Skip to content

Wednesday March 9th 2011 Appointments- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

March 9, 2011


SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

9:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton delivers remarks at the launch of a Global Partnership on Maternal and Child Health led by USAID, the Government of Norway, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Grand Challenges Canada, and the World Bank.

9:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton delivers remarks to open the first Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) of the 2011 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, in the atrium of the Ronald Reagan Building.

10:50 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with President Obama, at the White House.

11:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.

4:30 p.m. Secretary Clinton attends a meeting at the White House.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. March 9, 2011 12:50 pm

    This is totally off topic but I found it interesting how almost every media outlet except Fox News purges their organization if liberal bias is shown or even a hint of controversy:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/09/npr-ceo-resigns-over-conservative-pranksters-video/

    Also remember Dan Rather. Or CNN’s Olivia Nasser and NPR’s Juan Williams- of course the view expressed wasn’t necessarily liberal, but the perception is that NPR is liberal.

    But when it comes to Fox News, when internal memos are leaked that reveal that owners, producers etc. demand that the news will be provided with a conservative bent (for example referring to health reform as “govt run healthcare etc.) , that’s just considered business as usual. No accountability. No firings. There have been so many incidents of proof of bias (ever see the documentary OutFoxed or a legal case where Fox was sued and claimed in its defense it had a right to present slanted news coverage?) and yet nothing happens- it’s a badge of honor for Fox.

    • March 9, 2011 1:36 pm

      Stacy, you make a good point. I am curious about the legality and ethics of a “sting” like this one involving NPR. Would it, for instance, be legal for someone to misrepresent themselves to me (while I’m on the job), tape my conversation during lunch and then broadcast it on the internet? Is this legal and/or ethical?

      I do wish we had some genuine investigative journalism in the US. Exposing someone’s comments about the Tea Party doesn’t really benefit the public …

      • March 9, 2011 1:52 pm

        I don’t think it’s illegal, but unethical is another story. Had the prank gone further, well that could be different (signing something or promising to give donations).

        What’s interesting is the NPR executive that spoke with the imposers was already set to leave NPR. But now the CEO of NPR has to resign also?

        The whole propaganda campaign about there being a “liberal media” has been a brilliant conservative political strategy- because the MSM, which is only as liberal as the corporations that own them, is so afraid of being labeled “liberal” they tend to bend over backwards to promote maintream, even conservative views. Repeated studies have shown that on the Sunday talk shows the majority of guests are a) men, b) white c) republicans or conservative.

        David Gregory, Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric etc. are multi-multi millionaires who work for HUGE corporations- that’s a far cry from the days of Edward R. Murrow.

        Look at how the NYT and WaPo were cheerleading for the Iraq War and they are always on the side of a very hawkish foreign policy. If the media had done their JOB we probably wouldn’t have ever waged war against Iraq- which has been a disaster btw, no matter how some try to spin it. Look at the WaPo scandal over having health industry people pay to attend these special WaPo get togethers in exchange for positive coverage of the health industry’s perspective on health reform (ie. anti-reform).

        The real disgrace is how the MSM trades real investigative journalism for access to those in power. So much for the Fourth Estate. The MSM is too cozy with the rich and powerful because they run in the exact same circles.

        There are very few real investigative journalists out there- Dana Priest (who works for the WaPo btw- they have a few good people), James Rosen, Sy Hersh and a few others.

        Look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- if you want to know what’s going on you have to go to AJ, blogs like Mondoweiss or human rights groups’ blogs or read Israeli news daily. Most Americans don’t do that- no wonder polls consistently show Americans have ZERO sympathy for Palestinians.

        Ok, I’ll stop now😉

  2. March 9, 2011 2:58 pm

    SA- look at this, now the original NPR exec. that was punked is not even going to be able to move onto his next job at the Aspen Institute. Ummmmm….are some people making a bit too much about this? I wonder what about his comments people find more objectionable, the part about the Tea Party or the part about Jewish people in media or both?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110309/bs_yblog_thecutline/npr-exec-leaving-immediately

    I’m wondering what people think about the Tea Party- I know it’s not good to make any generalizations about a huge group of people but is there a racism problem within the movement? I mention that because those were some of the remarks he made although he wasn’t tactful at all in his comments, calling them outright racists.

  3. Thain permalink
    March 9, 2011 3:11 pm

    Yeah, there isn’t a lot of investigative journalism going on. A lot of blogs are taking up that cause though. As for info. on Israel-Palestine, you won’t see this sort of thing reported by the MSM despite the clear violation of human rights:

    http://josephdana.com/2011/03/nabi-saleh-popular-committee-leader-arrested-in-a-night-raid/

    I’m really disappointed that Secy Clinton isn’t speaking out about these tactics to silence and harass peace demonstrators. Also, the tactic of the IDF basically kidnapping protesters kids in the middle of the night, taking them to an unknown location away from their parents, no lawyer present, coerced into signing statements (written by the IDF in Hebrew) saying their parents/family members throw stones at protests (ie. are violent) or forcing them to say they throw stones. Does Secy Clinton really support this? If not, she should say something.

  4. March 9, 2011 3:39 pm

    OT: I find this interesting. This sort of thing is why there is rarely an open, diverse discussion of Israel or the Middle East in our national politics, in the media, even in academia. The Jewish community seems to really be struggling with how to contain (or censor?) other members of their community (like J Street) who support Israel but who are willing to voice some disagreements with Israeli govt policy and how best to support Middle East peace.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/brandeis-hillel-imposes-pro-israel-litmus-test-excluding-jewish-voice-for-peace-chapter.html#more-38128

    I’ll be honest, I really expect better from the Jewish community. It’s really incredible to read about attempts to silence academics, students, organizations and even politicians if they don’t support every single thing Israel does, right or wrong. Applying this sort of litmus test seems to fly in the face of liberal values, free speech (in principle- I know there’s no state action) and vibrant debate- you know, all the things we value in a democracy.

    There’s a reason no Cabinet level person in the Obama admin. spoke at the big J-Street conference this year- because the AIPAC types won’t allow it and probably warned Obama not to send someone or else. Never mind that J-Street is more in line with the administration’s supposed policy towards Israel and Mideast peace than AIPAC is.

    This is why peace negotiations never get anywhere- because US domestic politics won’t allow it to.

    Can you imagine if we demanded that such a strict litmus test be applied to all US govt activity? If we made it totally unacceptable to EVER criticize US govt policy irrespective of who is POTUS or what we believe? That would be idiotic and also arguably dangerous because open debate and discussion is an important form of accountability. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a key key goals of the hawkish, anti-peace, so-called “pro-Israel” lobby (and sadly, the US govt) is to prevent Israel from being accountable to anyone, ever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: