Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona and vehement immigration opponent, has taken on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a recent report sent to the United Nations’ Human Rights Commissioner by the State Department.  Apparently, Brewer is steamed at the move toward “internationalism” and is trying to protect her state from charges of racial profiling, a thinly veiled accusation included in the report.

Brewer was pretty adamant in her, uh, request that Arizona’s immigration law pretty much requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they encounter “enforcing other laws” be removed.

The federal government, however, views its legal challenge to the law as a prime example of how it’s addressing possible human rights violations.

From Yahoo News:

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is “downright offensive” that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.

“The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,” Brewer wrote.

(more…)

Director Gigi Gaston has put together a documentary alleging that there was some funny business at the polls in the last presidential election. Specifically, Gaston’s clear message is that Hillary Clinton should have been the Democrat’s candidate. Oh, and that Obama totally stole the election.

From Mediate:

Amidst recent charges that the New Black Panther Party intimidated voters outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, a new documentary called We Will Not Be Silenced charges that this was not an isolated incident. The film’s director Gigi Gaston appeared on Fox and Friends this weekend and was introduced by host Alyson Camerota who claimed that “the 2008 primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was rife with stories of voter intimidation and voting violations.”

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that this all came out on the infamously conservative Fox News Channel. They are ridiculously anti-Obama (which is, of course, their prerogative … and I do realize that he’s given perhaps more benefit of the doubt on other news networks than another candidate would), but it seems to me that this might cross a line into propaganda when you put Camerota’s clearly biased introduction into the mix.

But Obama must be really bad if the anti-Clinton Fox is on Hillary’s side about anything.

(more…)

It’s a magical time for Chelsea Clinton as her wedding day finally approaches.  On July 31^st, Clinton will be marrying Marc Mezvinsky in a location that hasn’t yet been named — word is it’s somewhere in New York and not Martha’s Vineyard, which was the long-speculated site.

Okay, whatever you want to say about Bill and Hillary Clinton, there is no denying that they have raised a classy, intelligent, motivated, and poised daughter.  Just the fact that they took Herculean measures to keep her out of the limelight speaks of their love and good parenting skills.

While she’s reportedly having an Oscar de la Renta dress designed for her (and let’s be real, I for one would jump at that opportunity), she has also given a mandate that makes my regard for her grow even stronger. 
(more…)

After Barack Obama secured the Presidential nomination for the Democrats, there was a movement to have Hillary Clinton run beside him as veep.  Obama ultimately went with Joe Biden, instead naming Clinton Secretary of State.  Now, a Washington Post columnist is suggesting that perhaps it’s time for a swap in duties.

Sally Quinn feels that Clinton has risen above the potential obstacles that might have impacted Obama’s decision to go with Biden:

Clinton has done an incredible job as secretary of state. First of all, she has worked harder than anyone should ever be expected to. She has managed to do the impossible: She is the ambassador of the United States to the world, maintaining her credibility while playing the bad guy to President Obama’s good guy, such as with North Korea, Iran and Israel, and still looking good. She has been a true team player. If Clinton is dissatisfied with her role, you would never know it. She has been loyal and supportive to the president and has maintained a good relationship with him and with others in the White House. If she is being left out of the policymaking, or being sent on trips to keep her out of town, she has not shown it. She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life.

(more…)

As everybody probably knows by now, Al and Tipper Gore are divorcing. While divorce in and of itself isn’t exactly unusual, there is a growing trend in long-married couples taking the, uh, anti-plunge, and the Gores personify this.

From USA Today:

The Gores say they just “grew apart,” according to an e-mail they sent family and friends.

The Gores’ marriage is often compared with that of former president Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who “are invested in a singular life together. … They are very much a couple. They have a political life together and there’s a stronger emotional bond. The Gores may once have had a strong emotional bond, but they have clearly grown apart.

“Their relationship was probably having troubles over time, and they were less and less invested in each other and less invested in making this relationship work,” Lin says. “They have their separate lives and they were both relatively happy being without the other person.”

You know, this makes me really sad. As Molls wrote on Evil Beet

Why do I feel like my parents are getting a divorce? I don’t even think I like Al Gore that much. I mean, he’s fine. And Tipper Gore is a lyric protestin’ bitch, so like… I shouldn’t care! But I do!

Dr. Robert Butler, an expert in the concept of aging, blames an increase in life expectancy for the sudden increase in divorcing Baby Boomers.

Butler’s new book, The Longevity Prescription, says people are not only living longer but also are healthier in older age. “If they don’t feel totally happy and have possibilities for new relationships, late-life divorce is not totally uncommon.”
(more…)

According to a recent article in American Thinker, there is a left-wing message that Americans in general—and conservatives in particular—are … well, dumb. And that Sarah Palin isn’t. And that Woody Allen is a political commentator to be taken seriously.

Stupidity is the face of American exceptionalism for Barack Obama and his media and university supporters. New York Times columnist David Brooks, a graduate of the elite University of Chicago, says the nation’s a “joke,” that Sarah Palin and ordinary Americans should shut up and let the “educated class” lead. Bill Maher, who practices his contempt at HBO and honed his arrogance at Yale, labels us a “stupid people.”

Meanwhile, Woody Allen says we are so clueless that Barack Obama needs to take his Harvard law degree in hand and become a “dictator for a few years.” Allen, who does not have an Ivy League degree, nevertheless burnished his elite cultural credentials with first an affair, and then a marriage to his stepdaughter a few years back. More recently, he dismissed the rape of a fourteen-year-old by fugitive director Roman Polanski with the observation “he’s an artist.”

Uh … it speaks volumes about your argument that you’re giving credence to Woody Allen’s word on politics. Is that the best example you can come up with, Stuart Schwartz of American Thinker?

They are angry that 81% of us put the nation “on the wrong track” and that two-thirds are “outraged” with what the “educated class” is doing to us. Their response, however, is pushback. The Atlantic magazine, a favorite of our political and media elites, just this month explained the growing anger on Main Street: “It’s that you’re stupid.”

Yeah, those numbers seemed a little funky to me, so I went to the link referenced by Schwartz’s article. It’s from an April 2008 CBS poll report essentially focusing on whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate to go up against John McCain. Um, yeah …
(more…)

Tammy Bruce, an “openly gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, independent conservative”, has somehow managed to avoid the stigma that political women from Sarah Palin to Ann Coulter to Hillary Clinton seem to carry. She recently laughed off a debate offer from Ryan Sorba, an infamously homophobic member of the American Conservative Union (Sorba was booed offstage at the 2010 CPAC conference for making anti-gay statements).

From The Advocate:

Gay conservative Tammy Bruce laughed at the prospect of a debate with Ryan Sorba, which the antigay activist challenged her and blogger Andrew Sullivan to last week. Bruce said Sorba would be better off debating Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, or George Rekers in order to expose the hypocrisy of homophobia.

Last week, in an e-mail exchange with Washington Post reporter David Weigel, Sorba said that he would publicly challenge Bruce and/or Sullivan to a debate. Bruce is the new advisory board chair for gay conservative group GOProud, which Sorba bashed onstage during the Conservative Political Action Conference this year.

Bruce, also a Fox New commentator, then e-mailed Weigel to shoot down the debate idea from Sorba and suggest some enlightening alternatives.

“I was amused by Ryan Sorba’s declaration that he would be soon calling for a debate between himself and either me or Andrew Sullivan,” said Bruce in part of the message. “I have a better idea — I would suggest Sorba ‘debate’ Ted Haggard, Bob Allen or perhaps even George Alan Rekers. I think that might prove more interesting, and would certainly help shed some light on how hypocritical homophobic bigotry has been masquerading as an element of both Christianity and conservatism for far too long.”

And then Bruce gives the ultimate, “Talk to the hand” statement, because really, what else is there to say?

“Frankly, I do find it rather odd that homosexuality seems to be more on the minds of certain so-called religious conservatives than it is for most of my gay friends.”

Ka-bam! Right on! Latent homosexuality is probably more common than anyone will ever know, and I strongly believe that often the most vocal anti-gay activists are the ones too afraid to look too closely in the mirror. Now who the hell are you, Tammy Bruce, and why have I never heard of you before?
(more…)

According to recent reports, Hillary’s Clinton’s star is far from fading. In fact, there are numerous possibilities that are being tossed around.

Buzz in the no-drama Obama administration is the seamless bond that has developed between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration.

From Politico:

Gates, who has long signaled an eagerness to retire, just launched what appears to be his final initiative, a tough push to scale back the Pentagon’s gargantuan bureaucracy. Clinton, with her hawkish image and ties to Gates and to military brass, would be his most logical successor — and some of her most senior allies have begun quietly to float the notion.

What’s kind of cool about the relationship between Clinton and Gates is that they follow a Secretary of State—Colin Powell—and a Secretary of Defense—Donald Rumsfeld—who famously hated didn’t get along with each other. Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be the consummate Secretary of State, building bridges and seeing both sides of every issue.

There have even been occasions where she’s been more “hawkish” than the guy in charge of the military, most notably with almost threatening words to Pakistan following evidence that the recently attempted Times Square bombing was perpetrated by Pakistani Taliban. If links to the Pakistan government were verified, Clinton noted, “very severe consequences” would be forthcoming. And Gates? He merely said, ““It’s their country. They remain in the driver’s seat and they have their foot on the accelerator

Back to Politics Daily:

It would be a lot of grief to create one more crack in the glass ceiling as the first female secretary of defense. She’s ambitious, but I suspect there’s not enough payoff for her in that lateral move. And imagine the outcry if the secretary of state most associated with soft power were suddenly put in charge of hard power.

I don’t know, I think Hillary could pull it off. She’s proven herself to be a diplomat, but she’s also nothing like Sarah Palin incredibly intelligent and possesses the skills to put defense issues into a historical context. Hmm …

But there’s also another possibility being floated around:

It is plausible that she could trade places with Joe Biden at some point. If polls show an Obama-Clinton ticket is stronger going into the 2012 election, the president might well have Biden step aside. [Obama] could argue that the talents of each player are better utilized with Hillary in the White House. As the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden would be a natural at the State Department. He has long coveted the job of secretary of state and could argue it is a step up that takes full advantage of his background.

If the handoff were made after the 2012 election, even better because Obama will want to set up a successor for 2016, and it likely isn’t Biden, who would be over 70 at that point. But it could be Hillary, who would turn 69 that year, a mere pup if she were a man with national ambition. The rules have yet to be written for women of a certain age, but if she continues to play a prominent role on the national stage, cementing her standing with the American people, anything is possible.

So what do you think? Has Hillary Clinton reached the pinnacle of her career, or is she being groomed for something even bigger?

In breaking news, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has cancelled her world tour in order to assist those in need from the throne of the most powerful country in the world.

Clinton, who had recently been in Hawaii, states that she is cancelling the remainder of her Pacific tour in order to man the home front and assist where needed in light of Haiti’s recent natural disaster.

Prior to cancelling her tour, Hillary had promised that US forces would maintain best efforts in assisting the devastated Haitian region in its rebuilding and healing.

God bless to the victims of Haiti’s earthquake and hopefully help really is on the way.

For you to do your part, you can text the following numbers to their respective carriers and donate a few dollars to help sustain the life that has survived in the devastated area:

Text the word “ Yele” to 501501 to donate $5
On behalf of the Yéle Foundation, the leading contributor to rebuilding Haiti founded by Wyclef Jean

Text the word “ Haiti” to 85944 to donate $5
On behalf of the Rescue Union Mission and MedCorp International

Text the word “ Haiti” to 25383 to donate $5
On behalf of the Internal Rescue Committee

Text the word “ Haiti” to 90999 to donate $10
On behalf of the Red Cross in the U.S.

Text the word “ Haiti” to 45678 (In Canada Only)
On behalf of the Salvation Army in Canada

If I were asked to choose the most admired woman in America, I’d probably be torn between Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen.  They’ve been millionaires since they were kids, they went to college, they’re entrepreneurs, and to top it off, they’re both hot and stylish.  What’s not to admire?

I would then receive (as I probably just have) a myriad of repulsed or disdainful glances paired with a series of mutters insulting my shallow decision.

So needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised that America is actually admiring intelligent and powerful women like Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. They are outspoken, ambitious and equally loved and hated by members of either party.  They are both mothers, best-selling authors and ambitious political leaders.

The survey conducted by USA Today and the Gallup Poll asked 1,025 Americans on December 11th through the 13th to choose anyone (it was an open-ended ballet) that they believed to be the most admired woman in America. It had a 4% margin of error, which means Clinton and Palin are almost completely tied at 16% and 15% respectively.

Susan Page of USA Today explains:

Over the years, the list has reflected women’s changing roles. In 1948, the top-10 list included presidential daughter Margaret Truman and Princess Elizabeth of England as well as their mothers. Only one, former House member Clare Boothe Luce, had held elective office.

This year the results included five current or former white house officials, a governor, and a writer, Maya Angelou. Michelle Obama made it to number four on the female list, but her husband completely swept George Bush for first place on the male list.

The results also emphasize the stark division in America’s political beliefs. However, I can’t take that fact too seriously since Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods tied for tenth place.

I mean, the Olsen twins aren’t adulterers, and they didn’t make the list…

A lot of people seem to think so.  Especially in light of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s battle regarding benefits for same-sex couples.  Many unmarried couples in federal jobs have been picketing the notion for equal treatment regarding available benefits as of late.

Many of the benefits include, but are not limited to emergency healthcare while traveling overseas, paid travel for the federal employee’s partner, passports, shipping and freight costs related to moving, education costs for children under age eighteen and so on and so forth.

Peter Sprigg, supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act, an act stating that the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages, states that now that the door is opened on various benefits for homosexual couples, the tirade of requested benefits will not end. However, foreign-placed diplomats seem to be of the opinion that unmarried couples in such a vocation should be entitled to the same benefits that those of married couples are.

While it’s understandable that conservatives should want to put a stop to this outrageous (…) idea that benefits should not be exclusive to straight married couples, they should be more concerned with what outcomes this approval could possible breed: the repeal of the idiotic Defense of Marriage Act.

According to CNN, an upcoming book from Obama presidential campaign manager David Plouffe will reveal just how seriously Barack was considering Hillary Clinton for a running mate. Guess who got in the way?

… in the end, it may have been her husband President Clinton — who had made headlines for his outbursts on the campaign trail during the primary season — that ultimately scuttled the possibility.

Portions of Plouffe’s book, The Audacity to Win, will be running in Time magazine, but basically the lowdown is that Obama apparently shocked both his campaign manager — and David Axelrod, Obama’s senior aide — by asserting that Clinton should be included among “potential picks for the No. 2 spot on the ticket.”

“Obama was clearly thinking more seriously about picking Hillary Clinton than Axelrod and I had realized,” Plouffe writes. “He said if his central criterion measured who could be the best VP, she had to be included in that list.”

According to Plouffe and CNN, Obama kept Clinton on the shortlist “throughout the summer of 2008.” She was axed from consideration in August, when Plouffe says there “were just too many complications outweighing the potential strengths.”

But what complication could outweigh Hillary’s strengths as a leader and politician? In this case, says Plouffe — allegedly quoting Obama — “complication” was a four-letter word: B-I-L-L.

“I think Bill may be too big a complication,” Plouffe quotes Obama as saying. “If I picked her, my concern is that there would be more than two of us in the relationship.”

I think it would be monstrous to have a (loud) spouse whose engagement in your career field killed your potential to achieve your ambitions. Did Obama really think that Hillary was going to take orders from Bill or something? Even if she did take his council, like Tina Fey suggested: Aren’t two smart people better than one?

On the other hand, Obama probably had a better idea of how involved he could expect Bill to be than I ever could. Would they have clashed instead of collaborated? Or would having Hill and Bill have felt too much like the weird “ruling families” thing we’ve had going on in this country for so many years now? Don’t tell me: I have to read the book to find out the specifics.