Clinton

In the days of the late Mike Wallace, "60 Minutes" was known for hard-hitting, aggressive journalism that asked the questions viewers wanted answered and held the powerful accountable. The Jan. 27 program on which Steve Kroft interviewed President Obama (at his request, no less) and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fell far short of that high standard. It was the kind of softball toss you might have expected if Oprah Winfrey or Barbara Walters had conducted the interview.

Many Republicans and some conservative Democratic legislators in Annapolis believe the Maryland General Assembly has become a proving ground for the presidential ambitions of Gov. Martin O'Malley. The governor's critics believe that by pushing issues such as gun control, alternative energy, death penalty repeal and other progressive touchstone issues, he is trying to build street cred among the liberal voters who dominate the Democratic presidential primary process. Well, the critics are probably right.

As the second Obama term gets underway, much is being said and written about the president finally emerging as a tougher, stronger Democrat in the liberal mold of past party greats. His second inaugural address pressed Republicans in Congress to accept a broader, more aggressive package of social programs and reforms than he embraced in his first term. Standing at his side, even more visibly during the second inaugural festivities than before, has been Vice President Joe Biden, not merely in ceremonial roles but as a key supporting player in Mr. Obama's most prominent second-term initiatives.

I sat stunned on Wednesday as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked a congressional panel "what difference, at this point, does it make?" who was at fault for the deaths of four Americans killed during the terrorist attack on our diplomats in Benghazi, Libya ("Clinton grilled on Benghazi," Jan. 24. The reality is that it was known shortly after the attack that al-Qaeda militiamen had carried out the killings and that both before and during the...

Regarding Susan Reimer 's recent column on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's illness and the skepticism it has received ("Hillary and the 'clot plot,'" Jan. 3), Ms. Reimer is, indeed, athletic in making her leaps of conclusion. Even other writers in The Sun show a snickering attitude toward the blood clot plot, and it is interesting to recall that one of the great conspiracy shouters of the past was the first lady in the Clinton home at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Dick Huffman, Timonium Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts

It was disappointing to read Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s column criticizing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for not appearing before Congress to testify about the death of our ambassador to Libya ("For Republicans, a not so happy New Year," Jan. 6). Has no one has explained to Republicans the concepts "concussion" or "life-threatening blood clot" in terms simple enough for them to understand? I will bet my next paycheck that Secretary Clinton does indeed testify when she is cleared to do so by her doctors.

Apparently, if the secretary of state needs to take a sick day, she had better get a note from her doctor. A very "transparent" note, a very detailed note. With enough copies to send to her most vociferous critics. Hillary Rodham Clinton suffered a fall or a fainting spell in early December while recovering from a nasty flu that had left her dehydrated, and doctors said she had sustained a concussion as a result. Right away, conservative talking heads scoffed, saying she was faking it so she wouldn't have to appear before Congress and testify about what happened in Benghazi, Libya, where a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans died in what is now being described as an attack by terrorists linked to al-Qaida.

Shortly after the 1988 presidential election, pollsters asked Democrats whom they favored to be their party's nominee in 1992. The strongest candidates were Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York. The governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, didn't even register. Eight years ago, after another election, the pollsters tried again. The front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination, they found, were Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John F. Kerry. The newly elected senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, wasn't on the list.

I agree in principle with Jules Witcover's column on of Hillary Clinton's ("The rise of Hillary Clinton," Nov. 27). I think she would have been a much better president than Barack Obama. But why no mention of the Benghazi fiasco? She may not be involved in the mis-communication, dis-communication, and lack of communication from the administration, but she should be harshly criticized for the lack of intelligent planning inherent in an ambassador going to Benghazi in the first place, not to mention with almost no security.

In the cease-fire struck between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got second billing to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's role as the prime go-between, and rightly so. But her highly visible hand-holding on both sides did nothing to quiet chatter about her political strength at home as a potential presidential candidate in 2016. Her visits to Tel Aviv for a talk with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to Ramallah to confer with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas underscored President Obama's confidence in her in sending her from Burma, where she had been accompanying him, directly to the Middle East to try to put out the fire.