Tag Archives: hillary-clinton

Chelsea Clinton wedding photos

Chelsea Clinton walks with Marc Mezvinsky after their wedding ceremony at Astor Court in Rhinebeck, New York July 31, 2010. Bill and Hillary Clinton#39;s daughter married her long-time boyfriend in the picturesque New York village of Rhinebeck on Saturday in what has been dubbed America#39;s royal wedding. Chelsea Clinton looks at Marc Mezvinsky after their wedding ceremony at Astor Court in Rhinebeck, New York July 31, 2010. Bill and Hillary Clinton#39;s daughter married her long-time boyfri

Here is the original post:
Chelsea Clinton wedding photos

Bill & Hillary’s Potential New Westchester White House [Real Estate Porn]

Looks like Bill and Hillary Clinton are ditching Chappaqua for a yurt in Mongolia. Just kidding! They’re probably moving to this intense 7,000 square-foot house in the Westchester town of Bedford Hills. It’s got a stable and everything! More

On PBS, Oliver Stone Loved Hugo Chavez Calling Dubya the ‘Devil’: ‘It’s True’

Here’s another slightly dated example of leftist America-bashing on the taxpayer-funded airwaves over the patriotic holiday weekend. PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley interviewed leftist director Oliver Stone on July 2 about his Hugo Chavez-smooching documentary South of the Border. Stone denounced Hillary Clinton as “an agent of the old empire game,” and when Smiley nudged Stone about Chavez’s remarks, Stone insisted he loved it when Chavez called Bush the Devil: “I think that’s a great comment. I think it’s true….He is the devil. He was.” Smiley didn’t simply celebrate Stone (as he did, with say, Van Jones, boldly professing he would take a bullet for Jones ), but he was gentle in bringing up some hard questions. He suggested he didn’t really want to dwell on the Bush-as-Satan stuff: SMILEY: If I’d wanted to, I could have done this. I didn’t want to waste our time doing it, but because the stuff is so easily found all over the internet – you know where I’m going with this. You know, on the regular, there are statements made by Chavez that cause people in this country to shudder, all kinds of things, about everything that Chavez – as you know, he’s not shy about speaking his mind. So he has made all kinds of comments about all kinds of things. None of those statements give you reason to believe that he’s gone a bit off the range? STONE: No, no. Listen, I was with him not too long ago. I was with him in 2007 and 2009. I mean, he’s under attack, but he’s a free man and I think sometimes he speaks without perhaps – he’s a big bear of a man. He’s gruff, you know, and he sometimes speaks off the cuff. He is a popular leader, but he serves the people. He’s not corrupt in any way. I find him a free soul. SMILEY: Off the cuff remarks, off the wall remarks, two different things. You think they’re off the cuff, not off the wall? STONE: Well, I don’t know which ones you’re referring to. I mean, if he’s calling Bush – “the Devil was here yesterday” – you know, I think that’s a great comment. I think it’s true. I mean, at that point, Bush was going to war in Iraq against the wishes of the majority of the United Nations. By the way, as somebody has pointed out, Chavez at the U.N. that day got the most longest applause of anybody there at the entire sessions. It’s quite something. So North America has made a big issue of everything he says, but, you know, Bush is the one who started the war. The coup d’etat of 2002, you know, was initiated by the Venezuelan oligarchy and supported and abetted by the U.S. and we make that very clear in the film. SMILEY: I’ll recall that comment about Bush as long as I live. As you may have heard – STONE: – Well, he is the devil. He was. Smiley deserves some credit for questioning around the edges about Chavez’s dictatorial tendencies, even as Stone denied it all as ridiculous. When Smiley asked whether Obama was different than Bush, he complained it was “Bush lite,” and knocked Hillary Clinton: You know, Hillary was down there a few weeks ago and there she was trying to separate Ecuador from Venezuela. She’s an agent of the old empire game. It’s a dead end for us. We keep overreaching. We want to control anybody who steps out of line, which is a regional power…. We are saying – basically, you know what it is? The pact for the New American Century, remember from the 1990s, when Bush and Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, wrote that pact about the American unilateral control of the world. We will brook the appearance. We will not allow for the emergence or any military or economic rival. I went into that in the W film I did on Bush. This is our policy and, whatever Obama says, this is what he’s pursuing in Afghanistan. There’s been no real change in that policy. We have our empire; we are number one. We are the world’s policemen and we will not brook an interference in that. The tone is lighter; the words are lighter, but it’s a soft power. It’s not strictly anti-American to knock President Bush or Hillary Clinton, but Stone had a more generic critique of “our empire,” and overall American arrogance in global affairs: STONE: The U.S. has knocked off so many reformers over the last hundred years, but they’ve all emerged independently. Except for Castro, they all went down, every single one from Guatemala, Panama, Brazil, Chile, constantly. This is the first time we have not been able to do anything. Hopefully, this is going to stay stable, but right now we’re fighting actively to get rid of them. SMILEY: You’re not naive, obviously. You like shaking things up, don’t you? STONE: No, I like – SMILEY: Yeah, you do. Come on. STONE: If I were, I’d be more political. I’d be more overt. SMILEY: This isn’t political and overt? STONE: Well, I like making movies. I love feature movies, as you know, but documentaries are fresh and they keep me humble and they keep me in the field. If I can contribute a little light to the worldwide cause and alert people in our country as to what our empire is really doing , I think I’d be doing some good in my life.

More here:
On PBS, Oliver Stone Loved Hugo Chavez Calling Dubya the ‘Devil’: ‘It’s True’

The Hill’s Brent Budowsky Compares GOP to South Africa’s Apartheid Regime

Why did the chicken cross the road? Racism, according to the liberal. Isn’t it obvious? Same reason that Republicans and conservatives oppose Obama, the liberal quickly adds. Here’s the latest example of this threadbare line of criticism, from Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill’s Pundits Blog and former congressional staffer. Appearing on Ed Schultz’s radio show Tuesday, Budowsky offered an over-the-top analogy ( click here for audio) — BUDOWSKY: These Republicans today, Ed, are more right wing and obstructionist than the segregationist, racist senators during the days of the civil rights. Even those racist senators that filibustered civil rights, they also supported jobs and Medicare and some other things. You know, we’re up against a party on the Republicans that is so far off the right end, they’re acting like South Africa during the days of apartheid. … aside from not supporting segregation, forced resettlement of millions, state-sponsored violence toward dissenters, government theft of property, laws against mixed marriages —  in other words, aside from those monstrosities and many others that defined apartheid. Other than that, just like ’em.  Among the “racist senators” who filibustered civil rights? Recently deceased Democrat Robert Byrd. Later in the same show, Budowsky provided this gem to Schultz’s listeners ( audio here ) — BUDOWSKY: There is over a trillion and a half dollars sitting in corporate bank accounts being hoarded right now. Once we can liberate that money , and I say you raise taxes for the guys screwing us and you cut taxes for the guys helping us create jobs, but once that money is liberated , it’s a trillion and a half-plus dollars sitting in corporate accounts right now, we’re going to have a quarter, remember where you heard it, it may not be for a year or two, of 7 percent growth. As if transferring more than a trillion dollars to the government won’t liberate it of its potential to create more wealth. Wasn’t this type of alleged liberation a core belief of the Bolsheviks?  Budowsky’s comments reminded me of a remark he made on Schultz’s radio show in March during the contentious final weeks before the House voted on the health bill ( audio here ) — BUDOWSKY: I mean, you look at the Republicans, they attacked Jack Kennedy in Dallas with hate ads when he went there in November 22nd, ’63. They attacked Bill Clinton, they attacked Hillary Clinton, they attacked Al Gore, they attacked Nancy Pelosi, they attacked Charlie Rangel, they attacked ACORN. Those guys on the other side sure do know how to hate. Agreed, Mr. Budowsky — Republicans in Dallas greeted Kennedy with “hate ads.” Just before a left-winger killed him.

Link:
The Hill’s Brent Budowsky Compares GOP to South Africa’s Apartheid Regime

First Time Ever! Lady Gaga Dresses Normal

Filed under: Lady Gaga Wearing regular fitness gear, Lady Gaga took time out from being Lady Gaga and hit up a Sports Club/LA in Boston on Thursday. With some eye makeup and her Hillary Clinton ‘do in full effect, we’re told Gags worked out her abs, arms, and back … without… Read more

Excerpt from:
First Time Ever! Lady Gaga Dresses Normal

Breaking: WaPo’s David Weigel Resigns After More Conservative-bashing Emails Disclosed

Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel resigned today after a host of offensive e-mails surfaced revealing his disdain for much of the right – the beat he was charged with covering. Fishbowl DC, which published a number of those emails yesterday, confirmed the resignation with the Post just after noon. Yesterday I reported on leaked emails from Weigel to a listserve of liberal journalists bashing conservatives and conservatism – you know, the people Weigel is supposed to be covering. As bad as those email were, a plethora of messages from Weigel published in the Daily Caller take the conservative-bashing to a whole new level. The new emails also demonstrated that yesterday’s quasi-apology from Weigel was really not as sincere as he claimed. He said that he made some of his most offensive remarks at the end of a bad day. But these new emails show that there was really nothing unique about them, and that offensive remarks about conservatives really were nothing new or uncommon. Many of the misguided statements were clearly made in jest – “I hope he fails,” Weigel said of Rush Limbaugh after the radio host was hospitalized with chest pains, a reference to Limbaugh’s hope that Obama’s agenda would fail. But other bouts of name calling – ragging on the “outbursts of racism” from “amoral blowhard” Newt Gingrich, for instance – were obviously not jokes. The Daily Caller revealed some quite stunning statements from the JournoList in its piece today: “Honestly, it’s been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?” Weigel lamented in one February email. In other posts, Weigel describes conservatives as using the media to “violently, angrily divide America.” According to Weigel, their motives include “racism” and protecting “white privilege,” and for some of the top conservatives in D.C., a nihilistic thirst for power. “There’s also the fact that neither the pundits, nor possibly the Republicans, will be punished for their crazy outbursts of racism. Newt Gingrich is an amoral blowhard who resigned in disgrace, and Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite who was drummed out of the movement by William F. Buckley. Both are now polluting my inbox and TV with their bellowing and minority-bashing. They’re never going to go away or be deprived of their soapboxes,” Weigel wrote. Of Matt Drudge, Weigel remarked,  “It’s really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree.”… Republicans? “Ratf–king [Obama] on every bill.” Palin? Tried to “ratf–k” a moderate Republican in a contentious primary in New York. Limbaugh? Used “ratf–king tactics” in urging Republican activists to vote for Hillary Clinton in open primaries after Obama had all but beat her for the Democratic nomination. Weigel continued to defend these outbursts, as he did when contacted by the Daily Caller. “My reporting, I think, stands for itself,” he said. “I’ve always been of the belief that you could have opinions and could report anyway… people aren’t usually asked to stand or fall on everything they’ve said in private.” First, there’s the issue of whether anything said on a 400-member email list can really be considered “private.” “There’s no such thing as off-the-record with 400 people,” Nation columnist Eric Alterman told Politico . But the real issues are, first, whether such mean-spirited jabs demonstrate a disdain for many conservatives that precludes Weigel from covering them fairly (he did label gay marriage opponents “bigots,” after all), and second, whether the Post feels it is appropriate to have someone hostile to the right covering conservatism, while a through-and-through liberal in Ezra Klein covers the left. The Post signaled that it did not consider Weigel’s comments to be a serious problem. It seems that attitude has changed. Managing Editor Raju Narisetti told Politico that “Dave’s apology to readers reflects he understands, in calmer hindsight, the need to exercise good judgment at all times and of not throwing stones, especially when operating from inside an echo-filled glass house that is modern-day digital journalism.” He added that it was “time to move on.”

Read this article:
Breaking: WaPo’s David Weigel Resigns After More Conservative-bashing Emails Disclosed

Why Can’t Media Acknowledge That Rolling Stone Is On the Radical Left?

One of the more annoying tics in the current bubble of national media coverage of Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s truly bizarre granting of access to Rolling Stone magazine was the utter lack of any description of the magazine — neither its ideology (hard-left) or its central focus (rock and pop music). Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz provided a little depth with an article on Thursday, which began: In the summer of 2008, Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner ended an interview with Barack Obama — whose campaign he financially supported — by saying, “Good luck. We are following you daily with great hope and admiration.” So Kurtz pronounced it “surprising” when the magazine was “assailing Obama from the left.” But in fact, we pointed out in February 2008 that venomous Rolling Stone political writer Matt Taibbi was trashing both Obama and Hillary Clinton as “superficial, posturing conservatives.” So why couldn’t reporters acknowledge this was a left-wing, anti-war magazine? Wouldn’t that color how people saw a “Runaway General” controversy? Surely, if Gen. McChrystal had given this kind of interview to The Washington Times, the result might have been the same, but it’s very likely the word “conservative” would have been routinely attached, unlike in this case. Reporters also would have pondered if there was some sort of conservative agenda at work, which they didn’t seem to ponder in this case. (Does Rolling Stone want to win in Afghanistan? Or withdraw immediately?) Kurtz was also rare in noticing “the cover of the current issue is devoted not to ‘The Runaway General’ but to Lady Gaga, wielding a pair of automatic weapons attached to her bra.” But the media’s treating Rolling Stone like it was a prestigious academic journal on military policy, not the place where you see if Miley Cyrus drew three stars for her latest CD.  Kurtz mentioned Taibbi’s “angry, profanity-laced pieces follow in the footsteps of Hunter Thompson.” He didn’t reprise some of Taibbi’s more colorful conservative woman-trashing rants for the magazine, such as graphically describing Michelle Malkin “teabagging,” or calling Ann Coulter a “skanky b—h whore.” You would think the press might remember Taibbi’s infamous rants in the alternative New York Press, especially that one in 2003 where he wrote “The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic.” Here’s more of Kurtz: Taibbi says he lost friends in the administration after a December piece headlined “Obama’s Big Sellout,” in which he questioned whether the president is “the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests.” In March, just before the health care bill passed, Taibbi wrote that Obama “did everything wrong,” along with “his team of two-faced creeps like Rahm Emanuel. . . . willing to sell out every inch of the body politic to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.” These were surely more surprising pieces for the magazine than Sean Wilentz’s 2006 cover story on George W. Bush, titled “The Worst President in History?” Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg once wrote that “Rolling Stone has essentially become the house organ of the Democratic National Committee.” So it’s worth noting that the magazine — which Wenner says has a “mission” to promote “social justice” — is assailing Obama from the left. Wenner says he is “disappointed” by much of Obama’s White House record and “disturbed that some pattern is emerging. It’s naive to think you’re going to change American policy by compromising on a lot of stuff.” He says Interior Secretary Ken Salazar should have been fired over the BP debacle and that the administration’s financial regulation bill “gets weaker and weaker” over time. Wenner says he is still “rooting” for Obama but hasn’t been invited to the White House: “I’m not part of the gentleman’s club.”

See more here:
Why Can’t Media Acknowledge That Rolling Stone Is On the Radical Left?

Open Thread: When Regulations Trump Common Sense

“If you wanted to know why an oil-spill czar was needed, this is why,” writes Allahpundit . The tale is truly astounding . Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state’s oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor’s wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore. “It’s the most frustrating thing,” the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. “Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges.”… [T]he Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges… “They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible,” [Jindal] said. But “every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer.” The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Is a czar the right approach?

Here is the original post:
Open Thread: When Regulations Trump Common Sense

Sally Quinn: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden Should Switch Jobs

Sally Quinn really wants to be helpful to both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. However, the result of her laughable suggestion that Hillary and Vice-President Biden switch jobs is that it would only highlight the desperate political situation that the current administration has gotten itself into. Here is Sally trying to be helpful with her bizarre recommendation : Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden should switch jobs. Really. Really? Of course this job switch, a first in history for a vice president to switch places with a cabinet member, would be one more indication of Obama trying to pull himself out of the political abyss he finds himself in. That thought seems not to have entered Sally’s mind as she happily chirps on about this scenario which includes a big plug for Hillary: It makes sense for the Democrats, actually. 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.  Sally sounds more like she is promoting Hillary for sainthood than for the vice-presidency. In fact, Sally believes that the Hillary “magic” would be enough to ward off the “evil” Sarah Palin spell: She is tireless and relentless. Given the combination of votes that she and Obama got in the 2008 primary campaign, they would be a near-unbeatable team. Clinton also appeals to independents, but importantly, she would neutralize the effect of Sarah Palin. Whatever Palin came up with, Hillary could best her — and the Tea Party crowd as well. The Republicans would lose their “year of the woman” argument. And based on experience alone, Hillary is far more qualified to be president than any of the Republicans being considered today, including Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Palin.  And what of Joe Biden? How would he handle what is essentially a demotion? According to Sally, he would happily swallow his pride because he secretly wants to become Secretary of State: True, Joe Biden has been rehabilitated. A recent profile in The Post portrayed him as a successful and intelligent man whose foreign policy advice is valued by the president. The gaffe-prone former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems to have worked out the kinks. Clearly, he is aware that he is no longer an independent voice but, rather, a representative of the president. But Biden has no intention of running for president in six years. His passion is foreign policy. He would have been an ideal choice for secretary of state had he not been Obama’s running mate. And those who know him have said that secretary of state is his dream job.  So welcome to Sally’s World in which a simple job switch would cause the “evil” Republicans to melt away make everything right again for the liberal agenda. Sally saved her best laugh line about this job switch suggestion for the final sentence: Take it seriously.  Oh yes, Sally, we  certainly will… BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Read more:
Sally Quinn: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden Should Switch Jobs

Bozell Column: Smearing Republican Women

In 1992, the feminists in the media rejoiced at what they called “The Year of the Woman,” when ten Democratic women (and one Republican) were running for the Senate in the aftermath of Anita Hill’s unproven sexual-harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas. Just two years before, seven Republican women (and two Democrats) ran. But the media yawned. In 1992, the evening newscasts aired 29 stories exclusively devoted to women Senate candidates. In 1990, there was one…on election night. In 1992, the morning shows interviewed women Senate candidates on 26 occasions. In 1990, there were zero interviews. This was all about the party affiliation. When the liberals Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein both won primary elections from the U.S. Senate in California in 1992, Time reporter Margaret Carlson almost levitated in ecstasy. “There was a rush, an exultation, that surpassed any political moment I have ever known — better even than Geraldine Ferraro’s vice-presidential candidacy.”   The primary elections on June 8 brought this memory rushing back. Republican women won gubernatorial primaries in South Carolina and New Mexico. The national media had plenty to say about Nikki Haley of South Carolina before the election, which is to say they had an endless regurgitation of unproven adultery charges to level against her. One low point came from former Clinton bimbo-crusher George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” asking Nikki Haley on the morning after her victory about how she’s somehow embarrassing her state by being accused without proof: “Do you expect more incoming during the runoff?” And: “Can you assure South Carolina voters that they’re not going to be embarrassed if they elect you?” Stephanopoulos, like many good Clintonistas, is incapable of embarrassment over his hypocrisy.                       Susana Martinez, winner of her gubernatorial primary in New Mexico, has another complaint. One gathers New Mexico is too far away from the East Coast for the media to notice. She’s been utterly ignored. Then there are the two female business leaders who won their GOP primaries in California, one for the Senate and the other for governor. On ABC, Stephanopoulos demeaned their business credentials of as a minus, not a plus, because of the oil spill. “Meg Whitman, head of eBay. Carly Fiorina ran Hewlett- Packard. There’s some controversy there.” Stephanopoulos had invited on the perpetually annoying British import Tina Brown, who complained “it almost feels as if all these women winning are kind of a blow to feminism. Because, each one of them, really, most of them, are, you know, very much, you know, against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.” George Stephanopoulos invited no Republican guests on this occasion, so he attempted a mild rebuttal to Brown: “Well, you could argue they’re different kinds of feminists. They’ve had a lot of success in different fields.” Brown snapped back: “Women, too, can be wingnuts, is the point.” It’s bizarre that Brown is so blind that she doesn’t think you could call Barbara Boxer or her beloved Hillary Clinton a “wingnut,” only the conservative or Republican women. Several networks found “news” and some kind of national controversy in Fiorina mocking Sen. Boxer’s hairdo as “so yesterday” when she was wearing an open microphone off-camera. Stephanopoulos gave it a whole story when he moonlighted as evening anchorman on “World News.” NBC’s “Today” led off the show with this nothing-burger and mentioned it three times. Co-host Hoda Kotb touted it as a “big gaffe-a-rooney.” Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift insisted Fiorina was wrong about just who was “so yesterday” in politics. “And these two Republican women are also social conservatives in a state that’s very pro-choice. So maybe those issues will be cast as ‘so yesterday.’” Eleanor’s wishful thinking had to be corrected by Monica Crowley, who informed her that Whitman favors abortion. That’s not as bad as Jerry Brown accusing Whitman in advance of tarring him in her ads: “It’s like Goebbels. Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That’s her ambition, the first woman president. That’s what this is all about.” Amount of network outrage? Zip. The only network mention came from ABC’s Jake Tapper on “This Week,” and even he said “regardless of the tastelessness, Jerry Brown has a point…that she has a lot of money.” The media can disregard a lot of tastelessness when the women who are smeared are Republicans.

View original post here:
Bozell Column: Smearing Republican Women