RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Regencia writes: "Former US secretary of state announces 2016 White House bid to become the first female president of the country."

Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Todd Heisler/NYT)
Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Todd Heisler/NYT)


ALSO SEE: Hillary Clinton's Presidential Announcement Video

Hillary Clinton Announces Candidacy: 'Everyday Americans Need a Champion'

By Ted Regencia, Al Jazeera

13 April 15

 

Former US secretary of state announces 2016 White House bid to become the first female president of the country.

ormer US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has declared that she is running for president in 2016, seeking to become the first female to occupy the seat that her husband Bill Clinton held for eight years, and setting up what could be the most expensive campaign in history.

Clinton made the announcement on Sunday in a video published on her website, saying "the deck is still stacked in favour of those at the top" as she sought to highlight the theme of economic inequality.

It is the second time that Clinton has run for presidency.

On Saturday, President Barack Obama, who defeated her in the 2008 Democratic nomination, said Clinton "would be an excellent president".

"She was an outstanding secretary of state. She is my friend. I think she would be an excellent president," Obama said from Panama, where he attended the Summit of the Americas and held a historic meeting with the Cuban leader Raul Castro.

With her first candidacy in 2008, Clinton made history as the first ever spouse of an American president to seek the highest elective office in the US.

In the biography section of her website, Clinton, a Democrat, talked about her bipartisan record as senator, crossing party lines to work with Republicans, who now control the US Congress.

But during her husband's presidency from 1993 to 2001, both Clintons repeatedly clashed with the Republicans, who tried to remove the 42nd president from office. She became a lightning-rod for Republican criticism, from her handling of the Clinton administration's failed healthcare reform to the investigations into their private lives. 

$2.5bn campaign

Although a native of Chicago, Clinton has set up her campaign headquarters in New York, where she served as senator after her husband left office.

Clinton is expected to make her first campaign stop in the US state of Iowa, which will hold the first nominating process in early 2016.

Clinton is not the only high-profile US politician in the running for president. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, son of the 41st US President George HW Bush and brother of another former president, George W Bush is also expected to declare his candidacy for the Republican Party.

Not long after Clinton announced her bid on Sunday night, Jeb Bush responded on Twitter, saying: "We must do better than Hillary."

That sets up a potential Clinton-Bush matchup and a repeat of the 1992 elections, when the elderly President Bush lost to Bill Clinton, then a governor of the small southern US state of Arkansas.

According to a New York Times report, Clinton and her allies are trying to raise as much as $2.5bn to finance her campaign. The eventual Republican candidate is also expected to match that amount.  

In anticipation of her announcement, the Republican Party posted on its website a 31-second video questioning Clinton's candidacy, from her role in the deadly US consulate attack in Benghazi to her decision to delete a large cache of emails from her time as the US top diplomat.

While Clinton tries to steer her campaign mostly on domestic issues, it is likely that her foreign policy record as the secretary of state during Obama's first four years, would be put under scrutiny.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Ibrahim Sharqieh, foreign policy fellow at Brookings Doha Center, said that as secretary of state, Clinton "lacked serious commitment" in resolving many of the issues affecting the Middle East, particularly the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Given her record, Sharqieh said that he is "not very optimistic that she is going to make a difference on US foreign policy towards the Middle East".

He said that Clinton "failed miserably" in putting pressure on Israel and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to address the Palestine issue.

However, he said that he expects Clinton to be more "hawkish" than President Obama, whom he called as "the most passive American president in decades" on Middle East issues.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+19 # fredboy 2015-04-13 09:10
Does she know anyone who will champion the cause of 'everyday Americans'? As best I recall, the ongoing Bush-Clinton-Bu sh-Obama administration basically caters to the rich and powerful interests, not those of 'everyday Americans.'
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2015-04-13 09:52
Quoting fredboy:
Does she know anyone who will champion the cause of 'everyday Americans'? As best I recall, the ongoing Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama administration basically caters to the rich and powerful interests, not those of 'everyday Americans.'


I doubt if any of them even know any "Everyday Americans": the very term itself smacks of patronizing hubris.
After all, most "everyday Americans" can't afford to donate to their ever-bloated campaign chest but are also mostly reduced to a state of insouciant compliance and acceptance of any candidate thrust on them by the US Owner-Media conglomerates, with high enough name recognition to pull in advertising revenue -including from these same swollen campaign coffers bought by a few elites thanks to Citizens United and a bent, Theocratic SCOTUS.
'Nuff said.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2015-04-13 10:00
Quoting fredboy:
Does she know anyone who will champion the cause of 'everyday Americans'? As best I recall, the ongoing Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama administration basically caters to the rich and powerful interests, not those of 'everyday Americans.'


I doubt if any of them even know any "Everyday Americans": the very term itself smacks of patronizing hubris.
After all, most "everyday Americans" can't afford to donate to their ever-bloated campaign chests but are also mostly reduced to a state of insouciance-dul led compliance and acceptance of any candidate thrust on them by the US Owner-Media conglomerates, possessing high enough name recognition to pull in advertising and candidate-promo tional revenue, including from these same swollen campaign coffers bought by a few elites thanks to Citizens United and a bent, Theocratic SCOTUS.
Where else but in the "United States of Amnesia" could another Bush even be taken seriously given their dynastic resumé of utter failure at home and overseas and Mrs Clinton's voting record on the war culture, although to be absolutely fair, her record on women's rights around the world, especially in less developed nations whilst Secretary of State is quite admirable and she may just at least, harking back to the initial Clinton presidency, get Universal Healthcare "on the table".
'Nuff said.
 
 
+2 # Merlin 2015-04-13 10:55
reiverpacific 2015-04-13 10:00
"and she may just at least, harking back to the initial Clinton presidency, get Universal Healthcare "on the table".

I don't recall the Clinton UHC back in '93 being "single payer." Have you heard that Hillary is unhappy with obummercare, and would push for a different kind of UHC? Any info would be appreciated.
 
 
-4 # babalu 2015-04-13 11:24
Oh? Secretary of State Clinton is not perfect? Thanks for that input! She is still head and shoulders above the Republican pygmies whose only plan is internal and international destruction!
 
 
+8 # MidwestTom 2015-04-13 13:19
The wealth gap will only widen under Clinton, she is a product of Wall Street. She is very smart, will say what you want to hear; but will do NOTHING to even inconvenience Wall Street bankers. If you like paying more in taxes (that includes fees) and having the government dictating more and more of your life; she is your favorite. Remember her family brought us NAFTA, and the great sucking sound of jobs leaving this country has been the result.
 
 
+4 # skylinefirepest 2015-04-13 13:58
If Billary is the best the left can do then this country is so screwed. This woman is a confirmed liar, has a temper that would make a sailor blush, hates anyone in the military, did I mention she is a confirmed liar?? The country can do better than her...and the Democratic Party faithful should be ashamed that she's in the running.
 
 
+3 # jsluka 2015-04-13 19:15
"hates anyone in the military" - what a stupid stupid comment. Idiot.
 
 
0 # skylinefirepest 2015-04-14 15:19
Jsluka, you're the one that doesn't know what she is! If you haven't researched her before now, I suggest you do so...she hates the military, referred to her Secret Service agents as "pigs", has a very well known penchant for getting furious and cussing out her aides, has a few tons of baggage, and yes, once more, hates the military. Do your homework before calling someone else an idiot...it simply makes you look like the epitome of stupid!
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2015-04-13 13:58
Quoting Merlin:
reiverpacific 2015-04-13 10:00
"and she may just at least, harking back to the initial Clinton presidency, get Universal Healthcare "on the table".

I don't recall the Clinton UHC back in '93 being "single payer." Have you heard that Hillary is unhappy with obummercare, and would push for a different kind of UHC? Any info would be appreciated.

I'll look into it.
I'm an area leader in HCAO (Health Care for All Oregon) which is moving nicely as bill through Salem.
We're NOT waiting for the rest of the country as it's opposed tooth and claw by the string-jerk puppets of big Pharma, Insurance and Private Hospital Chains (mostly under Biblical names -that's always seemed ironic to me, considering the numbers of people in the US who have croaked on being denied admission over the decades) in DC.
 
 
+3 # Merlin 2015-04-13 19:15
reiverpacific 2015-04-13 13:58

Thanks!
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2015-04-13 16:05
You're correct. "HillaryCare" was essentially identical to "Heritage Foundation Care," "RomneyCare" and "ObamaCare."

She negotiated the terms in secret meetings with health industry insiders in which health care reformists were not permitted to even voice their opinions, let alone take part in the creation of her plan.
 
 
+3 # Merlin 2015-04-13 19:23
Radscal 2015-04-13 16:05

Thanks for this. I'm getting so old my memory for details ain't what it used to be. Now that you clear it up, my memory is coming back! Well, a little, anyway!

BTW, I just want to give you a hearty thumbs up on your commenting. Your comments are consistently clear, concise, full of on topic, and useful information. I really appreciate all your effort and dedication!
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2015-04-13 20:41
Thank you, Merlin. I respect your comment ability, too.

Yeah, my wife (a career pediatric critical care nurse) and I have been active in the drive for true universal health care since the 80s, so we paid close attention to Ms. Clinton's scam.
 
 
+14 # REDPILLED 2015-04-13 10:03
When Hillary announces that she is returning all her legal bribes from Wall Street, corporations, and millionaires & billionaires, and that is verified independently, and renounces her imperialist foreign policy, I will begin to listen to her.

The very fact that no candidate can afford a campaign without such legal bribes from the top 2% is the greatest indictment of the U.S. economic/politi cal system as well as proof that this nation is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Get ready for more than a year of lies and bullshit.
 
 
-3 # babalu 2015-04-13 11:28
So you would prefer that Secretary of State Clinton just roll over without funding and play dead so the favorite of the oligarchs will win and save the oligarchs money?
Yes, the Republican pygmies are already dusting off the Benghazi lies for a rerun. And their awful fantasies - teleport armored personnel from Germany and get them there BEFORE anything happened! Brilliant!
Let's blame Republicans for cutting $400,000,000 from the State Dept budget and interfering with protection of our "brave overseas personal." They care not an whit for personnel, except buying them guns and bullets.
 
 
+4 # A_Har 2015-04-13 14:47
Quoting babalu:
So you would prefer that Secretary of State Clinton just roll over without funding and play dead so the favorite of the oligarchs will win and save the oligarchs money?


If she is funded by Wall Street and the Uber RICH, *who the hell do you think she will work for?*

Dedicated partisans lose IQ points.
 
 
+3 # RLF 2015-04-14 05:39
She is also apparently funded by the Sheiks of the middle east!
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2015-04-13 16:10
red pilled wrote:
"no candidate can afford a campaign without such legal bribes from the top 2%"

I have a bit more hope in the possibilities of grass roots campaigning (while we still have a relatively open internet especially).

Last November, Richmond CA elected a very progressive Mayor and City Council even though Chevron outspent them by orders of magnitude. In fact, Chevron bought essentially every billboard and available TV commercial available.

But mostly word of mouth advocating overcame them handily.
 
 
+2 # Merlin 2015-04-13 19:58
Radscal 2015-04-13 16:10

I feel as you do. Money is effective only when the public at large does not understand and therefore is not upset by what they see. Once the public is aroused, the people can carry the day, regardless of the amount of money involved. Richmond is a case in point. Or how about Maryland’s anti fracking bill just passed.

As I see it, the only real answer is in the education of the public, to the reality of what is happening. “Getting the money out of politics,” although that is the way it should be, is attacking the tool and not the cause. I believe that if the public was aware, the money problem would virtually disappear for lack of results. The oligarchs spend the money because it works, and will stop when it doesn’t work any more. We must understand that money is only the tool they use to manipulate us. Money is not evil! The oligarchs that use that money are the evil we are facing!

We The People have the power to do anything, if we have the understanding and the guts to follow through on that knowledge. The oligarchs understand this and it is their biggest fear. I think the militarization of the local police forces is evidence for that. They will need their “army” to stop the massive protests that might just come about.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2015-04-13 20:47
Well, I may be a bit more pessimistic than you, even though I'm much more optimistic than red pilled. ;-)

What I've found is that most of the people who don't vote are actually more aware of how corrupt is the system than a lot of the partisans.

The problem is they've bought the propaganda that it's a waste of time to vote for the best candidates. THAT'S the false narrative we have to overcome.

If we do, and convince that huge majority to vote for alternatives, THEN we'll find out if "We The People have the power to do anything."

I hope so.
 
 
+11 # Malcolm 2015-04-13 10:21
Great. Hillary eats Wheaties ("Breakfast of Champions"). She's got nothing else that makes her any kind of champion.

I love "In the biography section of her website, Clinton, a Democrat, talked about her bipartisan record as senator, crossing party lines to work with Republicans, who now control the US Congress." But there's a typo. It should have said, "...crossing party lines to BECOME a republican".
 
 
0 # Merlin 2015-04-13 10:35
Malcolm 2015-04-13 10:21
"It should have said, "...crossing party lines to BECOME a republican".

Spot on!
 
 
-4 # babalu 2015-04-13 11:31
Well, she used to be a Republican in her teenage years. Like any thoughtful person she quickly switched over to Democrats, where she has remained. Hey, if you hate her crossing party lines, you will also hate Grayson who has found a way to get Republicans to pass his bills.
 
 
+7 # jimallyn 2015-04-13 14:51
Quoting babalu:
Well, she used to be a Republican in her teenage years.

Used to be? HIllary Clinton is a pro war, pro too big to fail banks, pro Wall Street, pro Monsanto, pro GMO, pro fracking, pro Keystone XL, Republican. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2015-04-13 16:15
I went to high school with Ms. Clinton when she was a "Goldwater Girl." Then she left for college and campaigned for Nixon.

If you look at her record, her politics have never changed. She saw the "time's they were a'changing" and adopted the rhetoric of the left, but have never actually supported progressive causes that would buck against the corporatist/mil itarist/wall street nexus of power.
 
 
+3 # Merlin 2015-04-13 20:08
babalu 2015-04-13 11:31

You need to look deeper into sHillary. Do some real homework. Start with Radscal's and jimallyn's posts here. Look at her as the politician she has been over all these years. Look at what she stands for.

If you don't do this, the picture you see, and as you have painted it here, is at best seriously inadequate.
 
 
+5 # Merlin 2015-04-13 20:19
babalu 2015-04-13 11:31

"Like any thoughtful person she quickly switched over to Democrats"

No "thoughtful person" will belong to the so called current "Democratic" party. The Democratic party you refer to died in 1985 and gave birth to the "New Democrats," the Clintonista DLC. Remember that "giant sucking sound?" That was the "New Democrat party" that Clinton was heading, getting NAFTA passed.

As Radscal notes:

"If you look at her record, her politics have never changed."
 
 
-5 # babalu 2015-04-13 11:22
- Bill Clinton frequently clashed with Republicans - Just like the Obama administration, the Republicans constantly made up lies and blocked him whenever possible - Remember Statesman Gingrich shutting down the government because he did not get preferred seating in the front of Airforce 1? Kinda like swollen ego Ted Cruz.
 
 
+3 # A_Har 2015-04-13 14:39
Quoting babalu:
- Bill Clinton frequently clashed with Republicans - Just like the Obama administration, the Republicans constantly made up lies and blocked him whenever possible - Remember Statesman Gingrich shutting down the government because he did not get preferred seating in the front of Airforce 1? Kinda like swollen ego Ted Cruz.


Political theater.

In the end he sold us OUT with Nafta and gutting Glass-Steagall. You appear to have a short memory for such things.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2015-04-13 21:10
Quoting babalu:
- Bill Clinton frequently clashed with Republicans - Just like the Obama administration, the Republicans constantly made up lies and blocked him whenever possible - Remember Statesman Gingrich shutting down the government because he did not get preferred seating in the front of Airforce 1? Kinda like swollen ego Ted Cruz.

So what does this prove? Only that Republicans can't tell the difference between a progressive and a centrist. Centrism isn't good enough.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2015-04-14 05:44
I said it then and I'm still saying it now...Clinton (B) WAS a republican...an y clash was just theater.
 
 
+13 # dsepeczi 2015-04-13 12:01
Does anyone honestly view Hillary Clinton as their champion ? I sure as hell don't. On Foreign Policy: She's joined republicans in denouncing Obama's Middle East strategy, saying it doesn't go far enough. She's referred to Putin as "Hitler". She was all in favor of toppling Iraq and bombing Syria. Though Hillary (the candidate) has stated she wants peace with Iran, Hillary (the senator) has voted to call them a terrorist organization and has voted in the past in favor of sanctions against Iran. None of this portends to be any different than what the republicans are going after. On domestic policy: She's heavily funded by the same oligarchy that the republicans are. She supported NAFTA so does anyone reasonably think she'll reject the TPP if it doesn't get done by Obama's term ? There are a few stated positions, domestically, that I agree with but she's pretty much aligned to the right of Obama, who I feel is too much of a republican in democrats clothing, himself. I could live with her domestic policy but her foreign policy and approval of harmful trade agreements is every bit as scary as that of any republican. I hope we can get someone more progressive to win the democratic nomination. Otherwise, we're still marching over a cliff, we're just going to do so at a slower pace.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2015-04-13 16:19
I used to believe that these "lesser evil" politicians drove us into evil slightly slower than the Republicans, but I'm not so sure anymore.

What I see is Obama getting a pass on things that liberals would be furious over if he were a Republican.
 
 
-1 # RLF 2015-04-14 05:46
Obama also gets blamed for things that a Republican would be celebrated for by the republicans...w hich is almost everything he does.
 
 
-3 # dsepeczi 2015-04-14 10:44
Quoting Radscal:
I used to believe that these "lesser evil" politicians drove us into evil slightly slower than the Republicans, but I'm not so sure anymore.

What I see is Obama getting a pass on things that liberals would be furious over if he were a Republican.


I agree. Has anyone else noticed the "war strategy" employed under his watch ? After Vietnam, the "powers that be" ended the draft. By doing so, there were less protesters to war and less hard questions were asked about when it was right to engage in war ... all because it was a voluntary army so less people were automatically affected by war and even those who were affected were mostly of the mindset that "America is always right". This worked magnificently for decades but people became tired of war in the Middle East and said so in loud enough voices that we held back on Syria. So, a new strategy needed to be put in place. Now they arm and pay foreigners to kill foreigners. Less body bags coming home = rising approvals for our actions overseas. I'm glad to see so many here still opposed to all that we're doing over there and I hope the rest of America wakes up before it's too late. Though many Americans don't really know what's going on, the rest of the world certainly does and one day, the blowback may be devastating.
 
 
+5 # jsluka 2015-04-13 19:19
Well said dspeczi. I will not vote for her, even as "the lesser of two evils," simple as that.
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2015-04-13 13:08
hill is progressive on women's rights, i want her to face a progressive challenge, if nothing else, to test how she will stick up for everyday americans, i'd like to see more progressive leadership from her, which should come as her campaign progresses

that said, in her worst day, she can never be half as bad as a zomblican, she will never advocate new tax cuts for the rich, she will never advocate the budget the zomblican congress just passed, she will never nominate a scalia or a thomas, that is, an anti-everyday american, to the supreme court

here's hill, on her better days -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/18/1248523/-You-won-t-see-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-same-light-ever-again?detail=email
 
 
+7 # MidwestTom 2015-04-13 13:30
Her nominations will be pro-billionaire s, she already has collected more than $100 million from Wall Street, and you are nuts if you think she will do anything against them.

When one has billions (and I sure do not) one is more concerned about the fine print in the tax laws. Right now we have companies making billions who pay no taxes, even though the tax code says that they should be paying at a 35% rate, or higher, but the fine print, which most people do not read, makes it legal to skip paying. So when you hear a candidate claim that they will "raise taxes on the rich" you should hear that as bullshit for working stiffs to believe (which they will).
 
 
0 # jsluka 2015-04-13 19:20
Yes, if corporations are "persons" as determined by the SCOTUS, then they should pay the same taxes the rest of us do.
 
 
+10 # A_Har 2015-04-13 14:36
You dream.

Hitlary will say ANYTHING to get elected. As to the champion bit (eyeroll), if she gets in she will throw that overboard in a nanosecond.

We already know who she works for and it isn't the people.
 
 
+3 # Merlin 2015-04-13 20:40
Robbee 2015-04-13 13:08

"here's hill, on her better days - "

Yes, I read that KOS piece. This is sHillary’s only Progressive trait. I applaud her efforts in that area. If she were to give up politics and concentrate her efforts on women’s rights, I would cheer her on as a wonderful woman. So far, Gore has done that in the climate area.

However, she is totally enmeshed in politics, which involves foreign policy which could destroy the world. She must be seen in her totality, using her past history as the guide, to judge her by. Women’s rights, as important as they are, are only a very small part of the responsibility a President has.

Judging a Presidential candidate’s fitness in office, based on one area is simply foolish.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2015-04-13 13:41
tom, i don't know where you get your stuff from, you've got merlin suspicious

i'm satisfied that when you hear a candidate claim that they will "raise taxes on the rich" you will be the first to know about it
 
 
+4 # John S. Browne 2015-04-13 19:09
#

The election cycle lies begin again. "Hitlery" is another "Odrona". She'll lie through her teeth as he did, promising all kinds of things, ninety-eight percent of which will never be fulfilled. She's not for "everyday Americans", or "the common man"; she's a major, "al CIAduh(!)"-groo med, globalist for the eradication of all True Liberty and Freedom, and the destruction of most of us and our planet, all in the lying guise of saving us and the planet. Don't fall for another lying, thieving, mass-murdering "Odrona". These globalists are evil incarnate, and will be our downfall, so don't support ANY of them. They worship evil and death, and to support them in any fashion is to support and be complicit in evil and death, which we must have no part of unless we are for evil and mass-murder ourselves. Don't be complicit, WHATSOEVER.

(Continued)
 
 
+1 # John S. Browne 2015-04-13 19:10
#

It is our duty and/or responsibility to stand up for nothing but True Freedom and Liberty, and to not be a part of ANYTHING that is seeking to destroy it and enslave our country, as well as enslave our entire world. Stand AGAINST all of this globalism and the evil "Fourth Reich" corporate-fasci sts behind it. Have no part in ANY of their evil. As "Odrona" made absolutely clear, these mass-murderers, and destroyers of sovereignty, as well as eradicators of liberty and freedom, are the exact opposite of what is good for the U.S. and the world, and want nothing but to exploit and profit off the entire planet, in the process of destroying us all. Support NONE of their evil and their evil minions.

#
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2015-04-14 19:42
merlin, i had to read your comment twice, to register that you were indeed picking on hill based on one issue :

However, she is totally enmeshed in politics, which involves foreign policy which could destroy the world. She must be seen in her totality, using her past history as the guide, to judge her by. Women’s rights, as important as they are, are only a very small part of the responsibility a President has.

Judging a Presidential candidate’s fitness in office, based on one area is simply foolish.

- your pot calling the kettle black?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN