http://thehillaryiknow.com/video/6

* sigh *

September 22, 2008

Clinton Adds Her Voice to Opposition to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s Visit to New York

Tells Rally Organizers That Iran Must Not Be Permitted Nuclear Weapons 

Clinton Reaffirms Commitment to Israel’s Security and Pledge to Deny Iran’s Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons

“We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on National Childhood Cancer Awareness Day

Senator Obama’s plan to declare himself the Democratic nominee tomorrow night in Iowa (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10184.html) is a slap in the face to the millions of voters in the remaining primary states and to Senator Clinton’s 17 million supporters.
There is no scenario under the rules of the Democratic National Committee by which Senator Obama will be able to claim the nomination tomorrow night. He will not have 2210 delegates, the number needed with Florida and Michigan included in the process, nor will he have 2025 delegates, the number needed to secure the nomination without Florida and Michigan.
Premature victory laps and false declarations of victory are unwarranted. Declaring mission accomplished does not make it so.
While Senator Obama inaccurately declares himself the nominee, Senator Clinton will continue to work hard, campaigning for every vote in the upcoming states and making the case that she will be the best nominee to take on John McCain and be our next President.

“We have made tremendous strides in the fight against childhood cancer, but far too many children still suffer and lose their lives to this illness. The more we know as a nation the better able we will be to prevent and treat the disease and help those who are battling and surviving pediatric cancers. National Childhood Cancer Awareness Day is an opportunity to reach out to all Americans with the facts about childhood cancer, and this day will be an important symbol of our commitment on all days to find a cure,” said Senator Clinton.

Allard and Clinton Introduce “National Childhood Cancer Awareness Day” Resolution

Ed Koch Commentary May 10, 2008

Senator Barack Obama won the North Carolina primary by 14 percentage points. Senator Hillary Clinton won the Indiana primary by a narrower margin of two percent. Neither candidate scored a knockout punch, but Obama came out ahead.

Clearly Senator Obama who had the most to lose – it would have been considered a huge loss if Indiana went big for Hillary – also had the most to gain. The race goes on and will go on until a decision is made at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The fat lady here is Hillary, and she won’t sing. I’m part of her primary campaign until she wins or withdraws. I simply do not trust Senator Obama’s judgment.

Obama’s actions in not standing up to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and protest the minister’s attacks on white America, the United States government and the State of Israel, and his support of Minister Louis Farrakhan, are important matters. No one accuses Obama of adopting any of Rev. Wright’s positions as his own. Indeed, he has denounced them. But his denouncement comes 20 years too late and only after Rev. Wright denounced his heretofore devoted congregant as a hypocrite for conveying his disagreement with his minister, stating at the National Press Club on April 28th, “We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected. Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors.”

Yes, it is true that not many people would stand up in a church or synagogue and publicly argue with their minister, but surely, there are some who would argue privately – which was not done here – and even more who would leave a church or synagogue that was led by someone spouting hateful speech.

In any event, we expect more courage from a candidate for president of this great country. We are now engaged in a war against Islamic terrorism and are in need of someone who can be trusted to advocate on behalf of the United States. Senator Obama, regrettably, was silent for too long.

An even more telling incident recently occurred. Hillary Clinton responded to the threats of the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stated, “The annihilation of the Zionist regime will come…Israel must be wiped off the map…And God willing…we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.”

This week, according to The New York Times, “Ahmadinejad called Israel ‘a stinking corpse’ that was doomed to fail, and warned countries that they would ‘burn in the fire of their people’s hatred’ if they helped Israel, the news agency IRNA reported. ‘Today the reason for Zionist regime’s existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation,’ he said in a speech on the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state.”

We know that were Iran, which is on the verge of creating nuclear weapons and already has the capacity to deliver them, ever to launch such missiles at the United States or any NATO ally, it could expect immediate oblivion as the result of the U.S. response. Hillary recently attempted to warn Iran that were it to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, the U.S. “would be able to totally obliterate them.” Hillary’s comments were totally in keeping with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which kept the Soviet Union at bay during the Cold War when it threatened its European neighbors and members of NATO.

Instead of joining Hillary in a similar warning to Iran, Senator Obama on “Meet The Press” criticized Hillary stating, “It’s language reflective of George Bush…This kind of language is not helpful.”

Hillary’s language is exactly what was warranted. The Soviet Union understood the meaning of mutually assured destruction and consequently refrained from using its nuclear inventory. Lesser language conveying not destruction or obliteration, but simply lesser punishment encourages fanatical countries like Iran to believe they can attack our allies and survive.

Hillary’s statement regarding Iran and Israel was consistent with U.S. policy towards Israel. As Vice President Dick Cheney has said, “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel’s destruction. The United States will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security.”

We now know just how far Senator Obama is prepared to go to defend our friends and allies. It is not far enough.

I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the people of Israel on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the establishment as a state and homeland for the Jewish people, and I join all the friends of Israel who celebrate today with joy and pride.

Emerging after the tragedy of the Holocaust, the Jewish State was reborn after two thousand years, fulfilling the biblical prophecy of a return to Zion. Since then, in just three score years, Israel has welcomed Jewish exiles from Europe, the Arab world, Africa, and the former Soviet Union.

From my first trip to Israel in 1982 to my most recent visit in 2005, I have seen for myself Israel’s achievements – and its challenges. The people of Israel, proud and free and always triumphing in the face of adversity, have built a strong and vibrant democracy, a diverse and rich society, and an innovative and thriving economy.

Yet today, even as we celebrate all that Israel has achieved, we know that the Jewish state is still not safe. In every generation, Israel faces serious challenges to its security and threats to its existence. And just as the United States recognized Israel at birth, and has always stood by Israel when its survival and well-being were challenged, so too do the American people stand by Israel today, united by shared values and strong bonds of friendship.

As President of the United States, I will be proud to continue and strengthen these bonds, so that the State of Israel will continue to grow, from generation to generation, in security and peace.

Am Yisrael Chai! (the people of Israel live!)

“This week, we remember the millions of men, women, and children who perished during the Holocaust; and as we do, we ask, ‘What must we do to ensure that this kind of destruction will never happen again?’

“We reflect on the lives that were lost, the courage of those who stood up to the Nazis, like the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising; and those of all faiths who risked everything to save lives. On this somber day, I am also reminded of the Holocaust survivors that came to this country, and who have greatly enriched our nation with their talent, energy, and dreams. Their stories and their willingness to share them will guarantee that future generations will never forget.

“The lessons of the Holocaust call us to act. As my friend, Elie Wiesel, said, ‘…to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all…’ Let us today renew our pledge that we will not be indifferent to moral injustice in the world; that we will not remain silent; and that we will speak out against crimes against humanity, threats of extermination, and genocide, such as that now being perpetuated in Darfur. We must act so that we may truly say to the world, ‘Never again.’”

WASHINGTON, DC Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today hailed the opening of the Holocaust archives in Bad Arolsen, Germany.  The archives hold an estimated 50 million records that disclose the fate of 17.5 million victims, and for the first time the archives are fully open to the public.

At last, Holocaust survivors and their families may find answers they’ve been seeking for six decades.  The archive’s opening will unearth long-buried information about so many who perished, and learning about their tragic fates is a part of our commitment to never forget.  As we near Holocaust Remembrance Day, I welcome the opening of the archives at Bad Arolsen and hope that its holdings will shed some light on one of the darkest chapters of the last century,” said Senator Clinton.

The Bad Arolsen archives long remained the largest closed World War II-era archives in the world, holding an estimated 50 million records that disclose the fate of some 17.5 million victims. Opening the archives to the public required each of the 11 member countries of the International Commission of the International Tracing Service (ITS) to ratify the May 2006 amendments to the 1955 Bonn Accords. On November 28, 2007, the final country ratified the agreement.

Senator Clinton has long supported allowing unfettered public access to the Holocaust archive.  In May 2007, the Senate passed a resolution introduced by Senator Clinton urging these ITS countries to complete the process and open the archives.  Last December Senator Clinton along with Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced resolutions praising the ITS countries’ ratification of the of the May 2006 amendments.

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today condemned Republican efforts to block debate and passage of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, of which Senator Clinton is an original co-sponsor. She urged her colleagues to join her in supporting this important legislation.

“This legislation will spur pioneering research into the links between environmental hazards and chronic conditions such as breast cancer. Greater federal investment in breast cancer research could hold the key to prevention or survival for millions of women across our country. This could not be a more critical issue,” Senator Clinton said. “It is outrageous that this vital life-saving effort is being held up by petty procedural politics here in the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together to support this legislation.”

Breast Cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. Three million women in the United States are currently living with breast cancer, one million of whom have not yet been diagnosed. On average, over 13,000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed each year in New York State, with about 3,000 annual deaths caused by this disease.

The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would establish Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Centers of Excellence in order to conduct collaborative research on environmental factors that are linked to breast cancer. It would also establish a panel of experts, including patient advocates, to develop a comprehensive strategy for research in this area. Senator Clinton welcomed approval of the bill by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in February. She previously called for passage of the legislation in 2007 and 2006.

Several New York universities are already engaging in innovative research in this area. In 2006, Senator Clinton visited Cornell University’s Sprecher Institute for Comparative Cancer Research and met with researchers from their program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors, who are working to translate this research to help women understand and minimize their environmentally-connected risks.

Senator Clinton has long been active in promoting increased research into links between health and the environment. In 2001, she worked with her colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to hold a field hearing in Long Island on the possible links between the environment and breast cancer. She has also introduced the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act, which would establish a nationwide tracking network to help identify connections between disease and environment, develop a response system for addressing public health threats, and expand the biomonitoring work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

On Hillary Clinton:

A lot of the stuff people say about her, I hear it and my stomach falls because it’s so sexist. You ask people why they don’t like her and it’s because her husband cheated on her! That was obviously not her choice. She’s so much more polished and experienced than anyone else. Last night, a friend, a social worker in L.A. who works with underprivileged kids, was saying how these girls who have never been interested in politics before are so excited that a woman might be president. I mean, look how many women are in government…Hillary’s one of, what, [a handful of] female senators?

I also like Obama. I even like McCain. I disagree with his war stance–which is a really big deal–but I think he’s a very moral person. I met him and Hillary on the same day, actually, when I went to Washington with Finca [a nonprofit that gives loans to businesswomen in developing countries]. Hillary was by far the smartest person I met that day. Just totally focused, and knew more about the issues than anyone else, and was so able to go from one thing to the other.

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Terrorist Attack in Jerusalem

Washington, DC – “My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families who are suffering the loss and horror of this despicable act of terrorism. The United States and the international community must make clear that such deplorable acts of terrorism will not be tolerated and we must continue to stand with Israel in its fight against terror.”

Arab terrorists entered the library in a jewish seminary in Jerusalem and sprayed the place with what some report to have been between five and siz hundred bullets. Eight young students were murdered and over a dozen more injured. [See here and here]

It seems as though thus far, several hours after the attack, that Senator Clinton is the only one of the three people hoping to become the next US president that has even bothered to or cared to say anything or to take a stand regarding this horrific event.

UPDATE: 116 Photos of the carnage and aftermath | More

I recall watching Obama’s stump speech late one Saturday night after he had swept the Potomac primaries. After 30 minutes or so, I was beginning to believe him. I was, to put it simply, inspired. But, as he continued to speak, I understood why I could never vote for this man. I still do not know anything about him.

For the past few months I have been running a political campaign for a state race. I have been able to see and hear more than one presidential candidate along the way. I noticed, after conversing with different demographics, that young Jewish voters were the most out of touch and misinformed.

Why is Paris Hilton famous? She fulfills two main criteria for a movie star: good looks and the media spotlight. Therefore it would make sense to put in her the movies, wouldn’t it? No, not at all.

So why do so many young Jews love Obama? Ask any of his followers and they will give you the same answers. “He is new.” “We need a change.” “Anything but Bush.” “End the war.” Etcetera, etcetera. I am ashamed and frankly worried that so many young Jews are infatuated with this man. Why is Obama the “best” option? Maybe he fulfills the two criteria for a great politician: an amazing ability to speak and the media spotlight. But what is missing, as for the infamous Paris, is why that makes him the best candidate.

Obama began his political grab for the most powerful position on earth in 2004 during the Democratic convention, when he wooed the masses, and the minority vote, to stump for the Democratic Party. I do not think his young followers know that, nor the old. He used that forum to springboard into the Illinois senate seat. Did we hear anything of his time serving as senator? Did Obama author or pass legislation? Did he vote for most bills presented to him? Do most of the young voters who love him know or care? The truth is, he didn’t even have time to make an impact; he was too busy preparing for his presidential bid.

I am not telling people not to vote for him. I am asking young Jews to do the most Jewish of things: Ask questions. I want a president who will finally make a positive difference like anyone else, but I am afraid of what can come of someone who has absolutely no track record. Realizing that the president always has a leather briefcase containing a button to activate nuclear weapons, it is important to know more about whoever holds it.

There are many problems a young Jew should have with Obama. For one, he says he wants to repair our image in the Muslim world. Shouldn’t they be repairing their image? What do the majority of Israel- and America-haters across the Muslim world have in common? They have never met a Jew and want us dead. Yet many young Jewish voters want a president who will appease their interests. We are taught to be competitive, get into good schools and get great jobs, yet why are we ashamed of our country that is just as competitive? Striving to be the best has made our lives in this country great. I do not know why we would be ashamed of it.

If you were a football coach and a kid came out of nowhere and told you to put him in as the quarterback, would you listen? What if it was for the Super Bowl? Chances are no. But it is the same with Obama. He comes out of nowhere and tells us all his ideas and hopes, but there is no true way of knowing what he can or will do. Too many times in history, people — especially young Jews — have gotten onto the bandwagon because it was different and the times needed “a-changing.” The lessons are still felt today. It is a matter of education. I would never make a decision without studying the facts. I know what the other candidates can and will try to do, but I do not know what to expect from Obama. When it comes to the most powerful position on earth, it is sad to say that young Jews are voting for one person because he seems, like Paris Hilton, “hot.”

Too many young Jews are busy watching their TiVo-ed shows or worrying about where they are going out that night. All I ask is that you get informed and get involved. I do not think we all understand the impact of this election. Young and old, make sure to ask questions, because if not, the consequences could be dire. Get informed and vote wisely.

His Eloquence, The Would-Be President
Posted February 27, 2008 | 02:31 PM (EST) SYLVIA WELSH

In the past several weeks, as the democratic race for the nomination comes to its dramatic conclusion, a consistent theme voiced by supporters of each of the two candidates has increasingly revolved around a “war of words.” The argument, on both sides, is that the other candidate is the one whose words cannot be trusted. In this war, the consensus appears to be that Barack Obama is the clear winner, the poet, the “man of words.” This is alternately cited as either his greatest strength or his biggest weakness.

While His Eloquence is undisputed, his authorship has been. Ignoring the doubters of His Eloquence, just yesterday Alec MacGillis in the Washington Post declared that Obama’s most “powerful weapon has been the oldest [of weapons] – words.” Adding to His Eloquence’s aura, Arianna Huffington definitively stated that it was, in fact, Hillary, and not Barack, who should be compared to Bush in her use of words.

Here are some examples of what MacGillis and Huffington would no doubt agree are the “powerful weapons” of eloquent words:

[The greatest generation] “was a generation of Americans who stormed beaches, liberated concentration camps and delivered us from evil. Some never came home.Those who put their medals in drawers went to work and built, on a heroic scale, highways and universities, suburbs and factories, great cities and grand alliances — the strong foundations of an American Century.

Now the question comes to the sons and daughters of this achievement: What is asked of us?

This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation. Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, likes times of crisis, are tests of American character.

Prosperity can be a tool in our hands, used to build and better our country. Or it can be a drug in our system — dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty.

Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment….We will seize this moment of American promise.

We will confront the hard issues — threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security — before the challenges of our time become crises for our children…

This nation is daring and decent and ready for change…

But this administration, during eight years of increasing need, did nothing. They had their moment. They have not led. I will.

Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values, to show we have grown up before we grow old…

But when the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them….

We must teach our children the values that defeat violence. I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life, the life of the elderly and the sick, and the life of the young…

A hundred years from now, this must not be remembered as an age rich in possessions and poor in ideals…

Should I become President, I will work to call upon the best of the nation. A leader’s responsibility is to understand that the great armies of compassion, which exist all across America, must be rallied to make sure no one gets left behind.

It is the role of a leader to share wisdom, to share experience with people who are looking for someone to lead.

I understand the awesome responsibility of this job. I understand the serious undertaking of answering to the calls of mothers and fathers who I see all the time around America, who come to my rallies and hold a picture of their child and look me in the eye and say, ‘Never let us down again.’ I hear those calls.

This country is ready for change. It’s ready for bipartisan leadership. It’s ready for a leader who will bring this great country together. This country wants a leader who understands how to lead, how to bring folks together.

I stand squarely with the people. There’s a big difference in philosophy in this campaign. I’m running against a candidate of Washington, by Washington and for Washington. Mine is a campaign that stands squarely on the side of the people and the families and the workers of America.

It’s time for a leader to bring Republicans and Democrats together. After eight years of partisan bickering and name-calling, it’s time for new leadership to bring Republicans and Democrats together, to be able to say that a promise made is a promise kept, to reject old-style politics that tries to frighten folks, to reject the old business of trying to tear someone down while the issues still remain.

Now is the time for new leadership that understands we must trust younger people…

Now is the time, now is the time, for Republicans and Democrats to end the politics of fear…

On principle, those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help. The world needs America’s strength and leadership.

Thus spoke His Eloquence. However, in the words cited above, His Eloquence is not, as one would suspect, Barack Obama. His Eloquence was a candidate running for President in 2000. His Eloquence was George W. Bush, speaking at the Republican National Convention.

His Eloquence won. And the world lost.

“The main reason she wins and will continue to win the majority of the Jewish vote is this is a community very much about ‘Show me, don’t tell me,’”
“With Senator Obama, although he says all the right things, he just doesn’t have that longevity to prove to Jewish voters that he will be there like Hillary Clinton.”

Asked if there was anything specific in Mr. Obama’s record that should give Jewish voters pause, the congresswoman said, “There’s no pause. It’s just that he’s starting completely from scratch.”

BW asks Clinton about the difference between the tone of her remarks over two days, shows clips of her closing at the last debate and harsh words on the trail for Obama.

She responds that its a contested race…mentions fliers and mailers that have been disturbing, and that she must stand up for herself for informed decision making of voters. She cites a line he used about her health care proposals…she met people in the rain without healtchare, and says they should have an accurate debate in facts about her plan for affordable healthcare that covers everyone and that his plan does not cover everyone. debates should cover actual factual accurate information.

BW asks about the Drudge photos of Obama in the OSmali garb and asks if it came from the Clinton Campaign. She says no evidence, she doesn’t know and if it was she would dismiss the perpetrator.

Obama says he takes her at her word about the photo.

He goes to the inacurate mailer about her healthcare plan. He says their 2 plans are 95% similar.  He sites her negative mailers. he disputes her assertions that she would cover more people than he, he says it is a mandate that everyone should purchase healthcare. he says the mailer says she would force people to get purchase hc even if they couldnt aford it.

Hillary Clinton backed a call by the American Jewish Committee to fund training for foreign police to combat hate crime.

In congressional testimony earlier this month, Andrew Baker, the AJC’s director of international Jewish affairs, said the U.S. State Department had stopped funding for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Law Enforcement Officer’s Program.
The program is headed by Paul Goldenberg, an AJC consultant.
In a statement Friday, Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is vying with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for the Democratic presidential nomination, said she joined congressional colleagues in writing a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging further funding for such programs.
“Now is not the time to reduce our commitment to this important issue or to send the signal that combating anti-Semitism is no longer a top priority for the United States,” Clinton’s statement said. “I urge the administration to reconsider these reductions in support for the OSCE and work with the Congress to keep the United States at the forefront of the fight against anti-Semitism.”

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Former President William Jefferson Clinton on the Death of Congressman Tom Lantos

Washington, DC – “We are deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Congressman Tom Lantos. The courageous and improbable journey of his life was an inspiration to his constituents and to all of us who knew him. Tom was just sixteen years old when the Nazis occupied his native Hungary and he lost much of his family to the Holocaust. In those dark days, Tom bore witness to the worst of human cruelty and devoted his life to stopping it. And so he came to America with nothing but the clothes on his back and the ideals he described in an essay that won him a college scholarship. Those ideals, combined with his optimism, intelligence, and hard work, would eventually lead this self-described ‘penniless immigrant’ to the halls of the United States Congress. Despite all that Tom experienced – or perhaps because of it – he understood in his bones that we have a profound duty to one another. Tom taught us to stand up for what’s right especially when it was hard. We will always cherish our memories of him and our thoughts are with his wife, Annette, his daughters, and all those who knew and loved him.”

“It is very exciting,” Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign with a key role in outreach to the Jewish community, told JTA. “We got a lot of happy volunteers. Now they’re celebrating. This is a pretty good moment.”
…

The emphasis in the Obama camp of inspiration over issues provided an opening for Clinton to recast the decision facing voters in more favorable terms.

In her victory speech Tuesday night, she said she had listened to New Hampshire voters and “found my own voice.” She also framed the choice in the campaign as one between talk and action, speaking of the need to “deliver” on the American dream — a subtle but pointed slap at Obama’s lofty rhetoric.

Clinton’s emphasis on experience would seem to have the potential of playing well among American Jews, who according to a survey conducted in November by the American Jewish Committee find her to be the most favorable candidate.

Clinton held an especially commanding lead among Jewish Democrats, with a 70 percent rating. Obama ranked third at 45 percent, slightly behind John Edwards at 48 percent.

Some political observers speculate that the wide margin is attributable to strong Jewish support for the Bill Clinton administration and to Hillary Clinton’s seven years as a New York senator, during which she has invested a great deal of time reaching out to Jewish organizations.

“As the campaign field narrows, it is easier and easier to make that comparison” between Clinton and Obama, said Lewis. “More and more people see the strong differences between what these candidates offer. We’re really in a two-person race at this point.”

Make no mistake. Hilaary understands. She is aware of the real serious threat posed by Iran and Ahmedinejad. This is a fundamental difference between her and Senator Obama.

JTA: “From Suha embrace to Iran hawk, Clinton now most favored by Jews“

Whereas Bill Clinton could name the streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, opine on Zionist history and deliver a persuasive “Shalom chaver” at Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral, Hillary Clinton’s repertoire was limited to introducing an Israeli early childhood education program to Arkansas.

As late as December 1998, during the couple’s visit to Israel, the first lady’s affiliation with the Hebrew University’s Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, known as HIPPY, was the centerpiece of her leg of the visit.

It didn’t help her profile among Jews that the Clinton administration used her as a stalking horse to advocate for a Palestinian state. Then in 1999, on the eve of her first bid for the U.S. Senate, she embraced Suha Arafat after the Palestinian leader’s wife accused Israel of deliberately poisoning Palestinian children. Clinton said later she hadn’t been paying close attention to the simultaneous translation.

It soon became clear, however, that she was willing to listen. Some of the signals were politics-as-usual horse-trading. President Clinton’s final pardons included four residents of the Chasidic enclave in New Square, N.Y. , who had been convicted of defrauding the government. She received overwhelming support from the town during the election.

Once elected to the Senate, Clinton reached out to Jewish organizational leaders and soon became a staple of the Jewish circuit. Hardly a Washington event run by a national Jewish group does not include an address by Clinton — often on Tuesday morning, just before delegates go to the Capitol to lobby.

On many issues, particularly in the domestic arena, little gap exists between Clinton and the predominantly liberal Jewish organizational community. As first lady, Clinton had an established record promoting universal health care, and as senator she worked hard to stop Bush administration rollbacks on the Medicare program, which is almost universally favored by a Jewish population aging more rapidly than other Americans.

In other areas Clinton exhibited a subtle grasp of issues that concern the community, strongly backing discretionary Homeland Security funds to help protect nonprofits from terrorist attack. The bulk of those funds have gone to Jewish institutions.

She also has adopted as her own a campaign to press Arab governments to remove incitment against Jews and Israel from their textbooks.

Clinton took a hit last fall from her party’s base when she voted in favor of a nonbinding amendment that recommended sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. Bush eventually ordered the sanctions, favored by the pro-Israel lobby as a means of pressing Iran to give up its suspected nuclear weapons program.

That drew sharp criticism from her competitors, who said the vote would embolden the Bush administration into waging war against Iran. She stood her ground.

“Iran is seeking nuclear weapons,” she said in an Oct. 30 MSNBC-sponsored debate. “And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism.”

She added: “I prefer vigorous diplomacy, and I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy.”

It was straight from the pro-Israel playbook, and it illustrates what has attracted not only Jewish voter support but, perhaps even more substantively, Jewish fund-raiser support.

Two of her major backers in this campaign supported polar opposites among the Democrats in 2004: Lonnie Kaplan of New Jersey went for Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and his tough foreign policy, and Steve Grossman opted for ex-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who was fiercely anti-war.

At a National Jewish Democratic Council candidates’ forum last spring, Grossman and Kaplan, both former presidents of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, sat next to each other and conferred occasionally on their favored candidate: Hillary Clinton.

10. Macabee, Huckabee – Same difference
9. OyBama in ‘Oy8
8. John McCain: “Yes” is my last name.
7. Mitt Romney: Yaakov had four wives!
6. Chris Ani l’Doddi Li
5. Fred Thompson: Let’s face it, I learned everything I know from Steve Hill
4. Bill Richardson: Cause New Mexico is the next Florida for Pesach
3. My last name is Bloomberg
2. I put the Jew in Guiliani
1. Hillary – A Rebbetzin No Longer

What-ever.
Here is a link to real actual campaign slogans over the last 150 years.

Rah, rah.

As of Dec. 28, Clinton had rounded up 76 congressional endorsements, including the bulk of the Jewish congressional delegation that has declared its support. Among Clinton’s supporters are some of the most familiar Jewish political names in the country: U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer, as well as U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), whose sister, Ann Lewis advises the former First Lady. All told, 14 Jewish members of Congress are backing Clinton. Besides Hodes, Obama has been endorsed by only three Jewish members: Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).

Clinton leads in Jewish political endorsements

FULL STORY 

See actual letter here.

Download the full PDF here: http://clinton.senate.gov/documents/media_safety_guide.pdf

We hope our friends at Hatzolah are paying attention to important matters like this…

Clinton: President’s Cuts Would Have Drastic Impact on New York’s Homeland Security Efforts Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today, amid recent reports the Administration plans to drastically slash homeland security funds for first responders, called on the President to reconsider these cuts, and to provide information regarding how any reduction to homeland security funding would make our nation safer. In a letter today to President Bush, Senator Clinton cited the importance of federal homeland security dollars for our nation’s police, firefighters, and other first responders, and the effect such drastic budget cuts would have on port and transit security and local emergency management operations in New York and through the country.

“With the Administration’s own findings in their National Intelligence Estimate that our homeland is under a ‘heightened threat environment,’ and that Al Qaeda is undiminished in its goal in attacking us here at home, it is unconscionable that the President’s budget would seek to slash the federal funding for homeland security by more than half,” said Senator Clinton. “While large urban areas like New York continue to remain high profile targets, we must do everything possible to ensure that our first responders are provided with the funding and resources that are critical to their success on the frontline of our homeland security efforts. I am profoundly disappointed in the President’s plan, and will continue to press this issue until our nation’s first responders receive the funding necessary to get the job done.”

Senator Clinton’s letter to President Bush is attached -

December 1, 2007
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Recent reports indicate that in your Fiscal Year 2009 budget, you intend to drastically slash homeland security funds for our first responders. A recent National Intelligence Estimate could not have been clearer when it said that our homeland is under a “heightened threat environment” and that Al Qaeda is undeterred and determined to attack us here at home. In October of this year, you issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security, which detailed many of the threats against our nation.

In light of these facts, it is unimaginable to hear that you would cut funding for our nation’s law enforcement, firefighters, and other first responders by more than half. According to news accounts, your plan for the coming year includes the elimination of programs for port security, transit security and local emergency management operations. Reductions like this to some of the core functions of our homeland security would be extremely irresponsible. Your budget outlines the fiscal priorities for the coming year. If these news reports are correct, then I believe you have greatly underestimated the threats we face. Securing our homeland requires constant vigilance and we must do everything within our power to improve our level of preparedness. These reported cuts undermine those efforts. As a Senator from New York, I know first hand the importance of these critical programs and the drastic impact any funding reductions would have to New York’s, as well as to our nation’s homeland security efforts.

For the sake of our nation’s homeland defense I implore you to reconsider any proposed cuts to our critical homeland security programs. Before any proposed reductions in funding for our homeland security, I respectfully request that you provide a detailed plan on how any reduction in critical homeland security funds would make our country safer. Homeland security funding decisions should be completely based on the threats facing our homeland, not any political considerations.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton

• October 30th 2003: http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_senate.asx
• February 8th 2007: http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Hillary6.asx
• February 8th 2007b: http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Itamar11.asx

“Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.”
Streisand has been active in Democratic politics for more than 40 years, performing at fund-raisers and participating in campaign events. She was a major supporter of President Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband.
The singer added that she believes Hillary Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal health care and rebuilding the economy, as well as providing moral leadership.
Clinton, the front-runner in the Democratic race, said she was “honored to have Barbra’s support.”
“Barbra has used her immense talent to be an advocate for truth, justice and fairness,” Clinton said, “and I deeply appreciate her confidence in my candidacy as we work together to change the direction of our nation.”

Here is a link to the Full Press release, posted at Campaign Confidential

Before delving into the specific charges offered by Kramer, it is important to note that Senator Clinton has been a great supporter of Israel throughout her career, and is one of Israel’s strongest friends in the US Senate. She led the charge for Red Cross recognition of Magen David Adom and has an impeccable voting record.If Hillary were but a fair weather friend of Israel, as Kramer suggests, she surely would not enjoy the immense popularity she has seen in New York. One simply does not get re-elected in the Empire State with 67% of the vote if there is even a smidgeon of legitimate doubt about one’s support for Israel.

Here is what the Orthodox newspaper, The Jewish Press, which opposed Clinton in 2000, wrote in support of her candidacy for re-election to the Senate in 2006: “As regards Israel, she has become an important supporter of the Jewish state both in public and, perhaps more importantly, behind the scenes. She is held in the highest regard by those who regularly plead Israel’s cause in the halls of government. For those who initially were wary of her positions on Middle East issues – and we include ourselves in that category – Ms. Clinton has proved to be a pleasant and welcome surprise ….”

AS FOR Kramer’s specific arguments, to say he is fishing for a reason to bash Senator Clinton is an understatement. For instance, he takes a paragraph from the Senator’s recent Foreign Affairs article, “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-First Century” and claims that it is “loaded with allusions and references that the casual reader is likely to miss, but that send a clear signal on the high frequency of the ‘peace process.’ The message is this: a Hillary administration would constantly busy itself with Israeli-Palestinians talks, regardless of their prospects, and would strive to avoid any appearance of partiality – toward Israel.”

Kramer’s assertion is patently absurd, as is apparent to anyone who reads the passage in question. Here is the passage that Kramer suggests is filled with anti-Israeli “signals”: Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. US diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent US involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

If this passage were truly objectionable, surely Kramer would say the same about the Bush Administration’s efforts to broker Israeli-Palestinian agreements at Annapolis. And what, Mr. Kramer, are we to think of Condoleezza Rice’s assertion that “We appear to be on course to prepare seriously for continuous ongoing negotiations,” and that “I can really say without fear of contradiction that everybody’s goal is the creation” of a Palestinian state?”

Perhaps the biggest discernable difference in Kramer’s eyes is that Clinton’s comments were made by a Democrat – and political foe – while Rice’s were made by a Republican political ally. Mr. Kramer is a member of Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy team.

To attempt to demagogue the Israel issue, as Kramer has done in his piece about Senator Clinton, is counterproductive to all of us who care about the future of the US-Israel relationship. This type of tawdry political stunt serves only to cheapen the political discourse. The true best interests of Israel have been, are, and will continue to be best served through a strong, bipartisan consensus.

Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton has, by far, the most experience dealing with the Middle East of all the likely presidential candidates, according to Schenker.
However, history tells us that “a candidate who becomes President changes his policy once in office,” observed Steve Goldberg, a Los Angeles lawyer who serves as the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America. “Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were unequivocal in their support of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem when they were running for President, but neither kept his promise. Pro-Israel advocates in the United States expect that a President will not keep all of his or her promises once elected.”
He pointed out that although “she [Senator Clinton] wants Jerusalem to stay the indivisible capital, there is a prevailing view that she would actively broker an agreement with the Palestinians, even if it included sharing the sovereignty of Jerusalem.”
Senator Clinton “has been very active in Israel for a very long time,” Schenker claimed. “Her time as First Lady [married to former President Bill Clinton] gave her a lot of experience in the Middle East. She has visited there many times and has been active in promoting the peace process, along with her husband. Senator Clinton does the most important thing to help: she promotes the peace process,” he added.
Schenker also revealed that if elected, Senator Clinton plans to appoint a senior ambassador to the Middle East to work specifically on Israeli-Arab peace. He stated that the other Democratic candidates share similar positions on the Middle East, although most of them have not taken specific positions beyond maintaining they are friends of the Jewish state.

An underlying issue of all these acknowlegements is the fact that the focus alluded to is on peace, whereas the current Bush / Rice game is focused specifically on the foremost goal of a Palestinian State, with peace being the afterthought.

(First lady…1st First Lady…First Woman…)

[ Personal Note: I will never forget as a young kid in grade school how they grilled it into our heads how great it was and what an amazing time in history in which we were living when for the very first time, there was a Woman on a major party national ticket. Amazing, that it has taken us another 25 years to get as close to that wonder as we are now]

October 02, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Morton A. Klein, 212-481-1500 http://www.zoa.org/2007/10/senator_clinton.htm

Hillary Clinton makes it clear that Israel can’t go back to pre-67 borders

New York — Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has recently reiterated a position she originally enunciated in 1999 when she stated that, “I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel” and also called for secure, defensible borders for Israel. Senator Clinton’s office has issued a paper, ‘Hillary Clinton: A Long History of Strong and Steadfast Leadership for the U.S.-Israel Relationship,’ which states that “Hillary Clinton believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned” ( New York Sun, September 17).

Senator Clinton’s stance is in line with Congressional support for the indivisibility of Jerusalem. In 1995, the U.S. Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which calls for the U.S. Embassy to Israel to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Regrettably since that time, both Presidents Clinton and Bush have exercised waivers to defer implementing this law, passed by overwhelming 90% plus majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Senator Clinton’s support for defensible borders for Israel is also important and consistent with the way these were explicitly defined by the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. In his last address to the Knesset, delivered on October 5, 1995, one month before his assassination, Prime Minister Rabin said that in his peace vision, the

State of Israel … will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state … “The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines … The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term … [Israel will undertake] the establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria … The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.

There is a growing number of military and Middle East experts as well as others who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian State, arguing it would only become another terrorist entity, not a viable democracy. They include former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya’alon; former head of the CIA, R. James Woolsey; Mideast scholar, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University, Bernard Lewis; Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum and former New York Mayor, Rudolf Giuliani. ZOA’s Morton A. Klein has noted that Iran, North Korea, and Syria are sovereign states, yet are not peace-loving in consequence and that statehood does not guarantee a peaceful law-abiding country or society but on the contrary may only strengthen the promotion of violence and extremism espoused by the underlying culture

FLASHBACK: (just sayin…)
Bush’s Call For Return To 1967 Borders Conflicts With Promises Made To Sharon

June 03, 2004  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  Contact: Morton A. Klein, 212-481-1500 http://www.zoa.org/2004/06/zoa_bushs_call.htm NEW YORK- The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is requesting clarification of the apparent contradiction between President Bush’s latest call for Israel to return to the indefensible 1967 borders, and the promise he made to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon less than two months ago that Israel would not be expected to return to those borders.
In his remarks at the United States Air Force Academy Graduation Ceremony on June 2, 2004, President Bush described his “Road Map” plan as “the most reliable guide to ending the occupation that began in 1967.”
But in his April 16 meeting with Prime Minister Sharon, at the White House, President Bush said that “it is unrealistic to expect … a full and complete return” by Israel to the pre-1967 borders.
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: “We respectfully request that President Bush clarify the apparent contradiction between his latest statement and his promises to Sharon. We hope that the administration has not returned to the old State Department position of demanding that Israel retreat to the indefensible 1967 borders, leaving Israel just nine miles wide at its vulnerable mid-section which is why Abba Eban described those borders as ‘Auschwitz lines’.”
The ZOA notes that there have been additional indications that the Bush administration has backtracked on the promises to Sharon, including the May 3 Quartet statement that Israel “must end the Israeli occupation that began in 1967″; the May 6 statement by President Bush, after meeting with Jordanian King Abdullah II, that the U.S. would not take any positions that would “prejudice” negotiations over the borders; and President Bush’s May 17 speech to AIPAC, in which he conspicuously failed to reiterate the promises he made to Prime Minister Sharon even though he was speaking to a pro-Israel audience that would have appreciated such a statement.
The ZOA points out that the claim that there is still an Israeli ‘occupation’ of the Palestinian Arabs is a myth. Those parts of Judea-Samaria-Gaza where 98.5% of the Palestinian Arabs reside are under the rule of the Palestinian Authority, not Israel. The Israelis withdrew from those areas during 1994-1997. The PA currently rules more than 80% of the Gaza Strip and more than 40% of the Judea-Samaria territories. Those parts of Judea-Samaria that Israel still controls should be characterized as disputed, not occupied. No other country has a valid legal claim to the area, and even Jordan, which illegally occupied it from 1949-1967, publicly relinquished its claim in a speech by King Hussein back in 1988. Moreover, Israel’s legal, historical, and religious claim to those areas is far stronger than the claims of the Palestinian Arabs or any other party.