How Say Jimmy? Hillary takes on "Woop de doo."

Salena Zito see through PC'ism and argues the yellow brick road of Elitism is not the one to take to the White House. She could not be more correct politically of course. (See 1 below.)

I was speaking to a very bright member of our family, himself an immigrant and I made my usual comment that all I wanted was for those who come to come legally. He retorted that we should eliminate all barriers as we once did and allow any immigrant to come that wants. He recognized that they must be disease free not have a criminal record etc.


I really had forgotten that all those who came in the early 1900's did not come carrying Visas. Obtuse me. We adopted immigration laws much later.

No candidate could espouse that we eliminate our immigration laws, allow any and all who wish to Come To America and be elected but I believe he is right and it would solve the problem if illegality.

He pointed out that to uproot ones self, to come to a foreign country was no easy undertaking and history had proven how much we benefited from open immigration.

Our son and daughter-in-law just returned from a ten or so day trip ti Israel and were overwhelmed by the country's vitality. Our so had not been to Israel since studying there some five years ago.

The same could be happening in Gaza but Hamas is more interested in destruction of its neighbor than building for its own peoples. How say Jimmy? (See 2 below.)

Assad confirms contact with Israel through a third party. (See 3 below.)

Meanwhile, Palestinians favor attacking Israel, according to latest poll. Palestinian support for Hams and Fatah have declined as well as for Abbas and Haniyeh, but Abbas remains less popular than the Haniyeh.(See 4 below.)

Islamists press for more accommodations from private enterprise. Where does this lead? If private enterprise begins to accommodate Islamists then where do accommodation demands of any group stop? On whose foot does the shoe belong? (See 5 below.)

Matthew Continetti gives his reasons why Pelosi killed the Colmobia trade agreement - none of her reasons or those of Democrats hold water. It is more a matter of vindictiveness and paying homage to the Unions. (See 6 below.)

Right before Tuesday's vote in Pa. here is an article pertaining to Hillary's vote getting prospects. Our son lives in Pittsburgh and believes the vote will narrowly favor Hillary but not by enough to do damage to Obama's overwhelming prospects. Pittsburgh goes for Hillary and Philadelphia for Obama in his view.

Though Hillary's voice grates on my nerves she has become a better tougher campaigner as her ordeal of overcoming "Woop De Doo" proceeds.(See 7 below.)




1) Elite Democrats Lose
By Salena Zito

When it comes to racial issues, the 2008 Democrat primary has been lowered to the most politically correct campaign in history. So low that it has smudged the lens in the way we look at both of the Democrats' candidates.

Political correctness or "PC" -- a clothesline tool typically used as a wedge issue against Republicans -- has backfired. To steal a phrase from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, PC is "coming home to roost" for Democrats.

Purdue University political science professor Bert Rockman says we need to thicken our skins when it comes to race.

"Why did anybody take umbrage at Bill Clinton's remark about Jesse Jackson in South Carolina when it was patently correct?" he asks. Everyone knows that blacks are voting heavily for Barack Obama, he explains, and only a moron would be surprised.

Because of PC, race is the elephant in the room that no one is supposed to talk about, except to remark on how enlightening it is for America to have a black candidate for president.

Fair enough: That is a huge story. But at some point the lens should focus past Obama's oratorical skills and his skin color to see who this man is who wants to lead our country.

Obama is black by heritage but also a product of liberal elitism, which appears to drive his thinking: Poor kid from single-parent home gets access to the best schools, the best opportunities, and is groomed for greatness.

Nothing wrong with that. Jack Kennedy's father groomed eldest son Joe for the presidency and, when tragedy struck, turned his attention to Jack. That's the American way.

That same "American way" led a young Obama to move to Chicago to become a community organizer and to join the church he chose -- to groom his political career. It is why he enlisted David Axelrod, strategist to the Chicago Democrat machine of Mayor Richard Daley, to handle his campaign; his bid for a U.S. Senate seat under machine-politics tutelage was won without any real challenge.

Political grooming also is why John Kerry picked Obama to give a keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

To Obama's credit, he has met and exceeded expectations, has delivered in every sense of the word. However, his thinking hovers on liberal elite. That is why his comment in San Francisco about embittered Middle America was so revealing about who and what he is. Yet because of race, his political veneer was not scratched.

In ideology, is he different from Mike Dukakis, John Kerry, Al Gore or George McGovern? Probably not. He just looks really cool saying the kind of things once said by those four men who lost the presidency for the Democrats.

And why did they lose? In large part, because of a lack of connection with bread-and-butter Democrats.

Love him or hate him, give Bill Clinton his due: He fought for the presidency against all odds, from a small white Southern town; when he won, he delivered without ever embracing liberal elitism.

That is part of the price Hillary Clinton is paying in this primary: The party's liberal-elite side resents Bill's performance, especially his move to the right after winning the White House but then losing Congress in 1994.

Clinton did it to survive. But Kerry, Gore or even George W. Bush would never have compromised that way, because their elite upbringing does not allow them to think that way.

Compare this with two modern presidents who are widely remembered and admired: William Jefferson Clinton and Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Neither came from or had access to the elite system, though at times they brushed against it; when push came to shove, they rejected it for their own survival. Both deeply wanted people to like them because of their upbringings -- both came from poor families in small-town America with abusive, alcoholic fathers.

Democrats will be successful in November only if they pick a candidate who mirrors the successful tickets that won the 2006 midterm elections -- candidates who connected with average Americans.

If the candidate who emerges from this primary season echoes the liberal elitism of McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, then Democrats should start bracing for a losing year, one they should have easily won.

2) Hilton to open Waldorf-Astoria luxury hotel in Jerusalem
By Irit Rosenblum


The Hilton Hotel chain along with the Canadian Reichman brothers' IPC Jerusalem will open a new hotel in Jerusalem under the Waldorf-Astoria brand name, the first in Israel. The two firms announced their management agreement to run the hotel, which is scheduled to open toward the end of 2010, at the end of last week.

The new hotel will be in the building where the Palace Hotel once stood at the intersection of King David, Agron and Mamilla Streets in the heart of Jerusalem, a short distance from the Old City and near the King David and The David Citadel.

The firms will invest an estimated $100 million in building and renovations. Other luxury hotel chains were interested in managing the property, including Intercontinental.


Wolfgang Neumann, the president of Hilton Hotels Europe, said that "Israel is enjoying continued rapid and robust commercial activity, which is fueling a strong demand for high-quality hotel brands. We are very pleased to be working with IPC Jerusalem Ltd. to introduce what will be a magnificent hotel and a superb addition to the Waldorf-Astoria Collection." Hilton already operates the Tel Aviv Hilton and the Queen of Sheba in Eilat. The new Jerusalem hotel will be in an historic but controversial site. The Palace was built in the late 1920s by the Supreme Muslim Council headed by the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, as a symbol and an Arab competitor to the Jewish-owned luxury hotels like the King David. It was also partially built on the remains of a Muslim cemetery. In the mid-1930s it was leased to the British authorities, and later served to house the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

The magnificent building boats Middle Eastern decorative arches and intricate stone carvings. The interior will be completely refurbished and another five floors will be added. It will have three restaurants, a pool, a spa and other facilities. The Waldorf-Astoria Collection brand runs only five hotels, four in the U.S., including the flagship in Manhattan, and the fifth is the Palace of the Orient in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

IPC Jerusalem was created in 2005 specifically to buy the development rights to the Palace, as well as the neighboring Customs House

3) Assad confirms contacts with Israel through third-party

During a meeting with ruling Baath Party officials, Assad commented on media reports about indirect contact between the two countries.

"There are efforts exerted in this direction," he was quoted as saying.

An Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, on Thursday quoted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as saying Israel and Syria have been exchanging messages to clarify expectations for any future peace treaty. He didn't disclose the content of the messages or provide other details about the contacts.

The paper quoted Olmert as saying, "They know what we want from them, and I know full well what they want from us."

Assad echoed those comments on Sunday, saying Israel "knows well what is accepted and not accepted by Syria."

"Syria rejects secret (direct) talks or contacts with Israel... Anything Syria does in this regard will be announced to the public," Assad was quoted as saying.

Negotiations broke off in 2000 after Syria rejected Israel's offer to return the Golan Heights, which it captured in the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed.

Syria wanted Israel to withdraw to the prewar line on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. But Israel wasn't prepared to give up any control of the lake that provides about half of the country's drinking water.

Despite the peace overtures, tensions have been high between the two countries in recent months, largely stemming from an alleged IDF air strike on a Syrian military facility in September. Some foreign reports have said the target was a nuclear installation Syria was building with North Korean assistance.

Damascus denies having an nuclear program, and North Korea says it was not involved in any such project. Syria did not retaliate for the attack.

Both Syria and Israel have expressed a willingness to renew talks since Israel's war against the Lebanese-based Hizbullah in 2006. Olmert has insisted that if Syria is serious about peace, Damascus must withdraw its support for Hizbullah and the Palestinian group Hamas.

4) Palestinians' backing for terror rises
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH


The number of Palestinians who support attacks against Israelis continues to rise and more than half of them favor suicide bombings, according to a poll published this weekend.

The survey also showed that Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh is still more popular than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The percentage of Palestinians who support "resistance operations" against Israeli targets rose from 43.1 percent in September 2006 to 49.5% at present. Support for this option was highest in the Gaza Strip, at 58.1%, with 24.5% in the West Bank agreeing.

Palestinians who support bombing attacks against Israeli civilians rose from 44.8% in June 2006 to 48% in September 2006 and to 50.7% now.

Again, more Gazans support these operations (65.1%), compared with 42.3% of Palestinians in the West Bank.

The Palestinian public is divided on the rocket attacks on Israel: 39.3% said the firing of these rockets was "useful" to Palestinian national interests, while 35.7% said they were harmful.

The poll results showed a general feeling of frustration with regards to the future of the Palestinian cause and the peace process in light of the ongoing Israeli military operations and the split between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Both Fatah and Hamas continue to lose support among the Palestinians, and the level of trust in political leaders also dropped.

Support for Abbas fell from 18.3% in November to 11.7% this month. The poll also showed that fewer Palestinians are satisfied with Abbas's performance.

Support for Haniyeh also went down, from 16.3% in November to 13.3% this month. The same applies to Fatah's imprisoned leader, Marwan Barghouti, whose popularity moved down from 14.3% to 12.8% during the same period.

With regards to confidence in the political parties, support for Fatah decreased from 40% in November to 32.5% this month, while Hamas's popularity went down from 19.7% to 17.8%.

The poll, conducted by the Jerusalem Media & Communications Center, covered 1,190 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points. It was held from April 8-13.

5) Private Accommodations for Islam
By R. John Matthies


When is it appropriate to critique the policies of private enterprise? Private institutions are clearly permitted to carry out their business in a manner appropriate to their market, so long as they operate within the boundaries of the law. However, these institutions – commercial, educational, or the media – also play a major societal role, and hence carry great responsibility. For this reason, the practice of criticizing these institutions is an established tradition, as illustrated by book reviews, theater criticism, Hollywood gossip columns, sports talk, consumer reports, and others. Acknowledging that the critique of private institutions is different from the sort directed at government, we engage private sector entities in consideration of the influence they peddle and (indirect) power they wield.

There are now many cases of Islamists in the West demanding accommodations – and of these demands being met. These range from trivial cases of employee accommodation to cases of gender segregation. While state and local authorities have often bent to the designs of political Islam, it is to private institutions that one turns to examine the most egregious examples of accommodation.

Still, it is more difficult to censure private institutions – given their greater freedom of action – than it is to censure lawmakers and public institutions, which are directly charged with serving the public good. Private entities have the right to run their own affairs, but the public cannot condone exceptions that result in exclusion or promote a regime of segregation. Merchants are free to choose the services or products they offer to target consumers and hence maximize profit. But to deny service to one group – or create hardship for select employees – to accommodate the wishes of another is unacceptable. Those policies that dismiss the rights of others – whether in a place of work, study, or commerce – must not be tolerated. For this reason, it is fitting to explore cases of accommodation with an eye both to the exceptional nature of the concession (in light of existing practice) and the degree to which group accommodation results in restricted movement, hampered speech, or great inconvenience to the majority.

In the case of Britain's Sainsbury's convenience stores, for example, Muslim employees who prefer to avoid contact with alcoholic beverages for reason of religion are asked to raise their hands so a colleague can replace them at their post or scan the item for them. And those who object to stocking shelves with wine, beer, and spirits have found alternative positions within the company. A similar example is credited to Target, where Muslim employees at a Minneapolis store have been dispensed with handling pork products, for fear of contamination.

Sainsbury's and Target have elected to satisfy employee wishes; the pertinent question is whether management has enacted these policies because it feels it's the right thing to do, or simply because no other options exist to fill the positions presently occupied by recalcitrant employees. (A spokeswoman for Sainsbury's admits as much, saying: "At the application stage we ask the relevant questions regarding any issues about handling different products and where we can we will try and accommodate any requirements people have.") If the latter is the case, it is difficult to imagine what these vendors can do or what suggestions we might offer. And so we tolerate exceptions of this kind – with the caveat that one must guard against those accommodations that infringe upon the rights of others (and do not merely inconvenience).

Both state and federal law are clear that employers are obliged to accommodate employees' religious beliefs where these are "reasonable" and do not detract from profitability. But this test fails to account for the inconvenience brought upon employees, which goes to the heart of the fairness issue. At the same time, it is clear that inconvenience extends to paying customers, who are forced to wait while another is found to handle the transaction – to say nothing of the degrading sort of treatment to which the customer is subjected, who must appear to create a disturbance for wishing to purchase an "elicit" product. All told, these examples speak to the question of the degree to which Islam may be allowed to disengage from society.

At the same time, it is also unacceptable for private concerns to enforce Islamic space of their own accord. Consider Harvard University's decision to institute women-only gym hours to accommodate the modesty requirements of campus Muslims, for example. Islamic Knowledge Committee officer Ola Aljawhary says: "These hours are necessary because there is a segment of the Harvard female population that is not found in gyms not because they don't want to work out, but because for them working out in a co-ed gym is uncomfortable, awkward or problematic in some way." But Harvard administrators explicitly noted that the new policy has less to do with gender than religion; and one reports that the Harvard Islamic Society itself was unaware of the change "until it was being formalized and in its final stages." It is one thing for young women to make their own private arrangements to accommodate a requirement for modesty, but it is quite another for a university to make these arrangements. Harvard must be asked to imagine where policies like these might lead (which others might be excluded), and to consider the motives of groups in support of such a program.

As one explores cases of accommodation and abuse of influence across the private sphere, one must judge each according to a scale that accounts for both the exceptional nature of the concession and the degree to which the majority is inconvenienced, restricted as to movement, or hampered in expression. Private concerns may be compelled by situation and environment to alter established practice; but for these same concerns to impose a program of segregation or apply select "Islamic" standards constitutes a grave abuse of influence.

6) Why House Democrats killed the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
By Matthew Continetti


A war-torn country with a democratically elected government, plagued by militias, terrorists, and drugs--but one that is steadily making progress against all these evils--wants to strengthen its ties to the United States. The Bush administration acts to help this ally. What does the Democratic Congress do? It changes the rules so that the Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), negotiated in good faith between the two governments and inked in 2006, can't come to a vote.

Memo to Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez: Send flowers to the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

It is Chávez who profits most from the CFTA's demise. For years now, he's been locked in a struggle with Colombian president lvaro Uribe over the future of South America. Chávez wants that future to be socialist, authoritarian, friendly to other dictators, and belligerent toward the United States. Uribe wants it to be market-oriented, democratic, and integrated into an international system friendly to freedom and organized and led by the United States. The two visions could not be more different.

Venezuela and Colombia almost went to war in March, when Colombia struck a terrorist camp run by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) inside neighboring Ecuador. The FARC has terrorized Colombians for years, murdering, taking hostages, trafficking in drugs. But Uribe has forced it into retreat. The March strike was a success. It killed FARC number two Raúl Reyes and led to the capture of his laptop, which contained files suggesting cooperation between the FARC and Venezuelan military intelligence. Chávez's response? He massed troops on the Venezuelan-Colombia border and threatened war.

The crisis abated, but there will be another. Thus this moment of relative tranquility was the perfect time for the United States to demonstrate just which side we are on, with passage of the CFTA. Instead we have turned our back on Uribe and the Latin American future he represents, supporting Chávez's claims that the "hegemon" is untrustworthy. Free trade agreements are not simply about trade. They are also about geopolitics: helping friends, strengthening alliances, shaping the future of, in this case, our hemisphere.

The arguments against the CFTA are laughably weak. Congressional Democrats say the deal would hurt U.S. workers. But more than 90 percent of Colombian imports already enter this country duty-free. So the main economic effect of the agreement would be the elimination of tariffs on U.S. exports to Colombia--thus helping U.S. workers. The agreement would "level the playing field" to our advantage. One estimate says the U.S. farm sector alone would reap an additional $690 million per year. Hence the balance of trade isn't the issue. If trade were the issue, then the Democratic Congress wouldn't have ratified the Peru Free Trade Agreement in December 2007.

Democrats claim that the White House didn't go out of its way to cooperate with Congress on the CFTA. That's simply false. The administration reports it held "more than 400 consultations, meetings, and calls"; sponsored "trips to Colombia for more than 50 members of Congress"; and worked closely with congressional leaders from both parties. It even agreed to support a "trade adjustment assistance" package in exchange for votes on the trade deal. What more could the White House have done? Placed mints on the Democrats' pillows?

Democrats like California representative Howard Berman say that "Colombia's troubling history of labor activist assassinations and human-rights violations" requires that the deal be held up. Since 2002, however, the murder of trade unionists has fallen by close to 80 percent. Homicides, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks are down. Colombia's human rights record is improving. It used to be that Colombia was so dangerous mayors had to live outside the cities they governed. Not any more. Today all of them live and work in the cities they govern. This is called progress. The trade agreement rewarded progress.

Why did Pelosi move to let the Colombia deal die? Politics. It's an election year. The Democrats need union money, and the unions oppose free trade. Democratic presidential candidates go from coast to coast telling audiences that free trade has devastated our economy. This is nonsense. But it wouldn't look too good if the Democratic Congress belied this irresponsible, hostile-to-foreigners, belligerent--one might say, unilateralist--rhetoric.

There's another reason, too: President Bush. Congress has now rejected the White House's two legislative priorities in 2008: a reform in the eavesdropping law that includes immunity for telecommunications firms and the CFTA. Congress's top priority is to make sure voters perceive the Bush presidency as a failure. They may think they are well on their way to achieving this goal. That in both of these matters the Democrats' hatred of Bush will redound to the benefit of enemies of the United States seems not to concern them in the least.

7) Clinton finds friends among 'bitter' folks of Mon Valley
By Mackenzie Carpenter, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

CALIFORNIA, Pa. -- She was an hour late, but the crowd was more than ready for her.

While "I Was Born in a Small Town" thumped over the speakers, huge cheers greeted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as she arrived at this college campus on the Monongahela River, capping a day of vigorous nonstop campaigning across the state by bus and plane.

Her voice hoarse but strong, Mrs. Clinton immediately launched into a specific list of proposals: ending the Iraq war "as quickly and responsibly as we can," providing affordable health care and a $100 million tax cut for the middle class, getting tough on foreign trade, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, investing in the nation's infrastructure and combating global warming.

"The idea that we're more dependent on foreign oil than we were on 9/11 just makes me sick," she said. "We're not going to make any changes until the two oil men are out of the White House but as soon as they are, let's get to work."

She also spent some time -- in a clear pitch to this crowd of students -- lamenting the high interest rates accompanying college loans.

"Anyone paying more than 20 percent interest here?" she asked the crowd, a standard part of her speech. When someone shouted out 23.5 percent, she repeated the number and exclaimed, "He's going to be paying until he dies, this woman said," adding that she would make sure to reform the system so rates weren't so onerous.

The New York senator, accompanied by Gov. Ed Rendell and U.S. Rep. John Murtha, of Johnstown, seemed upbeat, despite polls showing Mr. Obama pulling ahead nationally and, in state surveys, largely undamaged by his remarks characterizing small-town Pennsylvanians as "bitter."
On to Renzie Park

Later, she traveled further north along the Mon to Renziehausen Park in McKeesport, where an even larger crowd awaited her in the rain.

She told the crowd, which huddled under umbrellas around the red, white and blue bandstand, that she fondly remembered a campaign stop she'd made at the same spot with her husband in 1992.

She cut her stump speech short, telling the crowd she wanted them to "go home and get dry."

Earlier, in West Chester, Clinton fired some broadsides at the Illinois senator, stressing -- as she has repeatedly -- her substance over his style. At a West Chester firehouse, she noted that she "didn't want to just show up and give one of these woop-de-doo speeches, just kind of get everybody whipped up.... I want everybody thinking about what we have to do."

In her speech at California University, Mrs. Clinton rarely mentioned Mr. Obama, noting only that his health care plan "doesn't cover everyone," and that the Illinois senator "is attacking me in a new ad he's put up."

While the hall wasn't completely filled, the mood -- and it was, after all, a balmy spring Saturday night on a college campus -- was enthusiastic, accompanied by the usual pre-campaign rock anthems of John Mellencamp and U2 (but not, significantly, Bruce Springsteen, who may have been taken off the campaign's playlist after he announced his support of Mr. Obama earlier this week).

Most in the crowd were students -- ordinarily Mr. Obama's demographic -- a fact not lost on Mr. Rendell.

"There's a rumor out there that all young people are for the other candidate," growled the governor into the microphone as boos erupted in the hall. "Now I want all the young people here to repeat after me: Madame President!"

Mr. Murtha noted that Mrs. Clinton's daughter Chelsea was asked if her mother would be as good a president as her father. "And she said, 'Better,' because she's had the experience of being there eight years. Every president made all kinds of mistakes when they came, there's no experience like being there and seeing the pressure that goes along with it," added Mr. Murtha.

'Bitter'? Yes and no

The Mon Valley towns of California and McKeesport were probably some of the communities in Pennsylvania that Mr. Obama was talking about in his now infamous remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser. But people at the rally had decidedly mixed feelings about the Illinois senator's characterization of them as "bitter," with some of them not bitter at all.

"Personally, it didn't bother me," said Debbie Berkich, 50, who works as a real estate agent in nearby McMurray. "I understand it. Think about where we were seven years ago, even six months ago and where we are now. A year ago you could buy apples for 99 cents and now they're $1.79 each at the grocery. The middle class and the poor are getting poorer."

Ms. Berkich likes Mr. Obama, but says she is still a Hillary supporter. "She knows what to expect. He doesn't. He's inexperienced."

She had little sympathy, though, for those who thought Mr. Obama got an unfair shake from ABC's moderators at the Wednesday debate.

"Everyone's e-mailing ABC, saying, 'Poor Obama, they're picking on him,' but they were addressing the issues that matter."

Nonsense, said Fran Zaff, 60, of Elco. "I didn't like the flag pin question. If he didn't want to wear a flag pin he doesn't have to. She didn't have one on, and I thought the whole thing was kind of ridiculous."

Still, once more substantive issues were addressed, she said, "Hillary gave extremely good answers. That's what finally made up my mind, right there."

Brenda Prigg, 58, of Washington, found that the debate "rehashed a lot of old questions, but Hillary stood her ground. She has backbone."

Dolores Michaux, of Charleroi, spoke about her brother-in-law's health insurance premiums jumping from $460 a month to $848. "Something has to be done, she said. "Obama is right about people being frustrated. Something has to be done for the middle American, because we're just hurting. But I think Hillary is the one to do it."

Ms. Michaux and Ms. Prigg may be among the "bitter" people Mr. Obama was talking about -- a teacher, Ms. Prigg has no health insurance and says she may lose her house because her salary won't cover the monthly mortgage payments.

But both women said they're sticking with Mrs. Clinton.

"I felt back in the 1990s when the Clintons were in, I lived pretty good, and now my life is going down the tubes, like everyone else's," said Ms. Prigg. "When I met her in Pittsburgh eight years ago, I told her, Hillary, no matter what you run for, anyone who stays with Bill deserves my vote, and she loved it."

"I feel like I AM Hillary Clinton," she said. "Strong women are all Hillary Clinton."

Today, Mrs. Clinton attends "Solutions for Pennsylvania" rallies in Bethlehem, Johnstown and State College.