the photos, campaign officials said, was to let voters see who Clinton was before 1992, when she entered the national consciousness as first lady, and to reinforce the message that Clinton is one of the world’s “least-known well-known people.”
“The pictures of her early years are important in telling her story, where she came from, the moments that shaped her life,” said Jim Margolis, Clinton’s media adviser and top ad maker. In the television spots, Margolis said, many of the images were chosen because they show a young Clinton at work — fighting for school reform as first lady of Arkansas, or working straight out of law school for the Children’s Defense Fund.
The slideshow of photos in ads, Margolis explained, is to demonstrate that “it’s not just talk, it’s not more promises, but you can count on her to fight for you, because that’s what she’s always done — take a look for yourself, here she is.”
Scores of photographs that disarm are part of the campaign's continuing effort to show a softer side as well.
On Thursday, for instance, while Clinton appeared on “Ellen,” where she reiterated her apology for using a private server while at the State Department and then performed the “whip/nae nae” dance, her campaign was busy online.
View
PHOTO GALLERY
Hillary Clinton's vintage strategy: Big glasses, a tricycle and hipster Bill
Since launching her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has flooded the Internet and airwaves with surprising, little-known images of the candidate pulled from old family photo albums. Here’s a look at 15 of them from her Instagram account.
By POLITICO STAFF
09/15/15, 06:03 AM EDT
On Instagram, the campaign posted a headshot of a fresh-faced young Clinton as a student at Wellesley College, part of the launch of “Wellesley Women for Hillary.” That followed a post on Medium, for which Clinton published an essay, “Remembering My School Days,” which was as much a vehicle for the grainy black and white shots of Clinton the student, as it was for the words accompanying them.
Overall, the strategy appears to be working in terms of capturing attention: on Instagram, the vintage shots — some of them iconic, some completely new — are always her most popular. Clinton’s second-most “liked” photograph — surpassed only by a selfie with Kim Kardashian — is a picture of a young Hillary and shaggy-haired Bill Clinton, smiling and staring into each other’s eyes. It got almost 26,000 “likes.” On Facebook, where more than 1.3 million people follow her page, Clinton's old photograph of her husband and newborn baby, Chelsea, received more than 58,500 likes.
Even the campaign website’s 404 error page, which appears when a visitor clicks on a broken link, features a picture of Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton from the 1980s, grinning with Donald Duck, and sporting Donald Duck hats.
GOP senators want to talk to Clinton tech staffer's boss
By RACHAEL BADE
Old photographs work better for Clinton than some of the other top candidates in the race, media strategists said, because of her outsize fame — many people simply enjoy looking at celebrities. There's less of an appetite to gawk at baby pictures of Jeb Bush, for instance, because he’s still developing his national brand — Clinton, on the other hand, is trying to manipulate hers. Photos don't speak so directly to Jeb Bush's problems relating to voters. “Baby pictures are warm and emotional,” said one Democratic strategist. “That’s what Hillary needs to show. Jeb Bush’s problem is different, it’s that he’s boring.”
The numbers bear that out. Since launching her Instagram feed last June, Clinton has posted 15 photographs from the archives. Bush, in contrast, has posted three that show off his childhood, or his life before he served as Florida governor. Donald Trump, who has shared on Instagram a handful of shots of himself as a young businessman posing with famous actors, has posted just two shots from his childhood.
Republican strategists have noticed the onslaught of old Clinton photographs, but doubt that it will help change any opinions of someone who has been in public life for two decades. In fact, some think it only highlights the fact that at 67, Clinton is one of the oldest candidates for president.
“Her problem is that she doesn’t represent the future — she is a tired brand in a market that is exhausted,” said Republican ad maker Brad Todd, currently doing work for Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal’s super PAC. “Her ads and the photos are making her more tired and more dusty.” He said they appear to be aimed at her base — women who came of age in the 1960s and early 1970s, who project their own lives onto hers. But he said it’s a futile effort to try and normalize Clinton. “She will never be that again,” he said of the Hillary presented in black and white. “The women who has said she hasn’t driven since 1996 can’t be regular or normal.”
Republican media consultant Rick Wilson said the pictures are a smart play for a candidate who's suffering in terms of likability — but the campaign still has an uphill road when it comes to revamping Clinton's image. “They have to go back and build out the greatest hits: the young career woman, the likable mom,” Wilson said. “They’re looking for people to look at a new narrative of Hillary Clinton. But her brand is entrenched, so settled, it’s very difficult to wake up and say it’s a new Hillary Clinton.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...vintage-images-nostalgia-213615#ixzz3lq5jyr2Z
[h=2]Bill Clinton Asked About Delivering Paid Speech to Group Tied to Iranian Government[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Morgan Chalfant
September 15, 2015 4:13 pm
An aide to Bill Clinton sought permission from the State Department in 2012 for the former president to deliver a paid speech to a group tied to the Iranian government that has been campaigning for an end to U.S. sanctions against the country.
Fox Newsreported:
The National Iranian American Council billed the event as a gala that would bring Iranian Americans to Washington, D.C., “to learn about government, meet with key policymakers and influencers and network with their fellow NIAC members.”
Despite the request, Clinton ultimately did not deliver the paid remarks.
In August, it was reported that Desai also sought permission from the State Department in 2012 for former President Clinton to deliver speeches related to two repressive countries, namely North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He never delivered those, either.
Clinton, who netted more than $48 million delivering paid remarks while his wife served as secretary of state, was forced to get permission from the State Department for his speech engagements.
TWEET
Bill Clinton / AP
BY: Morgan Chalfant
September 15, 2015 4:13 pm
An aide to Bill Clinton sought permission from the State Department in 2012 for the former president to deliver a paid speech to a group tied to the Iranian government that has been campaigning for an end to U.S. sanctions against the country.
Fox Newsreported:
The email from the former president’s office was sent on June 4, 2012, from an aide to Bill Clinton to three aides for then-Secretary Clinton, including Sullivan as well as State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills. It concerned an event in the U.S. hosted by the National Iranian American Council.
“Would USG have any concerns about WJC doing a paid speech for [the] National Iranian American Council (‘NIAC’)?” Ami Desai, an aide to the former president, wrote. “We have been approached by the National Iranian American Council (‘NIAC’) for President Clinton to speak at a fundraising gala they are putting on.”
Desai sent the email regarding Clinton’s potential speech engagement with the National Iranian American Council around the time then-secretary of State Hillary Clinton dispatched her top foreign policy aide to meet in secret with Iranian diplomats regarding the Tehran’s nuclear program.“Would USG have any concerns about WJC doing a paid speech for [the] National Iranian American Council (‘NIAC’)?” Ami Desai, an aide to the former president, wrote. “We have been approached by the National Iranian American Council (‘NIAC’) for President Clinton to speak at a fundraising gala they are putting on.”
The National Iranian American Council billed the event as a gala that would bring Iranian Americans to Washington, D.C., “to learn about government, meet with key policymakers and influencers and network with their fellow NIAC members.”
Despite the request, Clinton ultimately did not deliver the paid remarks.
In August, it was reported that Desai also sought permission from the State Department in 2012 for former President Clinton to deliver speeches related to two repressive countries, namely North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He never delivered those, either.
Clinton, who netted more than $48 million delivering paid remarks while his wife served as secretary of state, was forced to get permission from the State Department for his speech engagements.
AP Photo
[h=1]Clinton, DNC face pressure to add debates[/h]By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI
09/16/15, 05:25 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The increasingly public rift between Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others in her party’s leadership over the number of presidential debates is threatening to become more than just embarrassing to the DNC.
It’s spelling trouble for Hillary Clinton, the faltering front-runner who can’t afford to look like she’s being protected by party insiders, say Democrats aligned with both the DNC and 2016 campaigns.
On one side of the fight is a pair of party vice chairs and 2016 candidate Martin O’Malley, who have complained in recent weeks that the DNC should sponsor more than its six planned debates – only four of which will take place before voting in Iowa -- and have protested the committee’s vow to punish candidates who try to participate in unsanctioned events.
On the other side is Wasserman Schultz, who steadfastly insists she won’t budge from the plan, which was carefully negotiated with the campaigns this spring — part of a process that included convincing the Clinton camp to agree to so many debates in the first place.
[h=3]Biden says Trump is offering a 'sick message'[/h]By SARAH WHEATON
“There has been discussion between the officers of the DNC and the chairwoman, [but] she’s made her decision and her position clear,” said DNC vice chair Tulsi Gabbard, a Hawaii congresswoman who — along with former Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak, another vice chair — is calling for more debates.
With the fault lines drawn, many Democrats believe that it would take nothing less than a direct call from Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn — or the White House — to change Wasserman Schultz’s mind.
And that, they say, reflects poorly on Clinton — who now maintains she would be open to more debates, but whose reluctance to press the issue with Wasserman Schultz appears to reflect her true intentions.
“I think every Democratic campaign and the DNC should have to explain why we are ceding the discussion and attention to the Republicans by refusing to the kind of robust debate schedule we've always had,” said O’Malley’s campaign manager Dave Hamrick in a statement to POLITICO. “The question remains -- if the DNC is still holding to their unprecedented exclusivity clause, are they doing it at the Clinton campaign's request?"
Clinton’s position is delicate, said a handful of Democrats. If the debate complaints were to grow louder or if her prime rival Bernie Sanders were to push the issue more aggressively, Clinton would find herself under even greater pressure to use her leverage with Wasserman Schultz to allow for more debates.
Wasserman Schultz is widely viewed as closer to Clinton than to other candidates or to President Barack Obama, and the Clinton campaign was the first to sign a joint fundraising agreement with the party committee.
And if Wasserman Schultz wants to keep her job after Democrats name their nominee, “she’s got to keep the Clinton people happy,” said one DNC veteran, operating under the widely held assumption that Clinton will eventually win the nomination.
As a result, some Sanders and O’Malley supporters have claimed that the DNC chose its debate plan with an eye toward helping Clinton. At the DNC’s summer meeting in Minneapolis, O’Malley declared that the debate schedule was “rigged” in favor of Clinton. (A Clinton campaign spokeswoman declined to comment for this story.)
For now, the Clinton campaign remains in favor of keeping the number of debates low, say people familiar with Brooklyn’s thinking, to avoid squandering her advantage as the best-known Democrat in the race — and to limit the opportunities for her rivals to rattle her on television.
CONGRESS
[h=3]Sen. Cornyn wants special counsel to investigate Clinton email[/h]By RACHAEL BADE
But Clinton’s position might change if the campaign of Sanders – far ahead of O'Malley in the polls – were to push the matter.
The Vermonter’s team is instead focusing on cooperating with the DNC while its candidate edges past Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa.
“When you get into these political debates about debates, you stop communicating about issues that affect the lives of people, and you begin to communicate about things that people in Washington obsess about,” explained Tad Devine, Sanders’ top strategist. “It’s nothing against O’Malley. We join him in calling for more debates. That’s our position. But are we going to have a sit-down in the DNC lobby? No."
For his part, O’Malley – who is trailing both Clinton and Sanders by a huge margin – took the unusual step of railing against the party leadership on stage at the DNC summer meeting in Minnesota, just a few feet away from an annoyed Wasserman Schultz. He gained some crucial support last Wednesday when Gabbard and Rybak put out a statement urging more debates.
Gabbard and Rybak had made the case for more debates directly to both Wasserman Schultz and the other vice chairs, according to Gabbard. But when it became clear that the chairwoman was not going to budge, Gabbard said, they moved forward with the statement, posted to Gabbard's Facebook wall.
Wasserman Schultz told others that she had not known that Gabbard and Rybak were prepared to go public, said one DNC operative, which served to heighten tensions within the DNC. But the whole drama has only toughened Wasserman Schultz’s resolve not to change the plan, according to DNC insiders.
Hamrick, O'Malley's campaign manager, will be part of a protest outside the DNC on Wednesday. He has asked all his counterparts on other campaigns to join in his call for more debates.
The DNC, for its part, is now on its third debate liaison to the campaigns this cycle after communications director Mo Elleithee left the committee in June. Former White House communications director Anita Dunn then took the debate role from him, before handing it off to former Obama strategist Erik Smith in late July.
Yet so far, the issue has yet to resonate on the campaign trail.
Less than a quarter of New Hampshire Democrats said they believed the party leadership was limiting the number of debates to help Clinton, according to a new Monmouth poll of the Granite State out on Tuesday. And a prominent swing-state DNC member said any talk of a nationwide conversation about the debates following O’Malley's speech was overblown.
“There’s not a hue and cry for more debates,” he said. “Martin did his thing and he’s trailing, so that’s what he needed to do to get some attention … I have not heard neither hide nor hair since Minneapolis."
Meanwhile, a pair of prominent New Hampshire DNC members aligned with Clinton similarly insisted they have heard no discussion of the issue among average voters the state, where a handful of prominent Democrats had signed a letter urging the DNC to add more debates before Gabbard and Rybak’s post.
[h=3]Sanders to meet with black activist group Wednesday[/h]By DANIEL STRAUSS
“No one’s asked me to get involved in it,” said longtime Clinton ally Bill Shaheen.
“I haven’t heard anything from other DNC members, and this is something the membership doesn’t have any control over,” added former New Hampshire party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan.
So for the time being, said the swing state official, the conversation is stuck in Washington, much to Clinton’s relief.
“It’s got this inside baseball feel, deep in the dugout,” he said. “It’s more about bruised feelings — a ‘you didn’t include me in the discussion’ deal — than a philosophical conversation about whether we should have more debates."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...s-2016-wasserman-schultz-213667#ixzz3lvULKigY
[h=1]HILLARY CLINTON STAFFER IN HIDING AS AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATE HER WORK ON THE CAMPAIGN[/h]
Facebook/Gupanalaw.com
by PATRICK HOWLEY16 Sep 2015645
Hillary's Nevada Play
Inform
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
Where is Christina Gupana?
The Nevada immigration attorney and Hillary Clinton campaign fellow has gone into hiding since she was captured in a James O’Keefe video apparently conspiring to violate election laws. Gupana told who she thought were Hillary Clinton campaign staffers and volunteers to “Do whatever you can. Whatever you can get away with, just do it, until you get kicked out, like, totally.” Gupana seemed to know that none of these volunteers were licensed to register voters by a county clerk, as required by law in Nevada.
Breitbart News reported Friday that Nevada election officials are now investigating the Hillary Clinton campaign to determine if Gupana or other campaign staffers broke the law.
So what has Gupana been up to?
She deleted the website for her law practice
Gupanalaw.com is no longer active. Gupana bragged on the now-defunct website that she was able to withdraw a conviction for a client whose previous immigration lawyer gave her bad advice.
“Our law firm handles a wide range of situations from removal or deportation proceedings, asylum hearings, cancellation of removal for permanent residents and undocumented aliens…and even help you come to the United States through consular processing,” the website used to say.
Deleted her Twitter
Before she deleted her Twitter account, Gupana made clear that she talked specifically about Hillary Clinton with people that she was registering to vote.
Deleted Her LinkedIn
“We’re sorry, but the profile you requested does not exist,” according to the page that comes up now where Gupana’s LinkedIn profile used to be.
The now-deleted profile showed that she got her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines.
She was close to John Podesta on the campaign
Here she was standing a few places to the left of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
(Photo h/t @darthvectivus, Twitter)
Enjoys The High Life
Much like her ideological cohorts at Planned Parenthood, Gupana enjoyed a nice glass of wine.
(Instagram: coragupana)
[/COLOR]
2809
1
175
by PATRICK HOWLEY16 Sep 2015645
Inform
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
Where is Christina Gupana?
The Nevada immigration attorney and Hillary Clinton campaign fellow has gone into hiding since she was captured in a James O’Keefe video apparently conspiring to violate election laws. Gupana told who she thought were Hillary Clinton campaign staffers and volunteers to “Do whatever you can. Whatever you can get away with, just do it, until you get kicked out, like, totally.” Gupana seemed to know that none of these volunteers were licensed to register voters by a county clerk, as required by law in Nevada.
Breitbart News reported Friday that Nevada election officials are now investigating the Hillary Clinton campaign to determine if Gupana or other campaign staffers broke the law.
So what has Gupana been up to?
She deleted the website for her law practice
Gupanalaw.com is no longer active. Gupana bragged on the now-defunct website that she was able to withdraw a conviction for a client whose previous immigration lawyer gave her bad advice.
“Our law firm handles a wide range of situations from removal or deportation proceedings, asylum hearings, cancellation of removal for permanent residents and undocumented aliens…and even help you come to the United States through consular processing,” the website used to say.
Deleted her Twitter
Before she deleted her Twitter account, Gupana made clear that she talked specifically about Hillary Clinton with people that she was registering to vote.
Deleted Her LinkedIn
“We’re sorry, but the profile you requested does not exist,” according to the page that comes up now where Gupana’s LinkedIn profile used to be.
The now-deleted profile showed that she got her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines.
She was close to John Podesta on the campaign
Here she was standing a few places to the left of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
(Photo h/t @darthvectivus, Twitter)
Enjoys The High Life
Much like her ideological cohorts at Planned Parenthood, Gupana enjoyed a nice glass of wine.
(Instagram: coragupana)
[/COLOR]
[h=2]Top Clinton Adviser Says Next President Needs to ‘Understand’ Cyber Security[/h]Hillary Clinton has ‘no idea’ what it means to wipe a server
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
September 16, 2015 1:50 pm
Speaking on the threats posed by cyber attacks, Hillary Clinton’s top adviser for foreign policy said that a technical understanding of cyber security would be needed by the next president to deal with the “top item” issue, therefore disqualifying Clinton for the job.
Jake Sullivan, who was a part of Clinton’s State Department staff and now works as a foreign policy adviser for her campaign, said last week that setting the global rules with respect to cyber security would be a “top item” on the next president’s “to-do list.”
Sullivan added that the president will need to “really understand” cyber security, which he described as a “growing threat” on a technical level that has never been needed for decision makers in the past.
“I think that the next president, one of the top items on her to-do list is going to have to be to think about how we build a serious global dialogue and get all the major actors together to say, ‘These are the basic rules of the road with respect to cyber,’” Sullivan said in remarks at Sandhills Community College. “We did it with nuclear in the 50s and 60s and 70s and avoided nuclear catastrophe. We have to try to do it with cyber.”
“To really understand cyber, and what the threat is and what the nature of the response should be, you have to have a level of technical know-how that very few foreign policy makers and national security decision makers really have,” Sullivan said.
“Technical know-how” is a quality that Clinton does not possess.
Speaking about her private email server, Clinton said she does not “know how it works digitally,” and that she has “no idea” whether it was wiped. She was also unable to understand the common technical term of “wiping a server,” asking whether that meant that she physically wiped the server with a cloth.
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza wrote that the exchange was “evidence of a lack of technological know-how.”
It was also revealed in Clinton’s State Department emails that she could not figure out how to use a fax machine, and needed multiple aides to teach her how to use an iPad.
She even ordered a technology self-help book titled Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better.
Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on whether she possesses the “technical know-how” to properly address cyber security
SHARE
TWEET
Hillary Clinton / AP
BY: Brent Scher
September 16, 2015 1:50 pm
Speaking on the threats posed by cyber attacks, Hillary Clinton’s top adviser for foreign policy said that a technical understanding of cyber security would be needed by the next president to deal with the “top item” issue, therefore disqualifying Clinton for the job.
Jake Sullivan, who was a part of Clinton’s State Department staff and now works as a foreign policy adviser for her campaign, said last week that setting the global rules with respect to cyber security would be a “top item” on the next president’s “to-do list.”
Sullivan added that the president will need to “really understand” cyber security, which he described as a “growing threat” on a technical level that has never been needed for decision makers in the past.
“I think that the next president, one of the top items on her to-do list is going to have to be to think about how we build a serious global dialogue and get all the major actors together to say, ‘These are the basic rules of the road with respect to cyber,’” Sullivan said in remarks at Sandhills Community College. “We did it with nuclear in the 50s and 60s and 70s and avoided nuclear catastrophe. We have to try to do it with cyber.”
“To really understand cyber, and what the threat is and what the nature of the response should be, you have to have a level of technical know-how that very few foreign policy makers and national security decision makers really have,” Sullivan said.
“Technical know-how” is a quality that Clinton does not possess.
Speaking about her private email server, Clinton said she does not “know how it works digitally,” and that she has “no idea” whether it was wiped. She was also unable to understand the common technical term of “wiping a server,” asking whether that meant that she physically wiped the server with a cloth.
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza wrote that the exchange was “evidence of a lack of technological know-how.”
It was also revealed in Clinton’s State Department emails that she could not figure out how to use a fax machine, and needed multiple aides to teach her how to use an iPad.
She even ordered a technology self-help book titled Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better.
Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on whether she possesses the “technical know-how” to properly address cyber security
As a Hillary groupie, vtard really needs to stop mocking other candidates.
Hillary Clinton Can’t Name A Top Accomplishment While Secretary Of State
Wolf Blitzer: Carly Fiorina, she said if you want to stump a Democrat she said ask them about Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as Secretary of State. If you were on that debate stage with her, what would you say was your number one accomplishment as Secretary of State?
Hillary Clinton: You know, Wolf, I didn’t get to see all of their debate. But I saw enough of it to know that this is just the usual back and forth political attacks, the kinds of things you say when you’re on a debate stage and really don’t have much else to say. I didn’t hear anything from any of them about how they’re going to make college more affordable or get down student debt or get equal pay for equal work for women, what they’re going to do to make sure that we deal with the challenges of raising incomes for hard working people. So I don’t really pay a lot of attention to this kind of rhetoric that heats up the debate stage. They’re all trying to vie for more attention from obviously the Republican Party. I’m going to let them decide how best to do it. But if anybody’s interested, you know, there’s a long list about what I have done. And I’m very proud of it. You can read my book Hard Choices, read about how I negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. You can read about how I put together the coalition that led to international sanctions against Iran. You can read about what I did when I was First Lady, to get the children’s health insurance program or as senator working across the aisle on issues like getting better health care for our veterans. You know, this is just the silly season. I am looking forward to eventually debating on that stage whoever they finally nominate once they get around to doing that.
Hillary Clinton Can’t Name A Top Accomplishment While Secretary Of State
Wolf Blitzer: Carly Fiorina, she said if you want to stump a Democrat she said ask them about Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as Secretary of State. If you were on that debate stage with her, what would you say was your number one accomplishment as Secretary of State?
Hillary Clinton: You know, Wolf, I didn’t get to see all of their debate. But I saw enough of it to know that this is just the usual back and forth political attacks, the kinds of things you say when you’re on a debate stage and really don’t have much else to say. I didn’t hear anything from any of them about how they’re going to make college more affordable or get down student debt or get equal pay for equal work for women, what they’re going to do to make sure that we deal with the challenges of raising incomes for hard working people. So I don’t really pay a lot of attention to this kind of rhetoric that heats up the debate stage. They’re all trying to vie for more attention from obviously the Republican Party. I’m going to let them decide how best to do it. But if anybody’s interested, you know, there’s a long list about what I have done. And I’m very proud of it. You can read my book Hard Choices, read about how I negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. You can read about how I put together the coalition that led to international sanctions against Iran. You can read about what I did when I was First Lady, to get the children’s health insurance program or as senator working across the aisle on issues like getting better health care for our veterans. You know, this is just the silly season. I am looking forward to eventually debating on that stage whoever they finally nominate once they get around to doing that.
A SPECIAL SPOT IN HELL FOR HILLARY CLINTON
How Hillary helps powerful men abuse women.
September 17, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
710159207
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton told a cheering Silicon Valley audience, “There is a special spot in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
If there is such a place in hell, Hillary has reserved parking there. It’s hard to think of any other politician who has done as much to exploit women while doing so little for them.
Except maybe her husband.
While Hillary pontificated about the glass ceiling, the tabloids were filled with new allegations of sexual abuse about Clinton pal Jeffrey Epstein by one of his former “slaves”. Bill Clinton had taken frequent rides on Epstein’s private jet which had been nicknamed the “Lolita Express” because of its transportation of underage girls for the use of Epstein and some of his friends and associates.
Hillary Clinton was lecturing on feminism while new allegations were coming out about the former slave’s meeting with Bill Clinton on the “Lolita Express” and the favors that Bill owed Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein was good at cashing in his favors. Despite buying girls as young as twelve, he served a year in the private wing of a Palm Beach prison with “work release” for six days a week and sixteen hours a day which he used to fly the Lolita Express back to his private island.
That island was a special place in hell for some little girls, but not one that Hillary Clinton was interested in doing anything about.
Now Hillary has decided that she stands with rape victims.
“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”
But the right to be believed didn’t extend to the twelve-year-old Arkansas girl who was beaten into a coma and raped.
Hillary Clinton defended her rapist by hurling false accusations at the little girl, claiming that she was mentally ill and sought out older men. She accused the girl, who had been beaten into a coma, of romanticizing “her sexual experiences”.
On tape, Hillary Clinton can be heard laughing about her client failing a lie detector test. She had known all along that it was the rapist who was lying.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said."You are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
If there’s a special spot in hell, Hillary belongs there.
Hillary’s right for rape victims to be believed doesn’t apply once she is being paid to lie about them. And she still continues to break new ground for her special spot in hell by covering up her donors’ rapes.
When one of her donors, Howard Gutman, was made ambassador to Belgium in exchange for his generous donations and fundraising for Hillary and Obama, whistleblowers who reported that he had escaped his security detail to “solicit sexual favors from minor children” were targeted.
Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, oversaw a cover-up of the Gutman case, just as she had on Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton stood with the abuser as she had always done in her personal life and her political life.
Kathleen Willey, one of her husband's victims, responded to Hillary's “Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault," ad by saying, “She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”
“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”
Hillary didn’t stand with victims then. Instead she ran a “war room” targeting the women her husband had harassed in a repulsive political cleanup operation. But for her, the agenda has always come first. And women have come last. When Senator Bob Packwood was facing sexual harassment charges, Hillary told a friend that she was “tired of all those whiney women” because she needed HillaryCare to pass.
To Hillary Clinton, victimized women are just “whiney”. That’s the way it was. That’s the way it is.
Hillary Clinton is trying to win back the female voters abandoning her sinking campaign by promising to fight for women the way she claims to have done as Secretary of State. But if there’s a special hell for women, it’s Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia was Hillary’s own special spot in hell.
Hillary Clinton traveled to a lot of countries, but one of her favorite destinations was Saudi Arabia. The Saudis weren’t just allies; they had donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation which Hillary would be using to help launch her presidential campaign.
The constant visits to Saudi Arabia, a country where little girls are married off, gang rape victims go to jail and women can’t travel without permission from their male guardians, were in sharp contrast to the image of an advocate for women that the Clinton Foundation was buying for her using Saudi money.
A kingdom where women can’t even drive was helping fund Hillary Clinton’s fake image as a feminist.
But Saudi rape problems didn’t just stay in Saudi Arabia. When Hillary Clinton visited Saudi Arabia in 2012, a rape trial against a member of the entourage of a Saudi prince had just wrapped up in New York. The victim, who had been drugged and raped, later sued the prince claiming that the rapist had been hired to lure women to the hotel.
The Plaza Hotel, where the assault took place, was more concerned for the rapist than his victim. But then it was owned by yet another Saudi prince who had also had a rape accusation leveled against him.
In 2010, Saleha Abedin, the mother of close Hillary aide Huma whose organization supported child marriage, female genital mutilation and marital rape, welcomed Hillary Clinton to her college in Saudi Arabia. Abedin assured Hillary that “no goats or sheep or camels will be offered for the lovely hand of your daughter, Chelsea”.
Hillary responded by praising Abedin and the Saudi king for recognizing “the fundamental importance of the education of women.” Then Hillary blamed the “American media” for its “unidimensional view of Saudi women.” Instead of challenging the Saudi king, Hillary Clinton blamed America.
And that is what she always does.
Whether it’s Bill Clinton or the Saudi King, Howard Gutman or some Arkansas rapist, Hillary Clinton panders to male abusers at the expense of the women and girls they hurt. It’s what she has always done to take her career to the next level.
Hillary Clinton is not here because of her talents. She’s here because she helped powerful men cover up their crimes, from her husband to the Saudi royal family. She has only gotten power by serving power and sacrificing other women to its demands.
She isn’t here to help women, men or children. Not unless they can get her closer to what she wants. Hillary is no philanthropist. She doesn’t do anything without a reason. Every move is calculated to get her a check or a favor owed.
What Hillary Clinton wants most of all is power. And like the men she has served, she will do anything and hurt anyone to get it.
How Hillary helps powerful men abuse women.
September 17, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
710159207
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton told a cheering Silicon Valley audience, “There is a special spot in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
If there is such a place in hell, Hillary has reserved parking there. It’s hard to think of any other politician who has done as much to exploit women while doing so little for them.
Except maybe her husband.
While Hillary pontificated about the glass ceiling, the tabloids were filled with new allegations of sexual abuse about Clinton pal Jeffrey Epstein by one of his former “slaves”. Bill Clinton had taken frequent rides on Epstein’s private jet which had been nicknamed the “Lolita Express” because of its transportation of underage girls for the use of Epstein and some of his friends and associates.
Hillary Clinton was lecturing on feminism while new allegations were coming out about the former slave’s meeting with Bill Clinton on the “Lolita Express” and the favors that Bill owed Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein was good at cashing in his favors. Despite buying girls as young as twelve, he served a year in the private wing of a Palm Beach prison with “work release” for six days a week and sixteen hours a day which he used to fly the Lolita Express back to his private island.
That island was a special place in hell for some little girls, but not one that Hillary Clinton was interested in doing anything about.
Now Hillary has decided that she stands with rape victims.
“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”
But the right to be believed didn’t extend to the twelve-year-old Arkansas girl who was beaten into a coma and raped.
Hillary Clinton defended her rapist by hurling false accusations at the little girl, claiming that she was mentally ill and sought out older men. She accused the girl, who had been beaten into a coma, of romanticizing “her sexual experiences”.
On tape, Hillary Clinton can be heard laughing about her client failing a lie detector test. She had known all along that it was the rapist who was lying.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said."You are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
If there’s a special spot in hell, Hillary belongs there.
Hillary’s right for rape victims to be believed doesn’t apply once she is being paid to lie about them. And she still continues to break new ground for her special spot in hell by covering up her donors’ rapes.
When one of her donors, Howard Gutman, was made ambassador to Belgium in exchange for his generous donations and fundraising for Hillary and Obama, whistleblowers who reported that he had escaped his security detail to “solicit sexual favors from minor children” were targeted.
Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, oversaw a cover-up of the Gutman case, just as she had on Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton stood with the abuser as she had always done in her personal life and her political life.
Kathleen Willey, one of her husband's victims, responded to Hillary's “Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault," ad by saying, “She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”
“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”
Hillary didn’t stand with victims then. Instead she ran a “war room” targeting the women her husband had harassed in a repulsive political cleanup operation. But for her, the agenda has always come first. And women have come last. When Senator Bob Packwood was facing sexual harassment charges, Hillary told a friend that she was “tired of all those whiney women” because she needed HillaryCare to pass.
To Hillary Clinton, victimized women are just “whiney”. That’s the way it was. That’s the way it is.
Hillary Clinton is trying to win back the female voters abandoning her sinking campaign by promising to fight for women the way she claims to have done as Secretary of State. But if there’s a special hell for women, it’s Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia was Hillary’s own special spot in hell.
Hillary Clinton traveled to a lot of countries, but one of her favorite destinations was Saudi Arabia. The Saudis weren’t just allies; they had donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation which Hillary would be using to help launch her presidential campaign.
The constant visits to Saudi Arabia, a country where little girls are married off, gang rape victims go to jail and women can’t travel without permission from their male guardians, were in sharp contrast to the image of an advocate for women that the Clinton Foundation was buying for her using Saudi money.
A kingdom where women can’t even drive was helping fund Hillary Clinton’s fake image as a feminist.
But Saudi rape problems didn’t just stay in Saudi Arabia. When Hillary Clinton visited Saudi Arabia in 2012, a rape trial against a member of the entourage of a Saudi prince had just wrapped up in New York. The victim, who had been drugged and raped, later sued the prince claiming that the rapist had been hired to lure women to the hotel.
The Plaza Hotel, where the assault took place, was more concerned for the rapist than his victim. But then it was owned by yet another Saudi prince who had also had a rape accusation leveled against him.
In 2010, Saleha Abedin, the mother of close Hillary aide Huma whose organization supported child marriage, female genital mutilation and marital rape, welcomed Hillary Clinton to her college in Saudi Arabia. Abedin assured Hillary that “no goats or sheep or camels will be offered for the lovely hand of your daughter, Chelsea”.
Hillary responded by praising Abedin and the Saudi king for recognizing “the fundamental importance of the education of women.” Then Hillary blamed the “American media” for its “unidimensional view of Saudi women.” Instead of challenging the Saudi king, Hillary Clinton blamed America.
And that is what she always does.
Whether it’s Bill Clinton or the Saudi King, Howard Gutman or some Arkansas rapist, Hillary Clinton panders to male abusers at the expense of the women and girls they hurt. It’s what she has always done to take her career to the next level.
Hillary Clinton is not here because of her talents. She’s here because she helped powerful men cover up their crimes, from her husband to the Saudi royal family. She has only gotten power by serving power and sacrificing other women to its demands.
She isn’t here to help women, men or children. Not unless they can get her closer to what she wants. Hillary is no philanthropist. She doesn’t do anything without a reason. Every move is calculated to get her a check or a favor owed.
What Hillary Clinton wants most of all is power. And like the men she has served, she will do anything and hurt anyone to get it.
[h=2]State Dept Asked Hillary Clinton Attorney To Delete Copies of Classified Benghazi Email[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Morgan Chalfant
September 17, 2015 3:57 pm
An email captured in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demonstrates that the State Department asked Hillary Clinton’s attorney to delete copies of a classified email related to the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks.
Judicial Watch reported that Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management at the State Department, penned a letter to Clinton attorney David Kendall in May recommending he delete all electronic copies of the “secret” email.
Kennedy wrote:
Kendall declined to immediately follow Kennedy’s orders, writing back in June that it would not be “prudent” to delete copies of the email until after document preservation requests from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, the State Department inspector general, and the intelligence community inspector general expire.
Kendall was in possession of three computer thumb drives containing all of Clinton’s work-related emails until the FBI determined that he could not continue to hold emails containing classified information. The attorney was forced to hand over the drives to the Justice Department at the same time Clinton relinquished her server.
Multiple intelligence agencies have confirmed that at least two of the emails contained on the former secretary of state’s personal system held top secret information at the time they were sent. Hundreds more have been flagged for possibly containing classified information.
Clinton has repeatedly denied sending or receiving information marked classified on her personal email.
TWEET
Hillary Rodham Clinton / AP
BY: Morgan Chalfant
September 17, 2015 3:57 pm
An email captured in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demonstrates that the State Department asked Hillary Clinton’s attorney to delete copies of a classified email related to the 2012 Benghazi terror attacks.
Judicial Watch reported that Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management at the State Department, penned a letter to Clinton attorney David Kendall in May recommending he delete all electronic copies of the “secret” email.
Kennedy wrote:
I am writing in reference to the following e-mail that is among the approximately 55,000 pages that were identified as potential federal records and produced on behalf of former Secretary Clinton to the [Department] of State on December 5, 2014: E-mail forwarded by Jacob Sullivan to Secretary Clinton on November 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm (Subject: Fw: FYI- Report of arrests–possible Benghazi connection).
Please be advised that today the above referenced e-mail, which previously was unclassified, has been classified as “Secret” pursuant to Section 1.7(d) of Executive Order 13526 in connection with a review and release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In order to safeguard and protect the classified information, I ask–consistent with my letter to you dated March 23 2015–that you, Secretary Clinton and others assisting her in responding to congressional and related inquiries coordinate in taking the steps set forth below. A copy of the document as redacted under the FOIA is attached to assist you in your search.
…
Once you have made the electronic copy of the documents for the Department, please locate any electronic copies of the above-referenced classified document in your possession. If you locate any electronic copies, please delete them. Additionally, once you have done that, please empty your “Deleted Items” folder.
The letter demonstrates that the State Department recognized the presence of classified material on Clinton’s personal email system months before it was disclosed in the media.Please be advised that today the above referenced e-mail, which previously was unclassified, has been classified as “Secret” pursuant to Section 1.7(d) of Executive Order 13526 in connection with a review and release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In order to safeguard and protect the classified information, I ask–consistent with my letter to you dated March 23 2015–that you, Secretary Clinton and others assisting her in responding to congressional and related inquiries coordinate in taking the steps set forth below. A copy of the document as redacted under the FOIA is attached to assist you in your search.
…
Once you have made the electronic copy of the documents for the Department, please locate any electronic copies of the above-referenced classified document in your possession. If you locate any electronic copies, please delete them. Additionally, once you have done that, please empty your “Deleted Items” folder.
Kendall declined to immediately follow Kennedy’s orders, writing back in June that it would not be “prudent” to delete copies of the email until after document preservation requests from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, the State Department inspector general, and the intelligence community inspector general expire.
Kendall was in possession of three computer thumb drives containing all of Clinton’s work-related emails until the FBI determined that he could not continue to hold emails containing classified information. The attorney was forced to hand over the drives to the Justice Department at the same time Clinton relinquished her server.
Multiple intelligence agencies have confirmed that at least two of the emails contained on the former secretary of state’s personal system held top secret information at the time they were sent. Hundreds more have been flagged for possibly containing classified information.
Clinton has repeatedly denied sending or receiving information marked classified on her personal email.
[h=1]STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ASKED HILLARY CLINTON TO DELETE BENGHAZI EMAIL[/h]
AP Photo/Ricardo Arduengo
by PATRICK HOWLEY17 Sep 20151,146
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Hillary: I Hope My Testimony will be the Last Time GOP Attempts to Politicize Benghazi
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important][/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
[h=2]The State Department asked Hillary Clinton to delete a Benghazi-related email that she turned over to the department during the investigation into her private email use.[/h]Patrick Kennedy, the department’s Under Secretary of State for Management, actually wrote a letter to Clinton’s attorney in May 2015, two months after Clinton’s private email scandal broke, asking Clinton to “please delete” an email with the subject line “Fw: FYI – Report of arrests – possible Benghazi connection).”
Clinton had already turned over the Benghazi email to the State Department as part of federal investigations into Clinton’s use of a private email server. Kennedy found the email within 55,000 pages of documents that Clinton turned over to State.
Kennedy’s letter to Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, was unearthed by the nonprofit group Judicial Watch, which sued the State Department for records.
“Please be advised that today the above referenced e-mail, which previously was unclassified, has been classified as ‘Secret,'” Kennedy wrote to Kendall on May 22, 2015. “In order to safeguard and protect the classified information, I ask – consistent with my letter to you dated March 23 2015 – that you, Secretary Clinton and others assisting her in responding to congressional and related inquiries coordinate in taking the steps set forth below. A copy of the document as redacted under the FOIA is attached to assist you in your search.”
“Once you have made the electronic copy of the documents for the Department, please locate any electronic copies of the above-referenced classified document in your possession,” Kennedy added. “If you locate any electronic copies, please delete them. Additionally, once you have done that, please empty your ‘Deleted Items’ folder.”
The fact that Clinton had classified emails on her private server was not publicly revealeduntil later this summer.
“This will also confirm that, pursuant to your request, we have deleted all electronic copies of this document, with the following exception,” Kendall wrote, noting that the House Benghazi Committee and inspectors general were also requesting full email records from Clinton. “I therefore do not believe it would be prudent to delete, as you request, the above-referenced e-mail from the master copies or the PST file that we are preserving.”
“Once the document preservation requests referenced above expire, we will proceed to make the requested deletions,” Kendall concluded.
[/COLOR]
5142
8
199
by PATRICK HOWLEY17 Sep 20151,146
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important][/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
[h=2]The State Department asked Hillary Clinton to delete a Benghazi-related email that she turned over to the department during the investigation into her private email use.[/h]Patrick Kennedy, the department’s Under Secretary of State for Management, actually wrote a letter to Clinton’s attorney in May 2015, two months after Clinton’s private email scandal broke, asking Clinton to “please delete” an email with the subject line “Fw: FYI – Report of arrests – possible Benghazi connection).”
Clinton had already turned over the Benghazi email to the State Department as part of federal investigations into Clinton’s use of a private email server. Kennedy found the email within 55,000 pages of documents that Clinton turned over to State.
Kennedy’s letter to Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, was unearthed by the nonprofit group Judicial Watch, which sued the State Department for records.
“Please be advised that today the above referenced e-mail, which previously was unclassified, has been classified as ‘Secret,'” Kennedy wrote to Kendall on May 22, 2015. “In order to safeguard and protect the classified information, I ask – consistent with my letter to you dated March 23 2015 – that you, Secretary Clinton and others assisting her in responding to congressional and related inquiries coordinate in taking the steps set forth below. A copy of the document as redacted under the FOIA is attached to assist you in your search.”
“Once you have made the electronic copy of the documents for the Department, please locate any electronic copies of the above-referenced classified document in your possession,” Kennedy added. “If you locate any electronic copies, please delete them. Additionally, once you have done that, please empty your ‘Deleted Items’ folder.”
The fact that Clinton had classified emails on her private server was not publicly revealeduntil later this summer.
“This will also confirm that, pursuant to your request, we have deleted all electronic copies of this document, with the following exception,” Kendall wrote, noting that the House Benghazi Committee and inspectors general were also requesting full email records from Clinton. “I therefore do not believe it would be prudent to delete, as you request, the above-referenced e-mail from the master copies or the PST file that we are preserving.”
“Once the document preservation requests referenced above expire, we will proceed to make the requested deletions,” Kendall concluded.
[/COLOR]
[h=2]Bill Clinton Warned About Hillary’s ‘Discomfort’ With Gay Rights During 2000 Senate Race[/h]Former president discussed Hillary’s hesitance on gay rights for oral history project
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Alana Goodman
September 21, 2015 5:00 am
Bill Clinton confessed to a close friend that Hillary Clinton was not comfortable “around gay people who were kind of acting out” during her 2000 Senate race, according toaudio recordings obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.
Clinton worried that his wife’s “general discomfort” with gay rights issues could complicate her senate bid in New York at the time, according to a contemporaneous account from Clinton’s long-time friend Taylor Branch.
Branch recorded dozens of late-night interviews with Bill Clinton for an oral history project between the early 1990s and 2000. Although the president kept the sole copies of the interviews, Branch took notes and recounted the conversations into a tape recorder after each of the interview sessions ended.
Branch wrote a history of the Clinton White House based on his audio diary in 2009, but this particular conversation was not discussed in detail in his book.
According to a June 10, 1999 recording, Branch had been interviewing Bill Clinton at the White House when the president stepped out to take a phone call from Hillary. When Bill returned, he seemed preoccupied by his wife’s positions on gay rights.
“[Bill] came in and he said, ‘You know I’ve had much more contact in my life with gay people than Hillary has,’” Branch recounted at the time. “He said, ‘I think she’s really a little put off by some of this stuff.’”
According to Branch, Bill expressed some regret that he signed the Defense of Marriage Act—which allowed states to pass laws restricting gay marriage—saying “I thought it was right at the time, and I’m not sure that it is.”
“[Bill] said, ‘Generally I support the gay agenda right down the line,’” said Branch. “He said this was hard for me, and I’m sure there are still a few things that are hard for me to swallow.”
However, he told Branch, “Hillary, emotionally speaking, still finds the issue harder to swallow than I do. And that it could be difficult for her in New York politics, how far she’ll be asked to go.”
Branch added that Clinton was “essentially I think saying that Hillary had kind of a conservative religious temperament, and was not likely to be comfortable around gay people who were kind of acting out, or pushing her to the limit. She did have general discomfort.”
The recordings could shed new light on why Hillary Clinton waited until 2013 to come out in favor of gay marriage, after the majority of the Democratic Party was already solidly in support.
Clinton’s most competitive Democratic challenger, Bernie Sanders, has backed same sex marriage for decades. Another opponent, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, first publicly supported it in 2011.
Some gay rights activists have been critical of Clinton’s record, noting that she never spoke out when her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted 19 years ago this week. The Supreme Court struck down the act in 2013.
Clinton has also dodged questions about when she evolved on the issue. She endorsed civil unions during her 2000 Senate campaign, but not gay marriage.
In a 2004 floor debate, Clinton called marriage a “fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman.”
“I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman,” she said.
She clashed with NPR’s Terry Gross in 2014 after the radio host pressed Clinton about whether her position was based on political expediency.
“I think you’re trying to say that, you know, I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons,” she said. “And that’s just flat wrong.”
Clinton’s public position on gay marriage has shifted along with the American electorate. In 2001, just 35 percent of Americans supported same sex marriage, according to the Pew Research Center, a figure that has grown to 55 percent in 2015.
The blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote in 2014 that he believed Clinton’s evolution on gay rights was relatively recent, claiming that he “saw the Clintons’ irritation with and hostility to gay activists up close” while editing the New Republic in the 1990s.
“Unlike Obama, [Hillary Clinton] was personally deeply uncomfortable with this for a long time and politically believed the issue was a Republican wedge issue to torment the Clintons rather than a core civil rights cause.”
The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Alana Goodman
September 21, 2015 5:00 am
Bill Clinton confessed to a close friend that Hillary Clinton was not comfortable “around gay people who were kind of acting out” during her 2000 Senate race, according toaudio recordings obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.
Clinton worried that his wife’s “general discomfort” with gay rights issues could complicate her senate bid in New York at the time, according to a contemporaneous account from Clinton’s long-time friend Taylor Branch.
Branch recorded dozens of late-night interviews with Bill Clinton for an oral history project between the early 1990s and 2000. Although the president kept the sole copies of the interviews, Branch took notes and recounted the conversations into a tape recorder after each of the interview sessions ended.
Branch wrote a history of the Clinton White House based on his audio diary in 2009, but this particular conversation was not discussed in detail in his book.
According to a June 10, 1999 recording, Branch had been interviewing Bill Clinton at the White House when the president stepped out to take a phone call from Hillary. When Bill returned, he seemed preoccupied by his wife’s positions on gay rights.
“[Bill] came in and he said, ‘You know I’ve had much more contact in my life with gay people than Hillary has,’” Branch recounted at the time. “He said, ‘I think she’s really a little put off by some of this stuff.’”
According to Branch, Bill expressed some regret that he signed the Defense of Marriage Act—which allowed states to pass laws restricting gay marriage—saying “I thought it was right at the time, and I’m not sure that it is.”
“[Bill] said, ‘Generally I support the gay agenda right down the line,’” said Branch. “He said this was hard for me, and I’m sure there are still a few things that are hard for me to swallow.”
However, he told Branch, “Hillary, emotionally speaking, still finds the issue harder to swallow than I do. And that it could be difficult for her in New York politics, how far she’ll be asked to go.”
Branch added that Clinton was “essentially I think saying that Hillary had kind of a conservative religious temperament, and was not likely to be comfortable around gay people who were kind of acting out, or pushing her to the limit. She did have general discomfort.”
The recordings could shed new light on why Hillary Clinton waited until 2013 to come out in favor of gay marriage, after the majority of the Democratic Party was already solidly in support.
Clinton’s most competitive Democratic challenger, Bernie Sanders, has backed same sex marriage for decades. Another opponent, the former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, first publicly supported it in 2011.
Some gay rights activists have been critical of Clinton’s record, noting that she never spoke out when her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted 19 years ago this week. The Supreme Court struck down the act in 2013.
Clinton has also dodged questions about when she evolved on the issue. She endorsed civil unions during her 2000 Senate campaign, but not gay marriage.
In a 2004 floor debate, Clinton called marriage a “fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman.”
“I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman,” she said.
She clashed with NPR’s Terry Gross in 2014 after the radio host pressed Clinton about whether her position was based on political expediency.
“I think you’re trying to say that, you know, I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons,” she said. “And that’s just flat wrong.”
Clinton’s public position on gay marriage has shifted along with the American electorate. In 2001, just 35 percent of Americans supported same sex marriage, according to the Pew Research Center, a figure that has grown to 55 percent in 2015.
The blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote in 2014 that he believed Clinton’s evolution on gay rights was relatively recent, claiming that he “saw the Clintons’ irritation with and hostility to gay activists up close” while editing the New Republic in the 1990s.
“Unlike Obama, [Hillary Clinton] was personally deeply uncomfortable with this for a long time and politically believed the issue was a Republican wedge issue to torment the Clintons rather than a core civil rights cause.”
The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.
Eight Laws Hillary Clinton Could Be Indicted For Breaking
1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/e...could-be-indicted-for-breaking/#ixzz3mOXK6fGA
What are the odds she will be indicted?
I say 1 in a billion and anyway, at this point, what difference does it make.
1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/e...could-be-indicted-for-breaking/#ixzz3mOXK6fGA
What are the odds she will be indicted?
I say 1 in a billion and anyway, at this point, what difference does it make.
