Mediaboss Marketing

Hillary Clinton spoke out against the use of torture during a Tuesday speech in New York City, strongly condemning the tactics for the first time since the recent release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation methods from a decade ago.

"Today we can say again in a loud and clear voice, the United States should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the world, Clinton said.

The former secretary of state, accepting an award from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, acknowledged that Americans are frustrated by the countrys division and polarization that often seems to block progress.

"That should be absolutely clear as a matter of both policy and law, including our international treaty obligations, and if that requires new legislation, then Congress should work with President Obama to quickly enact it and it shouldn't be an issue of partisan politics," Clinton said of eliminating the use of torture techniques.

America is at our best when our actions match our values, she said.

Clinton said she was proud to be part of the Obama administration noting brutal interrogation tactics such as waterboarding were banned with a 2009 executive order.

"Yes, the threat of terrorism is real and urgent, scores of children were just murdered in Pakistan, beheadings in the Middle East, a siege in Sydney, these tragedies not only break hearts but should steel our resolve and underscore that our values are what set us apart from our adversaries, Clinton said.

Clintons statements follow an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Tuesday that found almost six in ten Americans believe the CIAs treatment of suspected terrorists was justified. About half of Americans believe the CIA did use torture, while 53 percent think the interrogations produced critical information that could not have been obtained any other way. Just 31 percent of those polled reject this claim, revealing a focus of the recent debate.

Clinton also spoke about recent unrest following police-related deaths of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Missouri and Staten Island, New York, telling attendees black lives matter, repeating a phrase used by activists after grand juries failed to indict officers in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

If Kennedy were alive, he would say that it is "possible to keep us safe from terrorism and reduce crime and violence without relying on torture abroad or unnecessary force or excessive incarceration at home," she said.

Read the original here:
Hillary Clinton Speaks Out Against U.S. Use of Torture

Former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton speaks at a press conference announcing a new initiative between the Clinton Foundation, United Nations Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies, titled Data2x on December 15, 2014 in New York City. Andrew Burton, Getty Images

Two years after launching a project called Data2X, which aims to advance gender equality around the world, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday kicked off the next phase of the project, announcing new partnerships to collect data on gender gaps. At Monday's event, Clinton explained why she's spearheading projects like this one.

"I have been championing the rights of women and girls around the world, as well as here at home, for many years," Clinton said, repeating a narrative she's used multiple times this year. "I got tired of seeing otherwise thoughtful people smile and nod when I raise these issues."

Clinton has indeed worked on issues relating to women and families for decades. Yet as a presidential candidate in the 2008 election cycle, the focus of her campaign fell more on her managerial credentials, with a promise that she was "ready to lead."

Eight years later, the circumstances are different. Clinton has more experience as a stateswoman under her belt, American women have embraced the concept of "leaning in," and women's issues -- such as ensuring equal pay for equal work, or requiring paid sick leave -- have come to the forefront of national conversations. Moreover, the very idea of what constitutes "women's issues" has broadened dramatically since Hillary Clinton first entered public life.

"We've witnessed a rise in the awareness of these issues," Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), told CBS News. CAP launched its own campaign focused on elevating policies to help women and families just last year.

"There's a lot more [discussion] about the treatment of working women, whether it's positive or negative," Tanden said, referencing a range of issues, from the discussion in Congress over sexual assault in the military to news reports on pay disparities in Hollywood.

These new discussions give Clinton a better chance than ever to cast herself as a champion for women and families. While she has yet to announce whether she'll launch another bid for the White House, Clinton has this year taken steps to further solidify her standing as a voice for women.

Play Video

During her remarks to the Democratic National Committee's Women's Leadership Forum Conference in Washington, D.C., the former secretary of state ...

Read the original:
Will Hillary Clinton be a champion for women in the 2016 election?

Election 2016 may be back to the future all over again.

With Jeb Bush's Tuesday announcement that he is actively exploring a run for the White House in 2016, the prospect of another Bush v. Clinton matchup grows. To Americans all-too familiar with both political families that may be bothexciting and appalling.

Should the former Florida governor and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton win their respective party's nomination and that's a long way off the 2016 election would pit two of the most powerful American political dynasties of late against each other.

And it wouldn't be the first time. In 1992, Bill Clinton ousted former President George H.W. Bush, Jeb's father. And in 2000, George W. Bush, Jeb's brother, defeated Clinton Vice President Al Gore.

Politically incestuous? Sure. But both Clinton (Hillary, to be clear) and Bush (we're talking about Jeb) loom large.

Clinton nearly won her party's nomination and gained valuable experience in 2008. She earned high marks and approval ratings for her four years as Secretary of State under President Obama. She has, arguably, the strongest claim on being the next Democratic standard-bearer.

Of course, Bush is no slacker in the political department either. As the Monitor reported, he's got plenty going for him name recognition, gravitas, polish, executive experience in a major swing state, and perhaps most importantly, credibility with a critical demographic that has eluded Republicans more recently: Hispanics. After all, Governor Bush speaks Spanish, his wife was born in Mexico, and he took an astonishing 61 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 1998 governor's race.

So there's reason that the Bushes and Clintons remain popular.

We love our brands they offer certainty in a world spinning apart, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, told Politico. The political equivalent of a brand is the dynasty, the Bushes or Clintons. And even if Coke produces New Coke, or Ford, an Edsel, now and then. we remain loyal. We know and value what the brand stands for otherwise, we wouldnt want it rehabilitated.

Of course, many aren't so pleased with the prospect of another Bush-Clinton election, with some in the international community mocking America's democracy.

Follow this link:
Jeb Bush v. Hillary Clinton: Who would win in 2016? (+video)

Washington Lets say its 99 percent certain that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president. At least thats the working assumption here inside the Beltway.

According to press reports citing advisers to Mrs. Clinton, she is now likely to make a formal announcement in the spring of 2015. That will allow her to clear the decks of paid speeches that are on her calendar into March. The later announcement also allows her inner circle to wait before making the necessary legal separation with the outside groups supporting her, such as Ready for Hillary.

I had thought last summer or early fall that she might have an exploratory committee going by now, but it appears she doesnt feel shes in any rush, since shell probably raise as much money as she needs to raise, says Democratic strategist Peter Fenn.

I think they want to structure the announcement absolutely right, Mr. Fenn adds. Thats especially the case after her summer book tour, which didnt go so smoothly starting with her comment that she and her husband, the former president, were dead broke when they left the White House in 2001. Sales of her memoir, Hard Choices, were flat.

Clinton doesnt need to announce early to boost her public profile. She already has near-universal name ID. But she doesnt want to wait so long that it looks too cute by half. The media drumbeat is likely to be deafening by the end of winter, if shes still officially pondering.

If she ends up not running, analysts expect her to let us know sooner than spring. A no-go decision would profoundly affect the shape of the Democratic field, and probably spur Vice President Joe Biden and possibly Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts to get in.

But chances are, Clinton is in. She has met with potential campaign managers. Top Obama adviser John Podesta is on tap to serve as campaign chair.

So how important is the timing of a formal announcement, really? And is there a correlation between the timing of a presidential campaign rollout and its ultimate success?

Each presidential cycle has its own dynamic. In the 1992 campaign, then-Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas waited until late October 1991 to announce his long-shot candidacy. But early 1991 was Operation Desert Storm, which left then-President George H. W. Bush looking unbeatable for reelection. The early field of Democratic challengers was weak. And the 800-pound gorilla, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D), eventually opted out. Mr. Clinton had his opening.

When then-Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York ran for president the first time, she announced on Jan. 20, 2007. Senate colleague Barack Obama followed soon after, on Feb. 10. Each had an incentive to get in early. Clinton needed to establish her credibility as a prospective commander in chief and to get a jump on the charismatic young senator from Illinois. Senator Obama needed to build on his early fame, after his star turn at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and to add substance to the flash.

Continue reading here:
Hillary Clinton 2016: Does timing of announcement matter? (+video)

Election 2016 may be back to the future all over again.

With Jeb Bush's Tuesday announcement that he is actively exploring a run for the White House in 2016, the prospect of another Bush v. Clinton matchup grows. To Americans all-too familiar with both political families that may be bothexciting and appalling.

Should the former Florida governor and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton win their respective party's nomination and that's a long way off the 2016 election would pit two of the most powerful American political dynasties of late against each other.

And it wouldn't be the first time. In 1992, Bill Clinton ousted former President George H.W. Bush, Jeb's father. And in 2000, George W. Bush, Jeb's brother, defeated Clinton Vice President Al Gore.

Politically incestuous? Sure. But both Clinton (Hillary, to be clear) and Bush (we're talking about Jeb) loom large.

Clinton nearly won her party's nomination and gained valuable experience in 2008. She earned high marks and approval ratings for her four years as Secretary of State under President Obama. She has, arguably, the strongest claim on being the next Democratic standard-bearer.

Of course, Bush is no slacker in the political department either. As the Monitor reported, he's got plenty going for him name recognition, gravitas, polish, executive experience in a major swing state, and perhaps most importantly, credibility with a critical demographic that has eluded Republicans more recently: Hispanics. After all, Governor Bush speaks Spanish, his wife was born in Mexico, and he took an astonishing 61 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 1998 governor's race.

So there's reason that the Bushes and Clintons remain popular.

We love our brands they offer certainty in a world spinning apart, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, told Politico. The political equivalent of a brand is the dynasty, the Bushes or Clintons. And even if Coke produces New Coke, or Ford, an Edsel, now and then. we remain loyal. We know and value what the brand stands for otherwise, we wouldnt want it rehabilitated.

Of course, many aren't so pleased with the prospect of another Bush-Clinton election, with some in the international community mocking America's democracy.

See the original post:
Jeb Bush v. Hillary Clinton: Who would win in 2016?