Mediaboss Marketing

Wealthy Democratic environmentalists are considering withholding support for a 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential bid unless she reassures them about their top priority: Killing the Keystone XL pipeline.

Shes kind of a closed book on the environment, said Guy Saperstein, an Oakland-based venture capitalist and former president of the San Francisco-based Sierra Club Foundation. I, for one, would not support her until she gives us more information.

So far, Clinton has demurred on Keystone -- she declined to answer directly a question about it during a March 5 event in Vancouver -- even though it was under review by the State Department for much of her tenure as secretary.

She could be a leader on Keystone if she wanted to be, Saperstein said. This is a great opportunity for her to show a little courage.

Its also an issue that comes with risks. If Clinton were to oppose the proposed pipeline that would carry oil sands crude from Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast, it may help in a primary presidential bid while complicating her candidacy in a general election.

The public backed the pipeline construction by 65 percent to 22 percent in a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from Feb. 27 through March 2. It is more controversial among Democrats, according to the survey, which showed they approve of it by a 51 percent to 32 percent margin. Among self-identified liberal Democrats, who often make up an out-sized share of the primary electorate, only 36 percent favored the project compared with 47 percent who didnt.

Democratic activists also must calibrate their actions as Clinton is favored in polls to be the party nominee, regardless of her position on Keystone and other climate matters.

Betsy Taylor, a political strategist who is working with environmental activists and donors, has heard other contributors talk of backing away from Clinton without more assurances on their top issue. To ward off that action, shes using data to nudge the would-be candidate to clarify her stance.

Many of Mrs. Clintons most prominent supporters hope she will acknowledge the rapidly changing data on climate disruption, Taylor said. New data is in, and Hillary is a woman who respects the facts. We hope shell encourage the president to step up and deny this permit.

The nations elite environmentalists have another form of leverage: money.

View original post here:

Clinton Keystone Dodge Prompts Donors to Rethink Support

Michael Gross/State Department

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will continue her focus on women's rights when she appears at the fifth annual Women in the World Summit next month.

Clinton will share the stage with Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, at the event hosted by Tina Brown, the former editor of Newsweek.

"We are thrilled to bring this historic and stimulating dialogue to Women in the World this year," Brown said in a statement. "Secretary Clinton and Madame Lagarde are the leading examples of women breaking gender barriers with every move they make."

The event will be a star-studded affair with prominent women from all walks of life coming together to discuss and promote "inspiring women and men."

Actresses Meryl Streep, Mia Farrow, and Rashida Jones will participate in the three-day event. Former First Lady Barbara Bush and former President Jimmy Carter will also speak, as will designer Diane von Furstenberg and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York.

Clinton's panel with Lagarde will be moderated by New York Times Columnist Thomas L. Friedman and will take place in Lincoln Center's David H. Koch theater.

Since early in her career, women's rights have been a priority for Clinton. In 1995, she attended the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and declared "human rights are women's rights."

Last week, Clinton tied "broader human development" with women's reproductive rights at a United Nations event.

The rest is here:

Hillary Clinton to appear at star-studded women's summit

In the nearly 4,000 pages of Clinton White House documents released last month, a comment from then-First Lady Hillary Clinton received a wave of attention.

In a speech to congressional Democrats in 1993, it sounded like she was dissing the requirement that all Americans have health insurance. The full set of facts is more complicated.

That policy, of course, later became the centerpiece of her own health-care plan as a presidential candidate in 2008 and, later still, of President Barack Obamas health law.

In 1993, she spoke critically of the leading Republican alternative to the Clinton health plan. The GOP plan relied heavily on an individual mandate; by contrast, the Clinton plan rested on a requirement that all employers offer insurance and pay the bulk of the premium.

Mrs. Clinton first said the GOP proposal would be a much harder sell than the Clinton plan. Then, she said: Not only will you be saying that the individual bears the full responsibility, you will be sending shock waves through the currently insured population that if there is no requirement that employers continue to insure, then they, too, may bear the individual responsibility, Mrs. Clinton said.

But some in Clinton quarters say that this quote has been wrongly interpreted as suggesting it was the individual mandate itself that she didnt like.

People have misunderstood the context of the quote, said Neera Tanden, a health-care expert who was the top policy adviser to in her 2008 campaign and is now president of the Center for American Progress.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton was not opposed to the individual mandate, Ms. Tanden said. In fact, the Clinton plan itself included a requirement that all individuals have health insurance, though it was a minor part of plan because it relied more heavily on the employer mandate.

The Republican plan, by contrast, relied chiefly on the individual mandate. It required employers to offer coverage, but unlike the Clinton plan, did not require businesses to pay anything toward premiums. The plan also limited the tax break companies now get for offering insurance.

At the time, the White House was worried that these provisions would lead employers to drop coverage. A 1993 White House analysis of the GOP bill said: Under the Republican Health Task Force plan, individuals would be required by law to buy insurance. While employers would still be free to contribute for insurance coverage, they would have no responsibility to do so. That means that middle-class families will bear the full cost of their insurance, if employers choose not to help pay for health coverage.

Read the original here:

Hillary Clintons Quote on Health Mandate Misunderstood

Dojo YT Intro Ink
Hello and welcome to the land of the search obsessed. On our channel we #39;ll be keeping a collection of not only our own videos, but a bunch of other vids we t...

By: SEO Training Dojo

Original post:
Dojo YT Intro Ink - Video

Secrets To Success With Rosa -- Learn Piano Internet Marketing
Secrets To Success With Rosa -- Learn Piano Internet Marketing For more info! at http://tinyurl.com/brzo3wg.

By: Amolas Orfano

The rest is here:
Secrets To Success With Rosa -- Learn Piano & Internet Marketing - Video