Secretary Clinton Launches No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project

………………………..

Since making the Foundation my new home this spring, I have met so many new people solving problems and driving change in people’s lives. And while I’ve gotten to know and learn from many of you, I am delighted to write to all of you for the first time.

Whether you’re a longtime supporter of the Foundation or a new partner, I am looking forward to working together to help more people in more places live up to their God-given potential.

On Friday, we announced a new initiative to accelerate the progress of women and girls at home and around the world. We call it No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project, and I hope you’ll be a part of it.

No Ceilings has its roots nearly twenty years ago, and we hope it will have an impact just as far into the future.
…………………

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

REMINDER:

Join Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton for Millennium Network San Francisco November 9

Millennium Network San Francisco
Saturday, November 9, 2013
7:00 PM – 10:00 PM
San Francisco

If you have any questions, please e-mail MN@clintonfoundation.org or call 646-775-9179.

If you are unable to attend, but would still like to make a donation to support the life-changing work of the Clinton Foundation, please click here.

http://www.clintonfoundation.org//millennium-network-san-francisco

Advertisement

Exclusive: Clinton returning to work next week

Thursday, December 27, 2012 – 5:06 PM

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will return to the State Department next week after three weeks of recovery from a stomach virus and a related concussion, The Cable has confirmed.

Clinton’s ongoing recovery will still prevent her from flying abroad, but will allow plans to move forward for her to testify in open hearing on the Sept. 11 attack on Benghazi, testimony that she was unable to give — as per her doctor’s orders — on Dec. 20. Her return to a public schedule could also end the weeks of conspiracy theorizing and wild speculation about whether or not she was faking or misrepresenting her illness to avoid testifying.

“The secretary continues to recuperate at home. She had long planned to take this holiday week off, so she had no work schedule. She looks forward to getting back to the office next week and resuming her schedule,” Clinton aide Philippe Reines told The Cable.

Reines declined to say whether Clinton was at her Washington home or her house in Chappaqua, New York, but he said she did spend the holidays with her family. There’s no definite schedule for her Benghazi testimony, but she has pledged to appear before both House and Senate foreign relations committees in January.

Since Dec. 9, when Clinton’s stomach illness was first disclosed as the reason she pulled out of a planned trip to the Middle East and North Africa, a torrent of conservative pundits and media outlets have suggested or outright accused her of avoiding the public eye. Insinuations that Clinton was faking or exacerbating her illness to avoid the Benghazi issue came from the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, the Daily Caller, hosts on Fox News’s evening shows, Rep. Allen West (R-FL), the conservative website Pajamas Media, the Investors’ Business Daily website, conservative blogger Lucianne Goldberg, and others.

The National Enquirer actually claimed that Clinton was suffering from brain cancer. “Considering the source I can’t believe we even have to say this. But it’s absolute nonsense,” Reines said.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton became the highest-ranking former government official to publicly accuse Clinton of faking her illness on Dec. 18.

“Every Foreign Service officer in every foreign ministry in the world knows the phrase that I’m about to use. When you don’t want to go to a meeting or a conference or an event, you have a ‘diplomatic illness.’ And this is a diplomatic illness to beat the band,” Bolton said.

“I certainly hope it’s nothing serious, but this was revealed in a way that I think that was not transparent, and I think there is an obligation here, especially if Secretary Clinton decides to run for president, to indicate what happened,” Bolton said. “She may beat testifying this week, but she’s not going to escape it forever.”

Bolton’s accusation came three days after Clinton’s doctors, Lisa Bardack of the Mt. Kisco Medical Group and Gigi El-Bayoumi of the George Washington University, issued a detailed statement about the secretary’s injuries.

“Secretary Clinton developed a stomach virus, leading to extreme dehydration, and subsequently fainted. Over the course of this week we evaluated her and ultimately determined she had also sustained a concussion. We recommended that the Secretary continue to rest and avoid any strenuous activity, and strongly advised her to cancel all work events for the coming week,” they said.

But Bolton accused Clinton of a pattern of avoiding the public that predated her illness and concussion. “The secretary has stayed out of the limelight ever since the attack of Sept. 11,” he said.

In fact, Clinton held 14 press availabilities and gave nine separate press interviews between Sept. 12 and Dec. 7, when she fell ill. She also briefed the full House and the full Senate Sept. 20 on Benghazi.

In an e-mail to The Cable Thursday, Bolton explained that his comments on Clinton’s illness were meant to highlight the administration’s lack of openness about her medical condition.

“A fair listener would understand that my central point was the lack of transparency about her status,” Bolton said. “Such a lack of transparency cannot be sustained in a presidential campaign, for example, where observers might infer that her condition was worse than it actually was. That’s what I said, fair and balanced.”

In addition to the Dec. 15 doctor’s statement, the State Department has issued four separate statements on Clinton’s health, on Dec. 9, 10, 15 and 19. Thursday’s statement to The Cable marks the fifth time Clinton’s representatives have spoken on the record about her progress outside of the State Department briefing room. In a background quote to ABC news Dec. 17, a U.S. official went into even more detail.

“According to the official, the secretary had two teams of doctors, including specialists, examine her. They also ran tests to rule out more serious ailments beyond the virus and the concussion. During the course of the week, Clinton was on an IV drip and being monitored by a nurse, while also recovering from the pain caused by the fall,” ABC reported.

Top GOP lawmakers have rallied to Clinton’s defense. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told The Cable that he believes Clinton has been honest and forthright about her medical condition.

“I have no doubts that Secretary Clinton has been ill and suffered a concussion. I know she will testify and statements to the contrary are misplaced,” said Graham.

In a press conference last week, Graham said he wants Clinton to testify on Benghazi before she steps down from office, but reiterated that her illness was real and serious.

“To those who suggest that she’s dodging her responsibilities because she’s not sick, I think that’s inappropriate and not true,” Graham said. “I know she’s sick now. I know she is not appearing because she really is ill.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) acknowledged the veracity of Clinton’s illness at her Dec. 20 hearing and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also backed Clinton up in a Dec. 19 Fox News appearance.

“I must say, I have never seen Secretary Clinton back down from a fight. And I have never seen her back down. And I believe that she is now not physically well enough to testify and she will testify the middle of January,” he said.

Outrage over the charge that Clinton has been misleading the American public about her illness extends well past Washington. The NFL Players Association, apparently concerned about the seeming trivialization of similar injuries, felt compelled to weigh in and admonish those who would downplay the secretary’s ordeal.

“A concussion is a serious injury that should not be discounted or belittled for political purposes,” NFLPA Assistant Executive Director George Atallah said in a statement. “The Players Association has worked tirelessly not only to address this problem at the professional level, but to educate the general public about the risks to youths playing sports of all kinds. Efforts to raise awareness and teach prevention are undermined whenever someone dismisses the impact of a concussion. We must set a better example consistent with what we know to be the medical truth.”

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/27/exclusive_clinton_returning_to_work_next_week

SOS HILLARY CLINTON, headliner CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE…

 

Hillary Clinton On Smart Diplomacy And Development For The 21st Century

September 24, 2012

by Penelope Chester, reporting-

Topics: Clinton Global Initiative; Hillary Clinton;, Diplomacy, Human Rights, U.S. Politics

The Clintons took over the stage this morning at the Clinton Global Initiative. Bill introduced Hillary, who got not one, but two standing ovations from the crowd. Kicking off the day’s proceedings, Secretary of State Clinton spoke about designing diplomacy for the 21st century. Her speech was focused on how the United States can deploy smart diplomacy strategies, that work alongside development and defense, to consolidate American interests across the world.

Clinton began by mentioning that we live in times of great change. Indeed, new technologies, significant demographic shifts – both in the developing and the developed world – revolutions and democratic transitions, and a global financial crisis that has contributed to reshaping world economies are complex realities global diplomacy has to take into account. “In the face of all this change,” Clinton said, “those who care about having an impact need to think and act innovatively.” She added that we must also “be willing to change ourselves to keep pace with the change around us, and stay true to our values, or we will lose our way.” From this broad statement, she went on to speak specifically about the benefits of elevating development and incorporating it into a global engagement strategy for the United States, together with diplomacy and defense.

Secretary Clinton spoke about how the Obama administration has done just that, and how development aid is being re-thought. In the past, “we focused on urgent and immediate needs at the expense of the long term”, Clinton said. She talked about how development aid dollars used to represent a much more significant proportion of the funds that flowed into developing nations. But, today, because of the dramatic increase in capital, remittances, trade and other flows, “we have to spend dollars differently.” And indeed, development aid should be in tune with the realities of the 21st century. Clinton mentioned how it used to be the case that development dollars needed to be spent on providing food assistance, helping building schools and in other basic areas when governments weren’t able to. Nowadays, however, given how different the global picture is, it’s necessary for development dollars to be invested in smart ways, so it can be leveraged for political change and sustainable growth.

“We want to move from aid to investment,” Clinton said. “Today, with new resources, development has to fit into a more dynamic economic picture”, she added, saying that development aid should be “a catalyst for sustainable growth and progress.” Building on World Bank president Jim Kim’s remarks yesterday about how the private sector should talk to the World Bank about investment opportunities in the developing world, Clinton said that one of the roles that American development can play is to “help mitigate and reduce investment risk.” Driving the point home, Clinton said that, today, the United States is not “just providing aid to people in crisis; we’re making strategic investments.”

Clinton painted a very modern picture of what development aid should be, and how it needs to move beyond traditional aid and working with traditional NGO partners. She spoke about how development intersects with business opportunities, and how “we need the private sector to give new economies opportunities.”

Clinton then spent some time defining what she believes “country ownership” – a jargon-y development buzzword – means. She started by clarifying what country ownership doesn’t mean: “it doesn’t mean that donors are supposed to keep money flowing while recipients decide how to spend it; it doesn’t mean shutting out the voices of civil society and faith-based groups; it doesn’t mean not letting beneficiaries do everything on their own.”

For Clinton, country ownership means that development should be “lead, implemented and increasingly paid for by government, civil society and other groups.” It means that developing countries need to “set priorities, manage resources, develop their own plans and carry them out.” She also mentioned that, in her view, country ownership means that “the whole country – men and women” are involved. “When more women enter the workforce, it spurs innovation and grows the economy – in short, everyone benefits.”

In the part of her remarks that sounded the most like a campaign speech, Clinton listed some of the development and diplomacy accomplishments of the Obama administration which further the goals detailed above: the ambitious reform of USAID under Raj Shah, the Feed the Future initiative, the development of “groundbreaking renewable energy investment vehicles” in Africa, public-private partnerships such as the Clean Cookstove Initiative. “But there is still a lot of work to do, and this is where you come in”, the Secretary of State said, speaking directly to the audience – one of her husband’s favorite rhetorical devices.

Clinton spoke of the need of development policy to invest more deeply in a broader range of partners, beyond traditional international NGOs. She spoke of the need to broaden and increase our network of partnerships to advance our work in development. “Let’s start viewing all of our separate efforts as a portfolio of complimentary investments,” Clinton exhorted, “let’s redouble our commitment to multi-partner approaches that bring all of us together.”Her speech then shifted to a more classic political speech – mentioning the need for the United States to advance freedom, rights and dignity across the world, the rejection of violence and underscoring American efforts in supporting democratic transitions in the Middle East. “We need your help and leadership”, Clinton told the audience, to spread development, dignity and freedom.

This is an important forum for Hillary Clinton to address – indeed, some of the world’s most powerful business, NGO and political leaders gather at the Clinton Global Initiative every year to discuss and explore partnership opportunities, something which is frankly only possible when Bill Clinton brings all these stakeholders together for meaningful engagement. The Secretary of State’s speech made clear that the United States and Americans need to rethink their approach to development aid: multisectoral, investment-based and results-oriented with the ultimate objectives of sustainability and long-term growth. While many of the people at the Clinton Global Initiative already know this, Hillary Clinton’s speech served to give these efforts broader meaning in the context of American foreign policy and the advancement of American goals and interests worldwide.

Photo credit: Clinton Global Initiative

LINK

An Apology to former President Bill Clinton for That PBS Documentary

 February 26, 2012

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.com

Apologies are in order, and since PBS and the producers of the four-hour Clinton documentary are not likely to do the right thing, I’ll weigh in instead.

I have standing to do this, since I’m a loyal PBS viewer, regular contributor and, much of the time, uncompromising cheer leader for the network.

But it’s hard to cheer lead for a Clinton documentary that begins with what feels like an endless rehash of the Monica Lewinsky episode, and whose unifying thread is opportunity lost.

If you go to the PBS web site promoting home copies of the program, it reads like this:

“From draft-dodging to the Dayton Accords, from Monica Lewinsky to a balanced budget, the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton veered between sordid scandal and grand achievement. In Clinton, the latest installment in the critically acclaimed series of presidential biographies, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE explores the fascinating story of an American president who rose from a broken childhood in Arkansas to become one of the most successful politicians in modern American history–and one of the most complex and conflicted characters to ever stride across the public stage.”

I doubt that anyone who actually sits through all four hours of Clinton gets a message that he was “one of the most successful politicians in modern American history.” His fault lines, however, are explored in minute detail—from the women he chased during his very first campaign to the he’s-no-LBJ verdict pronounced against him in dealing with Congress.

And what about those “grand achievements?” If you happened to slip into the bathroom for a few minutes at the wrong time you missed the fleeting scenes about balancing the budget and presiding over the most prolonged economic expansion in peace time American history. There was a short segment about his orchestration of an end to the Balkan war, a job he took on at great political risk when European leaders refused to sign up for it. Clinton’s green light of an attempt to kill bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership was noted, but in the context of a suspected impeachment distraction.

More than 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton presidency. Home ownership was at the highest level ever, (without the phony mortgages that came during the Bush years). The crime rate dropped to the lowest level in 26 years. The Brady gun law was enacted. Family leave time became a reality.

Clinton made extraordinary efforts in the cause of racial harmony. (They called him “the first black president”). Thousands of Russian nuclear warheads were deactivated, and many others lying loose after the Soviet Union’s collapse were located and disarmed.

Unless I was checking email on my smartphone at the time, I saw or heard none of that.

But from beginning to end, you could have dropped into the PBS documentary nearly anywhere along its four hour time line and been told of sex, investigations, failures to live up to promise, and pseudo analysis of why Clinton behaved as he did. The producers didn’t discuss bed-wetting, but clearly they were obsessed with what made Clinton tick when he should have tocked.

Whitewater, as we now know, was a phony smokescreen Republicans used to justify what amounted to a full time, resident inquisitor who spent five years searching for anything that could tear down the Clintons. With what amounted to an unlimited checkbook of public money, subpoena power, a friendly Congress and about all the assets any prosecutor dreams of having, Kenneth Starr found nothing to hang on the President except Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress.

Bill Clinton was no saint. Neither were Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay or so many others hounding Clinton all those years. During the impeachment process, Rep. Henry Hyde, who took on the role of chief U.S. House prosecutor, had to admit to an extra marital affair of his own.

Neither was Bill Clinton an LBJ. So what? Can you think of anyone, Republican or Democrat, who has duplicated LBJ’s talent for maneuvering through the legislative thicket to achieve success on difficult issues? Clinton made rookie errors in his early White House years. So did Reagan. So has Obama.

To be successful, television needs viewers. And since TV is pictures, reliving scenes of a sex scandal is bound to attract and hold more eyeballs than the intricacies of balancing a budget. The Lewinsky case and impeachment did consume an inordinate amount of public oxygen for years, along with various other failed Republican efforts to bring down President Clinton. Vince Foster, the White House travel office, missing files—thinking back it all seems like a bad dream. And all so pointless and historically insignificant.

Republican attempts to criminalize the President were scandalous, and the American public knew it. He left the presidency with the highest approval rating of any president since World War II. By the time the U.S. Senate voted down impeachment the public was sick to death of the entire episode. The largest grass roots organization of the past decade, Move On, was created by those begging political leaders to do that—-move on.

The PBS documentary billed itself as one of the first post-Clinton White House attempts to put those years in context. Why then, spend so much air time with a known self-aggrandizing sleezeball like Dick Morris and not a single bona fide historian? 

WAS DORIS KERNS GOODWIN asleep in the powder room?

Where were the first person interviews with members of Congress? Other than Robert Reich, who provided some excellent perspective, and Robert Rubin, Clinton’s treasury secretary, why no cabinet members? Clinton was portrayed generally as a failure in the foreign policy arena. Really? Is that how his foreign leader contemporaries viewed him? Did anyone ask Blair, Chirac or Putin?

If this attempt at defining the Clinton years were on cable TV I wouldn’t be surprised that sex and scandal were the highlight reels. But PBS?

PBS probably won’t apologize for this, Mr. President. But PBS is also the millions of us who contribute to keep it on the air. I can’t speak for anyone else, but from one loyal PBS member, I’m sorry. You deserved much better.

(Yes, millions of US but remember just one, George Soros contributed millions ensuring the highlights of the Clinton legacy would be short shrifted painting  Obama, the Renaissance Man of the 21st Century.)

(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)

http://uspolitics.einnews.com/column/82749172/an-apology-to-former-president-bill-clinton-for-that-pbs-documentary