Archive for February, 2013

The Twitter account calling itself “VerifiedClinton” disappeared overnight.  We do not know exactly why.  Several of the ladies here were tweeting about the true identity of the person behind it, and his picture and the link were up on Chelsea’s Facebook page.  One way or another, that account came down.  Whether we had anything to do with it or not, it is a victory for verification at Twitter,  as well as for a security measure for public figures on Facebook.

As I pointed out a few days ago,  it is one thing to run a tribute account admitting right up front not to be HRC.   It is another to impersonate a public figure and frame your words as that person’s.  That is fraud, and it is nothing to fool around with, particularly  when you are impersonating Hillary Clinton, as  yesterday made clear.

While Hillary has many, many female loyalists,  The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits is deep, broad,  and strong,  I have never found a woman at the bottom of a Hillary impersonation.  This should be the first clue to the potential impersonator that perhaps fraud is not a good idea. Even if you live with a woman, you do not have a female perspective on life. Your POV is going to be off.  Hillary’s sisters know her voice,  and we know immediately when we hear a false note in yours.   Trust me, there are many false notes.  As good an impressionist as you may think you are, we will spot you immediately based on the above never mind the security measures the popular social nets have in place,  the second reason why you should stop dead in your tracks.

Twitter has a very obvious way to signal that celebrities and public figures are who they say they are.  Using the word “verified” in your handle is a dead giveaway that you are not, especially when the blue check is missing on your banner.

When the verification is missing and the voice is off, it initiates a series of events.

1 – Hillary’s sisters notice.

2 – They consult with each other since they have stayed very tightly knit over the years.

3 – They get mad.

4 – They revert to PUMA mode. (In case you are unfamiliar,  picture an angry mountain lion whose cub is in danger.   We guard Hillary as if she were our cub, and she has a lot of mothers.)

5 – The inevitable – a pack of angry PUMA women will go after you and bring you down.

No matter how smart you think you are (and I will not publish here the stupidest thing “VerifiedClinton” did that gave him away on Chelsea’s Facebook wall), or how well you think you are imitating HRC, we will root you out.  So don’t even consider trying to impersonate the awesome and inimitable Hillary Rodham Clinton unless you don’t mind a pack of angry PUMA women at your heels.


Read Full Post »

The person or persons masquerading as Hillary Clinton on Twitter under the unverified (no blue check mark) name VerifiedClinton crossed a new and dangerous line last night when they announced a Q & A session with Hillary who would personally answer your questions.

Scheduled for 5 a.m. New York time, it was called off due to problems with the Twitter feed,  but this account has picked up many followers who apparently believe that it is Hillary Clinton’s Twitter account.

Here is the header with the last few tweets which exclude my own question (below) which was apparently blocked because I have been questioning this account too much.

My blocked question.


Why does supposedly @VerifiedClinton not carry the official blue verified check mark? #donottrustthisisverified

Verified Clinton’s Twitter feed.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton


Official Twitter for Hillary Clinton. This is Hillary’s private account so feel free to get in contact. Tweets by Hillary are signed-HC

United States of America · officialclinton.wordpress.com


  1. @Dimp333 Of course you can. Hillary will answer directly on most occasions as well! JUst look out for the -HC signature. Thanks -TeamHC

  2. Unfortunately due to technical diffuclties with the twitter feed, we have to postpone the Q and A with Hillary. Tommorw morning 5am NYtime.

  3. Hillary will be doing a ‘Q and A’ twitter event this morning at 5am New York Time. (3 hours away)… Get your questions ready! -TeamHC

I decided to post the link to the Twitter account in a comment thread on Chelsea’s wall asking her if she knew who was running this in her mother’s name,  and this is what appeared  on her wall.  When I link it anywhere else on Facebook, the profile picture of Hillary appears.  But on Chelsea’s wall this man’s picture appeared.  Very interesting!


I had suspected it was a man.   The 5 a.m. New York time for the Q & A led a few of us to suspect that this person is not in the U.S.  Imitating someone on social media is at least unethical.  Perhaps it is illegal.  If this person is not in the U.S. he probably thinks he is not subject to any retribution.   It is very dangerous to purport to speak in someone else’s name.  It is deceptive.

Most Twitter users know that no account is “verified” on Twitter unless it has the blue check.

Verified Accounts

Verified Accounts Verified account


Accounts verified by Twitter.

San Francisco · http://twitter.com/help/verified

Tweets All / No replies

  1. The most important one-pager that every verified Twitter user should read: Keeping Your Account Secure https://support.twitter.com/articles/76036-safety-keeping-your-account-secure# …

  2. Twitter will never, ever ask you for your password. If you receive a verification request asking for your account information, it’s false.

  3. Verification is not currently open to the general public. Learn more about the types of accounts that are eligible: http://twitter.com/help/verified

This is clearly a case of impersonation.  Until now,  I had entertained the faint possibility that eventually a blue check might show up on that account,  but it becomes ever clearer that this account has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and should be suspended.  Who is this man?

**Edited to add:  See comment thread below where Uppity Woman busted him.  Note to Hillary impersonators:  Beware the boxing cats!**

Read Full Post »

I just had to share this lovely photo.


“This undated publicity photo provided by PBS, courtesy of MAKERS, shows Hillary Clinton, first female major party presidential candidate and former U.S. Secretary of State, as well as a pioneering and controversial former First Lady, in the film,”Makers: Women Who Make America.” The three-hour PBS documentary about the fight for women’s equality, airs Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013, and features prominent activists including Gloria Steinem and Marlo Thomas. (AP Photo/PBS, Courtesy of MAKERS)”

I watched and recorded this magnificent documentary.  I hope everyone had a chance to see it.  I will not review it because I was too fascinated to take notes.   The only thing I will say is that I could have done without noted Hillary-Hater MHP and done with the woman who wrote the controversial article about women having it all, Anne-Marie Slaughter, but perhaps they asked her and she declined.   Other than that minor complaint, I loved it.  Excellent!  It should get some awards!

This picture and the footage appear to have been shot on the same day as the Time cover from November 2011.  It was obviously shot awhile ago.  Nora Ephron was in it.


I have that one framed in my hallway.

Read Full Post »

Sorry for posting this so late.  Just received it myself!

Hillary Clinton, Martha Stewart featured in PBS’ ‘Makers’; shows women’s place in U.S. history

Originally published: February 26, 2013 1:23 PM
Updated: February 26, 2013 2:00 PM

Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks

Photo credit: Getty Images | Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to reporters during a joint press availability with Haitian Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe. (July 24, 2012)

The fight for women’s equality first had to argue that it was a fight worth having.

Apparently the same goes with giving the movement recognition: “Makers: Women Who Make America” is billed by PBS as an unprecedented account of women’s changing lives and the impact on U.S. society over the past 50 years. The documentary premieres at 8 p.m. Tuesday on WNET/13.


Hillary Clinton and Martha Stewart are among the women with Hudson Valley ties profiled in the documentary. Clinton, a Chappaqua resident and the former secretary of state, is recognized for her historic presidential run and her work crusading for women’s rights worldwide. Stewart, who lives in Bedford, is spotlighted as a media and business mogul in the lifestyle industry.

Read more >>>>

Read Full Post »

Wherever she is and whatever she is doing, Hillary Clinton cannot be unaware of wildly disparate activities in her absence.  Nature abhors a vacuum, so various and sundry are filling in the blanks.

Among the more serious efforts are the Super PACs that have formed.  The most prominent of them, Ready for Hillary, hired a communications director,  as Ruby Cramer  of Buzzfeed reports.

Hillary Clinton PAC Staffs Up

Former Ohio Democratic Party communications director Seth Bringman joins “Ready for Hillary,” a source tells BuzzFeed. The first major outside group gets serious about 2016. posted on February 26, 2013 at 8:46am EST

Ruby Cramer BuzzFeed Staff

Image by Matt Rourke / Getty Images

The “Ready for Hillary” political action committee, founded late last month in support of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s possible bid for the presidency in 2016, has made its first major hire and is gearing up to expand further, a source familiar with the group tells BuzzFeed.

Seth Bringman, who served as communications director of the Ohio Democratic Party from 2009 to 2012, has joined “Ready for Hillary” in the same capacity.

Read more >>>>

On the wild fringy margins are the myriad Twitter accounts claiming to be Hillary Clinton in some form or incarnation.  One tribute account tells us right up front that it is a parody and Hillary at Home harmlessly tweets imagined activities and meals.   Another,  lacking the blue check mark associated with legitimate celebrity Twitter accounts, calls itself “VerifiedClinton” and tweets in her name (bordering on the illegal unless it truly is HRC testing the social nets waters before unmasking herself).  That account is also associated with a decidedly anemic  “official blog” with a handful of entries all dated November 10, 2012, a half-a$$ed piece of work so atypical of anything HRC would ever do as to be laughable.  That Twitter account is strongly endorsed and promoted by the Vote_Hillary Twitter account associated with GlobalYouthJustice on Twitter and probably the work of one person behind that account and its associated blog.

Then there are the supporters Facebook pages and groups intended as organizational centers for those who will jump on board the train at a word from Hillary.  There is no pretense at these pages.  Members simply post news articles,  particularly those related to 2016 speculation and polls.

So while she is quietly hibernating,  tornadic activity surrounds her in ways that are unprecedented.   The climate in her absence is approaching critical mass,  but Hillary continues her doctor-ordered rest and recovery most silently.  We do not know whether she is paying attention to any of this.  What we do know is, as reported here,  she has signed with the New York based Harry Walker Agency to deliver speeches for up to $200,000 per.   This amounts to more per speech (when she charges, because she will not be charging for all of them, and she will donate the proceeds for some)  than she was paid per year as Secretary of State.

Long time Hillary loyalists will remember that in December 2008, as a condition of her confirmation, she agreed to a pay cut for her cabinet post from the $191,300 that was paid to Condi Rice, to Rice’s pre-raise salary rate of $186,600.  The reason for that was a Constitutional clause saying that if a member of Congress voted for an increase such as that for Secretary of State (and HRC did vote in favor of Condi’s raise) that Congress member may not then assume that post at that pay rate.

So the bottom line is that after four years on the plane and working like a dynamo, she gets to sit back and write some speeches that she will deliver from time to time for more money per appearance than she was paid per year as Secretary of State.  She is free to continue her work for women and girls either through the Clinton Foundation or one of her own should she chose.  She is the most recognizable person in the world living with one of the most powerful men who annually outshines the U.N. General Assembly with his Clinton Global Initiative and accomplishes amazing good without the annoyance of term limits.

Should she wish to give up this comfort zone, board a plane once again, and spend two years campaigning her heart out in order to face a probable eight years (including another campaign) doing the world’s hardest job, there certainly is plenty of support out there.  It will not be a cakewalk or coronation as many have predicted.  She knows how hard and nasty it will become, and we have seen that the knives are already out.  If, on the other hand,  her 40 plus years of very hard work are enough public service for her,  people who really love her will understand.

For now, while she remains quietly hidden,  long-time readers here can enjoy some satisfaction that she will be well-paid while able to enjoy quality time with her family and friends.  She sacrificed a great deal of that time as Secretary of State in service to her country.

Read Full Post »

When this blog began in 2008,  Hillary Clinton was a Senator and a former presidential candidate.  She was campaigning for the Obama-Biden ticket, and she and all of the rest of us fully expected that after the election she would simply return to the Senate and put her pretty nose to the grindstone once again.  The focus here has  been on Hillary’s work and not on her job, and the blog handle has never included her titles.   So while the past four years have necessarily focused on foreign policy because of her job,  there has never been an intention for this blog to be mistaken for one that lent more attention to State Department matters than to the last Secretary of State.


That said, I am drawn back to matters of State today due to yesterday’s Politico article by Glenn Thrush,  John Kerry: The un-Hillary Clinton.  Thrush’s take on the Kerry secretariat, stunningly premature since all Kerry has done so far is make a speech and board the Big Blue Plane, overwhelmingly shifts the paradigm back to years not only before Hillary Clinton, but pre-Rice and pre-Albright.  It is as if he is broadcasting “Thank God, mature white men are back in charge at Foggy Bottom.”

Prejudgment this predictive has not been seen since Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize prompting a clear-sighted Michelle Obama to remark, “But he hasn’t done anything yet,” unless you count all of the hysterical momentum behind Hillary 2016 PACs and the assuredness with which they insist that she will run and will win.  We shall see about that when she makes her decision and not when third-hand rumors abound.

Thrush begins with this astounding statement.

… she’s not necessarily his model for how to do the job. He’s more drawn to power players of recent history — George Shultz, James Baker, Henry Kissinger and George Marshall — secretaries who have wielded considerably more influence inside the White House than Clinton.

“He’s going to be more willing than Hillary was to tackle the big things… If he were able to help broker an exit for [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, for instance, that would be huge for him,” says a veteran senior diplomat who knows Kerry and has served as an adviser to officials in both parties.

People who “knew” Hillary, in late 2008, insisted that she would remain in the Senate and not accept Secretary of State.  There were cries of protest from certain Hillary quarters when she agreed to tackle the job.  Dark scenarios arose wherein the sub-secretaries for regions-at-risk, Holbrooke, Mitchell, and Ross  (her idea) would steal her fire.  Some feared security players in the White House, particularly Susan Rice and Samantha Power (the latter of whom Thrush apparently is unaware),  would override her every agenda, a fear resoundingly overturned when, between stops in Paris on March 14 2011 and March 19 2011,  both women were instrumental in helping her change President Obama’s prior stance on joining the No Fly Zone cooperative over embattled Libya.  If this was not tackling a “big thing” I do not know what is.  The trio also helped prove that government by women can be every bit as bold and risk-taking as government by men.

Issues surrounding Syria are unlikely to differ simply because the U.S. has a new SOS.  If a trustworthy opposition coalition does not emerge, aid to the opposition is unlikely to change.   Kerry heroically driving Assad out is wishful thinking on the part of Thrush.

It’s not that Clinton didn’t try to do big things, State Department watchers say. But Obama’s determination to avoid new foreign entanglements — and his insistence on tight control over diplomacy — dictated a narrower approach, focusing on women’s rights and smaller international initiatives, like re-establishing relations with Myanmar.

Oooohhhhh!!!! Suddenly I see!  First of all that word “entanglements” somehow implies military rather than diplomatic.  We should pursue the latter in avoidance of the former, and HRC was never Secretary of Defense.  She certainly generated plenty of treaties (many of which the administration failed to push for ratification) and memoranda of understanding during her tenure .  Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton’s efforts on the part of women and girls was Obama’s idea, has not been paying attention.

Folks have pointed to several of HRC’s major speeches as ground-breaking, her internet freedom speech of January 2010 among them.  For my money it was the very low profile Barnard commencement speech of May 18, 2009 that laid out her agenda very clearly.  There she truly broke new ground, but hardly anyone noticed.  Can it be the “girls’ school” venue, the emphasis on conditions for women globally, the encouragement to make bold moves using everyday social networking tools, the notion that half the world’s population should and might finally be spotlighted as deserving a place at the table?  Nothing about that agenda was narrow.   The degree to which she was able to weave her agenda into a single cloth of a foreign policy that can rightly be dubbed Clinton Doctrine is highlighted in the following as she wrapped up her tour as Secretary of State.

1. Hillary Clinton’s Classic Speech to the Lower Mekong Initiative Womens’ Gender Equality and Empowerment Dialogue

2. Video: Hillary Clinton at the Foreign Policy Group’s “Transformational Trends 2013″ Forum

3. American Leadership: Hillary Clinton’s Final Address as Secretary of State

Former State Department official Aaron David Miller says Kerry can afford to be “more ambitious” because he poses less of a threat to Obama’s team –

Interesting remark!  The team-player non plus a threat?  What would make them think that?

Thrush goes on to quote Kerry on George Marshall.  Certainly, in the course of her many remarks as SOS, Hillary made clear her admiration of Marshall and agreement with his motives and strategies.  At least once,  as a vehicle to explain how foreign policy is also domestic policy,  (the topic of Kerry’s maiden major address as SOS – and not a new idea),  she put the Marshall Plan in the context of her own family, the plan following on the heels of her father’s return from war,  just as Kerry did from the perspective of his father’s diplomatic service in post-war Germany.  Where is the great difference there?

Discussing Kerry’s decision to travel first to Europe and the Middle East, Thrush suggests he will  tackle the Middle East peace process more robustly than Hillary did, ignoring Hillary’s tough stance against settlement construction in East Jerusalem in late Spring 2009,  and Netanyahu’s intransigence at the time.  Recent Israeli elections are likely to affect Netanyahu’s position.  This does not guarantee Kerry a success where every secretary of state since 1947 has failed, and we wish him luck.  But if he does succeed it will be arguably not that Hillary was weak, but that Netanyahu has been weakened.  I am not even factoring in here Obama having reined Hillary in by November 2009 (Secretary Clinton’s Remarks With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu) when she stated:

What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described – no new starts, for example – is unprecedented in the context of the prior two negotiations. It’s also the fact that for 40 years, presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements.

All of this is not to say that Secretary Kerry will not do well.  In fact it has little to do with Kerry and more to do with Thrush’s POV which appears to be one of relief that after 16 years DOS is finally back in the hands of someone who is not going to nag about inclusion of women and girls at the big table, someone who is more likely to be spending time behind closed doors in ministerial halls and not imposing upon the office the indignity crawling into tents – as Condi Rice did – to talk to women in African refugee camps or tour women’s start-ups,  give town halls,  visit the marketplaces, and mix with civil society on every continent she visited, as Hillary Clinton did.

Hillary Clinton brought statecraft into the 21st century.  Thrush’s psychic predictions see foreign policy moving backward into the 20th century – an “ambitious” time machine agenda that is stale and stuffy.   No matter what John Kerry said or the “insiders” intimate, it is unlikely that a smart man like John Kerry will abandon Hillary Clinton’s innovations.

Read Full Post »

I have never seen anyone whip up this much excitement and attention while in hibernation.  Mark Finkelstein clearly suffers from Clinton Derangement Syndrome since he published this entry a few days ago.

“Good Morning America” Giddy Over Possibility Hillary Might Run

by Mark Finkelstein| February 16, 2013

If Good Morning America’s giddiness over the prospect that Hillary Clinton might run for president is any indication of how the MSM will treat the story, it’s gonna be a long-g-g-g four years.


… listen to the sheer giddiness in the voices of the GMAers as they discuss Clinton’s presidential prospects, and brace yourself for four years of slobbering MSM coverage of Hillary’s possible run.

DAN HARRIS: On another note, we’re hearing these reports overnight that a supposed insider is saying that he knows for sure that it’s a done deal that Hillary Clinton is going to run for president. Any truth to this at all?

REENA NINAN: We are looking for any sort of tea leaves. Meteorites hitting Russia, anything that might suggest that Hillary Clinton is running. [Ed. you really have to listen and hear the breathless excitement in Ninan’s voice]. I think we’re going to have a date every Saturday to talk about this, Dan. You know, what’s interesting, a source close to Hillary says she is very seriously considering her options, and is interested in a potential run. But what I am also hearing is that they are looking to see who her Republican challenger might be. Someone like Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey might be a tougher candidate to try and defeat, Dan.

Read more >>>>

As if in response to Ninan, Quinnipiac published a new poll today pitting Christie against our girl in NJ,  his home state and thus probably his strongest one where he is polling higher than any governor since Quinnipiac has been doing this poll.

February 20, 2013 – New Jersey Gov Flies High, Buries Unknown Dem, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Christie Close To Clinton, Leads Cuomo In ’16 Pres Race
New Jersey voters today continue Gov. Christopher Christie’s record-breaking 74 – 22 percent approval rating, the highest of any New Jersey governor in 17 years of Quinnipiac University surveys. Voters also say 71 – 23 percent that Gov. Christie deserves reelection this year.
Christie’s job score is currently the highest of any governor in the seven states surveyed by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Christopher Christie the Republican, for whom would you vote?

                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk

Clinton              49%     7%    86%    44%    35%    60%    37%    88%
Christie             45     90      8     48     58     34     56      6
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       1      -      -      -      -      1      1      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      1      -      2      1      1      1      1      -
DK/NA                 5      3      5      7      5      5      4      6

                     COLLEGE DEG   AGE IN YRS.......    ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
                     Yes    No     18-34  35-54  55+    <50K   50-100 >100K

Clinton              51%    47%    51%    51%    46%    54%    51%    46%
Christie             43     46     41     44     47     38     44     50
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      1      -      -      -      -      1
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -      2      2      1      1      3      -      -
DK/NA                 5      5      5      4      6      6      4      3

                     Urban  SbUrbn ExUrbn land   Shore

Clinton              61%    55%    40%    53%    32%
Christie             31     40     57     39     57
SMONE ELSE(VOL)       -      1      -      -      -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL)      -      1      -      3      2
DK/NA                 7      3      3      5      9

First a disclaimer from me: I do not put any credence in any “insider” info.  So many people claim to *know* what Hillary Clinton will do.  Right now all we really know is that she will be doing some public speaking and writing her memoirs of her Secretary of State years.  If she is looking at the Republican field,  given the 2012 pool,  it appears there is no one stronger than Christie.

Read Full Post »

According to one of my friends who spends more time on Twitter than I do, this article, by my new friend, Ruby Cramer at Buzzfeed, ruffled some Dem-tweet feathers today.

Top Democrat: Hillary Clinton Would “Clear The Field” In 2016

O’Malley, Cuomo, and Biden would all make way, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer predicts. “I don’t know that anybody would run against Hillary.” posted on February 19, 2013 at 7:06pm EST

Ruby Cramer BuzzFeed Staff

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer predicted Tuesday that Hillary Clinton would “clear the field” of potential Democratic rivals for the 2016 presidential nomination were she to throw her hat in the ring, deterring runs for the White House from Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and even Vice President Joe Biden.

“I don’t know that anybody would run against Hillary,” Hoyer said in an interview with BuzzFeed. “If she runs, she clears the field. If she doesn’t run, I think Cuomo is a leading candidate and O’Malley is a leading candidate.”

Asked if he believed Biden was considering a run — the vice president joked last year that 2012 wouldn’t be the last time he voted for himself — Hoyer said, “I think Joe is really thinking hard about running. If Hillary doesn’t run, Joe will run. I don’t know that Joe runs against Hillary, though.”

Read more >>>>

If you have spent any time here at this blog at all, you know the amazing dedication Hillary Clinton invested in her position as Secretary of State over four years.  So, to borrow a phrase from Nixon, let me make one thing perfectly clear.  Hillary Clinton is not obliged to do or to say another public thing.  She is not obliged to run in 2016, and neither is she obliged to say whether or not she is running.  She is a private citizen now.

Democrats who insist that she is running, should run, or should say whether or not she will run in 2016 are missing the larger,  looming picture that is 2014.   If they continue to invest all of their energy in pushing for Hillary 2016, they will lose the House in 2014, again, and a lot of  the Democratic agenda is at stake there.

Hillary asked us, on August 26, 2008, whether we were in this for her or for the people she met and told us about that evening as as well as on the trail. At the moment, I told her on my TV set (near tears),  that I was in it for them and therefore I was in it for her.  If the House remains Republican in 2014, all of Hillary’s people – the ones she fights for – lose.  It makes no sense to push for her in 2016 and ignore 2014.  None.

So all the people who had their feathers ruffled by what Steny Hoyer said need to take a pill.  It is not even 2014 yet, and that is where your sights should be aimed.  2016 will roll around soon enough.  Let Hillary have her nap.  Before long you will see her campaigning – for her supporters who are up for election in 2014.


Read Full Post »

Well, it is not exactly the first phase since we have been assured by Hillary herself that she will definitely be writing a book,  but I guess this is pretty reliable, and certainly not unanticipated.  Given the range of engagements cited,  some of the content may be available in the public domain.  According to Chuck Hagel’s testimony during his confirmation hearing,  it seems pretty clear that the higher paying speeches will not be available to the public.  That will be frustrating.   I hope she finds a way to let us know her speaking schedule.

By MIKE ALLEN | 02/18/13 6:08 AM EDT

EXCLUSIVE: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will hit the paid speaking circuit this spring (likely April or May) and has selected the Harry Walker Agency, which represents President Clinton, as her agent. Industry officials expect that she will be one of the highest paid speakers in the history of the circuit, with fees well into the six figures in the United States and abroad.  Secretary Clinton will likely do some speeches for no fee for causes she champions, and expects to occasionally donate her fees for charitable purposes. Clinton, who will maintain her homes in Washington and Chappaqua, is also beginning to make decisions about the book she has said she will write, an account of her four years as secretary of State. Non-profit work will be another component of her new life, perhaps through her husband’s foundation or one of her own.

Read more >>>>


Read Full Post »


Over her 20 years as First Lady, NY Senator, and finally Secretary of State,  Hillary Rodham Clinton has been honored with many awards.  Yesterday, she received another.   Through all of those years, she has also had a public office in which to keep and display them.

When she was preparing to vacate her office at the State Department,  I was wondering where on earth she was planning to put all of these medals and awards.  As she is planning (this is one thing we know for certain) to write another book, it seems logical for her to have a Library/Museum where she can display publicly her work and all of the honors she has received.

As the woman who has come closest to having smashed that hard glass ceiling (which she still might do), and as a New Yorker,  she certainly deserves a special place in Seneca Falls.  So let’s roll out this idea.  Why wait?  She needs a place for her honors, and she needs it now.


*Like* this page on Facebook to help get the ball rolling.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: