Posts Tagged ‘PBS’

No better day than today for Hillary Clinton to have been so honored! Congratulations, Hillary!

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will talk about her loss in the 2016 presidential election and the political climate in the U.S. a year later as she receives the 2017 Democratic Woman of the Year Award.

Hillary Clinton will accept the 2017 Democratic Woman of the Year Award around 4:30 p.m. ET. Watch live in the player above.

The award, given by the Woman’s National Democratic Club, is “in recognition of her extraordinary contributions to American politics and international affairs, as well as the inspiration she has provided to women and girls around the world.”

The award comes weeks after Clinton released her latest book, “What Happened,” which detailed her 2016 campaign and her loss to President Donald Trump.

Read more >>>>

Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren can go wash Bernie’s socks.

Edited to add this.

Hillary Clinton, the former Democratic presidential nominee, during a stop on her book tour in Chicago this week. Kamil Krzaczynski/Reuters

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton received a Democratic Woman of the Year Award — who else would it be? — at the Women’s National Democratic Club on Thursday, and the first tears were shed about three minutes after she took the stage.

In a room full of purple suffragist sashes and elected officials, Nuchhi Currier, the president of the organization, choked up when she said the outcome of the election — 358 days ago — was “very different from what had been anticipated.”


Mrs. Clinton’s appearance signaled the continuation of the Democratic mourning process that has persisted since the election, even as drama continues to mark her campaign. On Thursday, Politico published a first-person article by Donna Brazile, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, who wrote that the Clinton campaign in 2016 controlled the committee and rigged the nomination process. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, made the same accusation on CNN on Thursday.

Ms. Brazile also wrote that the Clinton campaign had used a joint fund-raising agreement that would grant it control over strategy in exchange for raising funds. Ms. Brazile characterized the agreement as a “cancer” for the Democratic Party.

Through a spokeswoman, officials for the party disagreed.

“Joint fund-raising committees were created between the DNC and both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in attempt to raise the general election funds needed to win in 2016,” Xochitl Hinojosa, the communications director for the committee, wrote in an email on Thursday. “Clinton was the only candidate who raised money for the party through her joint fund-raising committee with the DNC, which would benefit any candidate coming out of the presidential primary process.”

Read more >>>>





Read Full Post »

Yesterday in Cincinnati, Hillary sat down with Charlie Rose.  A portion of the interview aired this morning on CBS.  The full interview aired on PBS this afternoon.  It may repeat at 11 EDT tonight.

Charlie tried to cajole her into giving him a running-mate scoop.  She stood firm.

Charlie tried also to wear her down on the “unpopular” meme, and she laughed charmingly, told him she got a lot of votes, thinks she’s pretty popular, and intends to be more popular.  We agree, Hillary!

DSCN7089 DSCN7092 DSCN7095 DSCN7096 DSCN7097 DSCN7098 DSCN7099 DSCN7100 DSCN7101 DSCN7102 DSCN7104


phone calls (2)

Read Full Post »

The best fireworks occurred in the last half hour. Emphasis here is mine.

Transcript courtesy of the New York Times.

This came early, but I just had to say ….

SANDERS: You once had a pension. Those jobs, in many cases, are now gone. They’re off.

True, but a lot of us have 401Ks and 403Bs in place of the pensions, making all of us a little bit Wall St.  as it were.  The argument should be against the GOP privatizing Social Security similarly.  Don’t demonize where I now everything I worked for. I need Wall St. to be healthy, but fair, clean, and legit.

WOODRUFF: Welcome back to the Democratic presidential debate. Before we

return to our questions, we have a follow-up question from our Facebook group.

And it is to Senator Sanders

Senator, it comes from Bill Corfield. He is a 55-year-old musician from Troy,

Ohio. And he asks: “Are there any areas of government you would like to


SANDERS: Hey, I’m in the United States Senate, and anyone who doesn’t think

that there is an enormous amount of waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy

throughout government would be very, very mistaken.

I believe in government, but I believe in efficient government, not wasteful


IFILL: How about you, Senator Clinton — Secretary Clinton?

CLINTON: Absolutely. And, you know, there are a number of programs that I

think are duplicative and redundant and not producing the results that people

deserve. There are a lot of training programs and education programs that I think

can be streamlined and put into a much better format so that if we do continue

them they can be more useful, in public schools, community colleges, and

colleges and universities.

I would like to take a hard look at every part of the federal government and really

do the kind of analysis that would rebuild some confidence in people that we’re

taking a hard look about what we have, you know, and what we don’t need

anymore. And that’s what I intend to do.

SANDERS: If I could just answer that, we have also got to take a look at the

waste and inefficiencies in the Department of Defense, which is the one major

agency of government that has not been able to be audited. And I have the

feeling you’re going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and

duplicative activities.

Format did not permit Hillary to respond further.  That was the cut-off. Hillary was not allowed another word here. But I would point out that Hillary initiated the first-ever such analytical process to streamline the State Department, the QDDR, as Secretary of State, and certainly will apply that model to all government agencies as POTUS. She has already done this and knows how!  I wish she could have talked about that.

CLINTON: But I want to — I want to follow up on something having

to do with leadership, because, you know, today Senator Sanders said that

President Obama failed the presidential leadership test. And this is not the first

time that he has criticized President Obama. In the past he has called him weak.

He has called him a disappointment.

He wrote a forward for a book that basically argued voters should have buyers’

remorse when it comes to President Obama’s leadership and legacy.

And I just couldn’t agree — disagree more with those kinds of comments. You

know, from my perspective, maybe because I understand what President Obama

inherited, not only the worst financial crisis but the antipathy of the Republicans

in Congress, I don’t think he gets the credit he deserves for being a president…


CLINTON: … who got us out of that…


CLINTON: … put us on firm ground, and has sent us into the future. And it is a —

the kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I

expect from Republicans. I do not expect from someone running for the

Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama.
SANDERS: That is…

SANDERS: Madam Secretary, that is a low blow.

(As if never in this campaign cycle has he ever delivered a low blow.)


(Hillary gives him Carrie-at-the-Prom face via Sissy Spacek.)

I have worked with President Obama for the last seven years.

Note to Senator Sanders: That is very unstable territory.

When President Obama came into office we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, 800,000

jobs a month.

We had a $1.4 trillion

deficit. And the world’s financial system is on the verge of collapse.

As a result of his efforts and the efforts of Joe Biden against unprecedented, I

was there in the Senate, unprecedented Republican obstructionism, we have

made enormous progress.


SANDERS: But you know what? Last I heard we lived in a democratic society.

Last I heard, a United States senator had the right to disagree with the president,

including a president who has done such an extraordinary job.

So I have voiced criticisms. You’re right. Maybe you haven’t. I have. But I think to

suggest that I have voiced criticism, this blurb that you talk about, you know what

the blurb said? The blurb said that the next president of the United States has got

to be aggressive in bringing people into the political process.

That’s what I said. That is what I believe.


SANDERS: President Obama and I are friends.

As you know, he came to

Vermont to campaign for me when he was a senator. I have worked for his re-

election. His first election and his re-election.

But I think it is really unfair to suggest that I have not been supportive of the

president. I have been a strong ally with him on virtually every issue. Do senators

have the right to disagree with the president? Have you ever disagreed with a

president? I suspect you may have.


CLINTON: You know, Senator, what I am concerned about, is not disagreement

on issues, saying that this is what I would rather do, I don’t agree with the

president on that, calling the president weak, calling him a disappointment,

calling several times that he should have a primary opponent when he ran for re-

election in 2012, you know, I think that goes further than saying we have our


As a senator, yes, I was a senator. I understand we can disagree on the path

forward. But those kinds of personal assessments and charges are ones that I

find particularly troubling.

IFILL: Senator, if you would like respond to — you may respond to that but it is

time for closing statements and you can use your time for closing statements to

dpolicies he carried o that.

SANDERS: Well, one of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.

No he was not – in 2008, when Obama was a senator. That was when HIllary ran against Obama as a fellow senator.  The election when Bernie planned to primary President Obama was in 2012, when he was, you know,  president.

SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference, in the

last debate — and I believe in her book — very good book, by the way — in her

book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support

or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I

happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive

secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.


I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from

Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United

States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability

for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million

innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count

me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.


IFILL: Secretary Clinton? CLINTON: Well, I know journalists have asked who

you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is.

SANDERS: Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger. That’s for sure.

CLINTON: That’s fine. That’s fine.


You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas.

I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him

are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we

have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of

China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America.


So if we want to pick and choose — and I certainly do — people I listen to, people

I don’t listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair

and look at the entire world, because it’s a big, complicated world out there.

By the way, Bernie, do not insult us. We do know who Mossadegh was.  I wonder how many of your millennials know who Henry Kissinger is.  I know Hillary’s millennials do.  Many of us remember his service and have issues with some policies he carried out under Nixon, but here’s a reminder:  He was secretary of state, not secretary of defense. Blaming Kissinger for bombings in Cambodia is like blaming Hillary for bombings  – anywhere – while she was secretary of state – a diplomatic post.

Secretary Clinton Accepts Freedom Award in Berlin for the American People

Henry Kissinger, left, former U.S. Secretary of State, hands over the Freedom Award " in recognition of their fight for democracy and liberty" for the American People to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right, during the Freedom Awards Ceremony of the Atlantic Council in Berlin, Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Gero Breloer)

Henry Kissinger, left, former U.S. Secretary of State, hands over the Freedom Award ” in recognition of their fight for democracy and liberty” for the American People to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right, during the Freedom Awards Ceremony of the Atlantic Council in Berlin, Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Gero Breloer)



Read Full Post »

Charlie Rose interviewed Hillary in two segments that aired on “CBS This Morning” today.  She spoke about her plan to combat ISIS: sending combat troops would not be her strategy.  She also addressed her Wall St. ties.  She said anyone who thinks support from Wall St. would influence her does not know her.  As to why she is running for president, with the White House in the background, she said it is not to move back in there.  She called this election a watershed moment when we can either get the economy back on track for the majority, or we will find ourselves back in the economy of the 1920s.  The full interview will re-air this evening on Charlie Rose’s PBS program.


Later today, she will be in Montgomery, Alabama keynoting an event commemorating Rosa Parks and the bus boycott that began with her refusal to give up her seat.

DSCN1950 DSCN1951 DSCN1955 DSCN1958 DSCN1959 DSCN1960 DSCN1961 DSCN1962 DSCN1964 DSCN1966 DSCN1967  DSCN1970 DSCN1971 DSCN1972 DSCN1973



Hillary Clinton details plan to defeat ISIS, defends ties to Wall Street

In her first television interview since the Paris attacks, Hillary Clinton spoke to “CBS This Morning” co-host Charlie Rose about her plans to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and controversies over her ties with Wall Street.

Sticking by President Obama’s current strategy, the former secretary of state said she could not “conceive of any circumstances” where she would agree to send American combat troops to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

“We don’t know yet how many Special Forces… trainers and surveillance and enablers might be needed,” Clinton told Rose at the Hay Adams, across the White House. “But in terms of thousands of combat troops like some on the Republican side are recommending… it should be a non-starter, both because I don’t think it’s the smartest way to go after ISIS – I think it gives ISIS a new recruitment tool if we get back in the fight.”

Read more and see video >>>>



Read Full Post »

Many will remember that nearly a year ago PBS aired a  Makers film that featured Hillary Clinton among others.  Despite Hillary productions having received what in some cases have probably amounted to fatal publicity originating from Republican sources,  PBS intends to mount another Makers project focusing on our girl and hopes to dodge Republican unfriendly fire.

How PBS’s Hillary Clinton Film Hopes to Avoid Backlash to CNN and NBC Films

TCA 2014: What PBS’s “Makers” is doing differently from canceled projects

Hillary Clinton TV projects have had a bad track record lately: Conservative backlash helped kill planned films about the former Secretary of State at both CNN and NBC.


Clinton is one of many women featured in six upcoming “Makers” documentaries coming to PBS this summer. The films highlight women’s achievements.

“I think our trademark is historical context,” said Dyllan McGee,the Emmy award-winning filmmaker behind the project. “We’re looking at where Hillary falls in the line of politicians. What is her role and who has come before her? So it’s not just Hillary’s story. It’s a broad context.”

Read more >>>>

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 »

I checked my guide and did not see a listing that included Hillary.  If anyone finds any specific information on this, please share it with us!

Published on Feb 1, 2013

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat down with Bonnie Erbe to share her ongoing work on women and girls’ empowerment. Catch the full interview on this week’s To the Contrary. (Check local listings for times near you.)

Read Full Post »

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Secretary Clinton Joins PBS NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer in a Discussion at the “Innovation and the Global Marketplace: A Discussion on American Innovation, Trade, and the Next 10 Million Jobs”



Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

The Newseum

Washington, DC

December 14, 2011


QUESTION: And I would like to conclude and highlight this discussion on innovation and the global marketplace by introducing the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Applause.)

While you put on your mike, there was some discussion earlier about – one of the participants said, if there were more women involved in business and all these other things, that there would be more innovation and all of that. And it occurred to me that three out of the last four Secretaries of State have been women. Now that’s gender diversity at its peak, is it not, at the very – yeah?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s a good start. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Touché. Touché. Madam Secretary, in October you made a speech about the economy and you said – let me quote to you a sentence or two: “Today, our foreign and economic relations remain indivisible. Only now, our great challenge is not deterring any single military foe, but advancing our global leadership at a time when power is more often measured and exercised in economic terms.” Explain what you mean.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well Jim, first, thanks to you and thanks to Bob Steel and Walter Isaacson and the Aspen Institute and to Intel for sponsoring this, because I think this kind of conversation is absolutely essential. My point in that speech is that if we didn’t know already, the events of 2008 and the follow-on consequences should have taught us that we are living at a time when our economic means, the forces of the global economy, are going to, perhaps more dramatically than at previous times in history, shape how the world is organized, who is leading it, and for what purposes, the role and place of the United States. And what we’ve tried to do in the State Department is to demonstrate clearly that economic statecraft is an essential part of American diplomacy, and we want to use all of the tools and the forces of the global economy, harnessed with our diplomacy, on behalf of America’s interest and values and on behalf of the job creation that we need here at home.

So our goal is to firmly anchor economic work, and not just the traditional State Department role of commercial diplomacy, which has been around a long time. We have a thousand economic officers around the world, 300 people here in the State Department. We do business investment treaties, open-skies agreements, lots of advocacy on behalf of American business. But to really look at the global economy now, to understand how we’re going to influence, and to an extent, manage it in furtherance of global prosperity, American economic leadership, job growth and all the other goals we seek.

QUESTION: But as a practical matter, in the foreign policy world of today where there are problems with Russia, with Iran, with China, with all kinds of other – Iran – I mean Iraq, the war, of course, ending today, more or less – there’s Afghanistan, there are all kinds of things that you’re having to deal with all of the time. How in the world does a priority for innovation and a global marketplace fit into those kinds of things, as a practical matter?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, very well, and by necessity. Just looking at the countries you mentioned, starting with Russia, the United States worked very hard to make the case that Russia should be a member of the WTO. And that required that Russia finally had to make some changes in their regulatory framework, they had to open up their markets more, so very shortly, they will be voted into the WTO. Now why does this matter to us? Well, because now we have tools, through the WTO, to deal with some of the economic challenges and distortions coming from the Russian economy.

Take China – obviously, we are well aware of the enormous indebtedness in our country, which is a different subject, and we have to, in part, innovate our way forward – but China is now going to have to come to grips with being a responsible stakeholder in the global economy as well as in the traditional areas of diplomacy. So we are engaged in conversations all the time. Certainly, Secretary Geithner is, USTR rep, the new Commerce Secretary John Bryson, all of us are talking about the economy because it is one thing to be a developing country and, frankly, get cut some slack. It’s entirely different when your economy is growing at 10 percent annual GDP growth and you have enormous influence on what’s happening – we need new rules of the road. So that’s a traditional area for economic statecraft.

Or take Iran, we’re using economic sanctions to try to influence their behavior. I just came from a conference about South Sudan, a new country that was just literally born last year. The economic development is as important as their political development if people are going to see the results. You could go on and on. Now, what we’re trying to do is more firmly embed all of these issues deeply within the State Department. So on a specific issue, we have re-jiggered our economic efforts, we have put into one place the work we do on the economy, the work we do on energy, and the work we do on the environment, because they are all interconnected.

And we are looking for new ways to innovate, so I’ll give you just two quick ideas that we’re working on. One is we’re having an impact investing conference in January at the State Department, where we’re bringing businesses, investors together to try to explore what new innovative ways we can think about, number one, growing our own economy here at home, creating jobs for Americans, and number two, creating an environment around the world where it’s a much more even playing field, where our companies, our workers are not from the get-go disadvantaged. But secondly, we are also looking for ways to do what we have historically done more effectively. So, working with USAID and its director Raj Shah, we came up with something called the Grand Challenge program, where we’re asking people around the world, okay, how do we get more information about rainfall or irrigation or drought and seeds that can survive to these poor, small stakeholder farmers in Africa and Asia? Well, cell phones. How do we try to keep babies alive when they’re born in very difficult situations when the nearest hospital is a long way away? What can we do to innovate to create a kind of package of interventions that is available in even the poorest community? And there’s lots of examples like that where economic statecraft, where innovation, which is mostly carried out by interacting with entrepreneurs, inventors, and scientists are all part of how we see our mission now.

QUESTION: Going back to my original list and the question here, let’s start with Russia. Putin has accused you of inciting unrest in his country and of making his situation and the situation for the people of Russia worse. Now, does that kind of thing walk on the desire to improve all these economic things that the United States also wants to do with Russia?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s the balancing act we do literally every day. We carry forward high priorities that are not necessarily in conflict, but which are always in need of attention and sometimes rebalancing in terms of their sequencing. So I think one of our strongest values is our protection and advocacy for human rights, and in particular, our support for democracy and the recognition that although elections are not by any means the only definition of democracy, they are a kind of condition that would be – that has to be satisfied to go forward.

And so we’re always looking at how we can communicate clearly what the United States stands for, and in this case, what the Russian people deserve. This was not about the United States. This was about the people of Russia. Independent observers had reached the conclusion that there was unfortunately a lot of interference, manipulation of the election. And look, Russia has one of the most highly educated populations in the world, and now a growing middle class with all the aspirations that middle class families have. And so this didn’t come from the outside; it came from within.

QUESTION: But when you made the decision to criticize what was going on in that election, did you consider the possible fallout that that would have economically and otherwise with the ongoing relationships with Russia?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you always take all of that into account.


SECRETARY CLINTON: And there might be times when our criticism is private and other times when it’s public, when it’s a one-off, and other times when it’s persistent, because you’re always trying to calibrate what will work. I’m not into just criticizing for the sake of criticizing. You’re trying to give voice to and support to people who are standing up for values that are important, but to kind of link your point, in a way, directly to the economy, I think the evidence proves – and we certainly believe – that middle class people, societies that have upward mobility, the opportunity for entrepreneurs to start businesses, grow those businesses, create jobs and wealth – all of that is in America’s interests. And when the government is either heavy-handed or, largely, the economy of a country is driven through state-owned enterprises, that disadvantages our businesses and, by extension, our workers, our investors, our people.

Or if you have oligarchs that control so much of the wealth that it’s difficult for people with a good idea in their own country to be able to break through to start that business, well, that doesn’t add to the intellectual property of the entire world or create additional opportunities for our investment. So all of this is played out against the backdrop of what we believe – granted, it’s what we believe – based on our experience, but I think it’s been proven to be pretty universal, both for political freedom and economic freedom, which are the best routes to social and economic success – more openness, more responsiveness, more accountability and transparency, whether it’s in elections or being able to start a business are in the overall calculation, a benefit to us, as well as the people who themselves are experiencing it.

MR. LEHRER: These earlier panels – much, much time and many, many words were used to talk about the relationship with China, and how it affects all the things that are of concern to everybody in the world. First of all, let me ask you: How would you describe the relationship with China? Is China a competitor? Is it an enemy? Is it a collaborator? Is it a friend? Or what – describe it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, we describe our relationship – and I think it’s accurate – at this point in time as a positive one, a cooperative one, and a comprehensive one. Now, that doesn’t mean we are also not competitors in the economic field and for political influence. That kind of goes with the territory. We compete with countries all over the world on a range of issues.

But in the Obama Administration, what we have tried to do is to be very clear that we want a positive relationship with China. We do not begrudge or fear a peaceful rise of China. We think that that is in the interest of the Chinese people, and it’s a remarkable story of economic growth over the last 30 years. We also think that it’s in our interests as well. We want to have a positive relationship.

At the same time though, countries go through phases, kind of like individuals do, and China is off and running. They have developed a strong economic engine for growth that is not only benefitting the Chinese people but also having quite dramatic effects elsewhere in the world. I mean, their hunt for natural resources is almost inexhaustible because of their population and the rising expectations of their people. There are ways to do it that will be sustainable and ways to do it that are not. So we engage with the Chinese, as we do with others around the world, on – there are mining practices that will not have damaging environmental effects, and there are those that do. And so let’s work together in the global community to try to be more responsible.

And you can go down the list, and there are many issues like that where, under the umbrella of something we call the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that Tim Geithner and I jointly chair, we have working groups on a vast array of subjects that don’t break into the headlines but which are advancing science and technology cooperation, sending 100,000 students to study in China, increasing dramatically the visas that we offer. We have increased just in the last year by 32 percent; we’re hiring 100 more visa adjudicators because we want to have those relationships, on and on and on. But we also have differences, as we do with even our closest friends.

QUESTION: One of the differences that was discussed at length – it was in a context that one of the main things the United States has always contributed to the world, and does to this day, is its ideas. We are an idea society. And China is stealing them.


QUESTION: And it all comes into the – under the term intellectual property.


QUESTION: What are you doing about that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, besides raising Cain, which we do regularly on behalf of our companies as well as on behalf of our entire economy, we’re looking for leverage points – as I say, these new rules of the road – to protect intellectual property, to tighten up our own controls, so that we don’t see the leakage or the theft of intellectual property.

But again, this is – on the scale that it’s occurring, it’s quite large, but it’s not a new problem. Americans have faced intellectual property challenges and outright espionage from other countries and businesspeople in many places. But the scale of this is different and the control over the economy – because you’re not dealing with a free market economy. You’re dealing with a still very government-controlled economic system, which means that you have different challenges in trying to compete in China.

And when China was opening up, they were vey welcoming, and American businesses took advantage of that. Well, now they’re trying to say to themselves, “Okay, we want to do this ourselves now, and we think we have advanced to the point where we can begin doing this. So what’s the shortcut?” And we see it. We see the shortcuts being taken, and it’s deeply distressing.

Well, it would be one thing if you were competing against another business doing that. But you basically have the whole Chinese trade and governmental apparatus that you have to deal with. And so we have to come to the defense of and champion our businesses in fighting this out on a case-by-case basis. But we also have to begin to move China, along with others, to accept new global rules about how we’re going to protect global intellectual property.

QUESTION: Orville Schell, one of the panelists this morning, made the point that from his perspective; he thinks that China has yet to come to grips with the – with accepting its leadership responsibilities.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Orville is an expert, and he’s right. And that’s one of the arguments we’re making on an almost daily basis.

QUESTION: And how do you make that argument? What do you – who do you – how do you do that? Who do you say it to?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we say it at the highest levels of the Chinese Government in our constant interactions with them. And you can imagine the ambivalence by the Chinese because they look at what they’ve accomplished in 30 years and they see how much more they have yet to do. They see still the lack of development in many parts of the countryside, the problems they think they might run into, unemployment as their wages naturally rise, and then businesses, even Chinese businesses, start to look elsewhere for cheaper labor.

They’re trying to manage a galloping horse, so to speak. And we come in and say, “Okay, you’re now the second-largest economy in the world. Your growth trajectory is still incredibly fast and high. You are influencing what is going on, and you need to be more thoughtful about that, and you need to engage in a more responsible leadership role.” Look, this is not a conversation that’s by many – any means over. It’s an ongoing conversation. We’ve engaged the Chinese in talking about their business and development practices in places like Africa and South America. We’ve talked to them about water management, damming rivers that can dramatically affect their neighbors. We have a long list of what we talk to them about under the sort of rubric of responsible leadership.

QUESTION: Do you feel any movement, I mean, any response?



SECRETARY CLINTON: I’ll give a perfect example. Hasn’t gotten a lot of publicity, but the Durban Climate Conference, which just concluded, turned out a whole lot better than a lot of us would have thought going into it. And our negotiating team was just superb. Because when the President and I went to Copenhagen back in 2009 for the climate conference, and we had these intense, never-ending meetings with high levels of officials, heads of state and government from all over the world, and the Chinese were there with Premier Wen Jiabao, we really pushed hard to make some progress, and you might recall the President and I crashed a meeting that Brazil and China and India and South Africa were holding, and I just kind of walked in, sat down, and said, “Hey, what’s happening, guys?” (Laughter.) And sort of – we pulled up chairs to the table and we hammered out what became known as the Copenhagen Accord, and it was quite dramatic, because the Chinese climate negotiator was absolutely dead-set against it. But again, on this appeal to responsibility, Wen Jiabao, Prime Minister Singh from India, President Zuma from South Africa – they see the larger picture.

So we reached the Accord, then we couldn’t put enough meat on the bones, but coming out of Durban just now, the Chinese were dead-set against accepting responsibilities that were in any way comparable to what they still refer to as “developed countries.” They want to keep growing like the engine that they are, but without those responsibilities, to go back to Orville’s point.

Our position is you’re now the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. We cannot act as though you are Botswana, I mean, or the Seychelles. I mean, you have to take responsibility. The deal that was hammered out – by no means perfect, before any expert in climate claims otherwise, here – was to, for the first time, end this differentiation between the developed and the developing, in terms of what we all have to do to meet this global challenge. So it was – it took – they had to stay there longer, they had to hammer it out. We still have a lot of work to do to actually get it in writing by 2015, get it in force by 2020.

But this is the kind of slow, hard, persistent work that is required. Because if you were China, you’d rather just keep growing and not have anybody hold you to account. But that will – we talk about rebalancing the global economy – that would unbalance not only the global economy, but the way we do work together around the world on a range of issues. So we have to move toward that responsible stakeholder position.

QUESTION: Move to another part of the world. The Arab Spring. What have been the economic consequences for the United States from that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, Jim, I think it’s important to remember that the Arab Spring really started in Tunisia because of the total frustration of a young Tunisian vegetable vendor to make a good living for himself and his family. I mean, he wasn’t protesting for what we think of as civil or political or human rights, except in the broadest definition of that. He was protesting because the corruption and the greed of local officials, the interference with the ability to do business in the market, the constant demand for bribes, finally was just too much. And he protested by burning himself to death. But it was the spark that ignited the Arab Spring. And in much of the work we are now doing in supporting the democratic transitions, it is as much about the economy as it is about political freedom, democracy-building, et cetera.

And you can understand why, because if you look at any of the last decade’s worth of UN reports on Arab development, other than the elite, the oil-producing countries that were able to spend very broadly with lots of largesse, there wasn’t a lot of trade, there wasn’t a lot of innovation, the governments were incredibly hostile and cumbersome to deal with if you wanted to start a business, and on and on.

So our emphasis has been, how do we support their democratic aspirations and how do we ensure that their economic aspirations are married to that? Because in all of these transitions, people expect change immediately. They expect a better job, they expect a rise in income, they expect to have their business left alone by the many hands of government officials who are holding them out, and we know that if we can’t bring some economic progress, then we’re not going to see the kind of institutional foundation for these changes that we want.

QUESTION: But in general, good for America, right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Look, I think we are always better off being on the side of democracy, but we have to keep our eyes wide open. There is no guarantee that this will be an easy road for the people themselves, or frankly, for us. And it wasn’t so long ago in our history when we were engaged in the cold war, that when countries had democratic elections, sometimes if they elected people we didn’t like, we took some action on that, which didn’t always turn out as well as it should have.

Well, now in the 21st century, with interconnectivity and information so broadly available, I think number one, we are for democracy, but we’re for democracy that actually meets the definition that is more appropriate than just saying, “Okay, have an election one time. Whoever wins, good for you. You’re now in charge.” No, I mean, you have to embed the habits of the heart that de Tocqueville wrote about, so that you have a free press, you have an independent judiciary, you protect minority rights – I mean, that’s one of our biggest concerns now, is religious minorities, ethnic minorities. Are they going to be protected, are they going to be viewed as full citizens? There’s a lot of history, culture, religious discrimination pushing the other way.

Women – are women who were in the squares in Tunis or Cairo or supporting the fighters in Libya, are they going to be given a chance to fulfill their own potential? So there are a lot of unanswered questions, to say nothing of the kind of geopolitical implications for Israel, and for our interests, and so much else. But supporting democratic transformation and economic transformation is in America’s interests.

QUESTION: Speaking of Israel, was what Newt Gingrich said about the “invented people of Palestine” helpful?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No. No. (Laughter.)

And I think he recognized that, from what I read. I think he realized that was one of those innovative moments that happens in politics. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: See, we’re still on subject. Still on subject, still on subject, still on subject.

Pakistan, and that part of the world. Pakistan, of course, coupled always with India, Pakistan being the trouble-spot. That relationship has really deteriorated, hasn’t it, with the United States?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it’s a difficult relationship. It has been for many, many years. You can go back and trace the difficulties that our country has encountered. We’ve gone through periods of closeness and periods of distance. And part of the reason we keep going back and working at it is because it’s a very important relationship, and it’s especially important with respect to our work in Afghanistan.

But this actually links to some of your previous questions, Jim, because Pakistan is so poor and needs so much reform in their government and in the delivery of fundamental services that it is a – it’s a constant, vicious cycle of – if you can’t have a decent tax base so that you can actually have schools for universal education, then you’re going to have families desperate to get their sons educated, turning them over to madrassas that are going to inculcate them in extremism, and on and on and on.

And so part of what we’ve tried to do with Pakistan, in the last three years, is provide support for them to make the tough decisions. They have to reform their agricultural sector, their energy sector. They’ve got to begin to wean their citizenry off of subsidies in order to generate some kind of competitive economic environment. But the fact is that so few people pay taxes in Pakistan, and hardly anybody among the feudal landed elite and the rich pay taxes, so there’s no base on which to build the kind of system of services that people would at least feel like, well, maybe it hasn’t gotten to me yet, but my children’s life will be better.

So you have turmoil, you have extremism, you have all kinds of internal difficulties. So it’s not only the political choices that are made, it’s the weak economic leadership that has gripped the country and, frankly, one of the problems which I see throughout the world: an elite that is not willing to invest in the future prosperity and success of their country; in part, because they’re doing pretty well, they have for generations; in part, because they don’t see a connection between, if you grow the pie, you actually have a chance to do even better than if you shrink the pie and your piece is comparatively not growing. So it’s a troubling set of economic conditions, as well as political ones, that we’re trying to work with them on.

QUESTION: On Iraq, the President is speaking as we speak at Fort Bragg —


QUESTION: — of a kind of closed-down American involvement. How would you summarize the accomplishment or the meaning of the Iraq war?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it is too soon to tell. I believe that it’s going to be some years before we can make a final judgment. But having spent the last two days working on Iraq, meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, with various ministers of his government, obviously in the Oval Office with the President, it is a functioning state, it is a democratically elected leadership, it is able to protect its own internal security, mostly, although they face a lot of challenges, and there is a great commitment to investment and trade that they have made. I think the prime minister was over at the Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

So the agenda is a good agenda. Translating it into the hard daily work of setting up government ministries that actually function in a productive way, of opening up to businesses, that’s going to take time. Now, everybody points to the north, to the Kurdish part of Iraq, and lots of business flooding in. I mean, people obviously, when you think about Iraq and you think about Iran’s influence, worry about Iran, but Turkey has invested twice as much as Iran has in Iraq in the last decade. So the north is booming in many ways, and they do – look, they live in a very dangerous neighborhood and they do have real enemies, internal and to some extent external. So they’re moving in the right direction. We just have to keep doing everything we can to keep them on that path.

QUESTION: And worth the cost in U.S. lives and resources?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Look, I think, again, that’ll be a retrospective for historians. But the Iraqi people now have a chance to chart their own future, which they didn’t have before.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Jim. (Applause.)

QUESTION: And thanks to all of you who have participated in this morning of discussion about innovation and the global economy, et cetera, et cetera.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thanks, Jim.

QUESTION: Thank you. (Applause.)

Read Full Post »

Secretary Clinton to Address International Engagement Conference for South Sudan

Notice to the Press

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 13, 2011

Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton will deliver remarks at the South Sudan International Engagement Conference on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 10:00 am at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.

The two-day conference will highlight the national development vision of the Republic of South Sudan and the opportunities for investment in the country. The conference will also salute the people of South Sudan for achieving their independence in July. President Salva Kiir Mayardit will address the conference and outline the development and policy priorities of South Sudan that serve as the foundations for the new nation. The conference will also focus on private sector and investment opportunities, in line with the economic priorities of the Republic of South Sudan.

Those scheduled to speak at the two-day event include: Secretary Clinton, Administrator Shah, UN Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk, U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan Princeton Lyman, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, U.S. Ambassador to South Sudan Susan D. Page, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer, and OPIC President and CEO Elizabeth Littlefield. World Bank President Robert Zoellick, Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ) will also participate, as well as development ministers, foreign officials, and private sector and NGO leaders.

“A Discussion on American Innovation, Trade, and the Next 10 Million Jobs”

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 13, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will join PBS NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer for “Innovation and the Global Marketplace: A Discussion on American Innovation, Trade, and the Next 10 Million Jobs,” at 11:00 a.m. on December 14 at the Newseum in Washington, DC.

The live discussion will be part of a panel event featuring conversations between PBS NewsHour correspondents and leaders from across the private and public sectors, exploring the critical connections between American jobs, economic growth and U.S. relationships around the world. These conversations will explore issues like trade agreements, public diplomacy, global innovation patterns and policies, the impact of technology on international relationships and geopolitics, and the rapidly changing global marketplace.

The event is hosted by PBS NewsHour, The Aspen Institute and Intel.

This event can be viewed live on www.state.gov .

Secretary Clinton Hosts “Diplomacy at Home for the Holidays”

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 13, 2011

For the third consecutive year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will host “Diplomacy at Home for the Holidays” on December 14 at 3:00 pm in the Diplomatic Reception Rooms at the Department of State. The annual event honors the service, dedication and sacrifice of U.S. Government employees and their families who endure long periods of separation due to assignments in hardship posts around the world. This year, the Office of the Chief of Protocol has partnered with Skype and Hallmark to help bring these separated families together over the holiday season using both traditional methods and new and innovative technologies.

Using Skype, families attending will be able to celebrate and re-connect in a meaningful way with their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and other loved ones who are serving at U.S. Embassies around the world. Skype will be set up on laptops outfitted with webcams around the Benjamin Franklin State Dining Room for families to use. In addition, a Skype Group Video call will be set up so that personnel around the world can view a live stream of the program hosted by Secretary Clinton.

During the event, children of U.S. diplomats serving unaccompanied tours, and children from the respective foreign embassies in Washington DC, will prepare Hallmark cards, recordable storybooks and art projects for those serving abroad. As an expression of gratitude, the completed projects will be sent to the recognized hardship embassies for display during the holiday season.

In honor of this event and inspired by the history and significance of the Diplomatic Reception Rooms, interior designer Erinn Valencich created holiday decorations to complement the existing collections and colors in each room. The decorations will be on display through the month of December in the Benjamin Franklin State Dining Room, Thomas Jefferson State Reception Room and James Monroe Reception Room on the eighth floor of the Harry S Truman building. Every day, the Diplomatic Reception Rooms play host to the most senior levels of American diplomacy and showcase our nation’s heritage to visitors from around the world. These stately rooms are maintained without taxpayer or government funds.

Click here to learn more about the Diplomatic Reception Rooms.

Looks like she is double-booked.

Secretary Clinton Addresses Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

Notice to the Press

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 13, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver closing remarks at the first meeting of the Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief, on Wednesday, December 14, 2011, at 3:00 pm at the U.S. Department of State.

The meeting assembled experts from 30 countries and international organizations to discuss best practices for engaging religious minorities, training government officials on religious and cultural awareness, and enforcing laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

The United States believes that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are vital to every nation and critical in maintaining stability and promoting economic prosperity. The Istanbul Process acts on that belief by providing a forum to implement U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which calls for specific steps to combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence on the basis of religion or belief, while also protecting freedom of speech and religion.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sister Colleges Launch First Women in Public Service Project to Build Gender-Equality in Global Government Leadership and Public Service

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 9, 2011

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in collaboration with the Seven Sister Colleges of Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Smith College, and Wellesley College, will launch a new initiative Thursday to increase the number of women in public service at the local, national, and international levels. The Project will identify and educate a new generation of women committed to public service, create an infrastructure of support and mentoring, and help enable more women to enter public service and political leadership.

On December 15 in Washington D.C., The Women in Public Service Project will host a colloquium featuring Secretary Clinton and a global representation of government leaders, policy makers, public officials, scholars, students, researchers, and leaders in public service.

“Women have to be part of the future. And it’s imperative that as constitutions are created, as political parties are organized, as elections are waged and won, nobody can claim a democratic future if half the population is marginalized or even prevented from participating,” said Secretary Clinton. “We must support the rise of women leaders because frankly, they are more likely to have firsthand knowledge and understanding of the challenges women face. This is going to require legal change, it’s going to require political will, and it’s going to require cultural and behavioral changes.”

Confirmed speakers include Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund; Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State; Irina Bokova, Director-General of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); Dr. Florence Chenoweth, Minister of Agriculture for the Republic of Liberia; Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations’ Development Programme; Jane Harman, former Congresswoman and Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center; Atifete Jahjaga, the President of Kosovo; Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services; and author and activist Gloria Steinem.

A live webcast of the colloquium will be available at https://statedept.connectsolutions.com/wps. Updates on the events and the Women in Public Service project can be found on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/WPSProject or on Twitter @WPSProject.

The colloquium will highlight the details of The Women in Public Service Project, including a 2012 pilot summer institute at Wellesley to help train promising women leaders from around the world. The pilot will lay the groundwork for further development of curricula for similar educational activities at other institutions and in other regions of the world and will identify areas of research to help combat obstacles to women entering public service and government leadership. Attendees of the program will include rising young leaders from across the globe, including women from Middle East and North Africa transition countries.

“The Sister Colleges have a deep-rooted legacy of educating women leaders on a global level and are enthusiastic about this unique opportunity to help motivate and inform the next generation of women to focus specifically on public service,” said the Sister College presidents as part of this announcement. “We are proud of our Sister College alumnae who have embarked on careers in public service, and are committed to providing women with the tools and resources they need to help increase their leadership skills in the public sector.”

As part of The Women in Public Service Project, 40 women from 37 countries traveled to the United States to participate in an International Visitor Leadership Program. For two weeks, these international public servants collaborated with their American counterparts in cities across the United States to discuss ways in which to strengthen women’s roles in public service. Click here to learn more.

The Women in Public Service Project will also begin to introduce plans to build an online network of support and mentorship to link women in government and public service globally.

About the Women in Public Service Project

The Women in Public Service Project is an initiative of the U.S. Department of State and the Seven Sisters women’s colleges – Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Smith and Wellesley – to advance women to positions of influence in governments and civic organizations worldwide. The initiative is distinguished by the partners’ demonstrated legacy of educating women leaders across the globe and linking them to each other through powerful intergenerational networks. The Women in Public Service Project envisions a world in which political and civic leadership is at least 50 percent female by 2050. The Department of State and the Sister colleges are committed to building the infrastructure and convening the conversations necessary to achieve this vision.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: