copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert
Presidential aspirant Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks of her ample experience. The Senator from New York reminds us in advertisements and advisements that she, the former First Lady is abundantly qualified to serve as President of the world’s superpower, the United States of America. For decades, Clinton gave to her country and the community. She would like to continue to work for the people; perhaps, in a more profound manner. As Hillary Clinton affirmed of herself, “I have crossed the Commander-In-Chief threshold.” However, some question her qualifications.
We agree; Senator Clinton has already walked within the private quarters of the White House. She was privileged enough to inhabit the residence. She, and her spouse, were selected by the people, not once, but twice to represent this nation. In her position as First Lady, the Presidential hopeful gained much wisdom. As Senator, she expanded her knowledge.
Hillary and husband Bill Clinton are deeply connected. The pair has been through trying times. Yet, repeatedly, they triumph. Nearly a score ago, William Jefferson Clinton coined the term “comeback kid” about him. From his first Presidential bid to has last, and then again after he left office, the boy from Hope, Arkansas never lost his. This extraordinary man married a woman who mirrored his amazing ability, Hillary Rodham. On March 4, 2008, Presidential hopeful, the wondrous Hillary Clinton did as her husband had done well over a decade ago. She too can now be called the quintessential candidate who will not be kept down. Despite a mass of primary and caucus wins, Barack Obama, learned as many before him had, the experienced candidate, Hillary Clinton will carry on with greater vigor until she realized substantial victories.
As near newlyweds, Bill and Hillary governed in Arkansas. Against all probability, the fresh young couple, from a small Southern state, entered the national scene. Together, they engaged in many difficult and persistent disputes with the privileged political notables. Hillary argued against all claims cast against the couple. She spoke of a vast “Right-Winged Conspiracy.” Ultimately, the Clintons prevailed and came to occupy the Oval Office.
They endured when others lost faith. Bill’s hometown, Hope, provided him with extraordinary will. Apparently, Hillary had the same ability to dream and create the impossible. The two are practiced. They have been beaten down, and just as the Phoenix, they rise from the ashes.
Many Americans recall when the Governor of Arkansas and his bride first appeared on the national scene. people recognized Hillary was not and would not be the woman behind the man; the two were as one. The First Lady of the Natural State was as articulate, erudite, experienced, and eloquent, just as her Rhodes Scholar husband Bill was and is. The couple met in college. Each attended and graduated form Yale Law School. Each was and is a professional in his or her own right. In 1991, the thought was elect one and the nation would have two esteemed and eligible individuals working in the White House for “us,” the citizens of the United States.
Thus, Americans were convinced. The Clinton’s, as they are often called, moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Bill Clinton and Hillary shared a bed. They exchanged secrets. The two lawyers understood the complexity of their given roles. They were familiar with the particulars in each other’s lives. Couples communicate. Americans saw evidence of what the Clintons could do. The deficit was reduced. A surplus produced. The people prospered. Many would say, ‘life was good under the Clinton’s.’
Hence, there is reason to believe as Louis Murray of Barry, Vermont declared, on a cold day in March 2008, as he emerge from the polls. Mister Murray told a National Public Radio reporter, “She is truthful, truthful.” We can only wonder of the rest of his statement, “[T]his Obama, I don’t know. I don’t know. I just don’t trust him. I am not prejudiced or anything. I just don’t trust him.”
Perhaps Louis Murray mirrors his mentor. Hillary Clinton, only days before the March primary vote expressed her reticence. She was questioned about her faith in Barack Obama, or at least she cast doubt on his. In a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Senator Clinton was asked of a concern expressed by many constituents. ‘Is Barack Obama a Christian?’
“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.
“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.
“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.
“It’s just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired.
“Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time,” Clinton said.
This terse and tentative dismissive of the rumors that Barack Obama may be Muslim, hence a threat to the Jewish population, or pro-Israel policy, is but one of many stealthy, subliminal actions in an ample arsenal of Clinton agendas. The experienced campaigner and her cohorts have been up to much mischief. However, they deny, or refuse to comment, on claims and confirmations.
The comment seemed like a casual aside. Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, was touting the New York senator’s strong support for Israel during a conference call in January with leaders of major American Jewish organizations. During the call, Lewis energetically contrasted Clinton’s pro-Israel credentials with those of Barack Obama. To make her point, she said that Obama’s “chief foreign-policy adviser” is Zbigniew Brzezinski, says one participant who would talk about the call only if he were not identified.
Brzezinski-the former national-security adviser to Jimmy Carter-is not Obama’s “chief foreign-policy adviser.” That is the job of a triumvirate who once worked for Bill Clinton: Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Greg Craig. But Brzezinski, who tells Newsweek he has advised Obama “only on occasion,” has a reputation that is close to toxic in the American Jewish community. “When Brzezinski’s name appears on an advisory list, that’s a red flag right away,” says an influential American Jewish leader who did not want to sour relations with the Obama campaign. Many American Jews mistrust Brzezinski because he endorsed a 2006 article, later a book, called “The Israel Lobby,” which blames many U.S. foreign-policy problems on Washington’s ties to Israel.
Lewis’s aside is not an isolated incident. (She did not respond to a request for comment.) As the race between Clinton and Obama has sharpened in recent months, other Clinton campaign operatives have sent around negative material about Obama’s relations with Israel, according to e-mails obtained by Newsweek. In addition to Brzezinski, the e-mails attack Obama advisers such as Rob Malley, a former Clinton negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks who has since written articles sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view, and they raise questions about Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama’s Trinity Church in Chicago. Wright has criticized Israel, and Trumpet, a publication run by his daughter, gave an award for “greatness” to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “bloodsucking religion.” (Obama disagreed with bestowing the award.)
Yet, regardless of Barack Obama’s denouncement, and rejection of talk or actions against Israel, irrespective of his support from and for the Jewish people, the Clinton Camp rages on. Repeated assaults, similar to those the Clinton’s “experienced” when they first entered the political fray are not being used against the man they consider the enemy, presumed Presidential nominee, Barack Obama.
In an e-mail sent Feb. 4-a day before Super Tuesday-Clinton finance official Annie Totah passed along a critical essay by Ed Lasky, a conservative blogger whose own anti-Obama e-mails have circulated in the U.S. Jewish community. Totah wrote: “Please read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barack Obama. Please vote wisely in the Primaries.” (She didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
While no definitive evidence exists, there seems to be a direct correlation. A region is flooded with electronic mails that claim the devout Christian Barack Obama is Muslim, just before a primary or caucus in that given territory takes place. Search after search proves the gossip is false. Barack Obama is not and was not Muslim; nor was he educated in a radical Muslim school known as a “madrassa.” Yet, a fearful public reacts to rumors with venom. Possibly, probably, an experienced and educated Clinton has read the research.
In an August poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 45 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate for any office who is Muslim.
Fueled with more fire, and fiercely familiar with what it takes to command a lead a country, Hillary will do what she feels she must to triumph. As the former First Lady asserted, for Hillary Clinton, this campaign “is personal.” Hence, her campaign avowed, they would ‘throw the “kitchen sink” at Barack Obama. The Obama momentum, 11 straight wins, would be derailed. The New York Senator would to be regain her title. After all, she, and her husband, are the Comeback Clinton’s.
The infinitely experienced and esteemed Hillary Clinton is able to evaluate a situation and a person perfectly. She has done so for thirty-five years. When Senator Clinton states Barack Obama is not prepared to be Commander-In-Chief, those who trust her as Louis Murray does, look and listen. Most forget; for years, Senator Clinton prepared for her coronation and cultivated military connections.
Hillary Clinton brings home the dollars for New York’s defense contractors
by Kristen Lombardi
April 26th, 2005 12:00 AM
When someone like Newt Gingrich commends a Democrat’s service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, you know, you’re looking at a serious hawk. That hawk is Hillary Clinton, junior senator from blue-state New York and possible presidential candidate in 2008.
Gingrich, with an eye on his White House bid, told a group of newspaper editors last month that she’d make a formidable opponent. “Senator Clinton is very competent, very professional, very intelligently moving toward the center, very shrewdly and effectively serving on the Armed Services Committee,” the GOP hard-liner said. Gringrich should know: He sits with her on a star-studded Pentagon advisory group.
When not fending off terrorists or bucking up the troops in Iraq, Clinton has been equally fierce about defending defense dollars for her home state.
Just ask Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who got the back-off sign from her at an April 19 budget meeting of a Senate Armed Services subcommittee. Clinton isn’t assigned to this smaller group, but she showed up anyway. And we know what she said, because her aides sent out a press release and video snippet of their Democratic boss fighting the good fight on Capitol Hill.
Lieberman, a fellow committee member, had sought a coveted $1.7 billion contract to build the presidential Marine One helicopter in his home state. The deal was awarded January 28 to Lockheed Martin-in upstate New York. Now Clinton feared he would try to block its funding.
She spoke briefly, telling the subcommittee: “Now that the contract has been awarded, we think it is important we proceed expeditiously.” Cut this money, in other words, and you’re crossing me.
As countless knew long before the March 4, 2008 primaries,, and as Barack Obama now understands more than he hoped to imagine, do not threaten Hillary Rodham Clinton or her desired rise to power. The wrath is far greater than a woman’s scorn.
Contempt from the Clinton Camp is intended to crush any member of Congress or rival candidate. The experienced Senator Clinton is skilled in her craft. She is clever and deftly able to avoid confrontation as she did a week prior to the Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont primary elections, during a Democratic Debate, the honorable former First Lady was asked of her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement. There was much controversy surrounding her stance.
In 1997, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed her support for the action. “The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,” she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. “Look around the globe: Those nations, which have lowered trade barriers, are prospering more than those that have not.”
At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting “a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.” She added: “It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.”
She continued to endorse the accord for quite some time. Once in the Senate, Clinton voted inconsistently on trade policy. Hence, the issue was [and is] of great import. Specifically, in Ohio, where the most recent debate was held, workers struggle to survive. Jobs once held by American laborers are ‘outsourced.’ Since the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] was initiated, employment is fragile. Yet, when given the opportunity to discuss what Senator Clinton would do about trade agreements as President of the United States, Clinton deviated from the subject and instead voiced her objection. She did not speak to how the economy was hurt by NAFTA. She addressed her own distress.
Before focusing on the topic, she said she found it “curious” . . . that, according to her, at the “last several debates” she seemed to be targeted for the first question.
We can’t recall if she’s right about that. But we’re pretty sure the matter will have been thoroughly vetted by morning. It also will be interesting to see if Clinton will be seen as standing up for herself or acting a bit petulant.
It all might have been mainly a ruse to work in that reference to the SNL spoof that showed Obama being fawned over by media types. Here was the entire Clinton remark, when the NAFTA query was kicked her way:
“Well, could I just point out that, in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don’t mind. You know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious. And if anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,’ you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.”
Hillary Clinton, as was obvious through her numerous odious remarks did not care whether her adversary was cozy. Indeed, she intended to ensure he was not. Behind the scenes and far off in Canada, the Clinton campaign worked to establish that Barack Obama or one of his advisers might be insincere. Early on, there was no mention of the mendaciousness within the Clinton Camp. Hillary and all those who help her focused on what presumed was her manifest destiny. However, as time marches on, Americans have a truer picture. Will Louis Murray have reason to pause?
Clinton campaign denies Canadian report on NAFTA comments
(CNN) – Hillary Clinton’s campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation’s government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA – an allegation they used against Barack Obama’s campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday’s critical primary votes.
“Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement. . . .
The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie – and that his remark had implicated Clinton’s campaign, not Obama’s.
The Thursday story also said CTV’s Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama’s aide. . .
Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.
Substance is a shaky matter. The experienced candidate comprehends this. Hillary Clinton who has achieved an image of strength understands the weight of her words. When the Senator from the Empire State chided rival Barack Obama, she set a tone and advanced an agenda that would be the impetus for further insinuations.
Apparently it pays for a presidential candidate to inject “Saturday Night Live” into a serious political dialogue, as Hillary Clinton did during her most recent debate with Barack Obama.
Clinton’s gambit may have struck some of those critiquing the debate as woeful, but SNL opened its latest show with another skit depicting Obama as the media’s darling — and her as its victim. More to the point, the coda to the sketch was an “Editorial Response” — delivered by the candidate herself.
Hillary Clinton learned her lesson well, when her husband’s affaire de coeur was revealed. Clinton realized if the public feels her pain, she garners admiration, appreciation, and awe. The Presidential hopeful was reminded of this recently. In New Hampshire, tired and distressed, the forlorn former First Lady tearfully spoke of her despair. The people responded. In that race as well, Hillary Clinton snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.
This experienced elected official, knows how to play the game, and even make the rules. Hillary Clinton rants; she rages. She is a self-proclaimed “fighter.” The soon to be coronated Commander-In-Chief, if she has her way chuckles when a coy response is required. She croons and catches America off guard. Hillary Clinton cries, and many weep with her. People relate to the rhetoric of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and why would they not.
Clinton loaded her speeches with a laundry list of policy promises . . . She boasted of the endorsements she has received from retired admirals and generals, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (both of whom, as it happens, served under her husband). “I’ve been very specific in this election,” she said in a serious understatement.
And she’s been equally specific in her blistering critiques of Obama of late. On Monday, after the Associated Press reported that Obama’s senior economic adviser had indeed privately told Canadian consular officials not to take the candidate’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric all that seriously, Clinton lit into both Obama and the media. She said the alleged communication, which the senior adviser claimed had been misinterpreted, shows the Obama campaign has “done the old wink-wink. Don’t pay any attention. This is just political rhetoric.” She also suggested the media would be treating this more seriously if she had done it. “With this story, substitute my name for Senator Obama’s and just ask yourself.
Oooops. It seems of late we might have to, for as noted earlier in this essay, the tale may be as true if not truer for the Clinton folks than it ever was for the Obama campaign. The circumstances of this conundrum are yet to fully be realized. However, the situation does not look good for the Clintons. Yet, that “truth” does not deter Hillary “Comeback” Clinton. She continues.
At times, it seemed Clinton was all but accusing Obama of being an empty suit. She warned voters not to be swayed by speeches that left them thinking, “That was beautiful, but what did it mean?” Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House.
I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″ – a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize.
While the clamor increases, few are able to focus on the more quiet and calm candidate, the Presidential hopeful who displays calm in a storm, Barack Obama. On the defensive as he has been forced to be in the first week of March, the candidate remains cool. The Senator from Illinois does not squeak and therefore, may not receive the oil. Nor must reporters toil in order to gain access or information from Barack Obama. While this subtle nuance is rarely discussed, it may be quite significant. At least it is to the Assistant Managing Editor, of “Newsweek”.
Evan Thomas spoke of his bewilderment on Hardball, with Chris Matthews. As a group of pundits bandied about the details of the March 4 election results and all the doings that led to the conclusion, a sweeping Clinton win, the conversation turned to talk of who would be the best Commander-In-Chief. The 3 Ante Meridian red phone call commercial crept into the dialogue.
Evan Thomas, Assistant Managing Editor, “Newsweek”: One thing I don’t get about the ad, the whole idea of 3:00 a.m. is, you want coolness and detachment, right?
She is not cool and detached. She is really either hot and angry or she’s icy cold and tough. But I don’t think of her as being cool. I think of Obama as being the cool, detached guy. Now, maybe he doesn’t have the experience, but I think, if you peel this onion, there is something about it that just doesn’t make sense to me.
I mean, she doesn’t strike me as the person who is the cool, detached, steady person at the other end of the phone.
Barack Obama however, is steady. The potential President said of himself in an interview with Time Correspondent, Joe Klein. “It’s just not my style to go out of my way to offend people or be controversial just for the sake of being controversial. That’s offensive and counterproductive. It makes people feel defensive and more resistant to changes.” Barack Obama does invite inquiry; however, in a mild tone. Frequently, the less ferrous candidate asks Americans, might we fully examine Hillary Clinton’s experience? Perhaps, we, the people, should. If we are to truly trust Hillary Clinton as Louis Murray does, it is important that we know why we have faith in this future leader.
The Long Run
The Résumé Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady
By Patrick Healy
The New York Times
December 26, 2007
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
Perhaps, pillow talk was not always pleasant in the Clinton household. Granted we know the two stayed together. We can assume they worked through the problems that presented themselves in those earlier troubled times. Bill was there for Hillary when she decided to run for her Senate seat. The former President is his wife’s chief cheerleader. Bill, just as Hillary boast of her record and the résumé.
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.” . . .
And late last week, Mr. Obama suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers; his campaign released a list naming about 45 of them, and said that others were not ready to go public. Mrs. Clinton quickly put out a list of 80 who were supporting her, and plans to release another 75 names on Wednesday.
The competitive, confrontation, conduct of Hillary Clinton is consistently clear. Possibly, her character traits are the qualities she thinks define her as a Commander-In-Chief. The experience the former First Lady speaks of may entail more than her thirty-five years with Bill. Certainly, her persona has been with her for a lifetime. It seems her duties as the First Spouse were negligible.
Mrs. Clinton’s role in her most high-profile assignment as first lady, the failed health care initiative of the early 1990s, has been well documented. Yet, little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives. Mrs. Clinton has declined to divulge the private advice she gave her husband.
An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.
Her time in the White House was a period of transition in foreign policy and national security, with the cold war over and the threat of Islamic terrorism still emerging . . .
She did not wrestle directly with many of the other challenges the next president will face, including managing a large-scale deployment – or withdrawal – of troops abroad, an overhaul of the intelligence agencies or the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Most of her exposure to the military has come since she left the White House through her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
My personal experience may serve to enlighten. Each morning I awaken and we talk. He tells me tales. Barry details his dreams, those he experienced in his sleep and those he aspires to achieve throughout the day. We reflect on what was the day before. Barry and I discuss as we did before bed, what occurred in the office. His suite is not oval is shape. The walls in his workplace are angular.
When my significant other, my partner, thought to “stay the course,” an associate advised him that might be best. Business decisions can be brutal. As an authority figure within the corporate structure Barry, must be sensitive to his base, the people who support him in his struggle to succeed. I questioned that truth, or did I comfort Barry, assure him that he must accomplish the mission. Whatever I said, most definitely, I shared his burden.
I have helped my closest friend and confidant through many a corporate crisis. I listened and offered opinions. Yet, his experiences in his work were not mine. I am capable; yet, I could not do what Barry does daily. Barry and I are a couple. We are extremely close, intimate, and united. However, we are not one. Who he is, what he thinks, says, does, and feels, is distinctly unique to him. I have never been his eyes, his ears, and certainly, I do not have his heart. I may know Barry better than any other human could. Couples have told us they have never met two people that speak more openly or often than the two of us.
Nonetheless, after all these decades, I could not walk into his executive suite and do his job as though I had done it forever. Indeed, Barry commands with finesse. Perchance, I could be as eloquent. However, I will never be Barry. Nor was his experience my own. I stand alone, as me, myself, and I.
Yet, in this election season, I and all other Democratic voters are asked to suspend disbelief and forget Hillary Clinton’s own account.
Mrs. Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access. . . .
She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance.
When osmosis, access, right of entry, and contact defines experience, we need not wonder why the State of the Union is dismal. If a person who we sometimes share a bed with qualifies as our alter-ego, then perhaps we have had many women Presidents.
Hillary Clinton is exceptional in that her experience encompasses manipulation, exploitation, and ethics a peacemaker who not value. The depth and breath Clinton alludes to is arguably, illusive. Her excellent management style leaves a staff, as the Washington Post notes, even in victory, battling itself. Yet, these qualities have impressed voters such as John Murray. What does this say of us, a people so ready to attack another country, that before we bombed innocent men, women, and children, we did not verify the “intelligence?”
While not cool, calm, or collected, Hillary Clinton exudes a strength that leads many Americans to believe she has been and will continue to be Commander-In-Chief. Congratulations Senator, former First Lady, and possibly President Hillary Rodham Clinton. You have convinced citizens to suspend disbelief and many do.
Sources and Secrets . . .
- Clinton: I’ve crossed commander-in-chief threshold, By Rick Pearson. Chicago Tribune. March 6, 2008 3:40 PM
- 1996: ‘Comeback Kid’ wins second term. British Broadcasting Company. November 6, 1996
- Dates in Bill Clinton’s Life and Presidency. ABC News. November 26, 2005
- Hillary Rodham Clinton. The White House.
- The Clinton comeback chronicles. By Don Frederick. The Los Angeles Times Blogs. March 4, 2008
- Clinton’s Wins in Ohio, Texas Keep Race Alive, By Mara Liasson. Morning Edition. March 5, 2008
- Obama’s Winning Streak Continues. CBS News. February 20, 2008
- Rise of Phoenix. Mythical Realm.
- All Eyes on Ohio. 60 Minutes. CBS News. March 2, 2008
- Taking Obama at his Word. By Ben Smith. Politico. March 2, 2008
- Good for the Jews? Hillary Clinton’s surrogates are questioning Obama’s commitment to U.S.-Israel relations. By Michael Hirsh and Dan Ephron. Newsweek. March 3, 2008
- The Résumé Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady. By Patrick Healy. The New York Times. December 26, 2007
- pdf The Résumé Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady. By Patrick Healy. The New York Times. December 26, 2007
- Clinton wonders about the debate process. By Don Frederick. Los Angeles Times. February 26, 2008
- Hillary Clinton, live, on Saturday Night Live. By Don Frederick. Los Angeles Times. March 1, 2008
- Clinton Takes Obama Head On, By Karen Tumulty. Time Magazine. Monday, March 3, 2008
- Who is Barack Obama. Snopes. January 2008
- CNN debunks false report about Obama. Cable News Network. January 23, 2007
- Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him, By Perry Bacon Jr.? Washington Post.? Thursday, November 29, 2007; A01
- pdf Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him, By Perry Bacon Jr.? Washington Post. ?Thursday, November 29, 2007; A01
- Public Expresses Mixed Views of Islam, Mormonism. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. September 25, 2007
- Hillary Clinton’s ‘kitchen-sink’ campaign pays off, By Michael Tackett. Chicago Tribune. March 5, 2008
- Mama Warbucks; Hillary Clinton brings home the dollars for New York’s defense contractors. By Kristen Lombardi. Village Voice. April 26th, 2005 12:00 AM
- Clinton Breaks With Husband’s Legacy on NAFTA Pact, China Trade, By Kristin Jensen and Mark Drajem. Bloomberg. March 30, 2007
- Hillary Clinton on Free Trade. On the Issues.
- Clinton campaign denies Canadian report on NAFTA comments. Cable News Network. March 6, 2008
- From the Jaws of Defeat. The Bahamas Journal. March 6, 2008
- The Democrats New Face. By Joe Klein. Time. October 15, 2006
- Obama taps influential foreign policy experts, By Lynn Sweet. Chicago Sun Times. May 10, 2007
- Even in Victory, Clinton Team Is Battling Itself, By Peter Baker and Anne E. Kornblut. Washington Post. Thursday, March 6, 2008; A01
- pdf Even in Victory, Clinton Team Is Battling Itself, By Peter Baker and Anne E. Kornblut. Washington Post. Thursday, March 6, 2008; A01