Got a minute? Tell wOw what you think.

Post | 12/01/2008 9:55 am

10 Things You May Not Know About Hillary Clinton

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP

With Hillary Clinton set to be named Barack Obama’s secretary of state, we thought we’d take a few minutes to offer ten things you may not know about one of the world’s most famous women.

1. One would think the junior New York senator would grab her favorite food from one of the Big Apple’s delis, but Clinton actually prefers Oliver Burgers from Pickwick in Chicago, Barack Obama’s hometown.

2. If we were to guess Sen. Clinton’s favorite show, we’d probably say “Law & Order” or perhaps another drama of that ilk. But, unfortunately, we’d be wrong. Clinton says she’s a devoted fan of "American Idol" and simply adores last season’s winner, David Cook. The senator must have been absolutely swooning when Cook serenaded her at the Glamour Women of the Year Awards earlier this month.

3. Yes, Clinton likes recent "American Idol" David Cook, but she’ll always love Aretha Franklin, The Rolling Stones, Carly Simon and U2, all of whom she’s cited as some of her musical musts.

4. Alright, she may not be the Julia Child of Chappaqua, but Hillary Clinton claims on her MySpace page that she makes a “decent” plate of scrambled eggs.

5. Clinton’s typically cool as a cucumber on camera, but that doesn’t mean this politician doesn’t like to work up a sweat. Her preferred physical activity? Speed walking. Senators, they’re just like us!

6. Sure, Sen. Clinton gets down and dirty with the rest of Washington, but she prefers to get her hands dirty in her garden.

7. Clinton describes being "naughty" as sleeping in until 7 AM.

8. Hillary Clinton doesn’t take a bubble bath to relieve stress – she finds solace in organizing her closets. Hey, Hillary — next time you’re feeling overwhelmed, come on over to our place. We need some help!

9. In addition to spending time in her garden, Mrs. Clinton also enjoys taking in a good flick, but has a special place for the internationally-set “Casablanca,” and “Out of Africa,” but also can’t resist sitting down for the all-American classic, “The Wizard of Oz.”

10. Diplomacy requires very specific language – and Clinton knows how to pick her words carefully. In addition to her years in Washington, Clinton’s trained her internal dictionary with years of playing Scrabble and cracking crossword puzzles.

83 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

phyllis Doyle Pepe

You left out her great sense of humor which friends say she has in abundance and that wonderful laugh to boot. I wish her well and am proud we have such a capable, intelligent woman to be our next Secretary of State. Interesting that we have had two women in a row in that position––a turning point in the old “wise men” cabal?

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 12/01/2008 10:19 am
Belinda .

Hmmm….I see me and Hillary have a lot in common.

By Belinda . on 12/01/2008 10:20 am
Melanie Waldrop

Seems like I do too, Belinda! I am glad to see that Clinton has been (and is accepting) the position of Secretary of State…she is perfect for this role!

By Melanie Waldrop on 12/01/2008 11:17 am
phyllis Doyle Pepe

Oh, and speaking of successful women, have you noticed that Samantha Powers is back with Obama? I thought she might. Remember she had to resign after she was overheard saying something not very nice about Hillary. Samantha is someone who is too good to be left out of an Obama camp. I hope she and Hillary can mend fences or at least avoid getting together at the round table.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 12/01/2008 11:47 am
EKA -

I saw that, it is the best news I have heard about this administration ! I’ve watched Ms Power several times on Charlie Rose and she is brilliant. She really knows about the world and has a good sense of the suffering that goes on and the politics that causes that suffering.

I know she said the unfortunate” Monster” comment about Hillary but I think it was because she was such a backer of Obama. My sense is that she and Hillary will get on great … two smart women who will change the world !
YES !!

By EKA - on 12/01/2008 12:06 pm
Joan Brown

Who would have thought that I have so much in common with Hillary? I always felt she was a special woman. Maybe it’s because she’s so much like me!! LOL

By Joan Brown on 12/01/2008 12:25 pm
Susan Easterday

I hate to rain on this party—but I was really hoping to hear more about her accomplishment than her choice for burgers. I don’t think she was the most experienced person Obama could have picked for Secretary of State. Unfortunately, I think this was a political decision and they both have little foreign policy experience. Someone is welcome to give me 10 reasons why she makes the best Secretary of State.

By Susan Easterday on 12/01/2008 1:07 pm
Belinda .

Susan,

Goodness knows we cover a lot of heady, serious subjects on this site that elicit responses that can be combative and informative at the same time from posters. Articles don’t always have to be serious; sometimes they can be light, as with this post.

I too share in your concerns about Hillary in the role of our Secretary of State. I just can’t see her conforming her personality to fit the needs and requirements of the job. She is no where near as malleable as Condoleeza Rice and will to the contrary speak her mind and push her own objectives….how could she not? So I have concerns, but will (given I don’t have a choice) sit back and see how this unfolds.

As for your comment that “they both have little foreign policy experience” PE Obama is surrounding himself with men and women who have just that. Relying on their expertise and experience to guide him through the complicated world of international relationships. He has learned from the multitude of mistakes made by George W. (who may I add had no international experience when he took office) so I find solace that Obama will not repeat the monumental mistakes made by Bush, and so too should all Americans. Whether it be Hillary Clinton or others in his cabinet, take solace Susan in the fact that Obama is beloved around the world. True that is the case for now, but it is a far cry more than we can say about George W. He is the reason up until November 4th America was hated throughout the globe.

By Belinda . on 12/01/2008 2:53 pm
mitzi morris

Susan,
Condi Rice has been “malleable” beause she has absolutely no credibility as a Secy of State who represents the US who can speak softly but carry a big stick. Meaning the art of negotiation. Bush and Cheney have given her no international credibility. This past summer after asking for a meeting with Putin, Condi who is Russian fluent was kept waiting for 45 minutes, and when Putin arrived, she was given the brush off.
Condi is a messenger for a failed administration, and as National Security Advisor, she ignored warnings about 9/11 repeatedly. Condi has carried water for an atrocious administration, and the skill involved in this job is not learned in school studying language and/or “diplomacy”. Great secretaries always operated from strength because they represented the strategies inherent in their administrations, were smart as hell, and had great negotiating skills and kn0w how to listen and interpret information. The objectives are always concurrent with the President’s vision. Condi is not respected for ovious reasons.

I fear you may have a lingering case of Hillary Derangement Syndrome which hopefully will be cured when Clinton gets to work for our President and our country and uses her extraordinary skills to heal the rifts and wounds created by an indifferent and murderous administration that has damaged our credibility throughout the world. Condi should go back to Stamford and continue as wonk and continue serving on Bd of Dir of Carlysle Group and other war mongering right wing groups.

Your “concerns” about Clinton are based on nothing but your own prejudice. Google past Secy’s of State and see their “qualifications”. They are all different.

Hillary’s experience uniquely suits her for this job, and one of the conditions she expressed regarding taking this job was that she would have direct access to the President with no intermediaries. She is disciplined,focused,brilliant,and a very hard worker who is respected throughout the world that she has extensively travelled.

By mitzi morris on 12/05/2008 6:57 pm
gulliver fourmyle

simple #s 1-10—-She’s not you—-i guess ya would prefer Laura Bush? yeah, that’s the ticket—-if you wish to know her qualifications? can ya spell google?

By gulliver fourmyle on 12/01/2008 10:21 pm
Susan Easterday

You guys are brutal out here—no I have little in common with Laura Bush. But I know very well Hillary’s Clinton’s qualifications and I think they are weak for this office. Most of her governmental life in Washington was spent as a first lady, and her last 6 years as a Senator in NY. I’m just glad she has not been put in as an economic advisor, as she never brought upstate NY the jobs and prosperity she promised. She has served on the Armed Services committee and a Commission for European cooperation (and other domestic committees). Obviously, she’s been involved with votes on the war, etc.

How about someone like Madeleine Albright? She had all kinds of international experience, was an advisor on foreign policy to other Democrats, and an UN ambassador. Check out her impressive resume before she became Sec of State. That’s what type of experience I’m talking about and I can say it in a nice way!

By Susan Easterday on 12/01/2008 10:58 pm
gulliver fourmyle

one problem with other choices—-who has the ‘Star-Power’—-and experience? that power is Clout—-simple choice—-

By gulliver fourmyle on 12/02/2008 12:59 am
Susan B

Susan, I share virtually all of the same opinions with you on this particular subject. Although I hold Hillary in high regard, I still can’t help but wonder if someone with Madame Albright’s qualifications wouldn’t have been a stronger choice for SoS. But, we do have to keep in mind that Obama’s decision was politically weighted as well. I’m confident she’ll do a fine job.

By Susan B on 12/07/2008 2:13 am
Susan Easterday

Hi Belinda,
I certainly understand your comments about serious stuff—but this is where I get my serious conversation. Most (not all) of my friends are busy discussing potty training, boob jobs, and other lighter issues.

I absolutely agree she will not be malleable and will certainly push her own objectives—of course, that could be bad or good depending on your perspective. But I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and support and pray for this administration. I am pleased that Pres-Elect Obama is putting in an experienced cabinet, though I don’t agree with all their views. He was right when he said it would have been irresponsible for him to do it any other way.

I am not here to defind Bush, but we have yet to see if Obama will make any mistakes or not—he hasn’t even started! :-) Except, of course, to name a cabinet with experience in government (not always a good thing).

But I will ask you this—do you truly care what the whole world thinks of us? We are an extraordinarily generous nation who gives and helps over and above the rest of world and gets little credit. In fact, Pres Bush increased the AIDS funding to an incredible amount over and above what other modern presidents have done. I would be rather be safe and prosperous, so that we are able to help the rest of the world—than liked. We were attacked just 8 months into the Bush presidency, so it wasn’t him that caused us to be attacked. Did they not like Pres Clinton either? No, I don’t think we are liked because we are capitalistic, free to express our views, and more successful than most countries. I think we might find that Pres-elect Obama is liked more, but I’m guessing we do not get any more cooperation and help than we did before. I guess that remains to be seen.

By Susan Easterday on 12/01/2008 3:19 pm
Belinda .

First off, Susan you are hilarious! LOL! Now I understand why you turn to wOw for intelligent discourse…point taken! Potty training? That would drive me crazy…..

I couldn’t disagree with you more about the importance of us being loved throughout the world, and this is why. (By the way, I love this conversation topic, so thank you.) If you research it, Al-qaida and other militant factions did indeed have the U.S. in their sites before Bush took office. They tried on a number of occasions on a smaller scale. (Example: The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

And before that there were other small attacks that didn’t make the news to a great degree, but they were/are all significant. Because they point to the belief that these militants harbor about the U.S. as being racist, materialistic, egomaniacal and elitists people who’s primary goal in life is to take over the world and spread our capitalistic views throughout the world. The last point is one that I am sure you have noticed has indeed happened. Countries immolate us in that regard. Look at India, France, the United Kingdom, parts of Africa, Asia….they are all adopting our western values, brands and such in the attempt to appear as we do.

But more importantly to the point of why it is so significant that we are loved by the rest of the world, and to that end the role Barack Obama plays in promoting a positive change. Militants primary mantra to those that follow their teachings is that America is run by White males that dominate the rest of our society. Women and minorities don’t have a voice. White males are all about greed and dominance. That is what they teach Susan. So think of the hole that makes in their argument in that regard to see a country vote into the highest office in our nation a Black male. Huh…..ummm…well, they still treat their women like ….well…umm…. they lose a lot in their argument to potential suicide bombers. LOL! I’m sure you have read the articles lately about the diminishing numbers in devotees since Obama won, and their leaders grasping for thoughts on how to keep up the America are capitalistic swines mantra.

Look at the contrast between how we were viewed by the world and as a byproduct our nation was ran under the leadership of Clinton, compared to George W. We prospered and the world prospered. We were doing well and the world was hanging on our every word. Trade talks lavished and all was right with the world. George W. on the other hand was and is ineffective at dealing with foreign dignitaries. He adopted the attitude he didn’t feel the need to negotiate or deal with other countries, and that lack of communication cost us dearly. 9/11 and all that transpired after it, did not have to happen the way it did. Under a man (or woman) with a broader view of the world and a less “tricky trigger finger” we could have sought out those behind the attacks AND at the same time held onto the respect we as a nation had earned over the decades. I don’t know if you like Barack or not Susan, but picture if you will that it was he who was our President when 9/11 happened. He had insight and assurances that Afghanistan is where we should have focused on for Osama Bin Ladin, and years later his beliefs have proven to be correct. Can you just imagine? He would have been caught, killed and thousands of our fellow Americans would still be alive.

That’s my take on this subject. I believe we are not an island and we should not view ourselves as such. The world affects us and we it. So how we are viewed, and yes loved, is in my opinion of vital importance. We have seen what 8 years of being hated has resulted in, do you really want to see another 4 years of this feeling of isolation?

P.S. I agree with you 100% about the AIDS funding throughout the world George W. has provided, he has done a wonderful job in that regard.

By Belinda . on 12/01/2008 7:57 pm