U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton has canceled an appearance Saturday before a Hispanic advocacy group in Hartford because of a labor protest planned for outside the venue, the organization announced Friday.

Clinton, D-N.Y., was to give the keynote speech at the 30th anniversary gala of the Connecticut Association of United Hispanic Agencies Inc. at the Hartford Civic Center. The event will benefit the group and its programs.

The group, known as CAUSA, said Clinton decided not to attend because of a protest planned by the Greater Hartford-New Britain Building and Construction Trades Council.

The council announced that it was holding the rally to protest ING Group Inc., which had been a sponsor of Saturday’s event, because of its decision to not guarantee work for minority contractors and other Connecticut construction workers as it builds a new facility in Windsor.

The trades council said the financial services company initially committed to using labor union resources to construct the building, but later changed its mind.

"The ING Group is the major sponsor of this statewide event and we plan to show that throwing a few dollars out for an event is not the only way to be seen as a good community neighbor," trades council President Charles LeConche said in a prepared statement earlier this week.

Carmen Sierra, executive director of CAUSA, said the trades council demanded last week that ING withdraw because of the dispute. She said ING did withdraw its involvement and financial support for the event earlier this week, but the trades council then reneged on an agreement it made with CAUSA about the protest.

"This action by Charles LeConche is outrageous," Sierra said. "We agreed to his initial demands, but it is clear now that he was interested in only creating a media event for himself.

"Mr. LeConche has caused immeasurable damage to the building trade union which has had to struggle to get blacks and Latinos in their ranks," she said. "This renegade action by Mr. LeConche to gratuitously cause damage to the Latino community will not be forgotten."

Clinton’s press secretary, Philippe Reines, confirmed that the senator will not be attending the event, but offered no further comments.

Read it all here

The Associated Press is reporting (hat tip to Drudge) that actress and liberal activist Susan Sarandon has endorsed Jonathan Tasini, a long-shot challenger to Hillary Clinton in the New York senatorial race. According to the article: “Sarandon has been a harsh critic of Clinton’s vote on the war, telling a British television interviewer last month that Clinton had ‘crumbled under the pressure of the moment.’ She also told ITV1 that she wasn’t enthusiastic about a Clinton presidential candidacy.”

The article continued:

“Announcing Sarandon’s endorsement, Tasini called the 59-year old Academy Award winner a ‘passionate advocate for human rights, justice and civil liberties’ and said he was ‘honored’ to have her support.

"’She has never wavered when the call has come for people to stand on the front lines in support of progressive principles that affect the lives of so many people in our country,’ Tasini said.”

So, is this indeed an ominous portent for Hillary’s future with the Hollywood left? Hardly. Sarandon’s views on Sen. Clinton have been all over the map recently: “Earlier this month, Sarandon joined Clinton at a rally in Washington for the Christopher Reeve Foundation, which promotes research on spinal cord injuries. There, Sarandon offered nothing but praise for Clinton, saying ‘we are all very lucky to have her here today as a leader in Congress.’"

So, Susan, how lucky is that if you are endorsing her opponent a few weeks later?

Read it all here

2008 White House hopeful Hillary Clinton is blaming right wing "ideologues" for denying women access to contraceptives - leaving them no choice but to end their unwanted pregnancies with abortion.

The move to withhold contraceptives "was started by a small group of extreme ideologues who claim the right to impose their personal beliefs on the overwhelming majority of the American people," Clinton declared in an e-mail to supporters on Wednesday.

"They’re waging this silent war on contraception by using the power of the White House and their right-wing allies in Congress," she complains, adding, "and so far, they’re getting away with it."

So just how are these right wing ideologues driving up the abortion rate? Clinton explains:

"Low-income women, denied access to contraception, are having more unwanted pregnancies - four times as many as those for higher income women. And almost half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions."

The former first lady didn’t explain, however, why - in places like New York City, where high school nurses’ offices distribute candy-flavored condoms - the abortion rate continues to soar.

In January, for instance, the New York Daily News reported:

"For every 100 babies born in New York City, women had 74 abortions in 2004, according to newly released figures that reaffirm the city as the abortion capital of the country … That means 40 out of 100 pregnancies in the city ended in a planned abortion - almost double the national average of 24 of 100 pregnancies in 2002."

Read it all here

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a White House hopeful who has sought the political middle on abortion, on Wednesday criticized Republicans for trying to erode access to birth control for women.

"There’s a quiet war going on in America - against the most basic rights of Americans to make their own personal decisions about family planning," Clinton wrote in a mass e-mail from her re-election campaign.

The New York senator complained that the Bush administration and congressional Republicans are whittling away at contraception options, particularly for poor women who rely on government-funded programs.

The senator cited statistics showing that low-income women are having four times as many unwanted pregnancies as higher income women and half of all unwanted pregnancies end in abortions.

Republicans accused Clinton of seeking to enlarge federal programs.

"Once again, Hillary Clinton demonstrates that her top priority is increasing both the size and scope of the government," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

Clinton’s campaign letter asks supporters to sign a petition protesting curbs on family planning services, and also links to a donation Web page.

Read it all here

The rumor mill is spinning that Hillary Clinton may now have a tough competitor in the Democratic Primary.  "Who?" you ask.  Well, none other than her husband’s veepee.  "I’m a recovering politician," Al Gore told Atlanta Progressive News, "You always have to worry about a relapse." 

Everyone is talking.  Media speculates his comeback, and the movers and shakers in the blogospheres have thoroughly enjoyed fodder.

How should the Republicans respond?  Well, I’ve always said the worst situation for Hillary would be a run against Rudy Giuliani for her Senate seat.  Rudy has a good shot at beating her; at least a better shot at her senate office than the Oval Office.  If nothing else, Rudy vs. Hillary would be an extremely exhausting race for Hillary–knocking some wind out of her sail and some "loose change" out of her bank account.  The Republicans’ second best scenario would be a Gore vs. Hillary primary.  Gore will dip into some of Clinton supporters’ pockets, but to what extent is uncertain.  The only other Democrat to compete would be Barack Obama from Illinois.  However, he’s kept so quiet that a serious run at this point is doubtful, but here’s a guy that can motivate and excite.  One other honorable mention would be Evan Bayh from Indiana, but he’s already proven himself incapable.  The thought of Kerry running again is at best a good laugh, in my humble opinion of course.

Read it all here

The left-wing Citizens for Global Solutions, which believes in global government under the auspices of the United Nations, gave Senator Hillary Clinton an A+ in its most recent scoring of her voting record on issues near and dear to their globalist agenda. Hillary has improved her grade each year in the Senate, now eclipsing even "global test" John Kerry.

http://www.globalsolutions.org/hill/reportcard/grades.asp?action=aplus  

According to the website of its New England branch, "Citizens for Global Solutions believe that nation states today must do what 13 American ex-colonies did in the 1780s when they discovered that they couldn’t afford to be independent sovereignties: extend government to a new level and become cooperative partners under limited "federal" law." In other words, national sovereignty must give way to global government. The International Criminal Court, which would subject our soldiers to kangaroo trials without a jury, is one of Citizens for Global Solutions’ pet causes.

This global government booster club would very likely have a direct pipeline into Hillary Clinton’s White House, considering that its chief executive officer, Charles J. Brown, served in her husband’s Administration and represented it in negotiating the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Moreover, Simon Weber, its Legislative Coordinator, spent several months in the office of Senator Clinton.

Although Hillary has been trying to demonstrate her Commander-in-Chief bona fides with her position on Iraq and expressions of toughness on Iran, she is a globalist at heart. In a 2005 speech at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, Senator Clinton linked our national security with a strong United Nations, saying :"My first observation is simple but it must govern all that we do: The United Nations is an indispensable organization to all of us - despite its flaws and inefficiencies." Was she, by chance, in a deep sleep during the oil-for-food scandal, not to mention the paralysis of the Security Council in dealing with Iraq, Iran and most other grave crises? Does she not realize that the United Nations cannot be reformed or serve a useful role in securing peace and security or human rights so long as the General Assembly is dominated by non-democratic countries who free ride on our contributions to this dysfunctional organization? No matter, she tells us. She still wants a stronger UN, although assuring us all the while that any notion that the United Nations is moving towards the goal of "world government" goal is "ill informed."

Read it all here

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has "extraordinary sizzle" but Sen. Charles Schumer wields twice as much clout and is one of the most powerful members of the Senate, according to a new study of congressional effectiveness.

The power rankings by a nonpartisan company, Knowlegis, also show Reps. Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, and Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, as the most effective members of the Hudson Valley House delegation and among the 100 most powerful lawmakers in the 435-member House.

Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, and John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, posted scores that put them in the middle of the pack of the House rankings.

The five-month study by Knowlegis researchers looked at how well members used committee or leadership positions, influenced the congressional agenda and passed or shaped legislation in 2005.

Schumer emerged as the 18th most powerful of the 100 senators mainly because of high scores for work on his three major committees and as a member of the Senate Democratic leadership team.

He ranked second of 19 members on the banking committee, sixth of 20 on the Finance Committee, which he joined last year, and eighth of 18 on the Judiciary Committee.

Top five for influence

Clinton placed 41st on the Senate’s overall power meter. But she moved ahead of Schumer on points for influence — a category that includes using the media, congressional caucuses and campaign contributions to other members to help shape the agenda and outcome of votes.

Read it all here

"She’s a former first lady, a United States senator, and a potential 2008 presidential candidate. But to hear Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tell it, all of that pales in comparison to her real childhood dreams," reported Newsday in an attempted puff piece on the junior Senator from New York. 

"My whole life has been a speed bump," she said to laughs."

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.  Failed at everything she ever tried, so she decided to go into politics.  And this woman wants to be President?

"’I wanted desperately to be an Olympic athlete,’ Clinton said Monday at a Purchase College symposium on Title IX, the 1972 law" which imposed sex discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding, requiring them to cut programs for males if there was a higher percentage of male participation than the percentage of males in the student body.  "I tried everything. I ran every race, and if I was really lucky I finished second to last…I couldn’t jump, I couldn’t run, I couldn’t swim."  Sounds like 99% of folks who dream of being elite athletes.  If everybody could do it, nobody would be "elite," would they?

Read it all here

Here we go again. From Senator Clinton we now have more proposed restrictive legislation — another incumbent who just doesn’t understand economics, or just doesn’t respect freedom. Hillary Clinton’s Mother’s Day address 2006 contains another element of legislation that sounds compassionate, yet will hurt those she ostensibly wants to help.

Mrs. Clinton now supports a federal "Healthy Families" initiative that will require employers to give time off for workers with ailments. Employment is not something that every company can just offer on a free-as-you-please basis. Companies want to attract skilled and diligent workers with as many benefits as they can. Many companies already have flexible plans for those with ailments. Others can’t afford to do that without firing other workers, raising prices, or closing down.

Look who gets hurt by this "compassionate" legislation: job candidates with pre-existing ailments. When an employer has the choice of many applicants and has ample criteria for the decision, the candidate with a poor health history will not be chosen if one criterion becomes "we may have to pay for his condition". Indeed, Mrs. Clinton’s proposed legislation gives every incentive for companies to mine medical data banks for medical histories or their work force. That job is easier than ever now thanks to HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. HIPAA created standardized electronic databases of personal medical records. Doctors, employers, life insurers, and universities are now required to input information that…

"relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual". — HIPAA, sec 262(a)

When companies can input, it won’t belong before they can mine output of private medical records.

Here’s the other group who will be hurt by this irresponsible legislation: current workers with ailments. Following a worker’s hospital visit, some employers will find ways to dismiss that worker to avoid long-term liability. Employees who fear this may begin to hide their ailment, innocuous as it might be, for fear of it bringing on employer scrutiny and less job security. Even if a below-average health employee has no intention of ever taking a day off to visit a doctor, he is now in jeopardy because his status makes him a candidate for the chopping block.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal smacks of the same problems that affect the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), which requires large employers to grant twelve workweeks per year to care for themselves, for a newborn, handle foster care issues, or care for a sick family member. While an estimated 4 million workers use the FMLA each year, we don’t know how many of these people would have been granted the same benefits absent government coercion. We also cannot know how many employers begin job discrimination BECAUSE of people who are making use of FMLA. We already know that employers engage in subtle discrimination against women in the hiring process when pregnancy is involved.

I worked for an employer where a Hiring Committee member told me "our hiring young married women is always more of a risk" because of their likely exit to have and care for children. He said that required paid maternity leave would make hiring even more challenging. He was no misogynist. He simply recognized the reality that liberals fail to: when you force companies to do things they can’t afford, you hurt their employees first, and their customers second. Hurting the "big bad insensitive owner" is a distant third.

Read it all here

New York, May 15: After telling an audience that young people today "think work is a four-letter word," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she apologized to her daughter.

"I said, ‘I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to convey the impression that you don’t work hard,’" Clinton said Sunday in a commencement address at Long Island University. "I just want to set the bar high, because we are in a competition for the future."

Clinton spoke to more than 2,000 graduates days after she criticized young people at a gathering of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. In those remarks, she said young people have a sense of entitlement after growing up in a "culture that has a premium on instant gratification."

The senator said that her daughter, Chelsea, phoned to complain after learning about the comments. The 26-year-old was hired in 2003 by McKinsey & Co. as a consultant, reportedly for a six-figure salary. She received a master’s degree from Oxford University after graduating from Stanford University in 2001.

"She called and she said, ‘Mom, I do work hard and my friends work hard,"’ Clinton said Sunday.

New York’s junior senator, who is up for re-election this year, also told the graduates she plans to introduce a bill that would help college students manage and repay their loans. The proposal would limit loan payments to a certain percentage of their incomes, she said.

Read it all here