Red Solo (Acapella Freestyle)
Red Solo (Acapella Freestyle) barack obama hillary clinton john mccain 8 eight teens beat up 1 one girl sxephil hotforwords whatthebuck kevjumba daxflame smo...
By: Rich Homie Keem
Read more:
Feb. 26, 2014 Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton speaks at UM in Coral Gables, Fla.
NEW YORK Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday night that excessive partisanship flowing through the nation's political system is causing the U.S. to march "backwards instead of forward" and pointed to fall elections as a sign of how the country might tackle problems.
The former secretary of state reflected on her time at the State Department, the U.S. relationship with Russia and the advice she gives to young women during her appearance at the annual Women in the World summit. But when the moderator asked her to address the nation's future, Clinton cited the need to "get back to evidence-based decision-making."
"There is just pure ideology, pure partisanship. We disguise a commercial interest behind a political facade and the result is that we're kind of marching backwards instead of forward," Clinton said. She said the U.S. needs to address economic hardships facing many young people to produce an "inclusive prosperity."
The potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate noted that "we have an election coming up this year. And we ought to be paying attention to that because that will set the parameters for a lot of what can and should be done."
Clinton spoke alongside International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde in a discussion moderated by journalist and best-selling author Thomas L. Friedman.
Asked about her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton compared it to a relay race. "You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton," she said. "Some of what hasn't been finished may go on to be finished."
Some critics of Clinton have said her time at the State Department was marked by caution and failed to produce any major diplomatic victories -- reasoning that any diplomatic breakthroughs by Secretary of State John Kerry on Iran, Mideast peace or other global crises might diminish her record.
Clinton said she was "very proud of the stabilization and the really solid leadership that the administration provided" that allowed the U.S. to address problems in Ukraine and other global hotspots. "I think we really restored American leadership in the best sense," she said.
Turning to Russia, Clinton said the U.S. and its European allies need to be both "smart and patient" in dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin's bold annexation of Crimea. She said Putin was "motivated by the past" and trying to build up his political base at home by spurring nationalism and stopping Europe's influence in the region. "I really believe over the long run it's a losing strategy," she said.
Originally posted here:
Hillary Clinton says excessive partisanship taking America backwards
Apr 4, 2014 2:47am
Hillary Clinton said the double standard in how the media talks about women in public life is alive and well during a discussion on the opening night of Tina Browns 3-day Women in the World Foundation summit, which kicked off Thursday evening at New York Citys glitzy Lincoln Center.
Flanked by IMF chief Christine Lagarde and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who moderated the exchange, Clinton didnt hold back.
There is a double standard, obviously, she told Friedman, to warm applause. We have all either experienced it or at the very least seen it The double standard is alive and well and I think, in many respects, the media is the principle propagator of its persistence.
Friedman led into the question by recounting Scrunchiegate, an episode from Clintons time as secretary of state. A powerful world leader, the story goes, was worried to welcome Clinton when she arrived with her hair tied back, believing it was a sign Madame Sectretary was bearing bad news.
Clinton came to the David H. Koch Theater yes, that David H. Koch bearing very little news about a potential presidential run. Not that Friedman didnt do his best to squeeze something out of her.
Madame Secretary, he began, is there any other job youd be interested in? Comptroller of the state of Illinois?
Not right now, Clinton replied, much to the disappointment of the dozens of supporters in Ready for Hillary gear, actively pursuing information from attendees both outside and in the auditorium.
Friedman tried again, if only a bit more subtly, a few minutes later.
What do you feel is unfinished and youd like to have another crack at one day? he asked.
Read more:
The potential presidential candidacies of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have generated a lot of discussion about political dynasties in America. Thats understandable. After all, in a democratic republic, the prospect of dynasties should make everyone at least a little uncomfortable.
In America, where leaders have to run for office, a more useful way to think about dynasties might be to view them as brand names. In chaotic and confusing marketplaces, brand names are a useful shortcut. People buy stuff from Apple because they think they know what theyll get from Apple. The same goes for Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons and, these days, Pauls.
So lets look at the very real differences in the Bush and Clinton brands.
Fairly or unfairly, the Bush brand is tarnished. Among the rank and file of the GOP particularly among tea party types no one wants to see another Bush on the ballot. Its not unimaginable that a Bush nomination would spark a significant third-party movement on the right.
Things are very different for Hillary Clinton. At least within her party, the name Clinton is nothing but an asset. She benefits not only from her husbands successes but also from the sympathy for her generated by his personal failures.
More intriguingly, shes aided by many of Barack Obamas failures, too. After two terms of partisan gridlock and anemic economic growth, Clinton the technocrat is palatable, particularly given the burning desire to elect a female president.
The dynamic would likely change dramatically in a general election. As the Democratic nominee, Clinton would instantly confront a problem from Obamas failures, particularly on foreign policy and health care. And the Clinton brand name becomes at best a mixed bag, given that it wouldnt take long for the GOP to remind Washington-weary voters of the sordidness of the Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton is a much worse campaigner than her husband, and given her omnipresence in American life for more than two decades, its hard to see how she could sell herself as a fresh start.
Its less clear how well Bush would do as a nominee. Assuming he could keep the tea party right from bolting (a big assumption that might require putting Ted Cruz or Rand Paul on the ticket), Bush would have a lot of appeal to independents and a significant number of Latinos. Ironically, running against Clinton would make things easier for him because only in comparison to her (or Joe Biden) would yet another Bush seem like a fresh start.
Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor-at-large of National Review Online. He may be contacted at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com.
More here:
The potential presidential candidacies of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have generated a lot of discussion about political dynasties in America. Thats understandable. After all, in a democratic republic, the prospect of dynasties should make everyone at least a little uncomfortable.
In America, where leaders have to run for office, a more useful way to think about dynasties might be to view them as brand names. In chaotic and confusing marketplaces, brand names are a useful shortcut. People buy stuff from Apple because they think they know what theyll get from Apple. The same goes for Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons and, these days, Pauls.
So lets look at the very real differences in the Bush and Clinton brands.
Fairly or unfairly, the Bush brand is tarnished. Among the rank and file of the GOP particularly among tea party types no one wants to see another Bush on the ballot. Its not unimaginable that a Bush nomination would spark a significant third-party movement on the right.
Things are very different for Hillary Clinton. At least within her party, the name Clinton is nothing but an asset. She benefits not only from her husbands successes but also from the sympathy for her generated by his personal failures.
More intriguingly, shes aided by many of Barack Obamas failures, too. After two terms of partisan gridlock and anemic economic growth, Clinton the technocrat is palatable, particularly given the burning desire to elect a female president.
The dynamic would likely change dramatically in a general election. As the Democratic nominee, Clinton would instantly confront a problem from Obamas failures, particularly on foreign policy and health care. And the Clinton brand name becomes at best a mixed bag, given that it wouldnt take long for the GOP to remind Washington-weary voters of the sordidness of the Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton is a much worse campaigner than her husband, and given her omnipresence in American life for more than two decades, its hard to see how she could sell herself as a fresh start.
Its less clear how well Bush would do as a nominee. Assuming he could keep the tea party right from bolting (a big assumption that might require putting Ted Cruz or Rand Paul on the ticket), Bush would have a lot of appeal to independents and a significant number of Latinos. Ironically, running against Clinton would make things easier for him because only in comparison to her (or Joe Biden) would yet another Bush seem like a fresh start.
Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor-at-large of National Review Online. He may be contacted at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com.
Excerpt from:
The difference between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton political dynasties