National
Preparing for 2016 Campaign, Hillary Clinton Embracing Obama

In this Sept. 12, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama, accompanied by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
JULIE PACE, Associated Press
KEN THOMAS, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rather than keeping him at arm’s length, Hillary Rodham Clinton is embracing President Barack Obama — sometimes even literally.
Clinton had been expected to look for some ways to separate herself from the president to avoid the impression that having her in the White House would amount to a third Obama term. But as she prepares for another presidential campaign, Clinton has aligned herself with Obama far more often than not.
On Monday, a few hours after meeting Obama at the White House, Clinton tweeted a list of accomplishments of the president’s health care law on its fifth anniversary. “Repeal those things? Embrace them!” she declared, posting an old photo of herself extending her arms to hug Obama at the White House.
The tactics carry risk with an electorate that often seeks change after one party runs the White House for eight years. Republicans are already warning voters that Clinton would merely cement Obama’s most unpopular policies and continue in his vein.
“She will have to break with Obama significantly and substantively if she wants to win,” said Phil Musser, a former executive director of the Republican Governors Association. “Obama is no Reagan, and America is ready for the end of his presidency, not the extension of it.”
Clinton, who is expected to announce her campaign in April, hasn’t presented an overarching message of where she would take the country. For now, she’s talking about finding consensus and building on “what has worked in the past.”
She has also begun taking on the Republican-led Congress — recently blasting the House GOP budget plan on Twitter, the letter written by Senate Republicans that was seen as interference in Iran nuclear talks and delays in the confirmation Loretta Lynch as attorney general.
Aligning herself with Obama may pose fewer risks than once thought. While his approval rating is still under 50 percent, it has stabilized following a noticeable dip last year. Obama could help Clinton connect with the diverse coalition of voters who powered him to two victories. And perhaps more important, the economy is steadily improving, with job creation up and unemployment down to 5.5 percent.
Dan Pfeiffer, a longtime Obama adviser who recently left the White House, said that while he expects Clinton to break with the president when she actually disagrees with him, it would be unwise to create differences where none truly exists.
“Manufacturing agreement or disagreement to score some political points would be a mistake,” Pfeiffer said. “Candidates that get all tangled up trying align with or separate from their party or their president have a very poor track record of success.”
While Clinton has been avoiding substantive policy splits with the president, she’s suggesting her presidency would mark a change in style. While Obama has long been criticized for his lack of outreach to Congress, Clinton has emphasized the importance of having strong ties across the aisle, saying “I don’t think there’s any substitute to building relationships.”
Hillary and Bill Clinton know firsthand what it’s like to be in the White House when an ally is running for the Oval Office.
In 2000, Vice President Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton’s impeachment battles and some of his centrist policies, framing the contest against Republican George W. Bush as “the people versus the powerful.” Bill Clinton said in his autobiography that the message mobilized conservative interest groups against Gore.
“The problem with the slogan was that it didn’t give Al the full benefit of our record of economic and social progress or put into sharp relief Bush’s explicit commitment to undo that progress,” Bill Clinton wrote. The populist approach, he argued, “sounded to some swing voters that Al, too, might change the economic direction of the country.”
One of Hillary Clinton’s most public breaks with Obama came last summer when she took a veiled shot at his “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” foreign policy doctrine. In an interview with The Atlantic magazine, she said, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
Clinton scrambled to walk back the jab, calling up her old boss to try to smooth things over. Obama and Clinton met in person a few days later and “hugged it out,” aides said.
Still, foreign policy matters could be an area of divergence, reflecting Clinton’s position as one of the more hawkish members of his first-term national security team. But there have been few public signs of that in recent months.
Clinton has avoided commenting on U.S.-Israeli relations in recent weeks, which have been strained by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to Palestinian statehood and his late campaign warning that Arab voters were heading to the polls “in droves,” comments he has since backtracked.
Clinton also has largely backed Obama’s decision to take military action against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. She’s supported his nuclear negotiations with Iran and joined him in sharply criticizing Republican senators who wrote to Tehran’s leadership warning that Congress could disrupt a deal.
It’s unclear whether Clinton will ultimately back a nuclear deal if the U.S. and its negotiating partners achieve one. But she was involved in the administration’s early efforts to start secret talks with the Iranians, dispatching her policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, to lead them.
“It’s by no means a referendum completely on the current president,” Democratic strategist Mike Feldman said of the 2016 campaign. “It will be a choice, and President Obama won’t be one of the choices.”
___
Follow Julie Pace and Ken Thomas on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jpaceDC and http://twitter.com/kthomasDC
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.
The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.
In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”
Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.
“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.
Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.
“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
The RESISTANCE – FREEDOM NOW
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
OUSD Supt. Chief Kyla Johnson-Trammell to Step Down on July 1
Pingback: Clinton campaign to focus on money for primaries – U-T San Diego | Amazing News
Pingback: Clinton campaign to focus on money for primaries – U-T San Diego | Amazing News