iOS app Android app More

  |   January 2, 2013    3:21 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The State Department says Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is speaking with staff and reviewing paperwork while she continues to recover from a blood clot in her head.

Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says Clinton has been "quite active" on the phone Wednesday with State Department aides. She says doctors will continue to monitor her progress.

Clinton was admitted to a New York hospital Sunday and is being treated with blood thinners to dissolve a clot in the vein behind the right ear. Doctors found the clot during a follow-up exam stemming from a concussion she suffered in early December.

Clinton's doctors say there was no neurological damage and they expect she will make a full recovery.

UPDATE -- 4:05 p.m.: An earlier version of this post cited reports that Clinton had left the hospital. NBC News confirms those reports are untrue. This post has been updated to reflect that the Secretary of State is still in the hospital.

  |   December 28, 2012    1:24 PM ET

On Dec. 15, two doctors for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a statement through the State Department saying that she was ill:

Nick Wing   |   December 27, 2012    1:34 PM ET

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Wednesday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should testify on Capitol Hill regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on the anniversary of Sept. 11 earlier this year that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

"Last month, while on a trip to Peru, Secretary Clinton said she that she took full responsibility for the events in Benghazi. I take her at her word," Rubio wrote in an op-ed on Fox News. "As the nation’s top diplomat, she should therefore appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in both open and classified hearings."

Clinton had been scheduled to testify before Congress earlier this month, but after she came down with a stomach bug and eventually fainted and suffered a concussion, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, insisted that Clinton's aides take her place.

Kerry and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have since both announced that they still expect Clinton to testify before their respective panels sometime in January.

Two deputy secretaries of state, Thomas Nides and William Burns, testified before both Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees last week, following the release of a scathing report that blasted the State Department for "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies," and debunked a number of right-wing allegations of gross negligence by the administration as the crisis unfolded. After Clinton issued a statement thanking the board for its "clear-eyed, serious look at serious systemic challenges," Nides and Burns described to the congressional panel a list of steps the department planned to take in response to the report.

But Rubio writes that the release of the report and subsequent testimony by State Department officials on its findings should not excuse Clinton from being asked to testify on the incident. Clinton is expected to step down from her position sometime in early 2013, leaving Kerry, Obama's recently announced nominee for secretary of state, to take the reins if the Senate confirms him, which it is expected to. Rubio said he wants some clarification from Clinton before that happens.

"She should explain why her department failed to adequately secure the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi and what her personal level of knowledge was of Libya security deficiencies, warnings about which Deputy Secretary of State William Burns testified were circulated to the highest levels of the State Department, presumably including Secretary Clinton," Rubio wrote. "More importantly, Secretary Clinton should elaborate on how the State Department plans to fix the broad systemic failures that the Board identified."

Realigning American Politics: Towards a Mass Party of the Center

Van Gosse   |   December 23, 2012    3:05 PM ET

Like a fog slowly clearing, we can perceive the slow-motion realignment of American politics towards a mass party of the center. This emerging formation, the Clinton-Obama remaking of the Democratic Party, will almost certainly dominate politics and policy at the federal level and in most major states for the long-term. If this is the new reality, the left had better adjust its sights. Above all, let's stop the furious agonizing about an ultra-right, Christian Right, Tea Party, Koch-Brothers-and-Karl-Rove take-over: it ain't happening, get over it, move on.

The mass party of the center, birthed 20 years ago by Bill Clinton triangulating his way into a "socially-liberal" version of neoliberalism (or what used to be "liberal Republicanism" in the days of Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney) has been brought to fruition by Barack Obama's savvy Chicago apparatchiks. Consider what they have achieved:

The Democratic Party has won the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections;

It has reduced the Republican Party to a pathetic replica of the pre-New Deal Democrats, relying on white votes in the Solid South and the rest of rural America where Dixie flags and country music dominate, along with poverty and nativism (with the obvious difference that the Obama machine is making that America a lot less solid);

At the presidential level, Democrats now have a lock on nine of the top 15 states defined by GDP (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, Maryland), and of the remaining six, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia are turning blue, while Texas and Georgia alone remain deep red (North Carolina seems to be the purple wild card right now);

Forget states, whole regions are gone for the Right. Except when they get lucky or run RINOs, the entire Northeast is Democratic, as is the West Coast. Since Reagan, their white hope has been the Midwestern heartland, but Obama again shut them out of every Midwestern state other than the traditionally borderish Indiana and Missouri.

Anyone can read these numbers. Indeed, the Democratic tilt of major states, regions, the cities, and most of suburbia has been growing ever more obvious for some time, but no one has had the nerve to call it a realignment. Why not? What is realignment, anyway, and why should you care?

The term derives from the eminent political scientist Walter Dean Burnham, who argued long ago that the American political system since the 1790s has pivoted on a handful of "realigning" elections, when huge swathes of the electorate moved in one direction, undergirding long-term majorities for one party -- Republicans after 1896; Democrats after 1936, and so on.

For decades, the not-so-New Right has pursued its own realignment, and rightward-trending and just trendy pundits have bought into their propaganda that the big shift was about to happen. In fact, it was always just about to happen, whether in the defection of the vaunted Reagan Democrats to the Gipper, or Rove's grand plan to sew up Latinos and so-called "soccer moms." But at no point has the U.S. ever come close to a lasting realignment to the Right. Each of their big victories -- in 1984, 1994 and 2004 -- was followed immediately by sharp defeats (losing the Senate in 1986; Clinton's crushing Dole in 1996; the Democratic sweep of 2006). Now, in the aftermath of Obama's sequential system-wide victories, encompassing every region and popular vote majorities, we see the real realignment towards a socially progressive, center-right, post-Fordist party, with one foot in neoliberal orthodoxy (think Summers and Geithner), and the other in what's left of the "functionally social-democratic" base (think Ohio and Michigan, where nationalizing the auto industry in 2009 secured national victory in 2012).

So where does that leave those of us who define as left, whether in, out, or in-denial regarding the Democratic Party? Begin with a basic premise: the tectonics of generational and demographic change have decisively moved U.S. politics to a new kind of center, commanded by those who now lead the Democratic party. Carefully marshaling an array of constituencies, from Ph.D.'s to janitors, these new men and women of power have decisively trumped the ultra-right's hopes of rolling back the twentieth-century's progressive gains. And with powerful financial machines of their own and nationwide networks of personal loyalty, the Obamaites have also largely displaced the older party and union structures that got out the Democratic vote. Remember the "Friends of Bill" back in the 90s? They were merely the precursors of the thousands of dedicated organizers recruited into Obama's permanent campaign since 2006.

Is there any room for the left as we have known it, other than as dutiful acolytes, tiptoeing around the table of power, or impotent critics, standing on the sidelines? Certainly Occupy points the way to how savvy, spectacular protest can galvanize the national discourse, but surely we can do better than that. What would an American Left look like? That's the real question. Stay tuned.

  |   December 10, 2012   11:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has canceled her trip to Morocco this week for a meeting on the future of Syria's opposition because of a stomach virus, the State Department said on Monday.

Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns will travel to the meeting in her place.

"Since she's still under the weather, we'll be staying put this week instead of heading to North Africa and the Middle East as originally planned," State Department spokesman Philippe Reines said in a statement.

"In her place, Deputy Secretary Burns will travel to Marrakech for the Friends of the Syrian People meeting. We will let you know when she shakes this bug and resumes a public schedule," he said.

Clinton had been due to join foreign ministers from allied nations in Morocco to discuss the 20-month old Syria crisis as rebels fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad push forward on the battlefield and move to unify the political opposition.

The so-called Friends of Syria group is expected to focus on new moves to strengthen and legitimize the recently formed Syrian opposition coalition.

Clinton had planned to continue from Morocco to Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. (Reporting By Mohammad Arshad; editing by Christopher Wilson)

JENNIFER PELTZ   |   December 5, 2012    8:41 AM ET

NEW YORK -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg lashed out Tuesday at reports that he encouraged U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to run to succeed him, and he pointedly praised the city official who has long been seen as his pick for the job.

Asked about the media reports, which cited anonymous sources, Bloomberg didn't directly deny a conversation with Clinton but retorted: "Did you hear me say that?" And in a bit of political optics, expected mayoral candidate and current City Council Speaker Christine Quinn stood by Bloomberg's side while he described her as key to his administration's success.

PHOTOS: Hillary Clinton Hangs Out With Meryl Streep

Alana Horowitz   |   December 2, 2012    2:32 PM ET

BFFs? We can dream. But Meryl Streep and Hillary Clinton looked pretty chummy on Saturday night.

The Oscar-winning actress and the Secretary of State met up at the Kennedy Center Honors gala, held at the State Department.

According to the AP, Streep used her iPhone to snap a photo of the two powerful women.

Earlier this year, Streep compared herself to the former First Lady.

"I find a lot of similarities," Streep said when introducing Clinton at the Women in the World Summit. "We're roughly the same age, we both have two brothers -- mine are annoying -- we both grew up in middle-class homes with spirited, big-hearted mothers who encouraged us to do something valuable and interesting with our lives. We both went from public high schools to distinguished women's colleges ... We both went on to graduate school at Yale."

Photos below.

hillary clinton meryl streep

hillary clinton meryl streep

The New Deal

Chris Weigant   |   November 28, 2012   10:24 PM ET

Lest F.D.R. rise up from his grave and begin to haunt me, allow me to begin by putting that headline in the proper context. Correct capitalization should really be "the new deal" -- so as to not cause confusion with historical references. The words are capitalized above merely because they are in a title, and for no other reason.

By this point, even "scare quotes" are not necessary for talking about the upcoming fiscal cliff. The term has been repetitively bandied about in the media world so thoroughly that it is (at least for the time being) self-evident. However, what is lacking from the inside-the-Beltway crowd is some sort of snappy moniker for the (lower-case!) new deal that Congress and President Obama are now working towards. Whether the deal eventually happens or not, it's time to give it a name. I'm going to begin using a rather mundane name for this deal, in the hopes that it goes viral: the "Grand Bargain II" or (for those with an itchy Twitter finger) "GB2." The original "Grand Bargain," a year and a half ago, did not actually happen between John Boehner and the president but it got named all the same, so I think it'll be fine to just recycle it. But I do not write today merely to speak of political branding. Just wanted to get it out of the way so I have something to use for the rest of this article, that's all.

Instead of focusing on whether a GB2 deal will be struck between Obama and the House Republicans, or even when such a deal might be finalized, I think far too few pundits are focusing on what the deal might contain. So I thought I'd peer into my cracked and foggy crystal ball and make an attempt at predicting which way the GB2 chips are going to fall. Please note, though, that I'm not endorsing (or condemning, for that matter) any of the following outcomes, I'm just attempting to read the political language emanating from the principal negotiators involved and draw some likely conclusions of what is likely going to be in such a deal. With that caveat firmly in place, here's how I see things working out.



This is really the gorilla in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring. While there is much talk of taxes and entitlements, few are addressing the budget-cutting trigger which was the only pathetic result of the earlier congressional "supercommittee." These cuts are known in Washington-speak as "sequestration."

I'm predicting that this can is going to be kicked down the road (in some fashion or another) to the incoming Congress. While some spending cuts may be part of GB2, most of the military and social program cuts (other than entitlements, which I am addressing separately, below) will quietly be shelved for a period of months, if not a full year. Oh, sure, there'll be talk of "triggers" and dire consequences, but my guess is that they'll be about as substantial as swamp miasma.

Both parties will decide that punting on the sequester cuts is the right thing to do politically, and they will hand the problem off to the next Congress. Which will bring up talk of a "Grand Bargain III," of course, but we're getting ahead of ourselves.


Debt ceiling

This is a much more immediate problem. President Obama and the Democrats obviously want a debt ceiling raise to be part of the GB2 deal. Republicans, equally as obviously, do not. The reason Republicans are fighting against it is that they know that it'll just force all the budgetary issues to be discussed all over again in the next few months. The debt ceiling will officially be reached some time around the first of the year, but with Treasury accounting tricks, the real crisis won't hit for at least a month or two down the road. Republicans will want another bite at the budget apple after GB2, because they think they will have more leverage in this fight.

They're right, too. Right now, if Congress does nothing, the Bush tax cuts (more on them in a moment, too) will go up automatically -- which gives Democrats lots of leverage to get something done. But with the debt ceiling, if Congress does nothing, then Obama will (the Republicans figure) be the one to pay a political price. Whether they're right or not, it's hefty political leverage to wield.

But I remain optimistic. Obama is going to use a giant threat -- in private, most likely -- to force the Republicans to accept a debt ceiling hike. The president will calmly explain to the Republican leaders that have two -- and only two -- choices: either raise the debt ceiling as part of GB2, or Obama will personally declare the debt ceiling itself null and void and utterly meaningless (using what has been called "the Fourteenth Amendment option"). So Congress can either raise the debt ceiling as part of the deal, or the entire issue will be taken away from them permanently. Republicans may seethe (this is why this bargaining chip will likely be played in private, to allow Republicans to save face in public), but they will in the end swallow this pill. The talking point from the White House will be: "We're not going to do this all over again, a month from now."



There are quite a few details in the tax portion of the fiscal cliff. Most of the attention has been on the Bush tax cuts expiring for the wealthiest earners, but there are a lot of chips to bargain with that haven't received as much media or public attention.

The Alternative Minimum Tax problem will be solved -- but only short-term, for a year or possibly two. This is an enormous lie that both parties are complicit in foisting on the public, for the purposes of making the 10-year budget deficit projections look much smaller than reality. Neither side's going to want to open up this can of worms. Instead they will both agree to do what they always do on the issue -- fix it for a year, and kick the can down the road one more time. This is a shame, because honestly fixing this tax would truly be the way to solve the problem of taxing upper-income folks fairly. But it's not going to happen.

One big victory for Republicans will be raising a tax (yes, you read that correctly). For the past two years, Obama has gotten a "payroll tax holiday" for all American workers which (unless you make six figures a year) has meant an automatic two percent raise in your paycheck. This is going to end on New Year's Day. Even though it is a tax cut for everyone, Republicans hate it because Obama's for it (that's as near as I can figure), so Obama will allow them to claim victory on the issue. This will mean the "holiday" will be over, and everyone will get hit with a small tax hike beginning immediately.

What Obama will get out of this phase of the bargain will be the continuation of all the minor parts of the "Bush tax cuts" -- increased credits and deductions, for instance. These may be limited to those making under $250,000 a year, but they will continue. The other thing Obama will get is a big rise in the estate tax (what Republicans call the "death tax") -- which was one of the gifts Bush gave to the stratospherically-wealthy in his original tax cut package. Estate tax rates will go back to what they were under Clinton. Taxes on dividends could go either way. If the Bush tax cuts expired, taxes on dividends would go up by five percentage points. If this tax break is continued, it may be phased out for the over-$250K folks.

The big question on taxes, however, is what to do about the Bush tax rate cuts. This is currently the central part of the argument, at least in the media. Obama wants the Bush tax rates to continue for 98 percent of earners, and have the top two percent revert to the Clinton-era rate. Republicans seem adamant about not raising anyone's tax rate, and instead limiting deductions and loopholes for the wealthiest earners.

The 98 percent will be taken care of -- that's as close to a sure bet as you can make about GB2. Whether it happens before or after the first of January is still an open question, but when the deal is struck, it will continue the Bush tax rates for everyone's income, up to $250K.

Both sides in this fight have drawn rather bright and well-defined lines of battle. Obama has repeatedly issued veto threats for any bill which does not raise tax rates on the top two percent. Republicans have made what Harry Reid calls "happy talk" about "raising revenues," but they appear to have dug in their heels on "raising tax rates." Especially in the House. This is going to come down to the question of what John Boehner can sell to enough House Republicans to pass a bill. I could see a compromise being worked out on this one, something along the lines of "the tax rate for the top incomes will rise -- but not up to where they were under Clinton -- while deductions for the over-$250K set will be limited in some way." There's going to be some awfully creative accounting on this question, no matter how it gets resolved -- that's my guess. This way, both sides will be able to claim minor victories on the issue to their base.



Republicans are pushing hard for large cuts to the big three social programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Democrats are pushing hard to exempt all three from any cuts whatsoever.

Social Security will not be touched. This round goes to Obama. If it changes at all, the only change will be raising the "cap on earnings" far above where it stands now (only roughly the first $110,000 anyone makes is taxed currently -- which is an enormous tax break for the wealthy, right there). However, I don't really expect even this to change. Obama will stand firm on Social Security, and Republicans will give up fighting on the issue.

Medicare and Medicaid are another story, however. Chuck Obamacare into that category, as Republicans are insisting. And there's always the yearly "doc fix" (see comments above, on A.M.T. yearly "fixes"). This is where Republicans are going to get some concessions from the Democrats. Hopefully, Democrats will be the ones to write the terms of the cuts, so that benefits to beneficiaries are not impacted, but in some way or another health care spending is going to be cut. Perhaps Democrats can get creative, and demand that Medicare Part D (the Bush "prescription drug benefit") be allowed to negotiate volume discounts from drug companies -- which would be a minor Democratic victory, in the midst of a Republican win. I do think these cuts will stop short of raising the eligibility age for Medicare, but I could easily be wrong about that.

Republicans are going to have to have something in GB2 that they can sell to their House members, and to enough senators to get the bill passed. This is where Obama's going to cave, and allow cuts to be made. This will allow Obama to say he has compromised and position himself as cutting a "centrist" deal. Perhaps he'll get one final bargaining chip out of the deal and continue unemployment benefits, but most likely not.


There's going to be pain all around in whatever deal is struck. Most Americans are going to be directly impacted in one way or another by whatever bargain is made between President Obama and congressional Republicans. Obama's got most of the leverage on his side, including the fact that he just won a rather impressive election victory and he currently has a higher job approval rating than he's had since Osama Bin Laden died. The biggest leverage is the deadline of New Year's Day, but I still think it's too early to tell whether a "Grand Bargain II" will be struck before or after the fiscal cliff is reached.

Perhaps the GB2 will be finalized before Congress goes home for the holidays. Perhaps America will go through a "Wile E. Coyote moment" where we dash off the cliff and stand in midair for a moment before realizing that there's nothing under our feet but air. Perhaps the GB2 deal won't be struck until we're on our way down. However it plays out, I've laid out what I consider to be the most probable outlines of such a deal. Once again, I'm not advocating any of these as solutions, I'm merely predicting which outcome is most likely, given the facts on the ground and the way the players on both sides are talking about things in public at the moment.


Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post


Former Clinton Mistress Reveals Information About More Recent Contact

Nick Wing   |   November 28, 2012   12:00 PM ET

Gennifer Flowers, the model and actress who came forward in 1992 with allegations that she'd engaged in a longterm affair with then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, recently made new claims that Clinton had reached out to her as recently as 2005.

Speaking with Susan Roesgen of New Orleans ABC affiliate WGNO, Flowers claimed that she received a phone call from Clinton at her house in Louisiana.

(Watch the interview in the video above)

"He wanted to come by my house and talk to me," Flowers, now 62, told Roesgen. "He said, ‘I’ll put on a hoodie and I’ll jog up there.’ He used to do that."

Flowers said that she denied Clinton's request.

"And I said, ‘No, I want you to leave me alone.’ And that was that,” Flowers recalled.

Earlier in the interview, Flowers claimed that her now-famous press conference had finally given Clinton the name recognition that he'd told her he needed in order to be a contender in 1992.

"I made him a household name overnight,” she said.

Did Gaza Save Jordan?

Daoud Kuttab   |   November 22, 2012   10:03 AM ET

The Israeli onslaught on Gaza this week coincided with one of the worst periods in Jordan's history. Protesters, angry with the price hike of energy products, were more violent and protests larger and more widespread than the Kingdom ever witnessed.

Faced with these unprecedented and extensive demonstrations, Jordan's security personnel were spread very thin, leaving some sectors of the country vulnerable.

It is a well-known fact that populations voluntarily agree to be governed, but when this natural loyalty is shaken, it is very difficult to do so. In the absence of the rule of law a vacuum is created and at times, hooligans and criminals fill this vacuum.

Fortunately for Jordan, local groups of citizens came together to protect strategic and vulnerable locations. One photo that went viral on social media showed a group of young men in Madaba creating a human chain to protect the local Housing Bank. The bank, which has the largest number of branches in Jordan, was chosen by the government to disburse up to JD420 in cash to families making less than JD10,000 a year.

While some destruction and looting took place in some Jordanian cities, the protests and rioting passed without any major or continuous damage.

The police chief, Hussein Majali
, held a press conference and tried to restore the stature of the state, insisting that the rules of engagement had not changed and that peaceful demonstrations will be respected.

While Majali insisted that the police treat all citizens equally, he delegitimized some protest leaders, saying that they had previous criminal records and blaming them for some of the thefts and acts of hooliganism that occurred in the first days of protests.

The protests died down over the weekend, despite a large, and peaceful, post-Friday noon prayers and after the nationwide teachers' strike.

The combination of soft and harsh security responses, the prime minister's blitz media campaign and the beginning of cash payments to the needy contributed to a gradual calming of the internal scene. Externally, however, Jordan and its reputation were facing some harsh evaluations.

A statement issued by the U.S. State Department, calling on the government to widen political discussions, must have worried the government. If Amman could not count on Washington for support, who could it count on?

The Americans quickly remedied the situation with a phone call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the King, followed by public support from the spokeswoman of the U.S. State Department.

The calm in Jordan and the exchange with Washington did not stop the world media from converging on Jordan. Journalists and pundits published and broadcast reports of doom about the Kingdom even before the two-day protests died down.

Fortunately for Jordan, however, the Israeli military campaign against Gaza stole the media lights and ended this short spike in unwanted media coverage of the Kingdom.

The media began following the daily shelling of Gaza and the rocket attacks against Tel Aviv, making the troubles in Jordan appear to be a sideshow.

The scaling down of the protests and the disappearance of the world media from the scene gave the government a badly needed reprieve to consider what has happened in these troublesome days. While there is consensus that the economic situation is dire, there is also a realization that decisions affecting the pocket of the average citizen should not be taken with such harshness and all at once. Furthermore, the absence of the political elite defending the government decision also caused harm to the effectiveness of the government in carrying out its policies.

Having chosen to take difficult decisions few months before parliamentary elections -- based on a controversial law -- meant that no politician wishing to participate in elections is willing to publicly defend this unpopular decision.

Politics and economics intertwine, but this time, Jordan, which has a large population of Palestinian descent, has not carried out large anti-Israeli demonstrations for its onslaught on Gaza, as was usually the case. If anything, this proves that in this instant, economics trumped all other issues, putting even more pressure on the country's leadership to find both an economic and a political solution to the dangerous situation it finds itself in

Sabrina Siddiqui   |   November 15, 2012   11:00 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney claimed during a call with donors on Wednesday that he received a call from former President Bill Clinton, who told Romney that had it not been for Hurricane Sandy, he might have won the election.

ABC News offers the following transcript of the former GOP presidential nominee’s comments:

”I spoke with President Clinton the day before yesterday, he called and spent 30 minutes chatting with me. He said a week out I thought you were going to win. And he said, but the hurricane happened, and it gave the president a chance to be presidential, and to look bipartisan, and you know he got a little more momentum, and of course he also said that when he was watching Ann speak at the Republican convention, he decided he was tempted to join the Republican Party. So he may have just been effusive with generous comments as he chatted.”

Clinton, of course, served as one of President Barack Obama’s chief surrogates in the latter months of the campaign, playing a significant role in breaking down and debunking the vague components of Romney’s proposed tax plan.

The former president would not be the first to frame Sandy for Romney’s loss. In the days leading up to the election, Republican strategist Karl Rove and aides within Romney’s campaign began pointing fingers at the hurricane for halting the candidate’s momentum. Republicans also decried top Romney surrogate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for lavishing the president with praise over his response efforts in the wake of the storm.

But the theory that Sandy is accountable for the president's victory is questionable. Little evidence in both national and swing state polling supported the idea that Romney had sustained the momentum he gained following the first presidential debate.

A spokesperson for Clinton did not immediately return a request for comment.

During the same call reflecting on his loss, Romney also attributed his defeat to "gifts" the president handed out to Latino, black and youth voters.

"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," he said. "He made a big effort on small things."

  |   November 13, 2012    8:41 AM ET

* A decade on, former president revisits health inequality

* Initial focus on Arkansas, California

* Verizon, NBC, General Electric among first partners

By Sharon Begley

NEW YORK, Nov 13 (Reuters) - In one of his last messages to the U.S. Congress as president, Bill Clinton declared disparities in health "unacceptable in a country that values equality and equal opportunity for all," and called for a national goal to eliminate the disparities by 2010.

It didn't happen. But what Clinton couldn't accomplish with his final-days fiat in 2001, he hopes to achieve through his William J. Clinton Foundation.

On Tuesday, he announced one of the foundation's most ambitious efforts yet: The Clinton Health Matters Initiative will try to close the gap in health based on income, race and education, and also take aim at preventable disease.

Health disparities and preventable illness "are robbing people of a lot of good years. We can't let that continue," Clinton said in an interview.

The two issues have proved to be among the most intractable in healthcare, and it is anyone's guess whether Clinton might succeed where others have failed. But his foundation is amassing a record of success on issues from HIV/AIDS in Africa, where it has persuaded drug companies to slash the price of anti-HIV drugs, to childhood obesity in the United States, partnering with beverage companies to get sugary drinks out of schools.

Clinton is taking a similar approach with the new initiatives, enlisting Verizon, General Electric Co. , Tenet Healthcare Corp. and NBC/Universal as corporate partners.

All four - which together employ some 600,000 people - will start or extend wellness programs in their workplaces and communities to fight preventable illness through free exercise classes, organizing walking groups in poor neighborhoods, bringing farmers' markets to "food deserts" where grocery stores are rare and smoking-cessation programs.

The effort to reduce health disparities will start in California's Coachella Valley - where health disparities between communities like Palm Springs and neighboring rural towns are among the highest in the country - and Little Rock, Ark., Clinton's home state.

Verizon is rolling out a number of technologies to help cut the health gap between often-poor rural areas and wealthier suburbs and cities.

Among them, said Dr. Peter Tippett, chief medical officer of Verizon's health information technology practice, are networks that will allow rural doctors to send X-ray images and EKG readings to hospitals for analysis, wireless networks so patients can take their own blood pressure and other readings and have them sent to their doctor, and technology that automatically alerts a physician when a patient with a chronic disease takes a turn for the worse.


Reducing health disparities is not only a matter of justice, Clinton said, but also of economics.

"We're devoting more than 17 percent of our GDP for healthcare costs, and the next highest-spending countries - Germany and France - are at 11 or 12 percent," Clinton said in an interview. "But we're not getting healthier."

The U.S. ranks well below many other industrialized countries in infant mortality, deaths from heart disease and other measures.

If U.S. healthcare costs fell to the percentage of GDP of the next-highest-spending countries - the 6 percent savings is just under $1 trillion - "the savings could be used for pay raises and education and technology investments," Clinton said.

Some of the nation's poor health and resulting healthcare spending comes from the gap between rich and poor, black and white, educated and not.

Babies born to black U.S. women, for instance, are 1.5 to 3 times more likely to die than those born to white or Asian-American women, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said last year. While 29 percent of white Americans have hypertension, 42 percent of blacks do.

Wealth-based health disparities are just as stark. Poorer Americans are so much more likely than better-off ones to be hospitalized, largely due to preventable illnesses such as diabetes and asthma, that eliminating this rich-poor gap would prevent some 1 million hospitalizations and save $6.7 billion in health-care costs annually, found the CDC.

The Foundation has made forays into improving Americans' health in the past. With the American Heart Association, it formed the Alliance for a Healthier Generation in 2005 to reduce childhood obesity. The group forged an agreement with Coca Cola , PepsiCo, Dr Pepper Snapple and the American Beverage Association to remove most sugar-sweetened drinks from schools.

Treating preventable illnesses such as obesity-related diabetes already costs more than $150 billion a year and is poised to cost another $48 billion to $66 billion a year, Clinton said, citing a recent study by researchers at Columbia University. That contributes to the soaring cost of healthcare - now $2.6 trillion, or $8,400 per person and 18 percent of the economy.

"Big employers with a coherent culture of wellness can make a massive difference" by reducing preventable disease, Clinton said. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Progressive Group Already Taking Stand Against Secretary Of State Rumor

Zach Carter   |   November 12, 2012    1:31 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- The progressive advocacy group Demand Progress is taking a stand against Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), amid rumors that he is being considered as a potential replacement for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The group is arguing that Berman's work on a host of controversial Internet issues, particularly his advocacy for the Stop Online Piracy Act, disqualifies him from the position.

"It's outrageous that Berman's name is even being floated for secretary of state, where he'd play a key role in developing global Internet policy," Demand Progress executive director David Segal told HuffPost. "He's made a career of shilling for Hollywood, and Hollywood's been leading the charge for Internet censorship here at home and abroad -- backing SOPA, compelling the government to block access to scores of sites, and even having website owners extradited for posting links to Hollywood movies."

Berman's office was unavailable to comment on a federal holiday. Due to redistricting, this year Berman lost to fellow Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman in a bid for reelection.

SOPA failed in January 2012 after scores of Internet websites and advocates warned that it would violate free speech protections and do irreparable damage to the web. At the time, the Obama administration was divided over the legislation, with some officials who had longstanding relationships with the entertainment industry quietly praising the bill. But the State Department was packed with SOPA opponents, who viewed the bill as inconsistent with the department's own global call for Internet freedoms.

SOPA would have given the government wide powers to censor sites, including the ability to black out entire Internet domains based on the activity of a few users. Twitter, for instance, could be taken down over a tweet linking to an illegal song. This kind of activity, known as DNS blocking, has been explicitly criticized by the State Department when used in China.

Berman ensnared Clinton in a minor misunderstanding during the legislative wrangling over SOPA. In the late fall of 2011, Clinton wrote a noncommittal letter to Berman that argued ending illegal piracy and protecting Internet freedom were compatible policy goals. Although the letter was written prior to SOPA's introduction in the House, Berman and the Motion Picture Association of America touted the letter as evidence of support for the bill. The State Department was forced to clarify that it had not taken a position on the legislation, as the White House had not done so.

Berman is just one of several names that have been floated as a potential replacement for Clinton, who is widely expected to leave at the end of President Barack Obama's first term, a common move for cabinet officials. Others who are rumored to be up for consideration include Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Susan Rice, currently U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

  |   November 5, 2012    7:59 AM ET

RALEIGH, N.C. -- By Sunday, Bill Clinton sounded awful, as if he had been gargling with Liquid-Plumr.