Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

2016 Candidate Hillary Clinton Endorses Eugenics

Sec. Clinton Answers Tough Questions about the Legacy of Margaret Sanger

Hillary Clinton Honors Margaret Sanger at the 2009 Planned Parenthood Ho...

Stunningly arrogant’: Trey Gowdy furious over Susan Rice’s lack of regret over Benghazi comments.

South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy lambasted National Security Adviser Susan Rice for her lack of regret over her incorrect statements on the 2012 Benghazi attacks, calling it “stunningly arrogant” and accusing her of continuing to peddle a “false narrative.”
Gowdy spoke Monday with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren about Rice’s comments on “Meet the Press” Sunday, when she claimed she had “no regrets” for blaming the attacks on a disorganized mob upset about a video — not on well-trained Islamic terrorists.
Rice blamed the misstatement on faulty intelligence. But Gowdy wasn’t buying it. “There is no evidence to support that false narrative of a video,” he began. “Not a scintilla of evidence. All of the evidence pointed exactly to what she claimed it wasn’t: a preplanned, coordinated attack.”

So she was fabulously wrong when she said it the first time,” he declared, “and stunningly arrogant in her refusal to express any regret for lying to our fellow citizens.”
Given Rice’s insistence, Susteren asked the congressman what could be done to hold her and the administration accountable.
“I would love the chance to ask follow-up questions of Susan Rice, because David Gregory apparently did not avail himself of that opportunity,” he said, referencing Sunday’s interview. “Greta, I just listened to the the clip. I get tougher questions in the Bojangles drive-thru than he asked her.”

“There’s no regret about lying to your fellow citizens?” Gowdy continued. “No regret about the fact that in 18 months, not a single solitary person has been brought to justice? No regret for misleading the families and the loved ones of those four murdered Americans? I can certainly help her if she is struggling to come up with an area of regret.”
Susteren also asked the congressman why, given the absurd nature of the White House’s video story, Rice and the administration still tried to cover up the attack.

Gowdy noted that “we were in the midst of a [presidential] campaign,” with President Obama touting the effective defeat of al-Qaida. “Al-Qaida was not on the run,” he said, “they were at the front door of our facility in Benghazi, getting ready to kill our ambassador and burn it down.”

“So she can either tell the truth, or she can blame it on a video for which there is no evidence whatsoever,” he continued. “And she opted to protect her career and parrot the talking points that were provided to her by the White House.”

Read more:

Monday, February 24, 2014

Beck Reveals Hillary's Misinformation About Margaret Sanger (Eugenics) &...

Hillary’s Sugar Daddy Socialism Is Fair Game

It’s now officially sexist to hold someone accountable for her legacy of failure – as long as she is a liberal. Nonsense. Rand Paul was absolutely right to declare open season on Hillary’s track record of actively enabling Bubba’s grotesque satyrism.
Naturally, her mainstream media cover-up crew swung into action, decreeing that examining her record is verboten. It’s adorable how, in the age of the internet, these has-beens still think they get to decide what we can and can’t discuss. Give it another year or so until these dinosaur hacks are at the bottom of off-ramps with signs reading, “Will gatekeep for food.”
Hillary proves the old adage that a liberal feminist needs a man like a fish needs water. We just aren’t supposed to say that either.
Ah, the wonders of liberal feminism. What can’t it do – besides actually improve the lives of women who don’t manage to hook up with a powerful man who will hand them a career? Here’s the cold, hard truth: If Hillary hadn’t kept her part of the bargain with Bill Clinton by putting up with his serial abuse, she’d be just another grim liberal matron scowling at the thought that somewhere, out there, a man isn’t apologizing.
Liberal feminism was always about the liberalism, never about the female. Like every liberal pose, it is based upon a lie. Women, to liberal feminists like Hillary, are simply a means to an end. Hillary’s end was personal power, and all she had to do was destroy the occasional Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey if they protested being her hubby’s glorified sex toys.
We aren’t supposed to talk about how liberal feminism messed up our culture for women who aren’t married to a rich former president, and we aren’t supposed to mention that Hillary embodies liberal feminism better than almost anything except Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.
Real feminism should be concerned with women having the same opportunities as men. But liberal feminism is only concerned with turning women into a perpetual left wing voting block. The left doesn’t woo them by promising to build a society without arbitrary discrimination where, with hard work, they can realize their ambitions. Instead, liberals promise to hook them up with Uncle Sam – he’s older and not so hot, but he’s got a lot of dough and will take care of all you helplessJulias!
That’s Hillary in a nutshell, the poster gal for Sugar Daddy Socialism.

Shock Poll: Plurality of Democrats Want Congress to Continue Investigating Benghazi.

A new FOX News Poll indicates that 66% of registered voters want Congress to continue investigating the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack which led to the death of four Americans. 

Not surprisingly, 83% of Republicans want the investigations to continue, while 68% of Independents also are in favor of further investigations. However, what is surprising, in that it destroys the narrative from the Obama Regime that claims the inquiries into the Benghazi attacks are a “partison witch hunt,” is that a plurality of the president’s own party, the Democrats, believe that investigations should continue. Exactly half, 50% of Democrats want more investigations, 46% don’t, and 4% are unsure, according to the poll. 

Last month, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, led by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, stated that the Benghazi terrorist attacks were “preventable.” 

Additionally, 68% of women and 58% of black voters, two key groups Democrats pander to for votes, believe the Obama administration should continue to be investigated. - See more at:

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Susan Rice: No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Interviews, ‘Patently False’ That I Misled American People

National Security Advisor Susan Rice said Sunday on “Meet the Press” that she has no regrets for conducting a series of controversial interviews immediately following the Benghazi terror attacks and insisted that she never misled the American people.
“What I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time,” Rice said told host David Gregory.

“The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment,” Rice continued. “It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and indeed to Congress by the intelligence community and that’s been well validated in many different ways since.”
The National Security Advisor did, however, concede that some information she relayed turned out to be false, but said she never misled the public.
“…the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false…”
“That information turned out in some respects not to be 100 percent correct. But, the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false and I think that has been amply demonstrated.”

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Hillary, Your Radical Marxist Roots are Showing

Hillary is more of an outright Marxist than Obama. Where his socialistic tendencies towards America stem from his hatred of this country’s supposed “colonialism.” We defeated Japan, but never occupied it. We defeated Germany, but never occupied it. The list goes on, but none-the-less America is a colonial power. But I digress, back to Hillary.

In 1971, twenty three Hillary Rodhamyear old Yale law student, Hillary Diane Rodham served a stint as a clerk for what was at the time, the nation’s most Communistic law firm, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. This law firm made no bones about it’s connection to the Communist Party. Partner Doris Walker was a CP member at the time and another partner, Robert Treuhaft had left the CP in 1958 after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee. They labeled him one of America’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. His firm made their name defending clients too radical for other lawyers. They defended Communists, draft-dodgers and even members of the militant group, The Black Panthers.
Some of Hillary’s most ardent political supporters are dismayed about her time at the law firm. Of course those opposed to her White House ambitions state that it shows her radical Marxist ideology that she keeps hidden from the public.
I think the biggest item of interest from Clinton’s time at the Communist law firm is her work on a plea negotioan on behalf of armed Black Panthers who stormed into the California legislature in 1967.
In an interview for her book, “Hillary’s Choice,” biographer and author, Gail Sheehy asked Treuhaft about Hillary’s tenure there. He said, “She did want to work for a left-wing movement law firm. Anyone who went to college or law school would have known our law firm was a Communist law firm,” Treuhaft told Ms. Sheehy in 1999.
In a 2007 policy speech on the subject of “Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity”, then Senator Hillary Clinton said, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an “on your own” society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a “we’re all in it together” society.
Now I ask you, is America ready for Hillary’s “Progressive Vision”?
And let’s not forget her radical Islamic-Jihadist ties.
saul alinsky
Walid Shoebat is one of the founders of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which begat one of the worst terror organizations in our world today, Hamas. After coming to America, he converted to Christianity and now reports on Jihadi activities. He reported a list of 63 names in the US Government that have ties to radical Islam. He said that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin maintains close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Also on that list, was Najla Ali Mahmoud, the wife of ousted and disgraced Egyptian President Morsi, and his ties to the MB are not speculative. On the contrary, those ties are what prompted the Egyptian Military to take him out of office.
Hillary’s Wellesley College thesis was a 92 page dissertation on, and defense of the radical community organizer, Saul Alinsky. She idolized him, even bringing him to speak at her college in conjunction with interviewing him for her thesis.
She is in agreement with Alinsky on most things, save one.
“I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” she explained in her 2003 biography, “particularly the value of empowering people to help themselves. But we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.”
In this, she is just like Obama in that she understands that much like the famous Cloward and Piven strategy, you cannot effect national change and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America from anywhere except inside the system.
So in summary, I actually fear a Hillary Clinton presidency much more than the Obama tenure. His incessant narcissism and refusal to work with leaders in EITHER party have rendered him much less effective and dangerous than he might otherwise have been. Hillary does not suffer from that problem. She will forge alliances, work with both sides and mow down political enemies to get what she wants, and what she wants is a Marxist America.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Days after Univision announces Clinton partnership, network owner says Hillary presidency his ‘dream’

The billionaire Univision owner whose company is promoting Hillary Clinton on Spanish-language media platforms is a Clinton friend who said that seeing Clinton in the White House is his “big dream” and that “Hillary is Obama’s natural successor.”
The partnership raises serious questions about the role independent media networks can play in preparing Clinton for a presidential run.
“Too Small to Fail,” a joint initiative of the childhood development research group Next Generation and the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, launched in June 2013 with the stated aim of promoting research about brain development, nutrition, and health for children aged 0 to 5. Now the project, and its spokesperson Hillary Clinton, will get a lot of face time on the largest Spanish-language media network in the United States.

Clinton and Univision announced a multi-year partnership between “Too Small To Fail” and the top-rated Spanish media platform that gives Clinton a direct line to the Hispanic population that both major parties are desperate to win in 2016.
“The partnership, branded in Spanish as ‘Pequeños y Valiosos,’ will deliver expert research, commentary and information across Univision platforms,” according to a February Clinton Foundation press release timed for an East Harlem press conference featuring Clinton and Univision CEO Randy Falco.
But the motives behind the partnership deserve severe scrutiny.
Egyptian-born billionaire Haim Saban became executive chairman of Univision Communications, which owns and operates the Univision television network and other properties, after his Saban Capital Group put forth a successful $12.3 billion cash buyout of the media company in 2006.
Saban, worth approximately $3.5 billion, is a major Democratic donor and pro-Obama super PAC contributor in 2012. Saban previously imported the program “Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers” from Japan and sold the rights to the franchise to Disney in 2001 before buying the Rangers back in 2010. The Power Rangers reportedly account for most of his wealth.

Saban has close ties to the Clintons, and routinely hosts the former Democratic First Couple at his 23,000 square-foot Beverly Hills mansion. Saban and his Saban Family Foundation had donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation by May 2012, before the Clinton Foundation launched “Too Small To Fail.”
Four days after Univision first announced November 25 that it would be partnering in some way with the Clinton Foundation’s “Too Small To Fail” initiative, Saban expressed his willingness to help Clinton become president.
“She would be a wonderful president. If it happens, we will of course pitch in with full might. Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine,” Saban told Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on November 29 without mentioning Univision.
“The general feeling is that Hillary is Obama’s natural successor,” Saban said.
Saban’s pro-Clinton statement and the Clinton-Univision partnership came about just weeks after Clinton dined at Saban’s home.
Clinton headlined an October 30 fundraiser at Saban’s Beverly Hills estate which, despite focusing its fundraising efforts on Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe’s Virginia gubernatorial campaign, looked like a “Clintonite reunion,” according to observers. Clinton sat beside Saban’s wife Cheryl at the event.
Univision Communications did not return a request for comment.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Experts warn Hillary Clinton’ssingle-payer government-run health care will trample conscience rights A health care system like the one Hillary secretly admitted she favored "must entail forcing people to pay, first, for things they may conscientiously object to

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 14, 2014 ( – Despite her decades-long denial, Hillary Clinton secretly favored transforming the nation's health landscape into a government-run socialized medicine system similar to Canada or the UK, according to a longtime associate. Experts say that could force taxpayers to pay for abortion or other procedures they find immoral, deny doctors the right to provide ethical treatment, and withhold critical health care from those whose lives are hanging in the balance.
The revelation that Hillary once favored a “single-payer” system comes from documents kept by Diane Blair, a political science professor and decades-long close friend of Hillary.
At a White House dinner in February 1993, the then-first lady spoke to President Bill Clinton “at length on the complexities of health care,” Blair wrote, adding that Hillary “thinks managed competition [is] a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.”
The former first lady's proposed Health Security Act, a mandate that individuals purchase private insurance that was widely derided as “HillaryCare,” would in part inspire the backlash that allowed the Republican Party to regain control of the House in 1994.
Experts say government-run health care would be far worse.
“When you introduce government into any area of life, you necessarily introduce the threat of aggressive force against innocent people,” Sheldon Richman, vice president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, told “Therefore, a single-payer health care system must entail forcing people to pay, first, for things they may conscientiously object to, and, second, for things they do not want and would not buy freely in the marketplace. These things happen already, but they would be compounded mightily under single-payer.”
“When will the advocates of single-payer assume the burden of proving that peaceful individuals should be subject to this form of aggression?” Richman asked.
Pro-life groups are concerned a future single-payer system may require taxpayers to fund abortion, as the national health care systems in Canada and many European nations do.
Doctors and other caregivers are concerned they will be forced to participate in abortion or denied the right to care for patients in ways deemed “too sick” to merit government-financed health care.
John F. Brehany, executive director of the Catholic Medical Association, said Catholic physicians “are most concerned with the potential for attacks on their rights of conscience. And they should be, because the Obama administration has sent strong signals that it is not committed to enforcing federal conscience protection laws.”
He said the health care changes instituted by the Obama administration have already had an effect. “The burdens of increased regulation and legal compliance are driving many physicians out of private practice and into employment relationships, where they will have less flexibility in exercising their professional judgment.”
“Between explicit controls and implicit regulatory burdens, Catholic physicians will find it harder than ever to offer quality care to patients that is consistent with the Church's teaching on human dignity and morality,” Brehaney said.
The greatest fear for opponents of ObamaCare, HillaryCare, and all government-run health care systems is that they will restrict coverage of those considered too ill to be helped, leading to needless deaths.
Experts warn about the unchecked power of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which is tasked under the Affordable Care Act with keeping Medicare costs low.
Former America Medical Association President Donald Palmisano has warned IPAB “will essentially mean rationed care” and posed an “immediate danger” to senior citizens.
“Many ObamaCare supporters see the ACA is a necessary step to the ultimate goal, a federal single-payer system,” Wesley J. Smith wrote. “Government can get away with treatment restrictions that would never be countenanced within a market-based system in which regulators would be on the side of the patients, rather than the government funder.”
“In other words, if you like death panels,” he concluded, “single payer is the way to get them.”
While denying necessary care to some, a single-payer system may offer extravagant and costly medical coverage to others. “Gay and transgender activists are lobbying for ObamaCare coverage for mutilating sex-change operations,” Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, told LifeSiteNews. He added, “They'll probably win in a few years.”
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE
Hillary's 20-year-old comments are making waves as Clinton is considered the likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last month showed Clinton crushing all other Democratic hopefuls. She led her next closest competitor, Vice President Joe Biden, by 61 percentage points.
Compounding the impact of the story, Hillary told Kevin Sack of the New York Times in 2008“I have thought about [health care] ... for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.”
She admitted that “many people who I have a great deal of respect for certainly think that it is the only way to go,” and “there’s a significant minority who want 'a single-payer system,'” but said that she “never really seriously considered it” due to low voter approval – which she blamed on public ignorance and alleged misinformation about “socialized medicine.”
“Americans,” she said, “don’t really know that Medicare is a single payer system. ... They think about these foreign countries that they hear all these stories about, whether they’re true or not, which they’re often not. And so talking about single payer really is a conversation ender for most Americans, because then they become very nervous about socialized medicine and all the rest of this.”
Lending credence to Blair's entry, Hillary then told the Times she proposed a “Medicare-like system” for uninsured Americans. “And we’d see ... where it morphs to,” including socialized medicine.
Hillary told the New York Times she hoped that Americans would come to support her proposed centralized health care system once bureaucrats “get the costs of overhead and administration down as much as possible.”
Blair, who passed away more than a decade ago, intended to write a book with her papers, which were made public in 2010. A 40-page compilation has been released by theWashington Free Beacon, which dubbed them “The Hillary Papers.”
Other excerpts of the papers reveal that President Bill Clinton referred to his Republican political opponents as “Nazis.”
Blair recorded in one entry that, “at this point [Bill Clinton is] not sure he can get re-elected; they’re killing him in the South, rise of fundamentalism, the Nazi’s. [sic] Some of that he did to himself—gay rights in the military.”
The revelation is not entirely new. George Stephanopoulos remembered in his memoir All Too Human that Bill Clinton told him during a 1994 special election race in Kentucky, “It's Nazi time out there. We've got to hit them back.”
Blair remembers that Hillary called Monica Lewinsky a “narcissistic looney tune.” While Clinton's affair with an intern half his age “was gross inappropriate behavior,” Hillary said, it was “not sex within any real sexual meaning ... of the term.”
The papers also show a Clinton pollster telling the first lady that, while Americans saw Bill as “slick,” they found her personality to be “ruthless.”

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Map Shows Dozens of U.S. Military Ships Stationed In North Africa Waters During Benghazi Attack

vernment watchdog Judicial Watchhas released an unclassified map showing the military fleet positions the night of the 9/11 Benghazi terror attack. The map shows dozens of military ships, including two aircraft carriers and 13 destroyers, were stationed in the North Africa Area of Responsibility when radical Islamic militants stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. Diplomatic Security agent David Ubben, a survivor of the attack, waited severely wounded on a roof with Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty for 20 hours before help arrived. Woods and Doherty were killed during the waiting period.
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Randall R. Schmidt supplied Judicial Watch with the map and has been investigating the Benghazi attack for more than a year. Based on his experience as a fighter pilot, Schmidt has repeatedly said there is no reason why military forces could not have responded more efficiently to the attack.
"Destroyers could have responded to the attack," Schmidt told Judicial Watch, adding that forces in the area are trained to do rapid response. "There were enough forces to respond."

Last month the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that concluded the attack could have been prevented.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

NBC Frets Over 'Brutal' Attack on Hillary from 'Anti-Clinton' Web Site

Instead of treating Hillary Clinton as a possible presidential candidate who must be vetted, NBC framed her as a sympathetic victim of a "brutal" and personal attack on Monday's Nightly News.

Andrea Mitchell bemoaned that "inflammatory excerpts" of "once-private papers" of Clinton's close friend were published an "anti-Clinton website" -- the conservative news site Washington Free Beacon. Would NBC say that an "anti-Cruz" website attacked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) if he faced a similar report? [Audio here.]

We should note that the author of "The Hillary Papers," Alana Goodman of the Free Beacon, spent some time with us at NewsBusters and MRC's Culture and Media Institute.
Anchor Brian Williams teased the report as an opportunity for an ugly GOP ambush: “And private lives, what one of Hillary Clinton’s closest friends wrote about some of her darkest hours, now public as the 2016 attacks get personal.”
Later: "Still ahead for us tonight, the private lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And what she admitted to a close friend about some of their most trying times. These new revelations as Republicans take early aim."
And NBC brought on a University of Arkansas professor who dismissed the published excerpts as "very cherry-picked." Mitchell closed her report with this sympathetic take: "Hillary Clinton had no comment on a campaign already brutal two years before it's begun."

In contrast, ABC was much more straightforward in reporting the Blair papers. They credited the "conservative Washington Free Beacon" with the story and simply reported the "new revelations" about Clinton.
Below is a transcript of the segments:
[7:13 p.m. EST]

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Still ahead for us tonight, the private lives of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And what she admitted to a close friend about some of their most trying times. These new revelations as Republicans take early aim.



WILLIAMS: Tonight, the once-private papers of the woman Hillary Clinton has previously described as her closest friend are getting a lot of attention, because they reveal some of what was going on behind the scenes during the Lewinsky affair and other tough times for the Clintons. It's all coming to light and Republicans say it's fair game with 2016 approaching. We get our report tonight from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

(Video Clip)

ANDREA MITCHELL: (voice over) After the music stopped at their first inaugural, the Clintons' first overnight guests were their closest friends from Arkansas, Diane Blair and her husband, Jim. For years, Diane catalogued Hillary Clinton's reactions to the rough relations with the press, and scandals, including Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, all available at the University of Arkansas for four years, getting little notice until inflammatory excerpts were posted last night on an anti-Clinton website.

Dr. ANGIE MAXWELL, University of Arkansas: I think that it's very cherry-picked. it's very selected.

MITCHELL: Thanksgiving, 1996, Blair quotes Clinton saying "I'm a proud woman. I'm not stupid. I know I should do more to suck up to the press. I know it confuses people when I change my hairdos. I know I should pretend not to have any opinions, but I am just not going to. I'm used to winning and I intend to win on my own terms." Their friendship ran deep. Bill Clinton had officiated at the Blairs' wedding. The women shared everything.

MAXWELL: Their friendship was originated when they were both here at the University of Arkansas, as young professors, moms, and they met for lunch regularly. And they were two of the only female faculty on campus.

MITCHELL: September 9, 1998, Bill Clinton had finally admitted his relationship with Lewinsky. Blair writes of Hillary, "she is not trying to excuse him; it was a huge personal lapse." But she says to his credit, he tried to break it off, tried to pull away." Blair did not survive to provide context for her diary. Now Republicans say her notes are fair game.

REINCE PRIEBUS, Republican National Committee: I think everything's on the table. I don't see how someone just gets a pass on anything, especially in today's politics, so I think we're going to have a truck load of opposition research on Hillary Clinton.

MITCHELL: (on camera) Potential 2016 candidate Rand Paul has already called Bill Clinton a sexual predator, even before Hillary announces if she'll run.

MARK HALPERIN, Time Magazine: That is good politics for the Republican party that right now doesn't have any candidate who can match up with the strengths of Hillary Clinton.

MITCHELL: Hillary Clinton had no comment on a campaign already brutal two years before it's begun.

(End Video Clip)
6:41 p.m. EST

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And now to those new revelations about former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, including one of the most explosive chapters from her White House years, the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Private observations from a trusted friend whose secret diary is making headlines tonight. ABC's chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl has the story.

(Video Clip)

JONATHAN KARL: (voice over) Until her death in 2000, Diane Blair was one of Hillary Clinton's very closest friends. The long-time University of Arkansas professor kept a detailed diary during Mrs. Clinton's time in the White House. A diary that remained secret for years. Among the revelations, new insight into what the then-First Lady was thinking in the days after Bill Clinton admitted having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

BILL CLINTON, former President of the United States: Indeed I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong.

KARL: It was a lapse, Blair writes, but she says to his credit, he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a "narcissistic loony toon." But it was beyond control. Blair says Hillary insisted, quote, "it was grossly inappropriate behavior, but it was consensual." According to Blair, Mrs. Clinton put some of the blame for the affair on the pressures of the White House and herself. She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to realize the price he was paying.

KARL: The papers previously under seal were first reported today by the conservative Washington Free Beacon. The diary portrays Mrs. Clinton as a hard-nosed political operative, who was, quote, "in despair that nobody in the White House is tough and mean enough." She's especially frustrated with criticism of her own assertiveness. "I'm a proud woman," the diary quotes Mrs. Clinton saying in 1996. I know it confuses people when I change my hairdos. I know I should pretend not to have any opinions. But I'm not going to. I gave up my name, I got contact lenses. But I'm not going to pretend to be somebody that I'm not."

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Jon, the Clinton camp has obviously known for a long time that this diary would come out one day. How are they responding?

KARL: Well Clinton supporters are saying that they don't see anything particularly damaging in any of this. Her spokesperson simply declined to comment on the papers at all today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jon Karl, thanks very much.

Tuesday, February 4, 2014


Democrats running for Congress in 2014 are worried that prominent outside groups that are forming to back a potential Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy in 2016 are making it more difficult for them to raise the money that is needed to win in this year's midterms. 

Clinton leads overwhelmingly among Democrats in nearly every 2016 poll, and liberal donors, eager to get on board, may be overlooking the 2014 races, potentially siphoning money from Democrats running this year and costing them control of the Senate. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, groups like the pro-Hillary Priorities USA Super PAC are aware of this dynamic. Priorities is reportedly "considering tailoring their requests so that donors would be asked to write their biggest checks after the midterm elections are over" to avoid the bad PR that would come with donors telling Democrats in Congressional elections, "I can't send money to you, House and Senate [candidates], because I'm giving all this money to Priorities.'" 
To avoid such situations, "Priorities might ask a donor to pledge $1 million to the Clinton effort over the next few years, but write a check for only $100,000 this year."
Paul Begala, a longtime Clinton family loyalist and a veteran of Bill Clinton's war room, is a strategist for the group. Jim Messina, who was President Barack Obama's campaign manager in 2012, now chairs Priorities, which was started by a former spokesperson for Obama.
Though some Democrats are worried about the "Clinton fatigue" that accompanied the inevitably factor in 2008, Clinton lacks a potential challenger in 2016 who, like Obama, could both inspire the divergent progressive grassroots like Obama was able to do.
There are plenty of other groups that have formed to support Hillary Clinton--and search for dollars. Another group called "Correct the Record" has been started by David Brock, who formed a super PAC that does opposition research on Republican candidates. Ready for Hillary is another that is primarily "collecting email address and identifying grass roots supporters" to make it seem like they are "organically" drawing Clinton into the race. Craig Smith, who was in Bill Clinton's White House, is a senior adviser to that group, which has held fundraisers for young voters and high-dollar events where it raised six figures. 
David Gergen, who has worked for Republican and Democrats in the White House, including Bill Clinton, said that the "Hillary movement is taking the oxygen out of the air for every other potential candidate." That also includes incumbents and Democrats running in this year's midterm elections.


Though former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is often hailed by the Republican establishment as the best candidate to take on Hillary Clinton in a potential 2016 general election contest for president, Clinton clobbers Bush by 20 percentage points in a hypothetical matchup.

According to a CNN/ORC poll released Monday, Clinton leads Bush 57% to 37%. Bush does worse against Clinton than do Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).
Bush, who has not ruled out a presidential bid, may have seen his stock rise among GOP insiders after Christie's "Bridgegate" and Hurricane Sandy scandals, both of which have damaged Christie with Republican primary voters and the general election electorate in the same poll.

Monday, February 3, 2014

Inhofe: Benghazi Will be the "Greatest Cover-Up" in U.S. History

When Fox News host Bill O’Reilly interviewed  Obama before the Super Bowl, we knew sparks might fly. And the segment on Benghazi is provoking a lot of indignation. First, the relevant bit of the conversation as transcribed by Fox News:
 OBAMA: -- we don't know yet who's doing it. Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound...


OBAMA: -- that's an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened. So the -- so the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?

O'REILLY: But it's more than that...

OBAMA: And that...

O'REILLY: -- though...

OBAMA: -- well, we...

O'REILLY: -- because of Susan Rice.

OBAMA: No, it...

O'REILLY: It's more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration...

shouting match then ensued and the president basically concluded that because of people like Bill O’Reilly -- and networks like Fox News -- Americans continue to be totally misinformed about what he actually said that day. But the key bit here is important: the president (again) explicitly declared that on 9/12/2012 -- the day after the U.S. consulate was overrun by terrorists and four Americans were killed -- he publicly and for the record stated that the assault on the U.S. compound was a “terrorist attack.” The fact checkers disagree. They gave the claim "Four Pinocchios."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, responding to this assertion on Monday, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) took issue with the president’s timeline of events, telling a local radio station he was perpetuating an “outrageous lie” (via The Hill):
 “It’s just an outrageous lie. It’s kind of hard to call it anything else. It’s kind of like ObamaCare and the things he said in the beginning and now he’s denying it,” Inhofe said during a radio interview on 1170 KFAQ’s The Pat Campbell Show, which based in Tulsa, Okla.
The 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi was staged on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
 “I will say this till my dying day, I know people don’t realize it now, that’s going to go down in history as the greatest cover-up. And I’m talking about the Pentagon Papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate and the rest of them,” Inhofe said.
The president obviously had reason not to declare the raid an act of terrorism. He was running for re-election, and it directly contradicted a central theme of his campaign -- namely, that al-Qaida was on the run. Plus, in doing so, this would have only raised more questions about his leadership qualities and where he wasthat night. (We still don’t know). To this day, many questions remain unanswered.
And one wonders when, if ever, they will be.