- The Washington Times - Monday, June 23, 2014

It’s been 24 hours since “Blood Feud: The Clintons Vs. The Obamas” arrived on the nation’s bookshelves, to be teased about and fussed over by fans and critics alike for its often startling news about both first families, and the unexpected acrimony between them. But even author Edward Klein — the former New York Times Magazine editor-in-chief who has already written exposes about President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — has his favorite moments.

“The biggest revelation: it’s not the Republicans, but the Democrats, who are the biggest critics of Barack Obama,” Mr. Klein tells Inside the Beltway. “In an interview with the author of ‘Blood Feud,’ Vernon Jordan, a revered figure in the Democratic Party, criticized President Obama for his lack of leadership.”

Mr. Klein also is in touch with a prime takeaway message.

“What can Americans learn from my book? A lot’s been written about the feud between the establishment wing and the tea party wing of the Republican Party, but practically nothing about the equally bitter feud between the two most powerful Democratic families in the country — the Clintons and the Obamas,” the author says. “The rivalry and mutual loathing between the Clintons and the Obamas will shape the future of the Democratic Party and the 2016 presidential election. That’s an important story that deserves to be told to the American public.”


“The danger for Democrats if Hillary wins the nomination would not just be the loss of the White House; it could further increase Republicans’ strength in Congress, making Democrats a distinct minority party and allowing an incoming Republican president to make truly transformative changes in the federal government. The left seems to genuinely believe that Hillary would be a strong candidate in the 2016 election. She would be, instead, the conservatives’ dream candidate.”

— Observations on the potential candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton from Bruce Walker, a contributor to The American Thinker.


It was inevitable. In the endless tumult of competition between news organization for an audience, some are now exploring best practices for journalism drones. That’s right. It’s what’s overhead that counts.

CNN and the Georgia Institute of Technology have formed a joint research initiative to ferret out “opportunities” that unmanned aerial vehicles — UAVs — present for media organizations. Then there’s safety issues, now that drones are reported to fall out of the sky on occasion,

“The effort will evaluate the technology, personnel and safety needs to operate effectively in the national air space. CNN and Georgia Tech Research Institute plan to share their research data with the Federal Aviation Authority as it considers regulations that will allow for the safe and effective operation of UAVs by media outlets,” note the network and campus, both based in Atlanta.

“By working cooperatively to share knowledge, we can accelerate the process for CNN and other media organizations to safely integrate this new technology into their coverage plans,” said David Vigilante, CNN’s senior vice president for legal matters.


And a good time was had by all at the White House summit on working families Monday, which brimmed with feel-good agenda about working mothers and flexible workplaces. Why, the Democrats are filled with nice ideas, and just in time for the midterm elections. President Obama even had lunch with a flabbergasted noontime crowd at a Chipotle not far from the White House.

It is a wearisome business for Republicans, meanwhile. At least a half-dozen GOP lawmakers have already proposed serious legislation to benefit the nation’s industrious folks, from the “Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act,” courtesy of Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, to the “Forty Hours Is Full Time Act” from Sen. Susan M. Collins of Maine.

But the legislation just sits. And sits some more.

“It’s unfortunate that President Obama and the Democrats see women only as an electoral opportunity. How do we know this? President Obama could have held a bill signing ceremony instead of a politically-minded summit if he and Harry Reid would act on legislation to help working families that is being held up in the Senate,” observes Republican National Committee spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski.

A certain Florida Republican is also not so impressed with Mr. Obama’s efforts.

“Telling federal agencies to do what they’re already supposed to do and endorsing partisan legislation that will never pass is not the sort of bold, innovative leadership we need,” says Sen. Marco Rubio.


It’s getting global. Beleaguered Border Patrol agents who have become sudden caregivers to unaccompanied minor children are now getting help from an international source. Save the Children, a charity founded in 1919 and now active in 120 countries, announced Monday it had begun working to ease the situation “now overwhelming border control institutions ill-prepared to meet the basic needs of such large numbers of unaccompanied children.”

The Connecticut-based organization opened “a child-friendly space” in McAllen, Texas, on Saturday to provide “psychosocial support” and care programs for arriving youngsters. The group is also working closely with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has pledged $100 million in aid to several Central American nations, plus an additional $161.5 million to the Central American Regional Security Initiative.

The major players, however, gather Tuesday for a hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security, dramatically titled “Dangerous Passage.” On hand: Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, FEMA administrator Craig Fugate plus Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. C-SPAN3 will cover the hearing live beginning at 10 a.m. EDT, or see the direct video feed at homeland.house.gov

“It’s a terrible situation where parents are handing over their children to smugglers only to endure unspeakable hardship and peril along a very dangerous and long journey,” says Rep. Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican and committee chairman.


50 percent of Americans say the U.S. does not have responsibility to “do something” about violence in Iraq; 42 percent of Republicans, 51 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents agree.

42 percent overall say the U.S. does have responsibility; 52 percent of Republicans, 43 percent of Democrats and 37 percent of independents agree.

50 percent overall say the threat of terrorism in the U.S. will remain the same as result of Iraq violence; 36 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents agree.

44 percent overall say the threat will increase; 60 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of independents agree.

41 percent overall say President Obama is doing the “right amount” to address violence in Iraq; 19 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of Democrats and 37 percent of independents agree.

29 percent overall say Mr. Obama should do more; 53 percent of Republicans, 13 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents agree.

22 percent overall say he should do less; 21 percent of Republicans, 19 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of independents agree.

Source: A CBS News/New York Times poll of 1,006 U.S. adults conducted June 20-22.

Caterwaul and doggerel to [email protected]

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide