Hillary Clinton 2016

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton To Meet For Private Lunch On Monday, White House Announces

Quote :

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will join President Barack Obama for lunch on Monday, the White House Press Office announced Sunday evening.

The noon appointment, which will be held in the President's private dining room, is closed to the press. The White House did not disclose the purpose of the meeting. However, as with anything related to Clinton these days, discussion in the media will likely circle back to one topic: 2016.

Several prominent Democrats have already voiced their support for another Clinton presidential run. In May, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) called Clinton the "best qualified" person for the party's nomination. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) commented last week that Clinton would "handle things probably even better" in the White House than her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

NBC is so confident Clinton will play a starring role in 2016, it just announced plans for a four-episode miniseries about the former Secretary of State, set to debut during the heat of the general election. A big-screen dramatization of the her life is also slated for a 2016 release.

Obama has not voiced support for a presidential candidate, laughing off the subject during an interview with Clinton on "60 Minutes" in January. The rare joint interview nonetheless triggered a frenzy of speculation about his preferences. Vice President Joe Biden, who previously sought the Democratic nomination twice, is also eying a possible run.

Clinton, for her part, has not signaled anything definite with regard to her presidential ambitions. Since stepping down as Secretary of State in February, she has kept busy delivering speeches to a variety of industry groups across the country, collecting $200,000 an appearance. She is widely considered the early favorite to win the Democratic nomination and polls ahead of  potential Republican nominees.

Boo freakin hoo   
GOP Chair to NBC, CNN: No Debates if Hillary Clinton Shows Air

Quote :

Reince Priebus sends angry letters accusing the networks of bias in favor of Democrats and threatening to blackball both as debate partners in the 2016 presidential race.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus has fired off a letter to NBC and another to CNN informing the two networks that they risk being blackballed as debate partners if they don’t abandon plans to air programs about Hillary Clinton ahead of her presumed run for president in 2016.
our editor recommends

NBC recently announced plans for a miniseries about Clinton, the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state, while CNN has ordered a feature-length documentary about her intended for theatrical distribution before a TV airing on CNN.

In one letter to CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker and another to NBC Entertainment chairman Robert Greenblatt, both obtained by The Hollywood Reporter,

Quote :

Priebus writes: "If you have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor."

In both letters, Priebus attempts to paint the Clinton projects as little more than length, free campaign ads. In the letter to Greenblatt, he notes that David Cohen, who is an executive vp at Comcast, NBCUniversal’s parent company, has been a major donor to Clinton and other Democrats.

Quote :

"Your company has expressly stated that your choice to air the miniseries in the near future would avoid concerns of running afoul of equal time election laws," Priebus writes in his letter to Greenblatt. "This suggests a deliberate attempt at influencing American political opinion in favor of a preferred candidate, not to mention a guilty conscience."

He also takes a shot at left-leaning MSNBC, which he says "already damaged" the credibility of NBC News.

In the letter to CNN, Priebus makes an appeal to the network’s journalistic standards.

Quote :

"Your credibility as a supposedly unbiased news network will most certainly be jeopardized by the decision to show political favoritism and produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton’s nascent campaign," Priebus writes in his letter to Zucker.

CNN issued a response to Priebus that saying, in part, that if the RNC refuses to participate in debates CNN may organize, "we would find it curious, as limiting their debate participation seems to be the ultimate disservice to voters."

NBC Entertainment declined comment. NBC News said in an email: "NBC News is completely independent of NBC Entertainment and has no involvement in this project."

Never mind that the jerk that made that idiotic birther movie during the 2012 campaign was promoted non-stop on the 24/7 GOP house organ known as Fox News along with Benghazi  . Benghazi . Benghazi .

Limiting debates also isn't going to sit to well with the Clown Car lower rung candidates who aren't that well known and should be good for some laughs.

But an even better question is why the hell Reince Priebus is still the RNC chair?
 Only on Planet Wingnuttia would you throw the guy overboard {Michael Steele} who organized a 60 seat win to regain control of the HoR but then re-elect his replacement,the idiot [Reince Priebus] who couldn't get his guy elected despite a 7.9% unemployment race and managed to lose seats in both houses of Congress.
A lesson in right-wing absurdity that truly illustrates why they should not be in charge of anything.

War on Women:Hillary Clinton edition
Rand Paul in a Time Warp: Bill Clinton’s Infidelity Should Be a Campaign Issue

Quote :

What kind of twisted mind thinks the way to attack Hillary Clinton is by bringing up Bill Clinton’s affair?

The recent Republican National Committee meeting got all the conservative politicians fired up about proving they’re not conducting a war on women’s rights, so they promptly went out to the media and shot themselves in the foot, over and over, proving beyond all doubt that they’re still living in the Stone Age.

The latest Republican to beclown himself: Rand Paul, who went on Meet the Press today and announced that he thinks a good way to attack Hillary Clinton would be to bring up her husband’s infidelity from 20 years ago.

   

Quote :

The Democrats, one of their big issues they have concocted says the Republicans are committing a war on women. One of the workplace laws and rules that I think are good is that bosses shouldn’t prey on young interns in their office. And I think really the media seems to be — have given President Clinton a pass on this.

   He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that. And that is predatory behavior, and it should, it should be something, we shouldn’t want to associate with people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office. This isn’t having an affair. I mean, this isn’t me saying, “Oh, he’s had an affair, we shouldn’t talk to him.” Someone who takes advantage of a young girl in their office, I mean, really, and then they have the gall to stand up and say Republicans are having a war on women? So yes, I think it’s a factor.

Unbelievable tone-deafness. They just cannot help themselves.

Since he likes to bring up sex scandals how about he address David "Diapers" Vitter still being in the senate and now running for Louisana Gov.

I'm shocked, the GOP and Fox News are yet again trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, LOL.

So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

Tech Moron wrote:

Doncha think that one of the IT geniuses who set up her personal server might have informed her that it’s kind of kindergarten-simple to access 2 e-mail accounts from the same device?

No,you idiot...
Why couldn’t Hillary Clinton have two e-mail accounts on one phone?

Quote :

For one thing, it's important to remember that the technology — along with expectations from IT departments — was not in the same place in 2009. Your iPhone or Android can handle multiple e-mail accounts easily, but even back then, the iPhone hadn't figured out how to have a unified inbox.

Quote :

[b]It’s nice to see the Clinton lies flying non-stop again.
Just like old times.

You mean your lies,like your failed Benghazi witch hunt.[/quote]

edge540 wrote:

So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

HaHaHa...good luck getting an answer on that,.

edge540 wrote:

I'm shocked, the GOP and Fox News are yet again trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, LOL.

It appears that someone other than the GOP and Fox News has taken more than a passing interest in this matter.



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150311/us--clinton-ap_lawsuit-e9df444db5.html

AP sues State Department, seeking access to Clinton records


Mar 11, 12:00 PM (ET)

By STEVE PEOPLES

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.
The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.
"After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time," said Karen Kaiser, AP's general counsel.
Said AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll, "The Freedom of Information Act exists to give citizens a clear view of what government officials are doing on their behalf. When that view is denied, the next resort is the courts."

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

I'm shocked, the GOP and Fox News are yet again trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, LOL.

It appears that someone other than the GOP and Fox News has taken more than a passing interest in this matter.

Why yes it does....that's great.
That obviously means that delusional wingnuts can't cry, bitch and whine about how biased the media is, right?

This sums up my thoughts on eGhazi fairly well:

House Subpoenas Hillary's Emails

Quote :

The House has subpoenaed Hillary Clinton's emails.

Use of a private email system wasn't against the law. There was no prohibition on using a private email account for official business, as long as the emails are preserved. There's no indication she reviewed classified information via email. There's no indication (unlike with Dick Cheney, Gov. Scott Walker, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush) any emails are missing, hidden or intentionally destroyed. During the Bush Administration, 22 million emails went missing.

When the State Department asked former Secretaries of State to turn in their emails, Hillary is the only one who complied. Her emails aren't missing. Any email she sent to someone at the State Department would also be on the State Department system.

. . .

Hillary rivals and Republicans say "How can we be sure?" The answer is simple: There's no reason to believe she's lying. If you don't trust her, then by all means don't vote for her, if she runs. But unless someone can point to something she hid, or some law (as opposed to a recommended internal policy) she broke, give it a rest.

happy jack wrote:

Doncha think that one of the IT geniuses who set up her personal server might have informed her that it’s kind of kindergarten-simple to access 2 e-mail accounts from the same device?

Not on a Blackberry in 2009. Wasn't added on iOS until 4 came out in 2010, either.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 
So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

Artie60438 wrote:

   

HaHaHa...good luck getting an answer on that,.

[b]There are many subtle ways to deflect an issue that you are uncomfortable discussing.
This is not one of them.

Me? I'm for Hillary,should she not run,then Elizabeth Warren,should she not run,anybody but a Republican.

Your move,troll.

edge540 wrote:

 
So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

Heretic wrote:

Hillary rivals and Republicans say "How can we be sure?" The answer is simple: There's no reason to believe she's lying.

 



Her mouth's moving, isn't it?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

edge540 wrote:

So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

[/b]

Me? I'm for Hillary,should she not run,then Elizabeth Warren,should she not run,anybody but a Republican.

Your move,troll.

edge540 wrote:

 
So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

Mitch Daniels

He's not running in the primary as of now. Same dodge you used last year

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 
So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

Artie60438 wrote:

   

HaHaHa...good luck getting an answer on that,.

There are many subtle ways to deflect an issue that you are uncomfortable discussing.
This is not one of them.

Me? I'm for Hillary,should she not run,then Elizabeth Warren,should she not run,anybody but a Republican.

Your move,troll.

edge540 wrote:

 
So tell us jack, which republican clown are you voting for in the primary?

Mitch Daniels

Ah yes, excellent choice. Mitch is the republican mastermind who predicted the Iraq fiasco would only cost 60 billion and that it did not contribute to the deficit.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416907/behold-worlds-lowest-bar-jonah-goldberg

Behold the World’s Lowest Bar!

by JONAH GOLDBERG April 14, 2015 10:19 AM

I’ve spent much of my life observing and writing about media bias, so you’d think nothing could surprise me at this point. But the fawning, deferential coverage of Hillary Clinton really is amazing. Hillary Clinton went to Chipotle yesterday. ABC described this as an “adventure” as Patrick notes below. An. Adventure.  No wonder she thinks she’s named after Sir Edmund Hillary, they’re both such bold risk takers, pushing the envelope.  On Morning Joe earlier, Mark Halperin offered a somewhat more serious analysis of Indiana Clinton and the Raiders of the Ohio Chipotle: “Her problem is not to prove to people that she’s ready for president . . . The two words she needs are ‘fun’ and ‘new.’ And part of why yesterday was so successful is, she looks like she’s having fun and she’s doing, for her, new stuff. We’ve never seen her get a burrito before.”  Good Lord, what are we in for? I mean there are a lot of things we’ve never seen Clinton do before. That doesn’t mean if she does them in front of cameras it will be exciting, politically savvy or, you know, news. “Hillary Clinton seen buying dental floss, news at 11:00!” “Report: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is said to have put splenda in her Starbucks coffee.” Now, to a certain extent, Halperin’s point has some merit. Hillary Clinton is uninspiring save to those who have an ideological fixation with electing a female president or are otherwise smitten with the Clintons. Being seen as fun and new would be a huge political win for Clinton because she needs to be more likable.  The problem with Halperin’s analysis is that it discounts the hugely important fact that he and his colleagues in the media are treating a trip to Chipotle as if it’s a really exciting, fun, and new thing — an adventure even. This is a gift, and Halperin & Co. don’t seem to want anything in return. Personally, I’d find it sexist and condescending to marvel at the fact an older lady can still figure out how to buy lunch, but apparently the rules say that only inconvenient or negative coverage of Hillary Clinton is sexist. Of course, this whole road trip is a manufactured stunt (as most campaign “happenings” are). The press knows this. But even Chuck Todd is calling it a savvy bit of spontaneity. Maybe it would be unfair or premature to cover Hillary’s road trip with the sort of cynicism and skepticism I have for it, but it’s no less biased for the press to let their personal giddiness over her burrito trip color their analysis. The press is covering her Chipotle adventure so positively because they are having fun with it (or perhaps because they’re eager to curry favor with the Clinton communications shop). I don’t expect the MSM to treat Hillary the way it treated another older, out-of-touch politician she’s being compared to a lot these days. The press, specifically the New York Times, fabricated a storyline when it savaged the first president Bush over his polite surprise at a checkout scanner at a trade show. But that does raise a worthwhile standard: at least tell the truth. That means explaining how carefully scripted this thing is. Or at least get the little facts right: she didn’t order a burrito, she ordered a burrito bowl. That means Halperin has something exciting to look forward to, because we’ve still never seen Hillary Clinton get a burrito.

happy jack wrote:

http://michellemalkin.com/?p=165093

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care,” Clinton said. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she added. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”



I couldn’t see myself voting to elect someone as president who believes it is her prerogative to modify, through the power of government, the “deep-seated cultural codes and religious beliefs” of the ignorant peasants.
I suppose that’s OK with you all, though – when you can’t win through logic, debate, and persuasion, I guess the force of the government is all you have left.

Yeah. Well the thing is, these remarks were mostly aimed at political and social leaders abroad. If they were aimed solely at Americans, you might have a point, but that's not the case.

Quote :

Although other portions of Clinton’s speech were partisan and aimed squarely at Republicans, the remark about religious beliefs appeared to be primarily directed at political and social leaders abroad.

Quote :

Clinton had said that too many women in Africa and elsewhere still face sexual and domestic violence, too few legal protections and too little access to health care.

“Yes, we have cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth,” Clinton told the Women in the World conference in New York."

In short, much ado about nothing.  

But it's just another reminder of how the GOP operates... cherry picking quotes out of context simply because it serves their political agenda.

There's "nothing to see" here.

happy jack wrote:

Her remarks were clearly aimed at Americans, and, yes, I do have a point.

No, they were clearly not aimed at only Americans, which makes your "point" absurd.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Her remarks were clearly aimed at Americans, and, yes, I do have a point.

No, they were clearly not aimed at only Americans, which makes your "point" absurd.

No, they were not aimed "at only Americans", and I didn't say that they were.
But they were clearly aimed at Americans and, based upon your use of the qualifier "only", you also clearly agree that she expressed a desire to see the "deep-seated cultural codes" and "religious beliefs" of Americans, and others, changed.
If you believe that it is the place of the leader of the free world to attempt to change the cultural and religious beliefs of the citizens of her own country, among others, then I guess I know who you'll be voting for.

Yep that's right I will not vote for any conservative republican who panders to racists and religious bigots.
There is nothing wrong in trying to change the cultural and religious beliefs of religious extremists like for example those who believe in female genital mutilation.

Female Genital Mutilation on the Rise in the U.S.
http://www.newsweek.com/fgm-rates-have-doubled-us-2004-304773