Tag: hillary clinton

CNN director confirms that Hillary Clinton is running in 2016.

It’s a bit subtle, to be sure.

CNN’s Hillary Clinton film scrapped as director blames lack of co-operation

Charles Ferguson says he was met with a wall of silence from more than a hundred people who refused to be interviewed

…and the director is bizarrely miffed at the GOP for not being thrilled with the idea of a Lefty director doing a Hillary campaign ad disguised as a documentary*.  I say ‘bizarrely’ because surely even Charles Ferguson knows that one’s reputation precedes oneself.  But, no, it’s mostly the stonewall from the soon-to-be Team Hillary.  Or Team Clinton; they probably haven’t polled that yet. Continue reading CNN director confirms that Hillary Clinton is running in 2016.

Hillary Clinton: Homewrecker?

If so… well.  And they wonder why Hillary Clinton lost the nomination in 2008.

Top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has been given an ultimatum: dump serial-sexting hubby Anthony Weiner, or get out of Clintontown.

“Huma has a choice to make,” a close associate tells New York magazine. “Does she go with Anthony, or does she go with Hillary?”

Abedin’s decision over whether to leave the “Clinton bubble,” where she’s seen as Hillary’s most trusted aide, has emerged as “the biggest question among Hillary’s circle” as the former Secretary of State mulls a 2016 run for the White House, the magazine reports.

Continue reading Hillary Clinton: Homewrecker?

Reince Priebus to CNN, NBC: drop the Hillary propaganda films, or lose primary debate access.

Their call.

The head of the Republican Party threatened Monday to cut out CNN and NBC from the GOP presidential primary debates if the networks do not shelve their plans to air lengthy features on Hillary Clinton — who is widely expected to be a Democratic candidate in the 2016 election.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus accused both networks of trying to put “a thumb on the scales” of the 2016 race with programming he claimed would be tantamount to an “in-kind donation” to the Clinton campaign.

[snip]

In a written statement, Priebus said if the networks don’t meet his demands, he will seek a “binding vote” at the upcoming Aug. 14 RNC meeting declaring that the party “will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor.”

I happen to have a real problem with Priebus’s decision, here. It’s a touch squishy: I mean, the chairman seems to be suggesting that he’d still let the RNC credential NBC/CNN flunkies if their parent companies don’t abandon their brave new roles as Hillary ’16 harbingers. This is no time to go wobbly.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: You may safely assume that I – and a lot of my compatriots – will not be unhappy to see our 2016 debate calendar hacked down to something that’s actually useful. By any means necessary.

How Alejandro Mayorkas, Anthony Rodham, Greentech, Terry McAuliffe, Hillary Clinton, and EB-5 all cohere.

Amazing how all of these things keep interlocking.

  • Via Instapundit comes this report from Reuters that “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas, who has been nominated to be the deputy secretary of Homeland Security – and who could soon run the department – is under investigation by the department’s inspector general.”
  • Why is Mayorkas being investigated? Because he allegedly broke ethics rule by arranging for an ‘investor visa’ for Gulf Coast Funds Management.
  • Gulf Coast Funds Management is run by Hillary Clinton’s brother Anthony Rodham.
  • This is where we have to leave Reuters, because Reuters – accidentally or deliberately – decided to stop telling the story. Continue reading How Alejandro Mayorkas, Anthony Rodham, Greentech, Terry McAuliffe, Hillary Clinton, and EB-5 all cohere.

Hillary ain’t inevitable.

Politico asks a question: what if Hillary Clinton doesn’t run in 2016?

“We would be at sea in a lifeboat with no food, no water, and no land in sight,” said one veteran Democratic operative who has worked on presidential campaigns, and who, like most people interviewed for this story, asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the former first lady. “There is no Plan B.”

…but I have a more interesting question: what if Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the nomination in the first place? Remember, Clinton was inevitable in 2008, too – only to be finessed out of the nomination by the Platonic Ideal of The Shiny Object. In 2016 she will not be a Shiny Object herself – Politico to the contrary. She will instead be a former Senator and Secretary of State who is approaching 70: her actual job performance ranges from ‘uninteresting’ to ‘checkered,’ and we have had eight years already of ‘historic.’  Americans periodically get tired of ‘historic,’ and prove eager for another stretch of ‘boring, yet profitable.’  2016 promises to be a year where they might express that attitude. Continue reading Hillary ain’t inevitable.

Head’s-up to #p2 and #nn13: Hillary Clinton is going to make you CRAWL.

This ain’t gonna be cheap.

Hillary Clinton was far from the darling of the left in the 2008 election. But here at the largest annual gathering of progressives, many said they’re ready to get behind a Hillary 2016 bid — though she shouldn’t take them for granted.

In more than two dozen interviews at the Netroots Nation conference, Democratic activists said they’re cautiously excited about the prospect of a Clinton candidacy and, more broadly, the idea of the first female president she represents. Unlike five years ago, when a charismatic freshman senator from Illinois stole their hearts, the backing of progressives appears to be Clinton’s to lose — assuming, as most do, that she runs.

But she’ll need to prove she’s in tune with her party’s activist wing before she’ll have its full-throated support.

Continue reading Head’s-up to #p2 and #nn13: Hillary Clinton is going to make you CRAWL.

Joe Biden(?) surrogates continue quiet internal war against Hillary Clinton surrogates.

Quiet, but deadly.

The decision to keep U.S. personnel in Benghazi with substandard security was made at the highest levels of the State Department by officials who have so far escaped blame over the Sept. 11 attack, according to a review of recent congressional testimony and internal State Department memos by Fox News.

Nine months before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, State Department Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy signed off on an internal memo that green-lighted the Benghazi operation.

The December 2011 memo from Jeffrey Feltman — then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) — pledged “to rapidly implement a series of corrective security measures.” However, no substantial improvements were made, according to congressional testimony to the House oversight committee from Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom.

Make no mistake about this.  Fox News is not being leaked this information because the State Department is a hotbed of Republican moles; Fox News is being leaked this information because that network is the only one that can be relied upon to publish damaging information about the State Department under Hillary Clinton.  You can see this by the way that they’re going after Patrick Kennedy, who was SecState Clinton’s assistant (and possibly cutout); and possibly by the way that they’re bringing in the paper-trail CYA warnings by Jeffrey Feltman, who in retrospect may have been forced out of his State Department gig last year for not being a good fit with Clinton’s New Order.  Either way, the implication is that things were not going well for Team Clinton over at State, after all… and while most of the Democratic party might not care for that particular message getting out there’s at least one sub-group who would be; anybody who wouldn’t get a nice job during the Hillary Clinton administration. Continue reading Joe Biden(?) surrogates continue quiet internal war against Hillary Clinton surrogates.

CBS News reports on State Department scandal coverups.

There’s some real dirty laundry, here.

Executive summary: State Department shenanigans involving prostitutes, sexual assaults, drug deals… maybe they happened, maybe they didn’t. We don’t know, because higher-ups in the State Department (Hillary Clinton crony Patrick Kennedy is named-checked) allegedly covered it all up. But there’s a report! Wonder what’s in it! Well, CBS News knows, because screw you, Barack Obama! …And you, too, Hillary Clinton!
Continue reading CBS News reports on State Department scandal coverups.

QotD, The Thing About #Benghazi Is That It Was Sadly Predictable edition.

Cynical, but more or less correct:

The hundred pages of Benghazi e-mails released this week tell us almost nothing about how four Americans came to die so tragically in that Libyan city. But they are a case study in why nothing works in Washington.

Rather than reading these messages for their substance on Benghazi (on which officials were still basically clueless three days after the attack), try perusing them as an illustration of how the bureaucracy responds to crisis — especially when officials know they will be under the media spotlight.

What you find is a 100-page novella of turf-battling and backside-covering.

Also: damning.  We were told that this administration was different, somehow.  Which was, of course… a false thing, told to people who are now learning better, and we have to remember that people do not deserve to be lied to, even if they had been warned ahead of time.  The point is that Barack Obama – and his entire staff, explicitly including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – is a creature of the system, not its nemesis.

…So, Pat Smith would have the same ‘absolute moral authority’ as Cindy Sheehan, right? #benghazi

Just checking.

Pat Smith wishes Hillary Clinton a Happy Mothers day, noting that Hillary’s got her kid but “I dont have mine – because of her.”

Video at the link – and no, that’s not particularly out of context, either.  I’ll be honest; I don’t buy into the absolute moral authority argument.  But a large section of the antiwar movement did, and so I’d like to hear them either a). admit that it was all hypocritical BS on their part; or b). start savaging Hillary Clinton just as viciously as they tried to savage George W. Bush.  Either will suit, really.  Because, again: under the Left’s own rules this woman absolutely must be answered.  Not my rules: the Left’s.  I expect the antiwar Left to live by its own moral code, even if it can’t live by a mainstream one…

Moe Lane

PS: Winding up Cindy Sheehan all those years ago and releasing her in the direction of George W Bush – all to try to win a Presidential election – was pretty contemptible.  Just wanted to remind people.