Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden
The Washington Post reports an intriguing development:
Fox News Channel will do an interview with former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton next month on the heels of her memoir release date.
Fox News’s Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren will conduct a joint interview with Clinton on June 17, the network announced Thursday. It will come one week after the June 10 release of Clinton’s memoir, “Hard Choices.”
This is obviously a win for both Fox News and Team Clinton. Fox News for managing to get a high profile potential 2016 presidential contender who perceives their network as overtly biased against the Obama administration, and Team Clinton for agreeing to sit down for an interview with the left’s most hated network – which should score her some major points with the Democrat base.
It should be noted that neither Baier nor Van Susteren are super-combative interviewers like a Bill O’Reilly would be, but they’re no pushovers, either. This one should be very interesting.
Grab the popcorn!
**Posted by Phineas
While her minions race to the microphones to denounce VA Secretary Shinseki before the voters take out their wrath on them, House Minority Leader (1) Nancy Pelosi took the softball question lobbed to her by Vox’s Ezra Klein (2) and explained that, yes, the poor treatment of veterans was scandalous, but she wasn’t sure if it really was a “scandal:”
Gee, Nancy, it sure seems to me that VA administrators and employees manipulating federal records to hide the poor treatment of veterans and win themselves some bonuses amounts to a scandal. Maybe even a criminal matter. What else do you need? Oh, wait. I know.
An (R) after the president’s name.
via The Right Scoop
(1) And a person very much responsible for creating that minority. Thanks, Nancy!
(2) He who thinks the Constitution is too old to understand.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
And you’ll never believe why. Via The Politico (hat tip):
Editorial boards at three major U.S. newspapers are criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point as incomplete and failing to recognize America’s international standing.
The New York Times editorial board, often supportive of the White House, wrote that his “address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.”
Obama “provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years,” the Times wrote, “and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world.”
The Washington Post editorial said the president’s “binding of U.S. power places Mr. Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II.”
“President Obama has retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries,” the board said, attacking the president for resorting to rhetoric instead of adjusting policy.
The Post also said that Obama provided “scant comfort” to those concerned about his policies on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.
You read that correctly. The New York Times and the Washington Post, two of the top news publications in the country – and two of Obama’s biggest supporters and defenders – are criticizing his lack of emphasis on American exceptionalism, a major problem conservatives pointed out about him well before he was elected. Yes, I do believe hell may have actually frozen over.
The other paper, by the way, was the Wall Street Journal editorial page – frequent critics of the President on both the foreign and domestic front. You can read the President’s full West Point speech here.