iOS app Android app More

KEN THOMAS   |   March 13, 2014    5:45 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Archives plans to make public another 4,000 pages of documents from the Clinton White House on Friday, including previously unreleased records related to Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign and the 2000 recount in Florida.

The Clinton Presidential Library intends to make a second batch of records available to the public, part of about 30,000 pages of documents expected to be released from Bill Clinton's administration in the coming weeks. The records have been highly anticipated as former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton considers a 2016 presidential campaign.

How Hillary Clinton Restored My Faith in Millennials

Mackenzie Long   |   March 6, 2014    7:36 PM ET

On March 5, 2014 for the third annual Luskin Lecture for Thought Leadership, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke in Royce Hall at the UCLA campus.

Clinton took the podium and presented her audience with a thoughtful and tantalizing speech. Her performance was strong and steady, nothing too fancy, but more than enough to make us all feel comfortable having this woman within the top leadership of our nation. Every issue, every topic, she addressed with an ease. She let her sense of humor shine through, owning the room with her even keeled responses to some fairly predictable questions. At times, she was tough and fearless, addressing pressing international issues and calling Putin a "tough guy with thin skin." She also focused on the future of the millennial generation, one defined by its bleak potential with little job opportunities on the horizon and little chance at achieving higher education. It was pointed to her audience, one comprised of faculty members, alumni, and students. Mostly the students.

Ah yes, the same students who only a few weeks prior woke up before the sun to storm the Central Ticketing Office just for a chance at getting a ticket to see Hillary Clinton. Having been a part of the 5:15 AM crowd that morning, I can tell you that mob mentality is a real thing, and it is a terrifying thing. There were twenty year olds hiding in bushes, and peaking out from construction sites; just waiting for the security guards to allow a line to form. The first couple of hundred in line were going to get tickets, and it would be dog fight to make it to the front of the line. I was pushed and shoved as hundreds of young people rushed towards the ticket windows. We stood for an hour, crammed together like sardines in a can, only to get entered into a lottery with 2,000 other students.

The best one-liner from that early morning crowd: "What would Hillary say?!"

She might have been somewhat appalled. Or, she might have been proud, excited to have such an eager constituency of young people. I say constituency, because when she announces her run for presidency at the end of the year, it just might be the least surprising moment of the decade.

And though her plan to run may not come as a shocker, with her early widespread support with the Ready for Hillary campaign and its super-PAC already in place, it is still amazing. When she walked out on the stage I was starstruck, overwhelmed to be in the presence of such a powerful, such a sensational political leader. A public servant, a Senator, a First Lady, a presidential candidate, a Secretary of State; an endless resumé of outstanding achievement. As a young woman who is a member of that millennial generation with so many troubles ahead, I felt comforted in her presence because she stands as proof that boundaries are to be breached and obstacles can and must be overcome.

I sat there and looked around at the students filling hundreds of seats in the upper balcony. Here we all are, edge of our seats, listening to a great political mind discuss the ongoing conflict with Russia and Ukraine, the future of America, the future of us. We are members of this troubled generation, with little hope for a fruitful future and gainful employment. And yet, we're here listening and learning. We woke up at the crack of dawn, some of us camped out overnight in front of Pauley Pavilion, not to see a movie star, but to attend a lecture. To listen to a member of our government.

Somehow I think my generation will be ok. I have to have that hope, I guess. Because when you put yourself in a room full of passionate, progressive young people who cannot withhold their applause for a female political powerhouse, you have to hope that we have some of our priorities in order.

We have to hold onto a strong sense of hope for tomorrow and passion for progress, in order to prevail over falling into our prescribed fate. I have never been able to accept failure or lose track of my fever for making a better future for myself and those around me. That's why I'm here at UCLA, and I can make a heavy wager that it's why my fellow students were sitting beside me in that lecture hall.

We came together to visit a source of wisdom and a leader who has shaped American history. Sure it wasn't a pretty sight that early morning weeks ago, but yesterday afternoon, one thing was so incredibly clear: that my generation, the troubled millennial generation, won't be going down without a fight.

The Irony of Clinton's Comparison of Putin to Hitler

Chris Ernesto   |   March 6, 2014    6:36 PM ET

Read More: ukraine, russia, crimea, clinton

Clinton's US colleagues are supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine

When Hillary Clinton compared Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions to Adolf Hitler in remarks this week, you wonder if she was aware that the US government is supporting a government with ties to neo-Nazis in Ukraine today.

Claiming that Putin is acting like the former Nazi leader is unsophisticated and preposterous, particularly for a seasoned official like Clinton. But did she really not know that the US is openly supporting the anti-Semitic Svoboda party in Ukraine and that any mention of Hitler could bring attention to America's ties to the neo-Nazi movement in the former Soviet Republic?

You wonder if Clinton was aware of the phone call between her former State Department colleague Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Pyatt in which they discuss Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the Svoboda party who has a history of anti-Semitic remarks (Tyahnybok is the person John McCain was criticized for meeting with in Kiev in December). Nuland describes Tyahnybok as one of the big three within the opposition leadership that the US was assisting in overthrowing the government in Ukraine. This is the same Tyahnybok who was expelled from the Ukrainian parliament in 2004 because of a speech he gave praising World War II partisans who fought Jews and "other scum." Tyahnybok also claimed that the "Jewish-Russian mafia" were running Ukraine at the time, and is the person who declared that Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk was a hero who was "fighting for truth." In 2005 Tyahnybok wrote open letters demanding Ukraine do more to halt "criminal activities" of "organized Jewry."

The ultra nationalist Svoboda party has a "history of anti-Semitism and [has a] platform of ethnic nationalism," according to Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti- Defamation League. Maybe Clinton was just ignorant of this fact, and the fact that "white supremacist banners and Confederate flags were draped inside Kiev's occupied City Hall, and demonstrators have hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols over a toppled memorial to V.I. Lenin." Openly anti-Semitic parties include White Hammer and C14, the neo-Nazi youth wing of the Svoboda party, according to Haaretz.

2014-03-06-svoboda.stepan.bandera.neo.nazi.march.jpg

It could be that Clinton is simply uninformed, like some others, as described by Seumas Milne of the British Guardian, "You'd never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings."

But Clinton had to have known that a 2012 European Parliament resolution condemned the Svoboda party for its racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views, and that the US is today supporting that same party. "The [Svoboda] party traces its roots to the Ukrainian partisan army of World War II, which was loosely allied with Nazi Germany, and its debut in Parliament [in 2012] elicited objections from Israel and groups that monitor hate speech," according to a recent New York Times article by Andrew E. Kramer. Kramer continued, "Until 2004, Svoboda had been called the Social-Nationalist Party, which critics said was just a word flip away from its true ambitions and a deliberate reference to the National Socialism of the Nazis. Unabashed neo-Nazis still populate its ranks, organizations that study hate groups in Europe say."

Wasn't Clinton aware that another top Svoboda member, Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, a deputy in parliament, often quotes Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, as well as other Third Reich luminaries like Ernst Rohm and Gregor Strasser?

It's clear that people like Hillary Clinton are pushing for more US influence in Ukraine, and attempting to make Russia look bad is one tactic to achieve this goal. But by ridiculously comparing Putin to Hitler, Clinton unwittingly brought to the surface the ironic fact that it is her own country's government -- not Russia's -- that is supporting forces in Ukraine who embrace the Nazi philosophy.

Hilary Miller   |   February 17, 2014    9:00 AM ET

What better way to celebrate President's Day 2014 than with a look back at our last 14 men in office and their famous friends? Let's be honest (for old Abe's sake), there's nothing more patriotic than Katherine Hepburn sitting down to dine with President Roosevelt.

Enjoy these vintage gems.

President Barack Obama with Jay Z and Beyonce
obama jay z beyonce

President George Bush with Dr. Phil and Carrie Underwood
george bush carrie underwood

President Bill Clinton with Brad Pitt
president clinton actor

President George H. W. Bush with Bono
george h w bush singer

President Ronald Reagan with wife Nancy and Michael Jackson
reagan michael jackson

President Jimmy Carter with Kirk Douglas
jimmy carter actor

President Gerald Ford with wife Betty and Brooke Shields
gerald ford actress

President Richard Nixon with John Wayne
nixon john wayne

President Lyndon B. Johnson with Maureen O'Hara
lyndon johnson actress

President John F. Kennedy with Frank Sinatra
john f kennedy actor

President Dwight Eisenhower with Bob Hope
eisenhower actor

President Harry Truman with Spencer Tracy
president truman actor

President Franklin D. Roosevelt with Katherine Hepburn
president roosevelt actress

President Herbert Hoover with Gertrude Lawrence
president hoover actress

Movie Review: Hank: Five Years From the Brink

Marshall Fine   |   January 28, 2014    9:23 AM ET

2014-01-28-hank2.jpg

Almost from the moment the economy collapsed during the 2008 presidential campaign, there has been a war to control the narrative of what led to the disaster -- nearly a catastrophe -- that almost brought down the nation's (and the world's) economy.

One of the earliest was Charles Ferguson's Oscar-winning Inside Job and there have been others -- documentaries and dramatizations such as Too Big to Fail -- that have tried to explain what actually happened.

Now, five years after the fact, we get Hank: Five Years from the Brink, in which former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry "Hank" Paulson gives us a play-by-play of how he, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Federal Reserve chairman Timothy Geithner, kept everything from collapsing while alternately massaging and challenging the various egos that ran the nation's largest banks.

Filmmaker Joe Berlinger keeps it simple.

This review continues on my website.

Christie Is an Amateur

Mike Smith   |   January 27, 2014    1:25 PM ET

2014-01-27-Smith_C20140117.jpg

Mollie Reilly   |   January 27, 2014   12:27 PM ET

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that the 2011 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya was the "biggest regret" of her tenure at the State Department.

"My biggest regret is what happened in Benghazi," Clinton said during an appearance at the National Automobile Dealers Association convention in New Orleans, La. "It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans, two diplomats, and now it's public, so I can say, two CIA operatives. Losing an ambassador like Chris Stevens, who was one of our very best."

Clinton remains under scrutiny from Republicans who insist she should be held accountable for the attack. Democrats, including Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have come to Clinton's defense, saying she is not to blame for Benghazi.

When asked about her potential presidential aspirations, the former first lady remained mum on whether she plans to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016, as many political observers expect her to do.

"I have to say I don't know," Clinton said. "Not a very satisfactory answer."

She was slightly more candid on a topic relevant to her auto industry audience.

"The last time I actually drove a car myself was 1996," Clinton admitted.

Joking, she continued, "I remember it very well. Unfortunately, so does the Secret Service, which is why I haven't driven since then."

  |   January 24, 2014    9:28 AM ET

The gravitational pull of a possible 2016 campaign is bringing all the old Clinton characters into her orbit. Can she make the stars align, or will chaos prevail?

  |   January 14, 2014   11:07 AM ET

CLINTON, Conn. (AP) — A Connecticut man faces numerous drug charges after police say he posted a YouTube video of himself giving a tour of what he calls his marijuana garden.

Police in the shoreline town of Clinton, about 20 miles east of New Haven, arrested William Bradley, 46, on Monday following a six-month investigation.

Medal of Freedom for Clinton

Jeff Danziger   |   November 23, 2013    1:17 PM ET

2013-11-23-danzcolor5805.jpg

Wherefore Romeo -- Dallaire, That Is!

Ian Williams   |   November 5, 2013    3:51 PM ET

Roméo Dallaire should be the hero of an opera. His story certainly has all hallmarks of genuine tragedy -- and it embodies many of the key themes of the last century and evokes the Syrian debacle as well.

Dallaire was Force Commander of the United Nations Peacekeeper in Rwanda (UNAMIR) before and during the 1994 genocide. He warned UN headquarters in New York about the planned massacre and sought permission to intervene. The UN bureaucracy did not want to impinge upon "sovereignty" and refused to act without the government -- which in reality was planning the massacre.

The bloodbath was presaged by a massacre of Belgian peacekeepers, which led the Belgian government to withdraw its surviving troops, despite the increasingly manifest need as the slaughter of more than 800,000 Rwandans began and continued for more than three horrifying months. Dallaire, along with a small contingent of Ghanaian soldiers and military observers, disobeyed orders to withdraw and remained in Rwanda to protect those who sought refuge with the UN forces and to deter at least some of the killings.

Dallaire's unwillingness to obey orders and refusal to take the expedient way out cost him dearly. He was shunned by Canadian military colleagues, and, haunted with the memories of the horrors he had seen in Rwanda, had a nervous breakdown. Ethics and a conscience are uncomfortable attributes to have in hierarchies that only have such qualities in homoeopathically diluted quantities.

In customary anti-heroic mode, Bill Clinton had signed Presidential Decision Directive 25, which not only limited the involvement of the United States in peacekeeping operations, but in effect led to a US veto on UN peacekeeping resolutions where the US did not have "a dog in the fight," in the dismissive words of former Secretary of State James Baker.

Clinton was displaying his customary spinelessness, pandering to conservative obsessions about the UN. In these days of obsession with stopping their co-citizens having access to health care, it is hard to remember the conservatives' previous preoccupation with the UN's threat to American sovereignty. France, that great pillar of human rights in Syria, and upholder of international law over Iraq, was, of course, on the side of the genocidal regime in Rwanda. The UN simply buried the memo from Dallaire and left him swinging, and eventually endorsed a French peacekeeping effort, "operation Turquoise" which was actually a rescue mission to save the murderers from the advancing rebels. Dallaire protested unavailingly.

The left in general stayed silent, although with the enthusiasm of idiocy some, such as Ramsey Clark, rallied to the defence of the genocide, just as they later supported Slobodan Milosevic and excused Srebrenica. Since US imperialism was so ostentatiously absenting itself from the fray, the simplistic left had no point of reference on Rwanda and the deaths at the sharp ends of machetes left the members of it unmoved. It is a sad comment that massacres such Rwanda and Bosnia are not seen as inherently abhorrent but need some sort of litmus test to put them in political context. One can only assume that all the years of apologizing for Bolshevik terror and massacres have attenuating the ethical senses of the Leninising left and its fellow travelers.

Dallaire's ethical senses were more refined. Despite being career military he knew killing people is wrong, and that wherever possible it should be stopped. His heroism is reminiscent of Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, who landed his helicopter during the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and threatened to shoot the US troops intent on massacring children. He, too, was shunned by his own command and took years to get recognition.

It is not just luxuriating in hindsight to affirm that, if Dallaire had had the go-ahead to seize the weapons and planners of the Rwanda massacre, it would have averted untold suffering.

Similarly, Dallaire recently said that the world should have intervened much sooner to stop events in Syria spiralling out of control. The form of that intervention is a subject worthy of intensive debate. But there can be little doubt that Bashar al Assad's regime has been emboldened by all those who have peremptorily ruled out any intervention at all.

This post originally appeared on tribunemagazine.org.

Rajiv Narayan   |   November 1, 2013    8:50 AM ET

Read More: clinton

I can just imagine this guy's thought process.

The Case Against Clinton 2016

Sean McElwee   |   October 22, 2013    1:10 PM ET

It's three years away, but the punditocracy is already discussing 2016 candidates, and while the Republican field is already loaded with possible candidates (Rubio, Cruz (!), Paul, Walker, Bush III (!!) and Jindal) the Democratic field is apparently sealed: Hillary Clinton. RealClearPolitics finds Hillary getting 61 percent of the vote in a Democratic primary against Biden (11), Warren (7), Cuomo (2), Warner (1) and O'Malley (0). There is a Super PAC (with 1,000,000+ Facebook "likes") designed to lay the groundwork for a Clinton presidential run.

There is certainly a strategic reason for Democrats to play down Clinton: three more years under press scrutiny will only make her less appealing. But there are other reasons to question whether America needs another Clinton presidency.

I remember asking a Republican friend over dinner to name a single policy of Bill Clinton that they opposed and seeing them stumble (oral sex in the oval office isn't a policy). The left has far more to despise about Bill than Republicans: he deregulated the banks, thereby setting the stage for the financial crisis; he passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, shredding the social safety net and forcing many poor women into the workforce; he signed into law economy-crushing free-trade agreements without environmental or labor protections; he escalated the War on Drugs, flooding American prisons with poor blacks and funneling billions to law enforcement agencies that abandoned practical policing in favor of SWAT-like tactics.

Hillary, is not her husband, but there is reason to fear her presidency would devolve into the same govern-by-polls center-right market-friendly neoliberal toxic sludge her husband dumped on the left.

The left must ask itself some crucial questions: Could Clinton really tackle inequality by strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage and instituting a highly progressive tax system? Could the a member of the family who rented out the Lincoln bedroom to donors really tackle campaign finance reform? Could the woman who made the case for Iraq keep us from the next neo-con fraud? Will Clinton work undermine the overwhelming power of corporations and regulate the big banks that have financed her campaigns? I'm skeptical. America doesn't need more establishment candidates; we need a fearless leader who will turn us away from the greedy consumerism that is tearing apart our society in a favor of empathy and sustainability.

This isn't to say that Hillary Clinton would make a bad president. I'm just not sure she would be more than a repeat of the establishment. Democrats used to stand against big banks and big corporations and stand for the little guy. Democrats used to talk about expanding social security, not cutting it. Democrats used to regulate big banks, not suck up to them for campaign cash. George McGovern may have gotten "trounced," but at least he knew a shitty war when he saw one. Michael Dukakis may have lost to H.W. Bush but at least he defended the rights of prisoners.

Has the left been so castrated that we run directly into the arms of the most banal corporate candidate without even considering the possibility of a Warren, Sanders or, dare I say it, Kucinich run? The first has fought tirelessly for a higher minimum wage and a new Glass-Steagall. The second has spent decades tacking on amendments to bills and the Constitution (among his goals: protect undocumented workers, undermine the Patriot Act, and strip corporations of First Amendment rights).The final drew opprobrium from the mainstream press for his plan to build a "Department of Peace" and a healthcare plan that should make any true liberal ecstatic.  All would have passed a financial reform bill with actual teeth and guaranteed a public option.

It's time to move away from the "New Democrat"/Third way-style of governing. Americans are thirsty for real change. Dukakis and McGovern lost because they tried to sell peace to a war-hungry society. Now Clinton and Obama are selling Neo-conservatism to an America ready to cede control to the international arena. With blacks, Latinos and Millennials (to use that dreadful word) preferring "socialism" to "capitalism" it may time to move from the neo-liberalism that brought us the financial crisis toward a kinder, gentler society. We need a new New Deal, with full employment, strong unions and a powerful role for government. We need to question whether brutal free-market capitalism will erode liberal democracy, whether the short-termism of greed should be replaced by a sustainable economy. I don't think Clinton can legitimately foment such a radical re-envisioning of American society.

Democrats can be fairly certain that they'll win the Oval Office in 2016; the only question is which Democrat will hold that office. Should it be the establishment candidate to the right of Obama or someone truly revolutionary, a new left candidate the nation needs?

I'll conclude with the words of the always blunt Christopher Hitchens, "Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut."

  |   October 11, 2013    5:10 PM ET

LONDON -- LONDON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton has supported Saudi women who this week defied their kingdom's ban on female driving.

The former U.S. secretary of state told an event in London: "I'm all for it. It is an issue that is symbolic." She added that the ban is "hard to even rationalize" in today's world.