Politics | 12/01/2008 8:55 am

10 Things You May Not Know About Hillary Clinton

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

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

Susan, “So be careful about granting the rest of the world jurisdiction over our best interests.” WTF…… BUSH wanted to turn over the running of our vulnerable ports to his criminal friends in Dubai. Bush defended a deal that would let United Arab Emirates-based company run key U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement….until he was fought back from this absolute insane idea. BUSH didn’t “AGREE TO GO ALONG WITH INTERNATIONAL OVERSIGHT” he and his criminal/incompentent administration caused an International financial crisis. HUMBLED THE US and the G-20/International Monetary Fund are excerising their rights in the face of mammouth Bush incompetence. “THE world’s international financial institutions will be reshaped and worldwide regulatory and accounting rules reformed as a result of the G20 meeting.The global leaders’ 11-page statement spoke of broad principles, leaving the details to be worked out by aides before another summit meeting in April, after Barack Obama assumes the US presidency. “But the gathering in Washington of nations from every region reflected the new balance of power emerging in the aftermath of a financial crisis that has devastated even well-run economies” He’s done NOTHING but GREATLY WEAKENED & IMPERILED THE US ECONOMY THAT IS ON THE BRINK OF DEPRESSION BECAUSE OF BUSH ‘POLICIES’ IE HOW MUCH CAN HIS CRONIES STEAL. We WERE strong because of our ECONOMIC SOUNDNESS AND STRENGH….now the dollar is down against all currencies and we are in deep merde because of BUSH. And now the adults are back in charge. Democrats ALWAYS have the strongest economies [Dept of Commerce facts]

By Delete This on 12/02/2008 9:27 pm

e-mail alert

I am having a problem following the conversation here. Is it that people are prejudging Obama’s ability to run the country? Yet he is really making marvelous choices for his cabinet. And he has an excellent economic team on top of that. McCain had Phil Graham who said the economy was fine and people had to stop whining. Bush pushed Afghanistan to the side, yet that was where the real terror was hiding. Then he turned his back on the problems in Pakistan where terrorism is on the rise. Obama brought those issues to the forefront. Seems to me the man is not going to sell out NYC or any other city.

By Brooklyn Gal on 12/02/2008 12:54 am

e-mail alert

Sure I’ve been to France and Italy—before and after 9/11. I don’t recall being watched, but then maybe I was. As for church and state, don’t get me started. The constitution does not provide for the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson wrote that particular concern in a letter regarding state-sponsored religion back when many states had an official state religion. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. With the above in mind, everyone in the US should be able to freely exercise their religion—including in schools—right? And it doesn’t say government can’t say God, etc. It says government shall make no law establishing religion. Now you and the Supreme Court can think that is wrong—but that’s what it says. How about God bless you?! It’s obvious you are passionate about this, and it’s good to hear your view.

By Susan Easterday on 12/02/2008 8:53 am

e-mail alert

The First Amendment allows for free practice of religion by individuals, and prohibits joining of Church and State. “Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise. “The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept. “The concept has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism.” Sheesh already, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” THIS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IT DOESN’T GRANT STATE RIGHT TO CREATE RELIGION…FOR PETE’S SAKE…YOU DON’T EVEN READ OR COMPREHEND WHAT YOU QUOTE. THIS IS 5TH GRADE CIVICS!!!! THE US IS NOT ABLE TO EXCERCISE ANY ‘RELIGIOUS RIGHTS’ IN SCHOOLS….THAT’S WHAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE FOR.

By Delete This on 12/02/2008 9:10 pm

e-mail alert

Carmel, Unfortunately you have contradicted yourself: Sheesh already, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” THIS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IT DOESN’T GRANT STATE RIGHT TO CREATE RELIGION…FOR PETE’S SAKE…YOU DON’T EVEN READ OR COMPREHEND WHAT YOU QUOTE. THIS IS 5TH GRADE CIVICS!!!! THE US IS NOT ABLE TO EXCERCISE ANY ‘RELIGIOUS RIGHTS’ IN SCHOOLS….THAT’S WHAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE FOR. The constitution doesn’t say you can’t exercise any religious rights—you said that. It says you cannot make a law establishing religion nor one prohibiting free exercise of religion. Now the Supreme court sided with you. But there are constitutional lawyers on both sides much smarter than you and I that could argue this till blue in the face. But it doesn’t change the fact that my daughter has to have a “winter party” instead of a Christmas party—very silly.

By Susan Easterday on 12/02/2008 9:27 pm

e-mail alert

Susan - as I was reading through your exchanges, particularly those with Suzanne, I got the sense that you were trying very hard to defend a position regarding Church and State that has no basis in fact. If you read Thomas Jefferson carefully, you will find that he went to great lengths to assert that Church and State should be completely separate. The Constitution protects the rights of individuals to practice any religion of their choice or to practice none. The Constitution does not support a relationship between Church and State in any way. Jefferson was emphatic about that fact.

By Maurine H on 12/03/2008 8:32 pm

e-mail alert

Maurine, No actually I wasn’t necessarily trying to defend a relationship between church and state the way you are explaining it I haven’t read Jefferson closely, but I have read some and have a decent understanding of it. And of course, the context the letter to the Danbury Baptists does use the term “separation of church and state.” I did say though that the constitution does say their government “should make no law…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And I firmly believe that that does not cover praying in public schools, having the ten commandments in front of court houses, etc. Because that prohibits free exericise of religion—especially when conducted on a state and local level. And though Jefferson did discontinue some practices that other presidents did, he didn’t stop all mention of God and activities such as praying in Congress. So he was adamant about the establishment portion, but evidently supportive of the free exercise. I also know that lots of other smart men (and women recently) have written on the this—so I humbly say I am not even remotely any kind of expert. But I also assert that there were state religions (Jefferson was referring to national) back then and I don’t think he touched on it at least not at this time to the Danbury Baptists, right?

By Susan Easterday on 12/03/2008 10:24 pm

e-mail alert

Susan - the more one reads Jefferson’s opinions, the more it becomes obvious that he gave the relationship of government and religion considerable thought. He is considered more a Deist than a Christian and he even re-wrote the gospels (The Jefferson Bible), removing the miracles but including the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus. So he went through a personal evolution and wrote about it, and I’m grateful to him for that. “The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it’s benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.” —Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237 And, “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” —Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21 And, “No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” —Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425 And finally, “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 While I think that Jefferson was a great moralist and certainly a vehement supporter of freedom of religion (or from religion), it is his own continual examination of the topic that I find most intriguing. The problem with praying in public schools (institutions supported by our taxes) and the placing of the ten commandments in front of court houses (also supported by taxes), I’m convinced would have disturbed Jefferson as much as it disturbs me because these acts discriminate against non-Christians who have to pay taxes along with all other citizens. Until there is an entirely level playing field on which every citizen taxpayer is equally represented, I think it is absolutely wrong for any religious/atheistic representation to appear in any form on any public property. If we want Bibles, or Korans or Torah’s or Wiccan symbols or voodoo dolls or nothing religious at all in our own homes, we have that right.

By Maurine H on 12/03/2008 11:30 pm

e-mail alert

Hello Maurine, Yes—I am familiar with the Jefferson Bible and how he took out parts of the gospel to accomodate his beliefs. That’s a whole ‘nother topic to discuss though! :-) And that would mean I would have to tell you my personal story—too long for this forum. Thanks for the information—I haven’t seen or studied any of this detail. But now after seeing it, I agree with most of this in theory. But I note that since he is someone trying to tailor the Bible to his own beliefs, I believe “he protests too much.” Of course, He is just a (hu)man after all, like you and I. Regardless, this is the nation in which we live and I’m required to respect our laws. I would propose that we give ALL religions more opportunity for free expression. Unfortunately what happens when trying to respect all minorities, often the majorities (such as Christians) are disrespected. Isn’t the idea equal treatment of all—even the “majorities?” Small example—instead of a “winter party” at school—we allow everyone in the class to bring, display, discuss, etc. items regarding their faiths? School is one of the most formative times for our lives—why limit the discussion to just secularism? And in regards to taxes, your argument could be used against many other tax-supported agencies or programs (such as the NEA in some circumstances) that push forms of religious expression or direct antagonism towards the religious/spiritual. And the playing field will never be level with taxes, since we have a progressive tax system that will likely become more skewed towards those with more money as the years go on. Interesting point though, do citizens become less invested in government when they pay less to participate? But as I often do, I’m going off topic. Thanks for this interesting information and respectful discussion. I’m going to keep it in my files. - Susan

By Susan Easterday on 12/04/2008 9:34 am

e-mail alert

By Susan Easterday on 12/04/2008 9:34 am

e-mail alert

Yes, Susan - we’ve opened Pandora’s box by just bringing up the term “taxes”! For example, the tax exempt status of churches that participate in political issues (like the Mormon Church which played a major role, both financially and influentially, in passing Prop.8 in California), and why they should lose that status. But, that’s another topic on another thread. I always appreciate a discussion here where we can exchange thoughts instead of karate chops! Thanks, Maurine.

By Maurine H on 12/04/2008 1:37 pm

e-mail alert

Yes, I’m in TN but followed prop 8 somewhat and I know the Mormon church put a lot of resources into that referendum. And I’m inclined to agree with you that if an tax-exempt org participates to that degree, than they should lose their status. Then, of course, how do you define “how much is too much?” Of course, Jeremiah Wright’s previous church has a lot to say about politics from the pulpit—is that right? It’s a complicated subject. But either way Happy Holidays and God bless you! - usan

By Susan Easterday on 12/04/2008 2:24 pm

e-mail alert

interesting list but i feel there’s more that I want to know. would love if anyone else knew any other hobbies she had….do you?

By Edie Williams on 12/02/2008 10:06 am

e-mail alert

Did anyone mention that Chicago is actually Sen. Clinton’s hometown, not Sen. Obama’s? She was born and grew up there, he moved there. Just point of order.

By Mugsy Peabody on 12/03/2008 2:06 am