Subject: ​Correct The Record Friday September 19, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:10:00 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Friday September 19, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Pres. Bill Clinton *@billclinton: .@astro_reid
<https://twitter.com/astro_reid> Are you really Tweeting from space? Your
roaming charges must be out of this world! [9/19/14, 8:35 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/billclinton/status/512943126722641920>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "...empowering women is not just the
right thing to do. It's the smart thing to do." @shellyporges
<https://twitter.com/shellyporges> #Progress4Women
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/Progress4Women?src=hash>
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102012957  <http://t.co/nXHuwPcoDH>[9/18/14, 2:57
p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/512676738237603841>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Rand Paul and Marco Rubio take swipes
at each other to attack Hillary.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/18/isolationists-vs-interventionists-the-latest-gop-split/
…
<http://t.co/67BNwZxrYV> [9/18/14, 2:21 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/512667687168638977>]

*Headlines:*

*BuzzFeed: “DREAMer Activists Plan To Keep Confronting Hillary Clinton On
Immigration”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/dreamer-activists-plan-to-keep-confronting-hillary-clinton-o#2wwn3q7>*

“Adrienne Elrod, a spokesperson for Correct the Record, the research
project aimed at defending Clinton, highlighted the former senator’s past
efforts on immigration and what she described as a lifetime endeavor to
‘help families and our nation’s immigrants be able to earn and live the
American Dream.’”

*CNN opinion: Paul Begala: “Why Hillary Clinton won't say she's running in
2016”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/19/opinion/begala-hillary-clinton/index.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>*

“If she were to go Open Kimono on us now it would draw attention from
crucial midterm elections, siphon campaign donations from Democrats
struggling to hold onto the Senate and possibly even eclipse important
debates on how to fight ISIS and whether to shut down the government
(again).”

*Time: “Hillary Clinton’s Decision Time”
<http://time.com/3058912/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-race-announcement/>*

“…an array of Clinton allies have jumped into the fold this year, including
Correct the Record, a Democratic research group aimed at pushing back
against Republican critics of her record…”

*New York Observer: “Benghazi Again”
<http://observer.com/2014/09/benghazi-again/>*

“Adrienne Elrod, communications director for Correct the Record, a PAC that
promotes and defends Hillary Clinton, argues that this is not plausible as
‘the questions have been asked, answered, rehashed, and relitigated on the
tragedy in Benghazi.’”

*NBC News: “Hillary Clinton to Dem Women: 'Midterms Matter'”
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/hillary-clinton-dem-women-midterms-matter-n207341>*

“Hillary Clinton worked to fire up Democratic women Friday as the party
looks to turn out its base voters in November’s contested midterm
elections.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to women: Remember the midterms”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-women-midterms-111145.html?hp=l2>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday urged Democratic women
to prioritize the midterms, for the sake of advancing women’s rights — and
also in defense of a larger progressive agenda.”

*Time: “Hillary Clinton Pledges to Campaign for Female Democratic
Candidates”
<http://time.com/3404189/hillary-clinton-2014-midterm-elections/>*

“Hillary Clinton plunged back into the political waters Friday by pledging
to work to get all the female Democratic candidates on the ballot elected
in November.”

*The Atlantic: “Does Hillary Clinton Have Anything to Say?”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/does-hillary-clinton-have-anything-to-say/380483/>*

“Everywhere Hillary Clinton goes, a thousand cameras follow. Then she opens
her mouth, and nothing happens.”

*Articles:*

*BuzzFeed: “DREAMer Activists Plan To Keep Confronting Hillary Clinton On
Immigration”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/dreamer-activists-plan-to-keep-confronting-hillary-clinton-o#2wwn3q7>*

By Adrian Carrasquillo and Ruby Cramer

September 19, 2014, 9:41 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Another disturbance is planned Friday at the DNC Women’s
Leadership Forum where Clinton will speak, making it the third time in a
week that DREAMers will make their presence felt at one of her events.

On the rope line at an event in Iowa last Sunday, three undocumented
activists waited to ask Hillary Clinton about the delay of executive
actions on immigration. Clinton flashed the group a thumbs up. But when the
activists pressed her on the question, Clinton said, “I think we have to
elect more Democrats,” then kept moving.

Two days later, at a benefit in New York featuring Clinton, about six
immigration activists interrupted the event, chanting “Undocumented,
Unafraid!” Security removed the protesters. Afterward, Clinton took photos
with fans and ignored questions from a reporter about the incident.

A group of activists have another confrontation planned for Friday morning.

The cadre of so-called DREAMers — undocumented youth brought to the country
as children — will protest outside the Women’s Leadership Forum, an event
hosted by the Democratic National Committee, where Clinton is booked to
speak.

The encounter was organized by the group, United We Dream. It will be the
third time in one week that Clinton has had to deal with disruptions from
activists on immigration.

High-profile DREAMer activists and immigration groups say there is no
coordinated campaign against Clinton. But the activists who plan these
actions identified the former secretary of state, who is expected to run
for president again, as a central target of run-ins like the ones in Iowa
and New York.

Clinton, they said, can expect continued questions at her public
appearances about President Obama’s delay until after the midterm elections
of expected executive actions that would ease deportations — an
announcement that riled the activist community earlier this month.

“One of the targets in the long run is going to be Hillary,” said Erika
Andiola, a national activist among DREAMers who filmed the confrontation in
Iowa last weekend. Andiola posted the video on YouTube, and news outlets
picked up the story hours later.

“She’s Hillary Clinton, not just any old person,” said Julieta Garibay, a
United We Dream leader. “Right now for us, anyone who is standing in the
way of justice for our families is against us. We wouldn’t call her the
primary target, but with the voice she has, we’re frustrated with anyone
who says there should be a delay or that there shouldn’t be action.”

Andiola, who runs the Arizona-based Dream Action Coalition, said plans to
confront Clinton and other lawmakers over immigration are loosely
organized, passed on by word of mouth inside the tight network of activists
and undocumented youth.

What exactly the activists want to hear from Clinton is somewhat unclear:
They said they don’t expect deep policy comments from Clinton immigration
at these events. But, the activists said, they do want more than the paltry
lines she gave in between autographs last weekend in Iowa.

“We want to hear, ‘I support DREAMers, I support families,’” said Cesar
Vargas, who heads Dream Action Coalition with Andiola.

A Clinton spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the
DREAMers.

But Adrienne Elrod, a spokesperson for Correct the Record, the research
project aimed at defending Clinton, highlighted the former senator’s past
efforts on immigration and what she described as a lifetime endeavor to
“help families and our nation’s immigrants be able to earn and live the
American Dream.”

“In the Senate, she co-sponsored the DREAM Act on several occasions,
consistently voted in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and
introduced legislation to reunite families separated by the immigration
system,” Elrod said.

Clinton has been approached by activists on this issue before. In April, at
a Clinton Foundation event in Manhattan, a 19-year-old attendee named Nova
Bajamonti stood to ask Clinton a question, and tearfully announced “for the
first time publicly” that she was an undocumented immigrant. Bajamonti told
the story of how she left Croatia for the United States, but was unable to
obtain a green card.

Clinton praised Bajamonti as “incredibly brave” and suggested she look into
DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that allows young
people brought to the U.S. as children to obtain legal status.

“I hope you will do that, and if you can’t, come talk to us afterward, and
we will help you figure that out,” Clinton said.

As soon as the event ended, Clinton Foundation staffers found Bajamonti,
who was already under DACA at the time. Less than a week later, Bajamonti
said this week, the Clinton Foundation connected her with an immigration
lawyer to help provide and process her DACA renewal application free of
charge.

Vargas and Andiola, along with a 23-year-old undocumented activist named
Monica Reyes, also confronted Sen. Bernie Sanders, another Democrat
interested in running for president, who appeared at a different event in
Iowa last Sunday. The Vermont senator criticized Obama on executive actions
— a comment that earned praise from Reyes and other activists.

Andiola and Vargas are also eyeing the governor of Maryland, Martin
O’Malley, who has a state record on immigration they love and is
considering a run for president.

Their encounter with Clinton in Iowa provoked one Maryland activist to
connect Andiola and Vargas with O’Malley, suggesting they find a time to
meet, the two activists said.

“O’Malley has clashed with the administration,” Vargas said. “He’s one of
the candidates not taking Latinos for granted.”

Clinton, while on tour to promote her new memoir, said in an interview that
the unaccompanied children at the border “should be sent back” to their
families. The remark caused Fusion’s Jorge Ramos, in another interview, to
ask Clinton if she had a “Latino problem.”

While she walked back her initial comments saying the children should be
shown love and only some should be sent back, the questions now put Clinton
in a tough spot politically: Dodging young activists on video looks bad,
but the prospect of Obama’s executive actions, which Democrats in key
Senate races opposed before the election, is controversial with some. And
while Clinton has critiqued the president on foreign policy since leaving
the State Department, she has largely avoided domestic issues.

At the DNC women’s forum on Friday, the DREAMers have no plans to
infiltrate the event, but will make their presence felt outside the
Marriott Marquis hotel. Clinton will be joined by Obama, Vice President
Biden, and the chair of the DNC, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Vargas said it’s Clinton they’ll be watching.

“We want her to show she can be a president. Presidents take leadership
when others won’t.”

*CNN opinion: Paul Begala: “Why Hillary Clinton won't say she's running in
2016”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/19/opinion/begala-hillary-clinton/index.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter>*

By Paul Begala

September 19, 2014, 9:03 a.m. EDT

"Are you running for president?"

"When will you announce that you're running for president?"

"Why won't you just announce that you're running for president?"

"You wouldn't be have gone to Iowa if you weren't running for president,
would you?

Despite the world aflame, Ebola spreading and the Washington Nationals in
the playoffs, it seems the only thing the political press can do is
speculate about a potential Hillary presidential candidacy.

Keep in mind we are two years and two months away from the next
presidential election. And yet the urgency is fierce, bordering on
indignation: "Why won't she just tell us if she's running?"

Well, why should she? An announcement now would be stupid, and Hillary is
definitely not stupid.

If she were to go Open Kimono on us now it would draw attention from
crucial midterm elections, siphon campaign donations from Democrats
struggling to hold onto the Senate and possibly even eclipse important
debates on how to fight ISIS and whether to shut down the government
(again).

There is little such insistence about, say, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
or Indiana Gov. Mike Pence or even two-time loser Mitt Romney. We presume
they're running -- just as most folks presume Hillary is. But we're not
hectoring them at every turn; we're not resentful that they haven't made a
formal announcement.

Probably because we just don't care as much about them. They're not leading
in the polls by a million points (nor will Hillary, if and when a campaign
is underway), and they simply do not rivet the national attention the way
the former first lady, former senator, former secretary of state and future
(?!) first female president does.

I have not been in touch with Hillary, so I do not speak with intimate
knowledge. But I have known her for -- jeez, 23 years. And I actually
believe her when she says she has not completely made up her mind.

Hillary is a wonk who's had to learn the rhythms of campaigning. That's
very different from, say, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a glad-handing natural for
whom it can be said that if an idea wanted to cross his mind it would need
to bring a canteen. Hillary believes politics should be about ideas -- a
clash of visions, of competing plans to promote the general welfare and
provide for the common defense.

This, after all, is a woman who rings in each New Year by standing and
singing "God Bless America." But there are aspects of campaigning that she
loves: a vigorous honest, face-to-face debate; a town hall meeting in which
folks ask substantive questions; meeting people who pour their hearts out
to her, who hold their baby daughters up to her, who share their hopes and
their heartbreaks with her.

So I can imagine that there is an angel on her shoulder whispering, "Who
needs it?" Who needs the phoniness, the vacuity, the mind-numbing,
bone-wearying, soul-crushing grind? But on the other shoulder stands
another angel, whispering, "Because it's worth it." If you care about, say,
universal pre-kindergarten -- an issue Hillary has cared about and worked
on for decades -- or finding ways to stimulate job growth; if you care
about peace abroad and supporting our military families at home; if you
care about the climate crisis and full equality for LGBT Americans and
voting rights and a million other issues: the best way to make turn those
ideas into action is through the presidency.

Hillary will decide soon enough. In the meantime, let's let her listen to
both of the angels debating for her heart. And maybe we can even give her a
little breathing room as she becomes a grandmother.

We have plenty of other potential presidential candidates. I suspect they'd
love the attention.

*Time: “Hillary Clinton’s Decision Time”
<http://time.com/3058912/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-race-announcement/>*

By Joan E. Greve

September 19, 2014, 11:46 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Presumptive 2016 Democratic frontrunner faces a question of
timing

Hillary Clinton is widely expected to run for president again in 2016,
letting political observers move on from the usual will-she-or-won’t-she to
another, more nuanced parlor game: When will she announce her candidacy?

“Timing is everything in politics,” said Donna Brazile, who managed Al
Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign. A candidate as established as Clinton
has “the luxury of timing,” Brazile said. “But in politics that luxury can
slip away if you don’t understand how to seize the moment.”

The former Secretary of State has given some mixed messages about when
she’ll decide. She said in June that she’d be “on the way” to making a
decision by the end of the year, and this month she said she’d make a
decision “probably after the first of the year.” Those are some pretty
ambiguous tea leaves for political watchers to try to read—not to mention
the fact that she can “make a decision” and still not actually announce her
candidacy for months.

But a survey of top political strategists and a look back through
presidential campaign history offers one clear clue: As her party’s
undisputed frontrunner, Clinton is likely to wait as long as possible to
pull the trigger.

“The second you announce, the dynamics change completely,” said Phil
Singer, a Democratic strategist who worked on Clinton’s 2008 campaign. “You
really fall under the microscope in a way you don’t when you’re still
contemplating whether to run.”

So while Clinton announced her 2008 candidacy in January 2007—a full 22
months before the general election—most aren’t expecting a Hillary Clinton
campaign bus to be rolling over snow early next year. That might not sit
well with some Democrats, who increasingly want Clinton to send a clear
signal soon—especially if it turns out she’s not running. “A ‘no’ has to
come earlier than a ‘yes,’” one Democratic strategist told NBC News in
August. “If it’s a no, I suspect she won’t let it drag on.”

But despite Democratic jitters, strategists from both parties interviewed
by TIME agreed it’s in her best interest to wait. As the close attention
paid to inartful comments she made about her wealth during her book tour
demonstrated, her every word is being scrutinized—a dynamic that will only
intensify when she’s formally a presidential candidate. Her first visit to
Iowa since the 2008 campaign last weekend drew close to 200 members of the
media.

“The general public’s not paying attention that early, but an important
subsection of the public are,” said Steve Schmidt, a top strategist on John
McCain’s 2008 campaign. “The announcement is the first of many system
checks that takes place.”

In the 2012 campaign, GOP frontrunner (and eventual nominee) Mitt Romney
waited until June 2011 to declare his candidacy. At that point five
Republicans had already participated in their party’s first primary debate.
In 1991, Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, announced 13 months
before the general election. In 1979, Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy
just 12 months before the polls opened. In 1960, John F. Kennedy, announced
his candidacy just 10 months before the November election.

Election cycles have gotten longer and campaigns more permanent over the
years, with presidential candidates announcing earlier and earlier. But
given Clinton’s singular place in the party today, her timing could be more
like those of candidates in the more distant past. With the outside super
PAC Ready for Hillary already laying the groundwork for her campaign and
the Clinton name more than potent enough in Democratic politics to make up
fundraising ground even with a late start, Clinton has more to lose than to
gain by starting too early, strategists said. Ready for Hillary raised $4
million in 2013, and an array of Clinton allies have jumped into the fold
this year, including Correct the Record, a Democratic research group aimed
at pushing back against Republican critics of her record, and Priorities
USA Action, the former pro-Obama super PAC now backing Clinton.

“She’s got the ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in a window
where her competitors could raise tens of millions of dollars at best,”
said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican strategist who worked on Rudy
Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Gore formally launched his campaign in June of 1999, enjoying a similar
advantage to Clinton’s now. “We had the luxury of name recognition and a
lot of organization,” Brazile said.

Whatever announcement Clinton does make will of course be closely watched,
not just for its timing but its substance. In 2007, Barack Obama, then a
Senator from Illinois, chose the “arctic cold” of early February in
Springfield, Ill., to announce his candidacy before a crowd of
approximately 16,000 people.

“The Obama event was like seeing the Rolling Stones,” Singer said.

“I think Obama did a very good job in 2008,” said Chris Lehane, a
Democratic strategist who worked on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. “I think
in part by being able to combine the fundraising aspect of it with the
announcement, sort of creating the impression that there was this huge
grassroots network that was excited for his candidacy.”

Clinton chose a lower profile setting for her announcement: a video posted
to her website. “After six years of George Bush, it is time to renew the
promise of America,” Clinton said at the time. “I grew up in a middle-class
family in the middle of America, and we believed in that promise.”

The only reasons for Clinton to announce earlier, strategists said, might
be to freeze other candidates from getting into the race and to be more
free to respond directly to attacks from her Republican opponents.

“I think there will be far fewer Democratic announcements if she
announces,” said veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, who worked on
John Kerry’s 2004 campaign. “And I believe she will. I think she is
running.”

Lehane predicted that other Democrats will start to throw their hats in the
ring the moment the midterm elections are over: “12:01 a.m. the first
Tuesday of November.”

*New York Observer: “Benghazi Again”
<http://observer.com/2014/09/benghazi-again/>*

By Lincoln Mitchell

September 18, 2014 1:12 p.m. EDT

A House of Representatives panel seeking to investigate Benghazi began its
work on Wednesday. The committee is co-chaired by Representatives Trey
Gowdy and Elijah Cummings. The former is a Republican from South Carolina,
the latter a Democrat from Maryland.

Since the attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11,
2012, in which the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans lost
their lives, Benghazi has come to stand for more than just the attack
itself. It also now refers to the Republican charges that the Obama
administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mishandled the
incident, contributing to the deaths of American diplomats. This has been
viewed by the Republicans as Ms. Clinton’s biggest blunder during her term
as Secretary of State. Democrats, for their part, have accused Republicans
of politicizing the issue and using it to try to derail Ms. Clinton’s
presidential ambitions.

Efforts to determine what really happened at Benghazi and who, if anybody,
in the U.S. government was responsible for allowing the attack to occur
have, in the more than two years since the events themselves, almost always
been clouded by partisan politics. For years the Republican Party has tried
to make Benghazi a negative for Ms. Clinton and President Obama. Former
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s remarks from May of this year –“Well,
four brave Americans were killed in Benghazi and to date it appears that
more has been done to protect internal emails than to bring the murderers
of these Americans to justice” — are illustrative of Republican views of an
administration cover up of Benghazi.

The current congressional panel is not, however, simply rehashing the
events of September of 2012. Rather, its goals are also to probe the extent
to which security and other recommendations from the independent
Accountability Review Board that examined what happened at Benghazi have
been implemented by the State Department. This is a useful activity for a
congressional panel and is precisely how relations between the executive
and legislative branches of government should work. The question of whether
or not this committee can remain focused on this task rather than devolve
into yet another discussion of Benghazi more broadly has not yet been
answered.

According to Jamal Ware, communication director for the House Select
Committee on Benghazi. “the Committee will operate in a fair, fact-driven
and impartial manner that produces a final accounting that is worthy of the
sacrifice of the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi and worthy of
the trust of our fellow citizens.” However, Mr. Ware also makes it clear
“This (the committee) will go wherever the facts lead.”

Adrienne Elrod, communications director for Correct the Record, a PAC that
promotes and defends Hillary Clinton, argues that this is not plausible as
“the questions have been asked, answered, rehashed, and relitigated on the
tragedy in Benghazi. Multiple committees have extensively investigated the
Benghazi tragedy, resulting in more than 50 senior level staff briefings,
at least 13 public hearings, dozens of interviews, and the disclosure of
more than 25,000 pages of documents.”

It is, however, probably no longer in the interest of the Republicans to
spend too much time and effort on Benghazi because the political
environment is quite different now than it was four years ago. However, as
Ms. Elrod notes, “the Republicans have and continue to use the tragedy in
Benghazi to raise money,” so clearly the issue still resonates with the
Republican activist base. Nonetheless When the attack in Benghazi happened,
Ms. Clinton was finishing what was viewed at the time as a successful four
years at the State Department. In that context, Benghazi had the potential
to be a high profile negative on an otherwise strong record and was
therefore an attractive target for Republicans.

Things are different now. The world is beset with major crises and there is
a growing perception both in the media and public opinion that the Obama
administration has done a poor job on foreign policy. Linking Ms. Clinton
to those failures is a more effective political tactic than discussing a
scandal that has never much damaged Ms. Clinton. A more relevant and
serious question for conservative critics to ask Ms. Clinton as she seeks
the presidency is to probe why she went along with an administration that
wildly under-estimated the danger Russian President Vladimir Putin
presented to Ukraine and elsewhere, or her role in Middle East policy that
led to the rise of ISIS.

Ms. Clinton’s likely answers to these questions, either obfuscating or
asserting that she tried, but failed, to persuade the President to act
differently, are more damaging, and more likely to give swing voters reason
for concern, than more Republican accusations that she did not do enough to
prevent the attack at Benghazi. Ironically, further focus on Benghazi may
help Ms. Clinton as it takes attention away from more meaningful criticisms
and strengthens her campaign narrative that she has long been the target of
angry and unfair right wing attacks.

*NBC News: “Hillary Clinton to Dem Women: 'Midterms Matter'”
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/hillary-clinton-dem-women-midterms-matter-n207341>*

By Carrie Dann

September 19, 2014, 12:45 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton worked to fire up Democratic women Friday as the party
looks to turn out its base voters in November’s contested midterm
elections. “I know they may not be as glamorous as presidential elections,
but these upcoming midterm elections really are crucial to our country’s
future,” she told the audience at a Democratic National Committee women’s
leadership forum in Washington.

Highlighting the role that female lawmakers have had in breaking Washington
gridlock and advocating for progressive policies, Clinton praised a
“movement” of women making a difference in government. “Don’t let anyone
dismiss what you’re doing here today as women’s work,” she said. “Don’t let
anyone send you back to the sidelines.”

Clinton didn’t mention her own possible presidential ambitions, but she did
note that she is on “grandbaby watch” as her daughter Chelsea prepares for
the birth of her first child.

She also offered a vociferous defense of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, who introduced the former secretary of state. Wasserman Schultz
has been under the spotlight after POLITICO reported that her fellow
Democrats believe she is “becoming a liability” to the committee.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to women: Remember the midterms”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-women-midterms-111145.html?hp=l2>*

By Edward-Isaac Dovere

September 19, 2014, 1:13 p.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday urged Democratic women
to prioritize the midterms, for the sake of advancing women’s rights — and
also in defense of a larger progressive agenda.

“We’re here because there’s a movement stirring in America,” Clinton said,
citing issues such as paid sick leave, equal pay, affordable childcare and
a living wage for fast-food workers. “This is a movement that is not
waiting for Washington with its gridlock and grandstanding. This movement
won’t wait, and neither will we.”

Clinton spoke as part of a full-day schedule of top Democrats addressing
the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum issues
conference. Vice President Joe Biden spoke earlier in the morning, and
President Barack Obama is scheduled for the afternoon.

Every word Clinton says and every move she makes is being parsed for
meaning about her presidential plans, but Clinton urged the crowd not to
forget the midterms.

“I know that they might not be as glamorous as presidential elections,” she
said with a smile, leaning back from the microphone for a moment in her
bright gold top.

Citing paycheck fairness, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision and the
resistance to renewing the Violence Against Women Act, Clinton said the
decision is between Republicans and “leaders who will fight for women and
girls to have the same opportunities and rights that they deserve.”

Clinton singled out the Hobby Lobby decision, and those she said applauded
it, for special attack. The decision allows employers with religious
objections to opt out of providing insurance coverage for contraception.

“I think it’s fair to say that just as the Affordable Care Act was going
into effect, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision pulled the rug out
from beneath America’s women,” Clinton said, in one of her biggest applause
lines of the speech. “It’s a slippery slope when we start turning over a
woman’s right to make her own health care decisions to her employer.”

Together, she said, there is only one question: “Will Congress do anything
about it? That’s why midterms matter.”

Clinton hasn’t spoken much publicly about the impending birth of her first
grandchild, but Friday, that’s how she anchored her argument.

“I’ve been thinking a lot about family, because as you know, I’m on
grand-baby watch. And I think a lot about this new member of our family and
what he or she can look forward to,” Clinton said.

“The Democratic Party is at its best, just like America is at its best,
when we rally behind a very simple but powerful idea: family.”

*Time: “Hillary Clinton Pledges to Campaign for Female Democratic
Candidates”
<http://time.com/3404189/hillary-clinton-2014-midterm-elections/>*

By Jay Newton-Small

September 19, 2014, 1:14 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Calling out Senate and gubernatorial candidates by name,
Clinton pledges to help get every woman on the ballot elected

Hillary Clinton plunged back into the political waters Friday by pledging
to work to get all the female Democratic candidates on the ballot elected
in November.

“I can’t think of a better way to make the House work again than electing
every woman on the ballot,” Clinton told the Democratic Women’s Leadership
Forum, a group she helped start more than 20 years ago with former Second
Lady Tipper Gore. “There are 10 women running for the Senate, six women
running for governor and I wish I could vote for all of them.”

Clinton called out several candidates by name: Senate challengers Michelle
Nunn in Georgia, Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky and West Virginia’s
Natalie Tennant, incumbent Sens. Kay Hagan in North Carolina and Jeanne
Shaheen in New Hampshire, and House candidate Staci Appel in Iowa.

The former Secretary of State particularly tout former Trek Bicycle
executive Mary Burke, who is challenging Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
“Burke she is offering a choice between more angry gridlock,” Clinton said,
“and… smart progressive policies.”

Clinton said she wanted to see a movement of women rise up to take back the
government. “We’re in the home stretch and it all comes down on who shows
up to vote,” she told the crowd of female Democratic organizers, many of
whom will be relied on to turn out female voters in November. “This country
will maintain a level playing field so whether you’re the grandchild of a
president, or the grandchild of a janitor, whether you were born in a city
or a small rural village, no matter who you are you have the right to
inherit the American dream.”

*The Atlantic: “Does Hillary Clinton Have Anything to Say?”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/does-hillary-clinton-have-anything-to-say/380483/>*

By Molly Ball

September 19, 2014, 10:08 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] The presumed presidential candidate's speeches are long on
pablum and short on content. This is the campaign we're in for.

Everywhere Hillary Clinton goes, a thousand cameras follow. Then she opens
her mouth, and nothing happens.

Clinton made a much-ballyhooed appearance in Iowa over the weekend, giving
a speech widely noted for its substancelessness. She “had no explicit
message of her own,” Politico noted, while The Economist pronounced it
“underwhelming.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough was so frustrated by Clinton’s
lack of verve that he went on an extended rant about it, proclaiming, “I
know her and like her, but she puts on that political hat and she’s a
robot!” The coverage of Clinton’s speech seemed to contain more meditation
about how anodyne she was than reporting of what she actually said.

The Iowa campaign speech that wasn’t a campaign speech (delivered at a
"steak fry" that wasn’t a steak fry—the steaks are grilled) followed a
year’s worth of nearly newsless Clintoniana. She wrote a book that
reviewers unanimously described as stale and safe, valuable mostly for the
hints it offered of her future positioning. Reviewing Henry Kissinger’s new
book for The Washington Post a few weeks ago, Clinton boldly declared the
need for “a real national dialogue” to “take on the perils and the promise
of the 21st century,” while dodging any prescriptions of her own for
today's vexing foreign-policy dilemmas. Last month, when Clinton caused a
firestorm by telling my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg that President Obama’s
foreign-affairs philosophy, “Don’t do stupid stuff,” was “not an organizing
principle,” he pressed her to name a better one. “Peace, progress, and
prosperity,” she said, as though that were any closer to being something
you could organize a nation around.

That Clinton is a risk-averse, pragmatic politician has been her hallmark
for years, of course—it’s just another way in which her current persona
offers nothing new or surprising. Has America ever been so thoroughly tired
of a candidate before the campaign even began?

On Thursday, I went to see Clinton in Washington, where she was speaking on
a panel about women’s economic challenges at the Center for American
Progress. Clinton boldly posited that people who work hard and do their
best, particularly parents, deserve economic security. “We talk about a
glass ceiling, but these women don’t even have a floor underneath them,”
she said of workers who rely on tips. “This is not a women’s issue, this is
a family issue, and it certainly is a children’s issue,” she added. “We
have to do more to bring these issues to the forefront.”

When it was House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s turn to speak, Clinton
gazed out at the audience, nodding sagely, seeming to know that all the
cameras were trained on her. A laundry list of well-worn leftish ideas,
from raising the minimum wage to paid family leave and affordable
childcare, was touted. Granted, these are substantive proposals, and they
are controversial in some quarters. But they are broadly popular, and the
overall message—that women ought to prosper—is almost impossible to
disagree with. The discussion’s only spark came from Kirsten Gillibrand,
the senator from New York, who made a rousing call to action. “I think we
need a Rosie the Riveter moment for this generation!” Gillibrand said, to
the event's only applause.

Gillibrand, who replaced Clinton in the Senate, has been ubiquitous lately
as she promotes her new book. She has also been touted as a presidential
candidate, but always demurs, saying she supports Clinton. Earlier this
week, when I pressed her on what she’d say if Clinton doesn’t run, she
pronounced the question irrelevant, as Clinton is clearly running. It was
Clinton who originally inspired Gillibrand to want to run for office: An
Asian Studies major at Dartmouth, Gillibrand was working at a law firm when
Clinton gave her famous “women’s rights are human rights” speech in Beijing
in 1995. The junior lawyer suddenly felt her path to be inadequate, she
told me.

The story was a reminder that Clinton does inspire passion in some people,
or did at one time. The Clinton-boosting super PAC Ready for Hillary has
signed up more than 2.5 million supporters. Thousands flocked to the Iowa
steak fry, if only to catch a glimpse of someone very famous. As Dave
Weigel noted, Clinton's boringness is mostly a problem for the press, not
the public.

On Thursday, Clinton rushed to echo Gillibrand’s statements. “Kirsten told
stories—we could all tell stories about people we know who have been really
egregiously impacted by the failure of our political leadership on the
other side of the aisle,” she said after an anecdote about a woman whose
career never recovered from taking time off to care for an injured child.
To the “Rosie the Riveter” sentiment, she added, “We need people to feel
that they’re part of a movement. It’s not just an election.”

Clinton is in a bind, as the political scientist Lynn Vavreck noted in The
New York Times at the height of her understimulating book tour. “The only
thing the tour is missing is the central element of a campaign: a raison
d’etre, a vision,” Vavreck wrote. Clinton can’t talk about what she would
do as the country’s leader without admitting that’s what she’s seeking to
do. But will that change once she officially becomes a candidate? Based on
the evidence, I wouldn't hold my breath.