Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

The Democratic Party’s White Voter Problem

by Daniel Greenfield on Monday, September 22nd, 2014

This is article 373 of 374 in the topic Elections

Hardly a week goes by without some Democratic Party hack putting finger to iPad and swiping out a screed about the Republican Party’s problem with women or minorities.

This time it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz with “The GOP’s Woman Problem”. Schultz claims that the Republican Party was “rejected again by a bloc of voters that make up more than half of the electorate”. That claim is as real as Schultz’s hair color. The only bloc that rejected Romney was the same bloc that rejected Hillary; the bloc of minority voters who came out in force for Obama.

And unless Hillary Clinton also had a “woman problem” they didn’t do it over gender.

For example in the South Carolina Democratic primary, Obama beat Hillary among women by 54 to 30. That’s a much bigger split than the one between Obama and Romney among women. While Hillary Clinton beat Obama among white voters, Obama won 78 percent of the black vote.

There was no gender gap. There was a racial gap.

Throughout her campaign, Hillary Clinton consistently won the votes of white women in large numbers and lost the votes of women who said that their gender was not important. Obama won the female vote by his largest margins in southern states because he wasn’t really winning by gender, he was benefiting from a large turnout of black women.

Obama won the female vote in Georgia by 32%, but Hillary won 62% of the white female vote. Obama however had won 87% of the black female vote. In Ohio, Hillary and Obama had nearly the same split, but Hillary won the female vote in Ohio by 16% because the racial makeup of the voters was different.

In 2012, Romney won 53% of the white female vote and 3% of the black female vote in Ohio. He didn’t lose women. He lost the same “bloc of voters” that had rejected Hillary, not over gender, but over race.

The Republican Party doesn’t have a “woman problem”. Romney won the votes of white women in every age group; including young women. And Obama lost white women as he did all white voters.

He lost white voters by 59% to 39%. He lost white voters of every age and gender. His loss among white voters was completely unprecedented for any winner of a presidential election.

The GOP doesn’t have a “woman problem”, but the Democrats have a “white woman problem” and a “white man problem”.

The articles about the GOP’s problem with minority voters blame the Republican Party for alienating minority voters. But shouldn’t the Democratic Party be held accountable for alienating white voters?

This is about more than just numbers.

The Democratic Party’s poor performance among white voters is leading it to engage in some very questionable behavior. If Obama and his party weren’t polling so poorly among white voters, it’s doubtful that the Democrats would be nakedly exploiting racial tensions in Ferguson in the hopes of turning out black voters for the midterm elections.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s a New York Times article which describes how the Democrats are hoping to retain control of the Senate “as they urge black voters to channel their anger by voting Democratic in the midterm elections”.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Cultists & Other Creeps

by Burt Prelutsky on Friday, September 19th, 2014

Why is it that one administration after another insists on carrying on an unseemly love affair with Islam? For several years, George W. Bush kept telling us that Islam was a religion of peace when, clearly, it was the one religion in the entire world that wasn’t.

These days, we have Obama curtsying to sheiks, imans and ayatollahs, every chance he gets. For good measure, the eminent theologian, John Kerry, who merely moonlights as the secretary of state, claimed, at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafer to be special representative to Muslim communities, that it was America’s biblical responsibility to confront climate change and to protect vulnerable Muslim majority countries. “It’s a responsibility that comes from God,” he insisted, without clarifying whether or not he was referring to Obama.

How reassuring it is to know that the State Department is being overseen by someone so deeply concerned with the well-being of our archenemies. And how is it that we need to have a special envoy to Muslim communities when we seem to get along fine without envoys to Catholic, Jewish, Presbyterian, Baptist, Hindu, Shinto or Amish, communities?

In this particular case, we had Kerry paying homage to two cults simultaneously. The first consists of those who insist that global warming is anything but a hoax created in order to enrich those invested in so-called green energy operations and the politicians who reside deep inside the pockets of the ecology nuts who exchanged their brains for membership in the Sierra Club. The second is the cult of Islam, which only pretends to be a religion so that pinheaded barbarians can pray to something besides their goats.

Yet another cult is the one devoted to personalities, which is why I despise politicians who are described as charismatic, and why I take exception to those who claim that someone like Gov. Scott Walker, for instance, shouldn’t be the GOP presidential candidate in 2016. Such louts dismiss competence as boring. The problem is that charisma inevitably gets you someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Castro, Huey Long, Obama and Hugo Chavez.

Speaking of Chavez, the late, unlamented, dictator, left-wing Venezuelans have altered the Lord’s Prayer in places to read, “Our Chavez, who art in Heaven….” and “lead us not into the temptation of capitalism.” Over the Church’s objections, Chavez’s successor, Nicolas Maduro, has endorsed the new version.

Closer to home, we have Berkeley’s city council members, who are forever in competition with their loony colleagues in San Francisco, deciding to dispense free marijuana to anyone making less than $32,000-a-year. I suppose now that the gauntlet has been thrown down, Frisco will have no choice but to offer free heroin.

As if it’s not embarrassing enough that the chief propagandist for ISIS, Ahmad Abousamra, is an American who hails from Boston, it so happens he has dual-citizenship. Thanks to open borders, we are barely a sovereign nation these days, but allowing for dual citizenship is totally beyond the pale. That is especially the case when the other nation, as is the case with Mr. Abousamra, happens to be Syria, one of our archenemies. The question that comes to mind is how, even if we get our hands on the bum, the U.S.

Click to continue reading “Cultists & Other Creeps”
Go straight to Post

Go Away, Hillary

by Alan Caruba on Thursday, September 18th, 2014

This is article 5 of 5 in the topic Clintons

By Alan Caruba

Other than earning her law degree, name one thing that Hillary Clinton has accomplished on her own. Her accomplishments—slim as they are—have been achieved on the coattails of either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
Had she not been the First Lady, would anyone have ever heard of her in the context of high power political posts? The short answer is no. She had traded on her celebrity and name recognition to become a Senator from New York and then, after a failed bid to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, accepted the position of Secretary of State.
Obama wanted to make sure she was “inside the tent” during his first term and, following that, her resignation has permitted her to now begin distancing herself from a man that many regard the worst President the nation has ever had.
Let’s back up a moment. Is there a single piece of major legislation during her term as a Senator from January 3, 2001 to January 21, 2009 attributed to her? The answer is no even though she served on important committees that included the budget; armed services; environment and public works; health; education; labor and pensions; and a special committee on aging. No point reviewing her voting record. If her former votes pose a political problem for her now, they will simply be dismissed.
During her four years as Secretary of State, can you name a single treaty that generated any significant media coverage? Again, no, If what political pundits believe and her own book reflects, her views on foreign affairs, strategic objectives and other weighty matters was entirely directed from the Oval Office of the White House. Now, it is true that the Secretary of State’s job is to carry out the President’s foreign policy, but at this point we know he had no consistent or strategic policy other than to ignore the Middle East and make nice with Russia.
As Secretary of State Hillary spent most of the time flying anywhere in the world so as not to be seen that much with Obama, but when the Benghazi consulate was attacked on September 11, 2012, killing our ambassador and three security personnel, what we learned was that she had previously paid little or no attention to the question of its protection at a time when other embassies in Libya were closing their doors to avoid attacks. The picture that emerged following the attack was that of someone simply occupying the office without devoting much time to the management of the State Department.
It’s one thing to allocate management to those in the Department responsible for its vast responsibilities, but the buck still stops at the Secretary’s desk and what we learned following the attack is that she backed up the absurd lies of the President who claimed that it was the result of a video no one had seen and a casual group of men who decided to attack the consulate.

Click to continue reading “Go Away, Hillary”
Go straight to Post

"Divas & Demons"

by Burt Prelutsky on Wednesday, September 17th, 2014

When it comes to divas, the ones who would generally come to mind are Beyonce, Britney Spears, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. But one who is clearly entitled to her rightful place on any list of arrogant, demanding, wildly overpaid female celebrities is none other than Hillary Clinton. It’s true that, unlike the others, she can’t carry a tune in a suitcase. But to be fair she has a talent they lack. She has the ability to crack glass with her unnerving cackle.

It’s bad enough that Mrs. Clinton went on TV and claimed that she and Bill were flat broke when they left the White House in 2001, trolling for sympathy from all us yokels who are struggling to survive Obama’s economic policies. Apparently Hillary’s contempt for everyone who isn’t Hillary is so great that she assumed that none of us were aware that both she and Bill had multi-million dollar book deals just waiting for them to turn off the lights in the White House.

But it now comes out that if you’re goofy enough to write her a check for $300,000 so she’ll deign to show up and give one of her boring lectures, you better keep your checkbook handy. It seems she is every bit as demanding as Michelle Obama on a bad hair day. For starters, you will have to provide a private jet with seating for 16 for the roundtrip to your venue. You will also have to set aside 20 seats at the event for her entourage. Next, you’ll have to provide her with a presidential suite at the hotel of her choice, along with three adjoining rooms for her various stooges. Finally, you’ll have to pony up enough to pay for all their meals and phone calls, along with $1,250 for madam’s stenographer.

In return, she will grant you 90 minutes of her time, the taking of no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 guests, and absolutely no press coverage.

In the meantime, the man she’d like to replace in the Oval Office is behaving even crazier than usual, giving speeches in which he goes from vowing to decimate the terrorists in Iraq to suggesting he would be willing to simply manage them. This is a wimp who couldn’t manage a Pony League baseball team pretending he can manage the barbarians in the Middle East.

Speaking of those barbarians, why is it they can’t settle on a name? First, they were ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). Then, a couple of days later, they were calling themselves ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The next thing I knew, they were simply IS (the Islamic State.) But the day isn’t over. Nobody’s gone through so many name changes since Elizabeth Taylor wound up with a tombstone engraved Elizabeth Taylor Hilton Wilding Todd Fisher Burton Burton Warren Fortensky.

Click to continue reading “"Divas & Demons"”
Go straight to Post

Two years after Benghazi massacre Obama administration faces more lawsuits

by Jim Kouri on Friday, September 12th, 2014

This is article 457 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

On Wednesday, the same day that denizens of America’s newsrooms breathlessly awaited the speech by the Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, and the day before the second-anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack, a Beltway watchdog group reported that it had filed three additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against both the Department of State and the Defense Department.

The goal of filing these lawsuits is have a federal judge order the Obama administration to provide government records, emails and reports regarding what occurred immediately before, during, and after the deadly Islamist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans — including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens — mortally wounded.

Earlier this year Judicial Watch forced the Obama administration through a federal judge to release an email from Obama’s Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes. That email revealed that it was members of the White House staff who created what amounted to fraudulent talking points. Those talking points claimed that an Internet video blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad and the spontaneous demonstrations over that video were the reason for the Benghazi attack.

It was the revelation of that specific email, which the White House kept from members of Congress, that led to Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, to request and obtain House approval for a special Select Committee on Benghazi — under the leadership of former criminal prosecutor, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina — to probe all aspects of the Benghazi scandal.

Hillary Clinton’s extensive notes

During one of her televised interviews promoting yet another memoir, Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned that she “took extensive notes during the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi. When she was asked if those notes would be given to the House’s Benghazi Select Committee, she cleverly responded, “They can read the book.” But Judicial Watch is now responding: “[Our] lawsuit could force Clinton to turn over all notes taken {before], during, and following the attack.”‘

“When I saw that interview, I was disgusted with Hillary [Clinton] and the entire Obama government. How easy to be flippant about an incident that killed four good men, one of whom she claimed was her friend. I feel sorry for Judicial Watch and anyone else seeking answers to Benghazi. They’re dealing with two of the most deceitful American politicians in recent history: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,” said political strategist and attorney Mike Baker.

In a shocking revelation, Judicial Watch has stated that, so far, it has filed 40 FOIA requests, a Mandatory Declassification Review, and seven lawsuits against the Obama administration relating to the Benghazi terrorist attack.

“Once again, we are going to court to force the Obama administration to come clean about the events surrounding the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Hillary Clinton’s flippant refusal to make available the notes she took during the attack fits right in with the Obama administration’s pattern of obstruction. This administration, which promised to be the ‘most transparent in history’ has turned out to be one the most secretive.

Click to continue reading “Two years after Benghazi massacre Obama administration faces more lawsuits”
Go straight to Post

Friday Afternoon Roundup – Our Hero

by Daniel Greenfield on Friday, September 12th, 2014

OUR HERO

September 11 had disrupted the multicultural consensus by raising serious questions about immigration and Islam. It had also thrown away the consensus that the collapse of the USSR had made American military power obsolete. Obama had come to revive these consensuses and as recently as the last election dismissed Romney as a reactionary warmonger who didn’t understand the new world order.

Obama had declared victory over an undefeated enemy. He had passed off a strategic withdrawal as a victory. His wars, victories and withdrawals were a series of blatant lies that are catching up with him.

His administration tried to blame the takeover of Libya by Islamist militias after his disastrous regime change intervention on a YouTube video. But there isn’t a YouTube video big enough to blame ISIS on.

ISIS: Obama’s ‘Al-Qaeda on the Run’

I WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE MYSELF TO MOCK HILLARY CLINTON

I sure hope that Hillary Clinton can talk Hillary Clinton into running. It would be a shame if all those donors to the Clinton Foundation had wasted their cash. Especially the foreign donors.

Hillary Clinton has a full campaign in motion. She has a media operation. She has a campaign biography. She’s selling merchandise. Whom is she kidding here?

“And I will have to be convinced that I have a very clear vision with an agenda of what I think needs to be done,” Clinton said.

Hillary Clinton: “I Will Have to Convince Myself to Run for President”

RESET BUTTON II

“Would she be quicker than President Obama to order kinetic military action? Yes,” the former official said. “Her tendencies are more bellicose than the president. … She is a decisive person. She doesn’t speak with a whole lot of semicolons and commas.”

Hillary Clinton never uses commas. She speaks entirely in exclamation marks with occasional guillemets and sheffer strokes thrown in.

As a bellicose and decisive leader, since last week, she will decisively bomb countries without using any commas. If you bring her coffee without sugar, she will bellicosely and decisively bomb Columbia.

At least until the polls change and then her bellicosity will be confined to throwing shoes at Secret Service agents.

Clintonites: Hillary Will be “Bellicose Interventionist”

THE LAST REFUGE

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” Samuel Johnson said. A few centuries later his fellow Englishman, Winston Churchill, quipped, “The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative.”

It’s not true of the United States, but it is true of Barack Obama who, having exhausted every alternative that involved appeasement or pretending that ISIS wasn’t a threat, has decided to do the right thing.

As long as he gets enough applause for doing it.

Obama Will Fight ISIS by Arming ISIS

Now that ISIS is Threatening to Kill Twitter Employees, maybe Twitter will Stop Hosting Terrorist Accounts

CHECK YOUR HYGIENE PRIVILEGE

 Body odour is among 52 criteria that officials at San Diego International Airport use to judge taxi drivers. Cabbies say that smacks of prejudice and discrimination.

It does discriminate between cabbies who smell like an open sewer and those who don’t. It further prejudges what a good smell is.

Check your hygiene privilege.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Poor Little Rich Liberals

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, September 7th, 2014

This is article 195 of 196 in the topic Liberalism

No group has been hit harder by the Obama economy than American liberals. From Marin County, where bundlers have had to struggle to scrape together a few ten grand bills to attend Obama fundraisers, to Washington D.C. whose bedroom communities now have seven of the ten highest household incomes in the country, poverty is hitting poor rich little liberals really hard.

In 2006, Alaska had the highest household income. But voters chose Obama over Palin and these days it’s Maryland. Because six-figure consultants on sustainable development, diversity and transgender bathrooms also need McMansions to go home to after a long day of team building exercises, celebrating Pride Week and snorting small mountains of cocaine.

Despite numbers like these, liberals are barely making ends meet. Some are “dead broke” like Hillary Clinton. Forget about a dollar not buying what it used to. Not even a hundred million dollars does. And there’s poor Joe Biden who claimed not to have a savings account or any stocks and bonds. And he doesn’t. He has five savings accounts and eleven investment funds.

But wealth is relative. Despite earning $100 million, Hillary Clinton claims that she isn’t “truly well off”. And if a woman with a colonial mansion for every occasion is, in the words of her adviser, still just “trying to earn a living”, the economy must really be bad.

With income inequality such a hot topic and Washington D.C. hoovering up more of the country’s wealth than ever, the Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunners are taking a vow of poverty. They aren’t actually draping themselves in burlap sacks and begging for spare change, though they do make a point of being seen shopping at Target or Costco before being driven back in their limos to a pricey exclusive neighborhood, but they are working hard at pretending to be poor.

If Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden can’t convince Democrats that they’re just one step away from begging for spare change on street corners and truly understand the plight of the people who actually work for a living, Elizabeth Warren is always waiting in the wings. After all who better than a Harvard professor who made $429,981 in her last full year of teaching to understand how hard it is to barely get by under income inequality.

Elizabeth Warren has a net worth of around $15 million, making her more working class than Hillary, but less working class than Joe Biden at around a cool million. Like Biden, Elizabeth Warren also isn’t big on investing.

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios,” Warren told an MSNBC host.

Like “Dead Broke” or “Truly Well Off”, “Wealthy Individuals” and “A Lot of Stock Portfolios” are relative terms. Warren only had $8 million in investments. It’s not a lot if you’re a millionaire who, like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, spends a lot of time around billionaires.

When you have twenty bucks in your wallet, a million seems like a lot. But when you have a million and hang around those who have fifty million, it doesn’t seem like so much anymore.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Former DOJ attorney accuses Obama, Kerry, Clinton of RICO charges

by Jim Kouri on Monday, September 1st, 2014

This is article 454 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

A former criminal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday filed a RICO ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) complaint in federal court in the District of Columbia against President Barack Obama and present or former members of his administration — including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry — for their alleged material support for the terrorist group Hamas.

According to a 54-page RICO complaint filed in civil court by attorney Larry Klayman, who served in the Reagan Department of Justice, the defendants in the complaint created and used a State Department “slush fund” to provide the Islamic terrorist group Hamas millions of taxpayer dollars despite the group being listed as a designated terrorist organization.

Hamas is an extremist Muslim organization considered a subsidiary of Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. Klayman, on behalf of several family members of dual-citizens (Israel and the United States) who were killed by Hamas members, filed the complaint against: President Barack Hussein Obama; Hamas; Secretary of State John Kerry; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations; and President Obama’s half-brother Malik Obama who is listed as an officer with the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a U.S. corporation.

While Obama’s sycophants call Klayman a Republican partisan, his past lawsuits were filed against Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other Democrats and Republicans.

Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, while a DOJ prosecutor is credited with helping to break up AT&T in a landmark case. On behalf of the complainants he has filed a civil lawsuit –Case No. 14-1484 — under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act “RICO” for criminal acts. Freedom Watch is a nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog that claims to use the civil court system to expose political and government corruption regardless of party affiliation.

The complaint alleges that defendants laundered cash and gave it to the terrorist group Hamas who control the Gaza Strip that borders Israel. “This money has been been foreseeably used to buy rockets and construct tunnels to attack Israel and terrorize and kill American and dual American-Israeli citizens who reside or are located in Israel,” according to Klayman.

The RICO complaint filed on Thursday accuses President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others of being involved in a conspiracy to provide hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to Hamas. While the money was given as humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people it was allegedly used to purchased weapons including guns, rocket propelled grenades and launchers, missiles, and other military contraband. It was allegedly used to also purchase materials to build hidden tunnels to be used by terrorists to attack targets in Israel.

According to news stories from Voice of America (VOA) and the New York Times, when Hamas’ chief financial officer’s bomb-charred auto was examined by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) “they confirmed that these U.S.

Click to continue reading “Former DOJ attorney accuses Obama, Kerry, Clinton of RICO charges”
Go straight to Post

The Imaginary Non-Interventionist

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, August 31st, 2014

This is article 4 of 5 in the topic Clintons

Ever since Hillary broke with Barack over the virtues of doing stupid stuff, the editorial columnists have been pretending that she has some new and exciting foreign policy.

She doesn’t.

The left has been denouncing her as an interventionist, the second coming of George W. Bush. They just can’t explain how Hillary is any more of an interventionist than her old boss who bombed Libya, is bombing Iraq and wanted to bomb Syria. Other places he’s bombing include Yemen and Pakistan. And all that is without taking account of his attempt to implement the Arab Spring’s regime changes across the region with tragic and disastrous results.

The closest thing to a disagreement between them was over Syria and considering that Obama was days away from getting into Syria, that’s not much of a firewall.

Hillary took a cheap shot at Obama. The media spent so much time discussing the cheap shot and their hugging summit that it completely ignored the fact that it was a cheap shot with no substance to it. Hillary and Obama have the same ideological DNA and get their ideas from the same narrow circles. Hillary doesn’t have a better or worse foreign policy. They both have the same foreign policy.

Underneath the manufactured political reality show drama that happens when a candidate of the same party as a lame duck administration tries to explain why she’s so different than the miserable failure now holding down the job is the sober reality that they’re both reading from the same scripts.

How could they not?

Hillary Clinton is trying to distance herself from the foreign policy of an administration in which she served as Secretary of State. Hillary is trying to distance herself from her own approach to international relations That’s a level of schizophrenia that is a bit extreme even for a woman who sheds accents, identities and sports team affinities the way that a snake sheds its skin.

Hillary isn’t disavowing Obama. She’s disavowing Hillary.

The newly reinvented Hillary is suddenly pro-Israel after spending years berating the Jewish State. She suddenly realized the importance of having a coherent foreign policy after having the same confused position on Iraq as John Kerry. She is suddenly full of the wisdom that was missing until last year. And she’s somehow more of an interventionist than Obama even though they were both intervening in the exact same places.

Hillary is an interventionist. But so is Obama.

The non-interventionist, like the pacifist, is a mythical woodland creature who appears in the fables of many cultures. He isn’t however to be found in the vicinity of Washington D.C.

Break down the arguments of the non-interventionist and you will find a set of conspiracy theories explaining why every previous intervention was motivated by bad faith, secret agendas and racism. The non-interventionist doesn’t reject intervention; instead he contends that every previous intervention failed because it was carried out at the behest of the banks, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the Jews, American arrogance and the oil industry.

But the non-interventionist who makes it into the White House is free to intervene as much as he likes because his motives are pure. He isn’t trying to secretly build oil pipelines or put money into Haliburton.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

In attempting to distance herself from Obama, Hillary Clinton leaves herself all over the map on Syria

by John Lott on Friday, August 15th, 2014

This is article 3 of 5 in the topic Clintons
Is Hillary Clinton willing to say anything and take any position to win the presidency?  She keeps trying to portray herself as a moderate when she previously supported Obama’s position.  From Fox News:

For a moment, Hillary Clinton appeared to draw a clear distinction with President Obama on foreign policy, after telling The Atlantic that the “failure” to help moderate Syrian rebels allowed extremists to flourish.

But her comments both before and after that interview have left unclear what the former secretary of State’s views actually are on the crisis.

Two years before her Atlantic interview, Clinton suggested to CBS News that arming a moderate faction in Syria was not “viable.” And since her critical comments of the Obama administration’s policy were published, the ex-secretary has phoned the president to clarify her remarks. According to reports of the call, the message was: no hard feelings. . . . .

“This is such a blatant display of Clinton inauthenticity. It’s breathtaking,” Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said Wednesday. “She did finally appear to say something that she believes and then, of course, retracted.”  . . .

Clinton tried to take the sting out in advance of Wednesday’s party, saying it was not a hard choice to call the president on the heels of her Syria comments and they’d “absolutely” hug it out. “We agreed we are committed to the values and the interests and the security of our country together,” Clinton said. “We have disagreements, as any partners and friends, as we are, might very well have. But I’m proud that I served with him and for him.” . . .

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin