Team Hillary to the NYT: Stop writing ‘negative’ stories about La Clinton

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton speaks in Gastonia, NC - 5/2/08. Photo taken by ST.

Hillary Clinton speaks in Gastonia, NC – 5/2/08. Photo taken by ST.

The Washington Free Beacon has an exclusive report on a ‘secret meeting’ between senior members of Team Clinton and the New York Times in which the Clintonistas told the Times to “back off” (via):

Some of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides blasted the New York Times for what they said was unfair coverage of the former first lady during a recent secret meeting with the paper’s Washington bureau, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Sources said the meeting included Clinton advisers Philippe Reines and Huma Abedin, as well as Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan and national political reporter Amy Chozick, who has been on the Clinton beat for the paper.

During the closed-door gathering, Clinton aides reportedly griped about the paper’s coverage of the potential 2016 candidate, arguing that Clinton has left public office and should not be subjected to harsh scrutiny, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Neither the Times nor the Clinton camp would discuss on the record specifics. However, sources familiar with the meeting describe it as an attempt to brush back and even intimidate the staff of the Times. The sometimes fraught relationship between Clinton and the press has been well documented.

“We are not going to comment,” said a Times spokesperson when contacted by the Free Beacon.

Reines and another spokesperson for Clinton did not respond to requests for comment.

Newsbusters’ Tim Graham astutely points out:

Scott Whitlock also noted a puffy Chozick front-pager on how the Clintons would seek to reclaim “populist” (i.e. ultraliberal) ground on income inequality, so it’s not like the Clintons have a lot of complaining to do. But part of the Clintons maintaining their “inevitable” grip on the Democratic nomination clearly means keeping their partisan press operatives in line.

Absolutely.  It’s not like the New York Times treat La Clinton like they would your average Republican politico, and even “negative” stories (by the loosest of definitions) are far fairer on HillaryCo than anything you’d see about her opposition … unless the opposition’s name was Barack Obama, of course.

This is, as Graham noted, just a way for Hillary and her operatives to try and make sure her typical media allies don’t stray too far off course in the coming months as she gears up for a likely presidential announcement. It’s  all part of the massive Clinton media-machine, which will try and break reporters who don’t fall in lockstep with her PR agenda, and which will reward those who regurgitate the Approved Talking Points™.  

If you still had any doubts at this point as to whether or not she would run for President, this report should give you your answer: Yes.

Hillary: I won’t second guess Obama’s decision to free 5 Taliban terrorists

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi

HIllary Clinton testifies on Benghazi. – January 2013

Via The Hill:

Hillary Clinton on Monday defended President Obama’s decision to swap five Guantanamo Bay prisoners for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl over the weekend.

“This young man, whatever the circumstances, was an American citizen — is an American citizen — was serving in our military,” Clinton said at an event she headlined in a Denver suburb, according to the Associated Press. “The idea that you really care for your own citizens and particularly those in uniform, I think is a very noble one.”

 Clinton didn’t explicitly say she would have pursued the same exchange, but said she doesn’t believe in “second guessing” people who have to make difficult decisions.

The former secretary of State said she understood the debate over whether it was smart to release top Taliban prisoners in exchange for Bergdahl, but noted that his life was in danger.

“You don’t want to see these five prisoners go back to combat. There’s a lot that you don’t want to have happen. On the other hand you also don’t want an American citizen, if you can avoid it, especially a solider, to die in captivity,” Clinton said. “I think we have a long way to go before we really know how this is going to play out.”

After all, what difference does it make that these five high-level Taliban terrorists will likely get right back to the brutal acts of violence and terror they were engaged in prior to their capture?  What difference does it make that numerous American soldiers lost their lives searching for a deserter and possible terrorist sympathizer  who is now free because we exchanged five Talibanis for his release?  What difference does it make that the deserter’s dad is now lobbying for the release of MORE Gitmo terrorists? What difference does it make that this “prisoner exchange” will be used as a rallying cry and recruiting tool all across the radical Islamic caves of Afghanistan and beyond?

Remind me never to vote for this woman for Commander in Chief. Oh wait, you won’t have to do that at all.

Read much more on the Bergdahl controversy here.

Hillary: House GOP is “playing politics” on the backs of dead #Benghazi Americans

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi

HIllary Clinton testifies on Benghazi. – January 2013

Just in case you thought possible 2016 presidential contender La Clinton was going to maintain a moderate tone on the issue that is turning into her defining moment as Sec. of State, her upcoming book makes it clear she most definitely will not:

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans,” read an excerpt from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s book which deals with the response to the Benghazi attack. In that excerpt from the book Hard Choicesreleased exclusively to Politico, Clinton attacked Republicans for playing politics with the investigation into the attack .

“It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country,” Clinton said of what she called the “political slugfest” that the investigation has become. “Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

While Clinton took responsibility for the attack and its aftermath, she scolded the press for propagating a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit.”

She added that there is no reason for the continued investigation. “Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered question,” Clinton wrote. “But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.”

There’s also a huge difference between candid, truthful answers and dishonest political spin, ma’am.  But …. I know, what difference at this point does it make, right?  The families of the victims, and the American people, deserve the truth about what happened to the four murdered Americans and the administration’s disastrous response to it.  But apparently Mrs. Clinton believes that when it comes to Congressional investigations and oversight, you should simply take the statements of her and her former State Department team … and the administration … at face value, because they just tried to do “what’s in your best interest.”  I don’t think so.

I suspect Fox News’ Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren will ask her about this in their upcoming interview with her in mid-June.  Hope so, anyway.

Hillary Clinton set to soon do a sit-down interview with Fox News?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

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!

Team Clinton ‘worried’ about #Benghazi investigation, pushed for Dems on panel

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi

HIllary Clinton testifies on Benghazi. – January 2013

The Politico reports that in spite of the grandstanding of several House Democrats in response to the creation of the Benghazi special committee led by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Team Clinton played a large role in getting them to agree to participate:

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.

So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.

On Wednesday, Pelosi appointed five Democrats to the committee, giving Democrats another crucial mission in the months ahead of what was already a tough election year: act as Clinton’s first line of defense.

[…]

Clinton and her allies know from experience the kind of damage an emboldened Republican House committee can inflict.

If Clinton testifies, it will almost certainly be one of the blockbuster moments for the committee and an important prelude as she considers a second run for the White House.

Some Democrats are already worried that they have been too slow to prepare for the expected partisan battles on Benghazi. Republicans have been teeing up for months.

The Democrats on the committee may be able to blunt some of the damage, but I think it’s Clinton herself who will be her own worst enemy if called to testify.   When on the defensive, she comes off as such – taking the typical Clintonian attitude that she shouldn’t dare be called to account, that everything she does is “for the greater good” and shouldn’t be questioned … and that attitude shows in her responses, as it did the last time around.  

As always, stay tuned.

(Via Memeorandum)

Ann & Nancy Wilson: Sarah Palin can’t use our music but Hillary can

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Sarah Palin - Heart

Image via People.com

Such petty women. Via The Hill:

They told Sarah Palin to stop using their rock song, “Barracuda,” but two of Heart’s core members say they’ll gladly lend the 1977 hit to Hillary Clinton if she throws her hat in the ring for president.

“Whatever Hillary Clinton needs from me, she’s got,” Ann Wilson recently told ITK.

[…]

Back in 2008, Wilson and her sister, Nancy, emailed a statement to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the former Alaska governor’s presidential campaign requesting that “Barracuda” stop being used as a theme for Palin, the VP nominee.

“The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission,” the pair wrote.

After the song continued to be played, Nancy Wilson told EW.com, “I think it’s completely unfair to be so misrepresented. I feel completely [expletive] over.”

Right, because it’s the END OF THE F**KING WORLD IF A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE USES YOUR MUSIC WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS PERMISSION. I mean, OMG, IT MEANS THE APOCALYPSE IS NEAR! TAKE COVER!

Seriously, I love Heart’s music to pieces – Barracuda is one of my favorites. And, yes, they do have the right to demand permission for use of their music, have the right to give it and have the right to request a stop in usage if they haven’t given it. But why not take the high road and do what a former band member suggested at the time and let politicians you don’t agree with use your music, and then turn around and take the profits from the increased sales and donate them to your favorite candidates or charities? Guess that’s too much to much to ask from Cheap Shot Annie and Nancy, who would much rather a pro-choice “feminist” who rose to political fame and fortune on the back of her husband honor them with the use of the Heart song of her choice rather than allow a pro-life, successful woman who paved her own way in politics actively fighting (and winning) almost single-handedly against the male-dominated establishment culture in Alaska to do the same.

Liberal musicians can be such tools sometimes. SMH. 8-|

Memo to the national media: Hillary Clinton is not a delicate flower

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

 

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

If you scroll down the front page of Newsbusters, you’ll notice that the mainstream national media has resumed its role of the protectors of all things Clinton, and in this case it’s former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton – whose name is floating around out there as a possible 2016 contender for President. Before I get to those, here’s the back-story behind the latest round of defense posturing from “unbiased” journos:

Karl Rove never explicitly said that Hillary Clinton had brain damage, the Republican strategist said Tuesday morning on Fox News.

“I never used that phrase,” Rove said when asked about a New York Post report that said he suggested the former secretary of state might have brain damage from a blood clot she suffered in 2012.

Rove defended most of his comments, though, saying that Clinton went through a “serious health episode” and that she will be forced to deal with many questions about her health and age if she chooses to run for president in 2016.

“I never used that phrase, I never used that phrase. But look, she had a serious health episode. And I don’t know about you, but if you go through a serious health episode, it causes you to look at life a little bit differently. This was a serious deal,” he said.

America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer challenged Rove on his timeline, saying his research showed that Clinton was in the hospital only for three days. Rove conceded the point about her hospital stay but largely stuck by his monthlong timeline. “She goes in on a Sunday, she comes out on a Wednesday. But this is a 30-day period where she’s fighting something.”

The Republican strategist said his main point was that her health invariably will come up on the campaign trail if she chooses to run for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Now, this is a line of attack that not many would use against a candidate – unless you’re a Democrat going after a Republican, of course, but this is Karl Rove here, so it’s a safe bet to say he doesn’t really view anything as off the table – especially when it comes to the Clintons.   And considering the left (and the media) set the standard for questioning someone’s health (and age) when they went after Senator John McCain along those same lines back in 2008, why shouldn’t it be on the table? Well, because it’s Hillary Clinton – who may one day be the first female President in United States history – so the media is predictably doing their thing, just like they did for Barack Obama, in helping try to pave the way.  Here are some recent examples of them in the role of human shields for La Clinton … and not just over Rove’s comments:

Expect much more of this in the coming months as the same MSM that eventually sided with Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 – even going so far back then as to give her AND her husband the same kind of unfair kneecapping treatment they typically do Republicans –  transitions into “Hillary 2016” mode, saying and doing … and not saying … whatever they can to not only inspire her to run but to carry her through the rough and tumble primary fight she would potentially face and onto the Presidency.  Imagine the exclusives they could get of the first lady President in American history if they treat her the “correct” way!?

While that’s all well and good, now is as good a time as any to remind people – and the media – that this is the same Hillary Clinton who, along with her husband, kept an “enemies list” of both politicos and media types alike as she presided as “co-president” alongside Bill for eight years – a habit she never dropped, as we learned from her 2008 “enemies list” activities.    I think it’s safe to assume it’s a practice she still keeps up.

Not only that, but the former SOS has shown she’s no shrinking violet, as we saw at the Benghazi hearings last year, and as we’ve seen at other public functions where she was invited as a guest to speak or testify.  She deserves the same level of scrutiny and questioning that journalists routinely give not only to male politicos but that they gave to Sarah Palin in 2008 and beyond as well – minus the hypocritical, cheap shot attacks on Mrs. Palin’s looks and family, of course.

That said, we all know Hillary Clinton won’t get anywhere close to the level of scrutiny by the press that she deserves – but fortunately we don’t have to rely solely on “old media” for in-depth reporting anymore.  Thank God.

Related: Twitchy Team – ‘Got hypocrisy?’: Jedediah Bila slams media’s coddling of Hillary Clinton

In “protect Hillary” mode, Eleanor Clift says Amb. Stevens died of “smoke inhalation”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
Hillary Clinton testifies on Benghazi

HIllary Clinton testifies on Benghazi. – January 2013

There are any number of excuses liberal Democrats are using to circle around potential Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in order to try and protect her on the Benghazi issue, but this one – via the Washington Times – takes the cake:

Eleanor Clift, noted liberal columnist and pundit from the Daily Beast, insisted during a broadcast discussion of Benghazi on “The McLaughlin Group” that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens wasn’t really murdered.

[…]

Her exact words: “I’d like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered,’ ” she said, bending her fingers in the air to suggest the drawing of quote marks, “but died of smoke inhalation in a CIA safe room.”

[…]

Ms. Clift’s reply: The terrorist attack was fueled by the anti-Muslim video. And “it was still a CIA [outpost]. If you’re going to put somebody on trial, put David Petraeus on trial, not Hillary Clinton.”

The Times was quoting Mediate.com, which has video of the exchange you can watch. Pretty shameful that Clift is so much in the tank for Hillary Clinton that she deliberately tries to obfuscate the issue in order to help her chances at running for President.

Next thing you know, someone will be yelling out, “What difference at this point does it make?!?” Oh wait, that’s already happened

#Benghazi: State Dept. knew within hours that it was a terrorist attack

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

And not a demonstration. I don’t know how I missed this over the weekend (1), but the administration’s favorite investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, posted this little bombshell to her site back on the 1st (via Hot Air):

Internal Emails: State Dept. Immediately Attributed Benghazi Attacks to Terrorist Group

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks. They often maintained that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous demonstration that escalated into violence.

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at 9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. The State Department provided the email to Congress in Aug. of 2013 under special conditions that it not be publicly released at that time. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sought and received permission to release it Thursday.

“If the video was a cause, why did Beth Jones of the State Department tell the Libyan Ambassador that Ansar Al Sharia was responsible for the attack?” said Chaffetz.

Gosh, that’s a darned good question Rep. Chaffetz asks. Do you think the forthcoming House special investigative committee on the Benghazi massacre might want to ask that of Ms. Jones, too?

There’s much more in the article about the origin of the controversial “talking points” and the subsequent effort to push the false narrative about a video being the goad for the attack, but I want to draw your attention to the routing of Jones’ email. These are the people copied in:

Among those copied on the emails: Deputy Secretary William Burns; Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman; Jake Sullivan, then-Deputy Chief of Staff (now promoted to national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden); Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy; Cheryl Mills, then-Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff (now on the board of directors of the global investment firm BlackRock); and Victoria Nuland, then-State Dept. spokesperson (now promoted to Asst. Secretary of State). 

Note particularly the name of Cheryl Mills. We’ve met her before, a couple of times. A longtime Clintonista, she has the reputation of being “Hillary’s fixer.” She was also, as Attkisson reminds us, the Secretary’s chief of staff. If Mills had this information, not to mention the other bigwigs on that list, then it is inconceivable that Hillary herself did not know that it was her department’s firm opinion that the attack was caused by Ansar al Sharia. Add this to the fact that she spoke with the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya that night  and then think about her promising the bereaved relatives of the victims, just a few days later and as their bodies were being delivered home, that the US would get the video maker. (2)

This wasn’t a case of honestly believing something that turned out to be false. Hillary Clinton was lying to heartbroken people and knew she was lying.

I can’t wait for these hearings to get started. Hillary is going to find out that, at this point, the truth still makes a difference.

RELATED: More Attkisson – Did Tommy “Dude” Vietor contradict the sworn testimony of White House officials? Must-read: Andy McCarthy on the AWOL President. More McCarthy: “Why I should not be the select committee’s special counsel.” Jonah Goldberg: “Benghazi made simple.”

UPDATE: Changed the headline to be a bit more accurate.

Footnote:
(1) Sharyl really needs to get an RSS feed going for her site.
(2) In fact, the very evening of the attack, she put out a press release blaming the video, after she had talked with President Obama, a conversation the contents of which we still do not know.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Chelsea Clinton doesn’t rule out the possibility of running for political office

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly
The Clintons

The Clintons.
(Image via The Lonely Conservative blog)

The Hill’s Gossip Blog reports that Chelsea Clinton is no longer ruling out a potential run for political office:

Chelsea Clinton says when people ask her these days whether she wants to go into politics, her answer isn’t an automatic “no.”

The 34-year-old former first daughter told Fast Company in an interview published Monday, “for so long the answer was just a visceral no. Not because I had made any conscientious, deliberate decision, but since people had been asking for as long as literally I could remember, it was no.”

Now, the only child of former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains, “I live in a city and a state and a country where I support my elected representatives. If at some point that weren’t the case, and I didn’t support my mayor or my city councilwoman or my congresswoman or either of my senators — and I’m lucky to live in a state where I have lots of women representing me, you know — maybe then I’d have to ask and answer the question for myself, and come to a different answer.”

I have nothing against Chelsea Clinton personally, and from what I’ve seen she’s conducted herself over the last several years with class, dignity and grace, but if her politics are anything like her parents’, and I strongly suspect they are, then she’ll just be another Clinton for conservatives to oppose on down the road.  Question is – will the American people experience Clinton fatigue in the future much as they seem to have Bush fatigue?  As they say, stay tuned.