Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Hillary Clinton must speak up over pipeline (Opinion …

Last Thursday, 14 people were arrested during protests. On Friday, the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux, Dave Archambault, was arrested along with five others. And on Monday, at least 10 were taken into custody. The charges range from disorderly conduct for blocking access to the site to pushing back on a police line. Developers on Thursday said they were halting construction until a federal court hearing next week. But this isn't just about the threat to Native American grave sites. Setting aside that it is hard to imagine that the pipeline would be going ahead if it were to cut through the graves of white people, the pipeline is also in clear violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie, signed in 1868 between the United States and various Native American tribes and nations, including the Standing Rock Sioux. That document guarantees land, sovereignty, and hunting rights, and promises that the territory will "be closed to all whites."

The facts of this injustice are clear. The question now is whether Clinton will weigh in.

None of this is to overlook the role that President Barack Obama could still play.

Another agreement and promise has been broken, Mr. President. Where are you?

And speaking of elected officials, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who has long claimed to be of North American indigenous parentage, has a distinct opportunity to prove that she is at last with us -- that she shares in those revered and honorable Native American traditions of solidarity and resistance.

But she cannot prove this if she stays quiet on this issue. The senator could utilize her influential platform to stand with Native Americans in opposition to this treaty violation and the desecration of burial grounds. We can only hope that she chooses to do so.

In the meantime, Native Americans and our non-Native American allies will continue to protest the pipeline that may very well, sooner or later, fail and poison the water as these pipelines too often do. Chelsey Luger, Lakota from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, told me she believes that it is not a question of if, but when this pipeline will cause a spill, adding that she hopes Clinton will speak up, and soon.

"If Hillary Clinton were to at the very least make a statement of support for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, it would be a much needed display of affirmative support for the health and well-being of Native (Americans) across the United States," Luger said. "We need her support, and we'd prefer it now as a preventative action than later as a reaction to crisis."

If candidate Clinton does nothing to address this issue yet continues into November promising Native Americans that she is our champion, then her words will be nothing but false promises -- just more bombast, more white lies to Indians.

But if she voices her opposition to the pipeline, if she proves to us that she is a woman of her word, then that would send a message that while Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks, she acts.

First, though, she has to act. You're up, Mrs. Clinton.

See the original post here:
Hillary Clinton must speak up over pipeline (Opinion ...

How Hillary Clinton would expand Social Security

There is, however, a lot of eagerness to talk about how to make the program more generous to those who need it most.

Democrats have proposed a number of ways to expand Social Security benefits. Hillary Clinton has publicly embraced two of them -- expanding benefits for lower-income widows and unpaid caregivers.

As with most of her other proposals, Clinton plans to raise taxes on the rich to pay for it.

Here's what she backs:

Give more generous benefits to lower-income widows

Today, when one spouse in a retired couple dies, the surviving spouse sees a drop in what had been their joint monthly Social Security income.

For example, say a couple receives $2,400 a month in combined benefits -- $1,200 for each spouse based on their individual earnings records. When one spouse dies, the other would only receive $1,200 -- or 50% of the couple's joint benefits.

Even though the surviving spouse's expenses may drop somewhat, they're unlikely to drop by half.

For couples whose individual benefits are not identical, the surviving spouse would receive a monthly check that typically represents 60% to 70% of the couple's joint income from the program.

Clinton would like to bolster what widows or widowers get to ensure they don't experience financial hardship or fall into poverty simply by virtue of a partner dying, according to a campaign official.

How much she'd do so isn't clear. Her campaign says she'd work with Congress to establish the parameters.

But previous proposals would limit the drop to between 67% and 75% of a couple's joint Social Security income, according to Ben Veghte, vice president for policy at the National Academy of Social Insurance and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

And to ensure the rule would only protect lower-income retirees, some proposals would also cap the dollar amount of the surviving spouse's benefits.

Give Social Security credits to unpaid caregivers

Your Social Security retirement benefits are determined based on your 35 highest earning years.

If some of those 35 years are zero-earning or very low-earning years -- as they are for those who stay home full-time or part-time to care for children or a disabled or ill family member -- that will lower their Social Security benefits in retirement.

Clinton hasn't specified how her proposal would work yet, but it's not a new idea.

Democratic bills introduced in the House and Senate, for instance, would assign Social Security credits for unpaid caregiving for up to five years to increase the caregivers' benefits in retirement.

How Clinton would pay for it

Today, the first $118,500 of wages are subject to the 12.4% Social Security tax, half of which (6.2%) is paid by employees and half by employers.

Under Clinton's plan, she'd also apply that tax to at least some income over $250,000 as well.

In addition, she would apply the payroll tax to income not currently subject to it. The campaign didn't specify, but presumably investment income could be hit.

These are also the only solutions Clinton has publicly endorsed as a way to cure Social Security's long-term shortfall. By 2034, barring any changes, the program will only be taking in enough revenue to pay 79% of promised benefits, according to projections by the Social Security trustees.

Clinton has said she doesn't favor other solutions, such as cutting benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, raising the retirement age or using a more stringent formula to figure annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Taxing the rich is also the way Clinton has chosen to fund her non-Social Security proposals, which include infrastructure spending and providing free tuition for in-state students at public schools.

But leaning so heavily on high-income Americans to pay for everything has two potential shortcomings. It will be a tough sell if Republicans remain the majority in the House or Senate. And it will limit how much more the rich can be tapped to pay for anything else that may come up.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 18, 2016: 1:16 PM ET

See the original post here:
How Hillary Clinton would expand Social Security

Clinton Foundation to restrict foreign, corporate donations …

The Clinton Foundation announced Thursday that it would no longer accept donations from corporations or foreign entities if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

The decision comes amid mounting criticism of how the foundation operated during her tenure as secretary of state, potentially allowing donors to seek special access through her government post.

Former president Bill Clinton also announced to staff Thursday that the final meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative would be held in September in New York City, regardless of the outcome of the election.

A spokesman for the foundation confirmed the decisions, which were first reported by the Associated Press.

The moves also come amid new allegations that foundation donors may have been given favored access while Hillary Clinton ran the State Department. Republican nominee Donald Trump has been highly critical of the foundation for accepting money from foreign governments in particular Saudi Arabia, saying the contributions undermine Clintons record on womens rights.

CGI, launched in 2005, is an arm of the foundation that hosts gatherings bringing together government leaders, private companies and not-for-profit organizations to discuss ways to solve the worlds problems.

The initiatives chief event is an annual meeting in New York City, tied to the United Nations General Assembly. The meetings provide networking opportunities for participants and a forum for private companies to make pledges to conduct charitable projects around the world, monitored by the Clinton Foundation.

The Clintons have long acknowledged that significant changes would need to be made to the foundation in the event that she is elected.

Therell clearly be some changes in what the Clinton Foundation does and how we do it, and well just have to cross that bridge when we come to it, Bill Clinton said at a CGI event in Atlanta in June.

[Two Clintons, 41 years, $3 billion: Inside the Clinton donor network.]

According to a newly released batch of emails obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch through a public records lawsuit, a foundation aide asked State Department staff to arrange a meeting on behalf of a foundation donor, a wealthy Nigerian businessman of Lebanese descent who had donated between $1 million and $5 million, according to disclosure reports.

The official said that he never connected with the businessman and denied that anyone had asked him to meet with the man.

Following the release last week, Trump accused Clinton of breaking the law and engaging in pay to play practices.

Trump and his family members have donated to the foundation in the past. When asked about it on the campaign trail, he has said that he regrets doing so, accusing the foundation of mismanaging its finances.

The Boston Globes editorial board called on the Clintons this week to shutter the foundation if she became president, saying it would pose an unacceptable conflict, given that some donors were foreign governments and corporations.

The inherent conflict of interest was obvious when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, the Globe wrote. She promised to maintain a separation between her official work and the foundation, but recently released emails written by staffers during her State Department tenure make clear that the supposed partition was far from impregnable.

[Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State]

The sentiment was echoed by Clinton ally and former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell in a recent interview with the New York Daily News.

Itd be impossible to keep the foundation open without at least the appearance of a problem, Rendell said.

The foundation, which was renamed the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation after Hillary Clinton left the State Department, has operated since 1997 and expanded in subsequent years into an international charity. It has never previously restricted contributions from foreign citizens and companies or domestic corporations.

After Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign in 2015, she stepped down from the board, and the foundation promised to disclose its donors more frequently and limit foreign governments that could donate to a select list engaged in particular projects.

The foundation had also put in place certain restrictions on accepting donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. It said it would seek State Department approval for any new foreign government donations or any substantial increase in donations from a preexisting government donor. But the rules did not prevent the foundation from accepting millions of dollars in foreign government donations while she was in office.

A 2015 Washington Post report also revealed a government donation that was not properly submitted to the State Department for approval.

According to a 2015 Post analysis of foundation donors, a third of contributors who had given more than $1 million were foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States.

Jose A. DelReal contributed to this report.

View post:
Clinton Foundation to restrict foreign, corporate donations ...

Hillary Clinton was ‘careless’ but didn’t mislead Congress …

WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

Updated: Tuesday, August 16, 2016, 7:55 PM

WASHINGTON Notes of the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton that were shared with congressional staff Tuesday afternoon showed the Democratic nominee indeed was "extremely careless" with classified information, while offering no obvious examples that she had previously misled Congress in her testimony, according to those familiar with the contents of the documents.

A Democrat with knowledge of the report's contents said that while Clinton's interview suggested a pattern of recklessness and lack of sophistication in regards to security measures, everything she said was consistent with her previous statements to Congress.

That testimony explains why FBI Director James Comey described her as being "extremely careless" with classified information when he announced the department recommended against prosecution.

House and Senate staff were initially not allowed to take any notes on the sole copy of the report each branch of Congress received in a classified setting, and were limited in the time they were allowed to look at it.

FBI wanted DOJ to probe Clinton Foundation but DOJ refused:report

That prevented a comprehensive review of the material, which included more than a dozen pages of notes of the interview with Clinton as well as the more than 100 emails the FBI says contained classified information at the time they were sent. The FBI ordered that the details of the report, much of which was classified as secret, should not be disseminated publicly.

Clinton's campaign called for the notes to be widely released, pointing out the "extraordinarily rare step" of releasing the information at all is a break with the FBI's normal protocol. As a general rule, when the FBI decides against recommending prosecution they don't share the details of their decision-making process.

"We believe that if these materials are going to be shared outside the Justice Department, they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks," Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told NBC.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the notes of the interview should be available to the public.

FBI probed Clinton's email server to see if it was 'compromised'

"The FBI should make as much of the material available as possible. The public's business ought to be public, with few exceptions. The people's interest would be served in seeing the documents that are unclassified. The FBI has made public statements in describing its handling of the case, so sharing documents in support of those statements wherever appropriate would make sense. Right now, the public is at a disadvantage and has only part of the story," the Iowa Republican said.

See the article here:
Hillary Clinton was 'careless' but didn't mislead Congress ...

Hillary Clinton’s record at State: Blessing or curse …

As the world focuses on the terror network after the Paris attacks, Clinton outlined what she would do about ISIS as commander in chief in a closely watched appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Already, her time in Foggy Bottom is shaping up as a central battleground of the 2016 campaign, as Democrats and Republicans have sharply differing views of her tenure from 2009 to 2013.

According to President Barack Obama, in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," Clinton was "one of the best secretaries of state we have had."

Clinton herself has labeled her experience running U.S. foreign policy in the President's first term as the perfect training to be commander in chief. Her presidential campaign clearly thinks her experience will be an asset, recently producing an ad touting her "iron will, vision, empathy" and dogged determination in the post.

But Republican front-runner and billionaire businessman Donald Trump says she's the worst-ever top U.S. diplomat. Another possible Republican nominee, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, has described her record as "ineffective at best, and dangerously negligent at worst."

The eventual outcome of this duel over Clinton's legacy could go a long way to deciding the 2016 election, with key episodes of her tenure likely to play a starring role in the argument should she win the Democratic nomination.

Republicans: It's all about beating Hillary Clinton

Here is a rundown of some of the major -- and most contentious -- moments of Clinton's globetrotting years as secretary of state.

Clinton reported in her book "Hard Choices" that she was always skeptical of the "leadership duet" of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, who were serving as prime minister and President when she took the job of secretary of state in 2009. Yet on the basis that pursuing U.S. national interests sometimes requires tough diplomacy with people you dislike, Clinton resolved to work with Russia. She and her staff came up with the concept of using a "reset" button as a prop to hand to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as a sign of the fresh start the Obama administration sought. But in a diplomatic embarrassment, the gesture backfired when a mistranslation resulted in the button being labeled "overcharged" in Russian. It was a symbol of a policy that started out with great hopes but which ground to a halt when a more nationalistic and antagonistic Putin returned to power as President in 2012.

Clinton sent GOP 2016 candidates copies of her book

What the GOP will say: The entire concept of a "reset" with Russia now looks naive given Putin's subsequent adoption of a Cold War-style mindset, incursion into Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. Expect her embarrassing press appearance with Lavrov to play out in campaign ads and on the debate stage if she is the nominee.

Hillary Clinton knocks GOP negativity

What Clinton will say: She will likely argue that she spoke up for human rights and freedoms in Russia, which infuriated Putin. She will claim progress on a major nuclear arms control treaty with Russia early in the administration and can rightly argue that her diplomacy with Moscow helped secure tough international sanctions against Iran and a supply route for U.S. troops into Afghanistan. She also wrote in her book that by the end of her tenure, she was suggesting Obama should press the "pause button" with Putin, even though some in the White House did not agree with her "relatively harsh" analysis. Protecting her exposure further once out of office, Clinton in 2014 compared the Russian leader's actions in Europe to those of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

Opinion: Hillary Clinton: Warrior or peacemaker?

Clinton was a leading voice in helping persuade Obama to back a NATO operation in Libya to head off a possible genocide of opposition fighters by longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The operation later led to the toppling of the reviled strongman. Despite efforts to nurture a democratic future for Libya, the country tumbled into instability, is torn by tribal divisions and has become a haven for extremists like ISIS. The chaos indirectly precipitated the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012, by an anti-U.S. mob in the city of Benghazi.

11 Benghazi takeaways: One for each hour

Questions over whether the attack was a spontaneous protest or an organized terror attack have dogged Clinton ever since, and a congressional investigation into the affair unearthed the fact that she used a private email server as secretary of state in an episode that has done her considerable political damage.

Hillary Clinton emails: Did she do anything wrong or not?

What the GOP will say: Republicans have spent years trying to tarnish Clinton over Benghazi and only more recently have turned to the disastrous turn that Libya took after the NATO operation. Clinton will be accused of having no plan for the day after Gadhafi's fall -- in the full knowledge that a similar political vacuum helped tip Iraq into sectarian misery. She is still bracing for new revelations about her emails, an affair the GOP has used to effectively cast doubt on her character and integrity.

Another GOP congressman says Benghazi panel meant to hurt Clinton

What Clinton will say: The former top diplomat emerged without serious damage from a grueling 11-hour hearing on Capitol Hill. Her campaign cannot be sure, however, what will emerge from an FBI investigation into her email server, even though she denies she used it to send information that was classified at the time. Clinton has argued that for multiple reasons, the Libyans themselves blew their chance at freedom offered by the Western air campaign. But the plight of the North African nation remains a blot on her record.

The photograph of Clinton in an annex to the White House Situation Room with her hand over her mouth during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden remains an iconic moment of the Obama era. Clinton has said she advised Obama that he should go ahead with the risky Navy SEAL mission to take out the al Qaeda leader in Pakistan, though there were even odds as to whether it would succeed.

"I was part of a very small group that had to advise the President about whether or not to go after bin Laden," Clinton said at the Democratic debate in Iowa on Saturday. "I spent a lot of time in the Situation Room as secretary of state, and there were many very difficult choices presented to us."

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House on May 1, 2011 in Washington, in this image provided by the White House.

What the GOP will say: Given that a Republican president, George W. Bush, failed to find Bin Laden, it's going to be tough to use the terror leader's demise against Clinton. Instead, a Republican candidate is likely to pivot to ISIS, arguing that while the administration decapitated al Qaeda's core, it took its eye off the ball with the rise of the even more vicious extremist group. And a GOP opponent is likely to try to pin the blame on Clinton for failing to negotiate a deal with Iraq to leave a residual U.S. force in the country, something Republicans contend could have halted the advance of ISIS.

Iran deal is key for 2016 GOP candidates

What Clinton will say: Clinton is likely to use her role in the Bin Laden raid for all its worth to prove she is up to the tough choices demanded of a commander in chief -- as she did Saturday, arguably her best moment on foreign policy in the debate. Ultimately, though, it was Obama, not Clinton, who faced the highest stakes.

Clinton played a significant role in framing the tough international sanctions she credits with forcing Iran back to the negotiating table with world powers. The talks eventually resulted in the deal this July to curb Tehran's nuclear program in return for lifting the sanctions.

"We convinced all 27 nations of the European Union to stop importing Iranian oil and all 20 major global importers of Iranian oil -- including Japan, India, China and Turkey -- to make significant cuts," Clinton said in a speech at the State Department in 2012.

The deal that was finally reached with Iran forced Clinton, who had initially been skeptical that Tehran would ever enter an agreement, into a difficult spot. The deal was universally opposed by Republicans, and any sign that Iran is reneging on its commitments could significantly harm her presidential campaign. Yet she could hardly reject the most significant diplomatic achievement of Obama, whose help she needs to become president. In the end, Clinton backed the deal, but expressed noticeable skepticism. She vowed that her approach to the pact would be "distrust but verify." Clinton also warned that as president, she would not hesitate to take military action if Tehran didn't honor its commitments.

What the GOP will say: The Republican approach on this is clear. Clinton will be accused of siding with an administration the party believes sold out U.S. ally Israel with a deal that will eventually lead to Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Any proven backsliding on the deal by Tehran could prove very damaging for the former secretary of state.

What Clinton will say: She will probably sound like she opposes the deal, even though she backs it. She has already pointed out that "Diplomacy is not the pursuit of perfection -- it is the balancing of risk." By that, Clinton means that the alternative to a deal -- likely, eventually, some kind of military action -- could prove more damaging to U.S. interests than the current situation. And she is likely to warn Republicans their vows to rip up the agreement on the first day of a new GOP presidency will cause a damaging schism with U.S. allies.

As a potential Democratic nominee hoping to retain the White House for her party, Clinton will be called to account for Obama administration policies that have struggled to keep pace with unprecedented and violent change ripping through the region. Though the Arab Spring sparked great hopes for a new era of people power when it started in Tunisia in 2010, the crashing down of authoritarian regimes was instead replaced by a political vacuum that allowed extremism to fester. Clinton will be cross-examined on her role in the often-uneven U.S. response, even though she was sometimes not on the same page as the White House.

She wrote in "Hard Choices," for instance, that she sympathized with democracy campaigners in Egypt but was uneasy at pushing longtime strategic ally President Hosni Mubarak from power. "Some of President Obama's aides in the White House were swept up in the drama and idealism of the moment," Clinton said.

In a wider sense, Republicans accuse Obama of abdicating U.S. leadership, of deserting allies like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, of pulling out of Iraq too quickly and leaving chaos behind.

Most seriously, Clinton will be accused of being a key player in an administration that failed to intervene to halt a civil war in Syria that destroyed a nation, killed 250,000 people and counting, sent millions of refugees fleeing into the region and Europe, and provided a safe haven for ISIS to seize territory and plan international terror attacks.

What the GOP will say: Republicans will blame the administration, and by extension Clinton, for a world that seems to be spiraling out of control without strong U.S. leadership. They will question Clinton's suitability to serve as commander in chief after being part of a U.S. government that appears to have badly underestimated the lethality and expansion of ISIS.

Republicans will also likely accuse the administration of not having a coherent policy on Syria and of failing to enforce its red lines -- even though it was Obama, not his secretary of state, who decided against military action despite warning he would use it if President Bashar al-Assad deployed chemical weapons.

Clinton's challenge will be to prevent a GOP opponent from stigmatizing the entirety of her record as secretary of state with the chaos in the Middle East.

What Clinton will say: She can point to the fact that no previous U.S. administration has had to deal with such upheaval, carnage and shifting of historical tectonic plates in the Middle East, and can argue that Obama's refusal to throw U.S. troops into the fight has avoided the terrible losses the United States faced in Iraq. She is likely to blame the previous Republican administration of George W. Bush for ripping the lid off sectarian tensions in the region with its failure to adequately prepare for the aftermath of the war in Iraq.

On Syria, Clinton has already begun subtly distancing herself from her former boss. She has pointed out that she advocated arming and training moderate Syrian rebels much earlier in the civil war, a step the White House declined to take at the time.

Clinton has also called for the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria and humanitarian corridors on the ground, a step the administration has deemed unfeasible. Her differences with Obama on Egypt, meanwhile, could allow her to argue that she would have handled the entire portfolio differently had she been in charge.

Unlike previous secretaries of state, Clinton did not handle the Obama administration's doomed first-term effort to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians herself. She handed those duties over to U.S. envoy George Mitchell.

To some extent, that distance may allow Clinton to escape some of the GOP vitriol sure to be aimed at Obama during the 2016 campaign by Republicans furious at what they see as the President's shabby treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Clinton has known and sparred with the Israeli leader for years, dating back to her husband's administration, and she told CNN last year that she had a good relationship with him. But she also said she was often called upon to convey the administration's displeasure with his actions, sometimes over settlement expansion that critics say helped to scuttle U.S. peace efforts.

"I was often the designated yeller. Something would happen, a new settlement announcement would come and I would call him up," Clinton said.

What the GOP will say: Republicans will charge that she was part of an administration that had the worst relations with Israel in the history of the Jewish state and that she backs an Iran deal that allows the Islamic Republic to retain the nuclear infrastructure that could eventually threaten Israel's existence.

What Clinton will say: The former first lady and top U.S. diplomat enjoys sufficient personal history with Netanyahu and Israel that she may be able to escape Obama's shadow over Israel. She has already said she will repair relations with Netanyahu and would invite him to the White House in her first month in office. She is also likely to stress her role in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2012, which she counts as one of her most significant achievements.

Clinton was an enthusiastic and early proponent of the Obama administration's rebalancing of diplomatic and military power toward Asia, the world's most dynamic emerging region. In a troubled world, the pivot remains one area of Obama administration policy that still has momentum. It would also be fair to say the process has suffered since Clinton's departure, as her successor as secretary of state, John Kerry, has been more focused on the Middle East and Iran than in the Asia-Pacific region.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks on stage before speaking at Singapore Management University in Singapore on November 17, 2012.

What the GOP will say: Republicans are not waiting for a general election to highlight what they see as Clinton's hypocrisy over a central pillar of the pivot policy: the vast Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Though Clinton called such a deal "a gold standard" while secretary of state, she has now rejected the final version as she runs for the presidency in a Democratic Party suspicious of free trade.

What Clinton will say: Clinton is in a tough spot on TPP. She can argue that while she was not against it in principle, the final package fell well short of expectations. But that won't free her of the flip-flopper label on an issue she worked so diligently on. And while she has a case that her leadership skills identified potent opportunities with Southeast Asian allies spooked by China's rise, the policy toward the broader region is not likely to be as big a deal in the general election.

One view of the Asia pivot is that it's a necessary response to China's ascent as a regional and even global superpower. Clinton has long had a prickly relationship with the Chinese, dating from her speech to a U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, where she angered the Beijing leadership by declaring, "Women's rights are human rights."

Early in her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton infuriated China again for intervening in the issue of maritime territorial disputes at a regional meeting in Vietnam in 2010. She also spent days in 2012 negotiating with Beijing over the fate of blind dissident Chen Guangcheng, who had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy and was eventually allowed to leave China.

What the GOP will say: Republican presidential candidates like Rubio have already made clear that China will be a target in the 2016 campaign and will seek to tie Clinton to what they say is a weak U.S. response to Beijing on its belligerence and territorial moves in the South China Sea, which are alarming U.S. allies. Rubio has also chided the Obama administration failure to put human rights at the center of U.S. policy toward China.

What Clinton will say: Given her difficult personal interactions with the Chinese, Clinton is well positioned to argue she has always been tough on China but that she has also managed to pull off hard-nosed diplomacy to maintain a vital if often complicated dynamic relationship.

"The jury's still out," Clinton wrote about Sino-U.S. relations in her book. "China has some hard choices to make and so do we. We should follow a time-tested strategy: Work for the best outcome but plan for something less."

Perhaps the closest Clinton has to a genuine personal diplomatic triumph is the gradual political opening in Myanmar, which led to successful parliamentary elections this month. Still, the Southeast Asian country has a long way to go -- the generals who ran it for decades still exert considerable power behind the scenes after weighting the Constitution and political system against the democratic opposition.

US Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton speaks to Myanmar's Member of Parliament and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi after introducing her at the United States Institute of Peace September 18, 2012 in Washington, DC.

What the GOP will say: Republicans are likely to accuse Clinton of overstating her role in the country's opening and point out the still imperfect nature of Myanmar's political system, its persecution of the Muslim Rohingya minority and its troubled human rights record.

What Clinton will say: Clinton has a fair claim to playing a key role in nurturing the opening between the generals and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, whose image is likely to be featured alongside the former secretary of state in campaign ads.

The most dramatic shift in U.S. relations with Cuba, after more than 50 years of estrangement between Washington and the communist island, took place after Clinton had left the administration.

Yet while secretary of state, she backed new administration rules to make it easier for U.S. church groups and students to visit the country and to lift limits on the amount of money Americans could send home to Cuban family members. The theory was that this small-scale engagement would later lead to more dramatic measures and was the best way to undermine the Castro regime.

What the GOP will say: If Clinton faces either Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz -- both of Cuban descent -- or former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the debate over Cuba will be particularly intense. The trio of Republicans have vehemently criticized the administration for its opening to Cuba and the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, saying the move rewards a brutal regime that crushes human rights. The controversy will likely factor into the battle for the crucial swing state of Florida, which is home to may Cuban exiles and their descendants.

What Clinton will say: The former secretary of state backs Obama's lifting of sanctions on Cuba and has said the previous policy, while well-intentioned, only cemented the long rule of the Castro brothers. She is also calling for real and genuine reform in Cuba.

Read more from the original source:
Hillary Clinton's record at State: Blessing or curse ...