<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Hillary Rodham Clinton</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/hillary_rodham_clinton/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:12:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The politicization of the Secret Service scandal</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/the_politicization_of_the_secret_service_scandal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/the_politicization_of_the_secret_service_scandal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Grassley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter King]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret Service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex Work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12908714</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What was once one of the right's favorite government agencies becomes a symbol of waste and moral degradation]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's hard to work up much outrage about the Secret Service prostitution scandal, in which 11 members of the president's elite protective service and various military personnel were found to have picked up escorts in Colombia, where they were doing advance work for the president's visit. I guess it is probably not a good idea for the people in charge of protecting the president to leave themselves vulnerable to sexual blackmail, but on the other hand we do not live in a John Le Carré novel or "24" episode, and I don't think the threat of a honey-trap assassination conspiracy plot is very credible. If members of the Secret Service want to get drunk and hire escorts after work, that is their business. (As Melissa Gira Grant says, the only actual scandal here -- and the reason this became an international incident -- is that all these guys tried to <a href="http://postwhoreamerica.com/the-real-scandal-is-when-you-dont-pay-her/">bilk one of the women out of the money she was owed.</a>)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/the_politicization_of_the_secret_service_scandal/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/the_politicization_of_the_secret_service_scandal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The silly 2016 speculation game</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/the_silly_2016_speculation_game/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/the_silly_2016_speculation_game/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2016 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeb Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Santorum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12729401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It may be impossible to make any serious predictions about a far-off race, but that has never stopped a pundit]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Being that it's still March 2012 and we have no way of knowing who will actually be president by the end of January 2013 (besides "not Ron Paul," obviously), it would seem to be a bit premature to speculate as to how the 2016 presidential race will shake out. And yet political reporters, finally bored perhaps with the inevitable Republican nomination of Mitt Romney, are already spewing forth predictions. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post has even created a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/welcome-to-the-sweet-2016/2012/03/19/gIQAhd8bNS_blog.html" target="_blank">"Sweet 2016" bracket</a>.<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/welcome-to-the-sweet-2016/2012/03/19/gIQAhd8bNS_blog.html"> </a></p><p>The most important lesson of terrible premature presidential-campaign speculation is that nearly everyone who engages in it will be terribly, hilariously wrong. It doesn't matter if you're a complete buffoon, like Dick Morris, author of the 2007 classic "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race," or someone fairly serious and "savvy," like New York Times politics reporter Matt Bai, who posited current nobody Mark Warner as the future of the party in a 2006 Times magazine cover story now best (if barely) remembered for <a href="http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/magazine-cover-of-mark-warner/">its altered and unflattering photo of the subject.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/the_silly_2016_speculation_game/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/26/the_silly_2016_speculation_game/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Keller writes newest, dumbest Biden-Clinton 2012 swap piece</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/bill_keller_writes_newest_dumbest_biden_clinton_2012_swap_piece/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/bill_keller_writes_newest_dumbest_biden_clinton_2012_swap_piece/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Keller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12001311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Former New York Times editor combines hackneyed analysis with shopworn topic, with predictable results]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill Keller, a <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/11_bill_keller/">bad opinion columnist</a>, has written <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/keller-just-the-ticket.html?_r=3&amp;ref=global-home">a bad opinion column</a>. It is about how Barack Obama will replace Vice President Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a thing that will not actually happen.</p><p>The former New York Times editor has lately been celebrating his return to writing by fearlessly tackling hacky column ideas already exhausted by everyone who was writing bad opinion columns during Keller's tenure as a person with an actually important job. Having offered his own takes on classics like "The Huffington Post isn't as good as a real newspaper" and "Twitter is dumb," Keller today tries the old "running mate switcharoo" scenario.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/bill_keller_writes_newest_dumbest_biden_clinton_2012_swap_piece/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/bill_keller_writes_newest_dumbest_biden_clinton_2012_swap_piece/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fake Democratic pollsters have stupid idea</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/21/fake_democratic_pollsters_have_stupid_idea/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/21/fake_democratic_pollsters_have_stupid_idea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10244877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal publishes nonsense from Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, because they think you're an idiot]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it's best to understand the Wall Street Journal editorial board's decision to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html">publish any given column by con artist pollsters Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell</a> as basically an expression of contempt for people who read the Wall Street Journal editorial page.</p><p>Caddell and Schoen, two loser "Democratic" "pollsters," regularly publish very lame link-bait columns about how if Democrats want to succeed electorally, they must immediately cease being Democrats, and become, instead, Republicans. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html">This week's variation</a> on that theme: Barack Obama should step aside (already heard that one <a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/11/15/obama_caddell_schoen/">last year around this time</a>) and allow himself to be replaced by Hillary Clinton, for the good of the party and the nation.</p><blockquote><p>Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/21/fake_democratic_pollsters_have_stupid_idea/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/21/fake_democratic_pollsters_have_stupid_idea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>100</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does Hillary Clinton get too much credit?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_hillary_clinton_get_too_much_credit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_hillary_clinton_get_too_much_credit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 22:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10160509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[She's a huge foreign policy asset to the president but this week's hosannas feel like overkill]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm on record as a great admirer of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, going back to her days as New York senator and certainly through her 2008 presidential campaign. But this week's set of stories depicting the U.S. Libya intervention as "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story_3.html">Hillary's War</a>" (The Washington Post) and an example of Clinton's "smart power" doctrine (<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2097973,00.html">Time Magazine's cover</a>) go a little bit too far for me. They feel like someone's effort to upstage or diminish President Obama. For the record, I don't think the effort is Clinton's. It may just reflect the mainstream media's inability to give Obama his due.</p><p>Clearly Clinton's competence is an asset to the president, and her power and credibility reflects well on his ability to work with a former rival. And the Time piece, in particular, makes clear, while praising Clinton, that ultimately Obama makes most of his decisions with a small team of confidantes, and she is not among them. He's the commander in chief.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_hillary_clinton_get_too_much_credit/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does_hillary_clinton_get_too_much_credit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary&#8217;s legacy rests on fixing tainted pipeline approval process</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/hillarys_legacy_rests_on_fixing_tainted_pipeline_approval_process/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/hillarys_legacy_rests_on_fixing_tainted_pipeline_approval_process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10127458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The State Department's shoddy review of a hazardous project is connected to former Clinton aides]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary Clinton is one of those people who never really got a fair shake — she had to endure her husband’s philandering and the right-wing’s endless hatred, down to the scurrilous suggestion that she had something to do with the death of her friend Vince Foster. So it’s been a pleasure to watch her accomplished second act — pretty much everyone has had to admit that she’s been a creditable secretary of state; she spent yesterday in Tripoli <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/world/africa/clinton-in-libya-to-meet-leaders-and-offer-aid-package.html">where rebels-turned-rulers fired guns in her honor</a>. Last year, a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/145394/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-2010-admired.aspx">Gallup poll found</a> she was the most admired woman in the United States.</p><p>That’s why it’s particularly painful to see her nearing the end of her career as our top diplomat with a scandal looming. It’s not too late for her to nip it in the bud, and if she doesn’t President Obama can still put a stop to it, as well. But right now, it threatens to tarnish her legacy.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/hillarys_legacy_rests_on_fixing_tainted_pipeline_approval_process/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/19/hillarys_legacy_rests_on_fixing_tainted_pipeline_approval_process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary: An emphatic &#8220;No&#8221; on 2016</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/hillary_an_emphatic_no_on_2016/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/hillary_an_emphatic_no_on_2016/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morning Clip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10122308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Secretary of State insisted on the "Today" show that she has no interest in another presidential bid]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In an interview that aired on this morning's <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/44927989#44927989">"Today" show</a>, Hillary Clinton displayed the same charm and command that have made her one of America's best-loved stateswomen. It's also easy to see why the secretary of state is the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0402/Hillary-Clinton-now-most-popular-figure-in-Obama-administration">most popular</a> figure in the Obama administration, and why many are clamoring for more. Still, Clinton shrugged off the idea, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021921-503544.html">yet again</a>, that she will run for president in 2016. Asked by NBC's Savannah Guthrie, she said:</p><blockquote><p>No. No. You know, Savannah, I'm very privileged to have had the opportunities to serve my country. I'm really old-fashioned. I've made my contribution. I've done the best I can. But now I want to try some other things. I want to get back to writing, maybe some teaching, working on women and girls around the world.</p>
<p>I have made my contribution. I'm very grateful I've had a chance to serve, but now I think it's time for others to step up.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/hillary_an_emphatic_no_on_2016/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/hillary_an_emphatic_no_on_2016/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The rumor that won&#8217;t die</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_rumor_that_wont_die/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_rumor_that_wont_die/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politics.origin.railrode.net/?p=10109729</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton will not replace Joe Biden as VP
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Chicago Sun-Times's Laura Washington revived a perennial non-story this week, in a column speculating that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might replace Vice President Joe Biden. It's a numbers game: Washington thinks Clinton could energize her old feminist base and shore up President Obama's standing with women next year.</p><p>But it's just not going to happen. Clinton says she doesn't want it, Biden says it's impossible, and it would damage more than help the president by making him look desperate.</p><p>The rumor hangs on little more than Bob Woodward's claim that it was "on the table" last fall, because the president had lost support among "the women, Latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the [2008] primaries." But Clinton's 2008 popularity with Latinos, to take one group, wouldn't translate into electoral enthusiasm; she can't pass the Dream Act by herself, any more than President Obama can. Changing vice presidents doesn't change the Congressional mess that impedes the president's agenda.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_rumor_that_wont_die/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_rumor_that_wont_die/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The one reason President Hillary might be more effective than President Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/18/dickinson_hillary_obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/18/dickinson_hillary_obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/18/dickinson_hillary_obama</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The question Democrats should ask is if she'd be stronger in a first term than Obama would be as a lame duck]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Times Magazine is jumping into the Hillary for President debate with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/what-would-hillary-clinton-have-done.html?_r=3&amp;pagewanted=all&amp;src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB">a new piece by Rebecca Traister</a>. Citing <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/07/hillary-clinton-2012-calls-grow-with-anger-at-obama-debt-capitulation.html">a Daily Beast article by Leslie Bennetts</a>, which in turns draws heavily on <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/04/dickinson_hillary_2012">my initial "Run, Hillary, Run" post</a> in Salon, Traister -- a Clinton supporter in 2008 -- tries to tamp down the growing buyer&#8217;s remorse she detects among Obama supporters. She writes:</p><blockquote>
<p>"Rather than reveling in these flights of reverse political fancy, I find myself wanting the revisionist Hillary fantasists -- Clintonites and reformed Obamamaniacs alike -- to just shut up already."</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/18/dickinson_hillary_obama/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/18/dickinson_hillary_obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>104</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mistakes of the 2008 Democratic primary</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/10/mistakes_of_2008_primary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/10/mistakes_of_2008_primary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2008 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh//politics/2011/08/10/mistakes_of_2008_primary</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I thought blaming the Clintons for the GOP jihad against them was unfair. Is the left doing the same to Obama?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every time I try to get out of this discussion about whether liberals made the wrong choice in the 2008 Democratic primary, someone pulls me back in. The Nation's Ari Melber, a writer I like a lot, asked me my thoughts via Twitter Monday night. Even more intriguing, a Salon reader who criticized me regularly but always respectfully for my Obama skepticism in 2008 posted on Facebook that I had been right back then. OK, I live for being told I was right -- but I have no way to know whether Hillary Clinton would have been a tougher Democratic president than Barack Obama.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/08/07/buyers_remorse/index.html">I've already written</a> about why I think liberals pondering "buyers' remorse" over Obama is useless and divisive. My discussion with Melber and my Facebook friend made me realize something else. One of my primary complaints about Obama supporters in 2008 was the way so many blamed the Clintons for the GOP crusade against them, as though Republicans would have played fair if only the unethical Clintons hadn't given them Whitewater, Travelgate and most notably, sex scandals. That was unfair to the Clintons, and it was also naive. It hugely underestimated the ferocity of modern-day GOP attack politics. Now I find myself wondering if progressives are over-focused on Obama's perceived shortcomings when it comes to dealing with Republicans, because we likewise don't want to deal with the amoral political savagery of the enemy he faces.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/10/mistakes_of_2008_primary/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/10/mistakes_of_2008_primary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>223</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Run, Hillary, run!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/dickinson_hillary_2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/dickinson_hillary_2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 17:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/08/04/dickinson_hillary_2012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case for why she should challenge President Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>This originally appeared at</em> <a href="http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/"><em>Presidential Power</em></a></p><p>If I were a Democrat (and I'm only posing as one here!), this would be why I think Hillary Clinton should challenge Barack Obama in 2012.</p><p>To begin, the president is in deep political trouble. I presented <a href="http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2011/07/14/misery-loves-company-incumbents-inflation-and-unemployment/">some basic economic indicators</a> earlier that show the historical comparisons indicating that Obama is in Jimmy Carter territory. These are crude measures, of course. But more sophisticated forecast models, such as Yale economist Ray Fair&#8217;s, which uses per capita growth of real Gross Domestic Product during the three quarters preceding the election; the growth in inflation during the incumbent&#8217;s term; and the number of quarters during the incumbent&#8217;s term in which real GDP grows by more than 3.2 percent to predict the popular vote, now show Obama winning slightly less than 50 percent of 2012 popular vote. Given current economic projections, there&#8217;s not likely to be any more strong growth quarters between now and November 2012, meaning the odds for Obama&#8217;s reelection are probably not going to get better. To be sure, most of the political science forecast models don&#8217;t kick in until a year from now, so it&#8217;s a bit early to rely on them. But if Clinton is going to run, she can&#8217;t wait. And right now Obama is very vulnerable to a strong Republican challenger.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/dickinson_hillary_2012/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/dickinson_hillary_2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>165</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. recognizes Libyan rebels as Libyan government</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/15/eu_us_libya/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/15/eu_us_libya/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/07/15/eu_us_libya</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Clinton says Obama administration will grant Benghazi-based resistance diplomatic recognition, paving way for aid]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration has decided to formally recognize Libya's main opposition group as the country's legitimate government. The move gives foes of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi a major financial and credibility boost.</p><p>Clinton announced Friday that Washington accepts the Transitional National Council as the legitimate governing authority of the Libyan people. Diplomatic recognition of the council means that the U.S. will be able to fund the opposition with some of the more than $30 billion in Gahdafi-regime assets that are frozen in American banks.</p><p>Clinton made the announcement at an international conference on Libya in Istanbul.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/07/15/eu_us_libya/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/07/15/eu_us_libya/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clinton backs Saudi women driver protest</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/21/us_us_clinton_saudi/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/21/us_us_clinton_saudi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/21/us_us_clinton_saudi</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A coalition of Saudi activists on Monday urged Clinton to publicly support the campaign]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is lending her support to women in Saudi Arabia protesting the kingdom's ban on female drivers.</p><p>A day after the State Department said it was handling the issue through quiet diplomacy and not public pronouncements, Clinton on Tuesday spoke out in praise of the protesters. She says their actions are "brave" and their goal is "right." Clinton stressed it is a homegrown appeal for equal rights and is not being driven by outsiders.</p><p>A coalition of Saudi activists on Monday urged Clinton to publicly support the campaign to end male-only driving rules in the ultraconservative Muslim country. Last week, about 40 Saudi women challenged the restrictions by getting behind the wheels of cars.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/21/us_us_clinton_saudi/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/21/us_us_clinton_saudi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clinton&#8217;s Africa trip curtailed by volcanic ash</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/13/af_us_clinton_volcano/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/13/af_us_clinton_volcano/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/13/af_us_clinton_volcano</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Secretary of State will leave Addis Ababa immediately to avoid being stranded in the Ethiopian capital]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is cutting short a three-nation tour of Africa due to a volcano eruption that has created an ash cloud over parts of East Africa.</p><p>Clinton was to have spent Monday night in Addis Ababa. But she will now leave the Ethiopian capital immediately because the ash cloud from the explosion in Eritrea is heading toward the city.</p><p>U.S. officials said the airport at Addis Ababa was to be closed. That meant Clinton faced being stranded if she had proceeded with her planned meetings in Ethiopia on Tuesday.</p><p>Clinton was scheduled to depart Tuesday afternoon and arrive back in Washington early Wednesday. It's unclear when she'll now return.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/13/af_us_clinton_volcano/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/13/af_us_clinton_volcano/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary as World Bank leader?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/10/hillary_clinton_world_bank/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/10/hillary_clinton_world_bank/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/10/hillary_clinton_world_bank</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Spokespeople deny rumors that Clinton will seek organization's presidency. We look at how the top job works]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary Clinton's spokespeople have already assertively denied a Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-obama-clinton-worldbank-idUSTRE7586P720110609">report</a> that the secretary of state will seek the World Bank presidency once it becomes vacant in 2012.</p><p>"Let me address this as definitively as I can, on the record ... The story is completely untrue," said Philippe Reines, Clinton aide and deputy assistant secretary of state."</p><p>Political commentators were all a-Tweet last night in response to the rumor and its rebuttal, weighing in on whether Clinton would have been elected and what this might have meant. Slate's Dave Weigel <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/daveweigel/status/78941699472232449">tweeted</a> "But isn't the World Bank presidency supposed to go someone discredited?", while Reuters' Felix Salmon <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/felixsalmon/status/78937148077780994">posted</a>, "The next head of the World Bank should be a woman AND from a developing country. My vote: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala [Nigeria's finance and foreign minister]."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/10/hillary_clinton_world_bank/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/10/hillary_clinton_world_bank/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clinton: Bin Laden raid a watershed for Pakistan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton_1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton_1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 20:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osama Bin Laden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/27/as_clinton_1</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["We have reached a turning point," Clinton says after meeting with senior Pakistani officials]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The killing of Osama bin Laden is a watershed moment for Pakistan's confrontation with homegrown terrorism, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday. She sought to patch relations rocked by knowledge that the terror mastermind lived for years in a country receiving billions in U.S. counter-terror aid and that the U.S. didn't trust its ally enough to alert Pakistani leaders that the raid was coming.</p><p>"We have reached a turning point" following the long hunt for bin Laden, Clinton said after intensive meetings in the Pakistani capital under tight security.</p><p>"It is up to the Pakistani people to choose what kind of country they wish to live in," Clinton said, "and it is up to the leaders of Pakistan to deliver results."</p><p>Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, praised Pakistan's stand against some militants and challenged its leaders to take decisive steps to jointly take on al-Qaida. Both the senior leadership of al-Qaida and the Taliban are thought to live in Pakistan, and affiliated militants use safe havens in Pakistan to attacks U.S. forces fighting next door in Afghanistan.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton_1/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton_1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clinton: Pakistan needs to take &#8216;decisive steps&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 15:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osama Bin Laden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/27/as_clinton</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The secretary of state also said any peace deal in Afghanistan would not succeed unless Pakistan was involved]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that relations between the United States and Pakistan have reached a turning point after the killing of Osama bin Laden and she called on Islamabad to take "decisive steps" in the days ahead to fight terrorism.</p><p>Clinton made the remarks after meeting with Pakistani leaders on a seven-hour trip aimed at repairing ties badly damaged by the May 2 U.S. raid that killed the al-Qaida chief. A brief portion of the meetings witnessed by reporters was stiff and awkward, with no smiles among the U.S. delegation, and it was unclear how much, if any, progress was made.</p><p>Although she stressed that the U.S. won't abandon an alliance it considers critical to success in the war in Afghanistan and that both countries had shared interests, Clinton also criticized Pakistanis for propagating conspiracy theories and anti-American sentiment.</p><p>Pakistani officials are angry they were not told in advance of the raid against bin Laden, who was living in an army town not far from the capital, Islamabad. Parliament has passed resolutions condemning the U.S. incursion, and the U.S. has been asked to reduce the number of military personnel it has stationed in nuclear-armed Pakistan, which has become a nexus for Islamic extremism.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/27/as_clinton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clinton: U.S. &#8220;disappointed&#8221; by Yemeni president</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/23/us_us_yemen_1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/23/us_us_yemen_1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 12:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yemen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/23/us_us_yemen_1</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Embattled leader backs away from promise to relinquish his power]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration is "deeply disappointed" by the refusal of Yemen's president to sign an agreement to step down in 30 days.</p><p>Clinton says President Ali Abdullah Saleh "is turning his back on his commitments and disregarding the legitimate aspirations of the Yemeni people."</p><p>The secretary also says she was "outraged" to learn that Saleh's supporters had surrounded an embassy in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, trapping U.S., European and Arab diplomats. Hundreds of Saleh loyalists wielding knives, swords and automatic rifles, blocked the entrances to the mission for hours before they were finally dispersed by security forces.</p><p>Yemen has been consumed by chaos for three months as hundreds of thousands of protesters demanded Saleh's ouster.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/23/us_us_yemen_1/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/23/us_us_yemen_1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hasidic newspaper edits Hillary out of Situation Room photo</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/08/hasidic_paper_hilary_edit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/08/hasidic_paper_hilary_edit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 17:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osama Bin Laden]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/08/hasidic_paper_hilary_edit</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A publication brushed both women present out of the iconic image]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/05/situation_room_photo">Much ink</a> has been spilled over the now-iconic Situation Room image, showing President Obama, Hillary Clinton and top national security officials watching a brief on Osama bin Laden's killing.</p><p>Particular attention has gone to Clinton's seemingly emotional expression (which she says may have been due to <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20060156-503544.html">allergies</a>) and to the one other woman in the shot, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/audrey-tomason-who-is-the-mystery-woman-in-the-situation-room-with-obama/">Audrey Tomasen</a>, a counterterrorism analyst whom the media had never heard of before.</p><p>But instead of analyzing the two female faces in the photo, one Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper, Der Zeitung, took a simpler approach: They just photoshopped them out. The Yiddish publication left two empty spaces in place of the two women. <a href="http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=219660&amp;R=R1">According to the Jerusalem Post</a>, the blog <a href="http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/05/hasidic-paper-removes-hillary-clinton-from-osama-picture-567.html">Failed Messiah</a> was the first to pick up on Der Zeitung's radically edited depiction of the Situation&#160;Room.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/08/hasidic_paper_hilary_edit/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/08/hasidic_paper_hilary_edit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>79</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is Obama watching here?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/05/situation_room_photo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/05/situation_room_photo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2011 21:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osama Bin Laden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/05/situation_room_photo</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The photo of the week raises all sorts of questions. Here are the best answers we can find]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So much of the news this week has been centered on photographs: photographs <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2011/05/04/sarah_palin_bin_laden_photos">we can't see</a>, photographs we can see but not understand. In particular, in the absence of an image of Osama bin Laden's body, our collective focus has been drawn toward a curious <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/photostream">photo</a> of Obama and his national security team assembled in the Situation Room on Sunday.</p><p>The image, which now has nearly 2 million views on Flickr, has appeared on every major news website and turned up in countless newspapers and television broadcasts this week. But it&#8217;s also sparked questions (and spawned spoofs) worldwide. The most basic query: What is actually going on here?</p><p>To find out, let's start at the beginning, with the caption provided by the White House on its Flickr photostream (key phrase in bold):</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/05/situation_room_photo/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/05/situation_room_photo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

