Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday September 9, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 09:00:03 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Tuesday September 9, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Bloomberg: “Paul Misstates Clinton Record on Islamic State Risk”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-08/paul-misstates-clinton-record-on-islamic-state-risk.html>*

“Clinton allies jumped on Paul’s claim. ‘We’ve always known Rand Paul’s
erratic views, ranging from his belief in extreme isolation as a foreign
policy principle to his absolute opposition to raising the minimum wage,
are dangerous for our country and for the future of Americans,’ said
Adrienne Elrod, communications director for the pro-Clinton group Correct
the Record. ‘But now he’s taken it to a whole new level apparently, by
flat-out making stuff up - a perilous tactic taken by someone who wants to
be America’s next president.’”

*Media Matters for America: “This Conspiracy Theorist's Benghazi Book Is
Full Of Conspiracy Theories”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/08/this-conspiracy-theorists-benghazi-book-is-full/200677>*

“But the book itself [The REAL Benghazi Story] contains major distortions
of reality, including selectively-edited evidence and distorted facts,
reconfirming Klein's commitment to pushing convoluted hoaxes.”

*Associated Press: “Clinton Juggernaut Hits 2014 Campaign Trail”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MIDTERM_ELECTIONS_THE_CLINTONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Hillary Clinton's time and political currency remains especially highly
coveted.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Ready for Hillary plans November
strategy meeting with top national donors”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/08/ready-for-hillary-plans-november-strategy-meeting-with-top-national-donors/>*

“Ready for Hillary, the super PAC laying the groundwork for Hillary Rodham
Clinton's potential 2016 presidential campaign, has called a meeting of its
top national donors to discuss its strategy following the November midterm
elections.”

*Politico blog: Joe Scarborough: “Obama right on ISIL response”
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-scarborough/2014/09/scarborough-obama-right-on-isil-response-195069.html>*

“Let Republicans and neocons like Hillary Clinton play the cynical game
that politicians love to play by second guessing his lack of action in
Syria and speculating about what might have been.”

*Bloomberg View: Albert R. Hunt: “Could Jim Webb Mount Credible Challenge
to Clinton?”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-07/could-jim-webb-mount-credible-challenge-to-clinton>*

“What he does possess is a long-held and forceful opposition to U.S.
interventions in Iraq and Libya, and potentially Syria, as well as solid
anti-Wall Street credentials. In Democratic primaries, these may be
Clinton's greatest impediments to rallying a hard-core activist base.”

*The Week column: Damon Linker, senior correspondent at TheWeek.com: “Bring
on the Hillary Clinton-Rand Paul smackdown!”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/267744/bring-on-the-hillary-clinton-rand-paul-smackdown>*

"And even if he does somehow run the Republican gauntlet and manage to come
out at the head of the pack, he'd still have to face the Hillary Clinton
juggernaut in the general election. Despite recent hype about a
"libertarian moment," I tend to think Clinton would do quite well in such a
match-up."

*New York Times column: Ambs. to the USSR and Russia Jack F. Matlock, Jr.,
Thomas R. Pickering, and James F. Collins: “Give Diplomacy With Russia a
Chance”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/give-diplomacy-with-russia-a-chance.html?_r=0>*

“Each of us has seen the high price paid when relations and dialogue
between Washington and Moscow break down, as in the effort to prevent
Baltic independence at the end of the Soviet era, the Kosovo crisis and the
insurgency in Chechnya.”

*Articles:*

*Bloomberg: “Paul Misstates Clinton Record on Islamic State Risk”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-08/paul-misstates-clinton-record-on-islamic-state-risk.html>*

By Jonathan Allen

September 8, 2014, 4:43 p.m. EDT

Republican Senator Rand Paul falsely accused Hillary Clinton, a potential
Democratic rival for the presidency in 2016, of underestimating the threat
posed by Islamic State -- and he did it at least twice last week.

“Hillary Clinton has said ISIS is not a threat to the United States,” Paul
said on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Sept. 3. The Kentucky lawmaker
repeated that assertion about the former secretary of state to Fox’s Bill
Hemmer two days later, noting his belief that those were Clinton’s “exact
words.”

Trouble is, while secretary of state, Clinton sought to stop the rise of
extremist groups such as Islamic State by calling for arming moderate rebel
factions in Syria, according to her memoir, contemporaneous reporting by
the New York Times and U.S. officials who were involved in the debate at
the time.

Clinton allies jumped on Paul’s claim.

“We’ve always known Rand Paul’s erratic views, ranging from his belief in
extreme isolation as a foreign policy principle to his absolute opposition
to raising the minimum wage, are dangerous for our country and for the
future of Americans,” said Adrienne Elrod, communications director for the
pro-Clinton group Correct the Record. “But now he’s taken it to a whole new
level apparently, by flat-out making stuff up - a perilous tactic taken by
someone who wants to be America’s next president.”

Paul advisers declined to comment.

Last month, Clinton made headlines for saying that Islamic State arose
because President Barack Obama failed to adequately back moderate
opposition groups in Syria, a remark that drew criticism from the
president’s supporters.

*Media Matters for America: “This Conspiracy Theorist's Benghazi Book Is
Full Of Conspiracy Theories”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/08/this-conspiracy-theorists-benghazi-book-is-full/200677>*

By Hannah Groch-Begley

September 8, 2014, 1:38 p.m. EDT

WND reporter Aaron Klein's history of outrageous conspiracy theories has
already cast serious doubt on the credibility of his new book, The REAL
Benghazi Story. But the book itself contains major distortions of reality,
including selectively-edited evidence and distorted facts, reconfirming
Klein's commitment to pushing convoluted hoaxes.

Klein's book, which Media Matters obtained a copy of in advance of its
September 9 release, claims to "expose" the "truth" about the 2012 attacks
on U.S. facilities in Libya, revealing "What The White House and Hillary
Don't Want You To Know." Included are a few of the more conspiratorial
analyses that Klein has previously pushed at the birther website WND, such
as the claim that Benghazi is linked to the Boston Marathon bombing --
because a handful of members of a jihadist group may have taken part in the
Benghazi attacks, and that group also "is behind" a magazine "thought to
have provided bomb-building instructions" for the accused marathon bombers.

Klein's book does include one seemingly "new" Benghazi theory, which is
also entirely false. Klein attempts to attack former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton for what he claims is her previously "unreported role" in
Benghazi, by falsely claiming she must have personally approved security
conditions at the Benghazi compound.

The Benghazi mission was unusual for government buildings overseas, as it
featured a CIA annex that was separate from the diplomatic compound,
roughly a mile apart. Typically government agencies are housed together in
the same building, which is called "co-location." According to Klein, State
Department regulations would have required Clinton to personally sign a
waiver permitting the Benghazi mission to be set up like this, and thus
provided "personal approval of security conditions at the compound":

“...it can now be said that Clinton personally provided the legal waivers
for U.S. personnel to occupy that death trap of a mission. This largely
unreported detail was confirmed in the Senate's January 2014 report on
Benghazi. Senate investigators found the Benghazi facility required a
special waiver since it did not meet the minimum official security
standards set by the State Department.

“Some of the necessary waivers, the Senate affirmed, could have been issued
at lower levels within the State Department. However ‘other departures,
such as the co-location requirement, could only be approved by the
Secretary of State.’ ... This means Clinton herself approved some aspects
of the U.S. special mission, including separating the mission from the
seemingly more protected CIA annex. In doing so, did Clinton know she was
approving a woefully unprotected compound? If not, then at the very least
she is guilty of dereliction of duty and the diplomatic equivalence of
criminal negligence.”

But the fact is the Benghazi mission did not require this kind of waiver.
The State Department regulations Klein is referencing lay out the
responsibilities of the Secretary under the Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act, or SECCA. But as the State Department Accountability
Review Board (ARB) that investigated Benghazi explained, the Benghazi
facility was exempted from SECCA. SECCA applies to diplomatic facilities,
such as consulates, that are officially notified to the host government.
Instead, the special mission in Benghazi was a "temporary, residential
facility, not officially notified to the host government," and as such
SECCA rules -- waivable or not -- did not apply.

In fact, the document approving the set up and security conditions for the
compound has been public since at least September 2013, when it was posted
online by Al Jazeera America. It clearly shows the signature of Under
Secretary Patrick Kennedy, as well as clearance from a number of other
low-level officials.

State's ARB report acknowledged that the Benghazi mission's "'non-status'
as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for
security and personnel more difficult." They recommended State develop
minimum security standards for temporary facilities and encouraged
co-location in the future. Clinton accepted the recommendation and began
implementing it before leaving office.

Real flaws in security at Benghazi do not, however, justify Klein's attempt
to ignore the facts and claim Clinton personally signed waivers approving
the compound.

Beyond these details, Klein's book for the most part simply rehashes a
number of the same debunked Benghazi myths conservatives have been pushing
for almost two years.

For example, he devotes an entire chapter to the talking points controversy
-- or what he calls the "duplicitous editing affair" in which the Obama
administration "scrubb[ed] references to terrorism" while stressing the
influence of an anti-Islam Youtube video. Klein claims that the
inter-agency editing process that produced the talking points used by an
Obama administration official during Sunday show interviews was not only "a
large-scale, purposeful deception of the American public," but stirred
"further riots across the Islamic world." In reality, it's long been clear
that the talking points were edited to protect the ongoing law enforcement
investigation of the attacks and that the video, which sparked worldwide
protests killing at least 50 people, played a role in the attacks.

Klein also repeats the claim that the administration immediately had access
to video footage of Benghazi which disproved their initial narrative that
the assault had emerged out of a protest. But the protest claim originated
with the CIA immediately after the attacks, while the video footage wasn't
recovered from the site by the FBI for at least another two weeks. And he
pushes the theory that the Obama administration didn't send in air support
to assist the Americans when they came under fire because they "didn't want
to draw more attention" to the U.S. mission. In fact, as military experts
have repeatedly said, they did not have the capabilities to send in
support, and doing so may have been more dangerous for Americans.

But one of Klein's shadiest tactics is to selectively edit claims from
reputable sources to falsely suggest that they support his theories.

For example, Klein selectively quotes congressional testimony from Gregory
Hicks, the foreign service officer who was second-in-command of the Libya
mission to then-Ambassador Chrisopher Stevens on the night of the attack,
to accuse Clinton of being "the very reason Ambassador Stevens was in the
compound in the dangerous anniversary of 9/11." Klein uses Hicks' words to
argue that Stevens visited the Benghazi compound because Clinton wanted to
turn it into a permanent post, and thus is responsible for him being there.
But Klein hides the key part of Hicks' testimony, in which the deputy
specifically said Stevens "chose to go" to Benghazi himself.

Similarly, Klein selectively quotes from the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence investigation into Benghazi. As the investigation explained,
in the hours after the attacks the CIA station chief in Libya had sent an
email to superiors revealing the attacks were preplanned terrorism. Klein
uses this point to rehash the false claim that the Obama administration
purposefully ignored that email for political purposes, supposedly covering
up the realities of terrorism in the region. But as the Senate noted in the
very same report, "as a standard practice" the CIA does "not base analysis
on emails and other informal communications from the field," so the email
could not influence administration statements. Klein failed to include that
crucial detail.

Reality is not a central focus of The REAL Benghazi Story, however. Given
that Klein once suggested Obama was Satan because a fly landed on him
during a press conference, perhaps that was to be expected.

*Associated Press: “Clinton Juggernaut Hits 2014 Campaign Trail”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MIDTERM_ELECTIONS_THE_CLINTONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Ken Thomas

September 8, 2014, 3:19 p.m. EDT

The Clinton juggernaut hits the midterm campaign trail this week as the
power couple lends fundraising prowess and their seal of approval to
Democratic candidates shunning an unpopular President Barack Obama. For
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the events with Democratic donors and activists are
keeping her profile high as she weighs a second bid for the presidency.

The Clintons are working to help female candidates and boost turnout in
conservative-leaning states like Arkansas, where Bill Clinton was governor
before becoming president, and Kentucky, where Democrat Alison Lundergan
Grimes talks up her alliance with the Clintons, not Obama.

Hillary Clinton's time and political currency remains especially highly
coveted.

"She's a natural fit in any state at the moment," said Democratic
strategist Donna Brazile, a longtime adviser to the Clintons.

The same can't be said of Obama, whose approval ratings have tumbled and
who has kept his campaigning mostly at off-camera events with financial
donors. He isn't expected to campaign in states like Alaska, Arkansas,
Louisiana and North Carolina where Senate control could be decided.
Republicans are driving for the six-seat gain they need to grab the Senate
majority, with their highest hopes in conservative states Obama lost in
2012.

Hillary Clinton, who recorded an automated get-out-the-vote call for New
York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his running mate, Kathy Hochul, headlines a
fundraiser for Senate Democrats at her Washington home on Tuesdayand a New
York reception for Democratic governors on Friday. By Sunday, the Clintons
will join thousands of Democrats in Iowa to honor retiring Sen. Tom Harkin
in the state that helped propel Obama, at Mrs. Clinton's expense, to the
presidency.

The shift to the Clintons, according to interviews with more than a dozen
Democratic leaders and operatives, is part history, part circumstances.
Party activists tend to look ahead to a successor during a president's
second term and Mrs. Clinton's potential to become the first female
president - without an obvious Obama-like primary challenger right now -
has made that interest more acute. Obama's approval ratings remain stuck in
the low 40s, forcing some Senate incumbents to distance themselves.

Obama's turbulent dealings with Republicans in Congress have fueled the
shift, raising hopes that his successor will break the logjam, some of the
activists say.

So the Clintons are extending their long history of helping their friends.

"There's a tremendous positive feeling for getting two for the price of
one," said Mitch Ceasar, a Florida lawyer and member of the Democratic
National Committee.

Obama can still raise millions for Democrats and aides say he'll assist
candidates in states where he can be most helpful, in individual House
races and places like Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Obama could make last-minute appearances in states like Georgia and North
Carolina to boost turnout among black voters. But so far, many Democrats
have avoided him in public.

During Obama's Labor Day rally in Milwaukee, for example, Wisconsin
gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke did not appear at the president's side.
And in North Carolina, vulnerable Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan had to appear
with Obama during his visit to a convention of veterans- but first, she
released a statement criticizing his record on veterans health care.

The Clintons, meanwhile, don't have the same issues. And help they provide
now could benefit Hillary Clinton if she seeks the party's nomination in
2016.

Bill Clinton has campaigned with Grimes, a longtime family friend who calls
herself a "Clinton Democrat" in her bid against McConnell, and two Arkansas
allies, Sen. Mark Pryor and gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross, Clinton's
campaign driver back in 1982.

Since Labor Day, Clinton has traveled to Connecticut to help Gov. Dan
Malloy; Maine on behalf of Rep. Mike Michaud, who faces GOP Gov. Paul
LePage; Miami to help former Gov. Charlie Crist, the ex-Republican who is
seeking his old office, and New Orleans to raise money for Louisiana Sen.
Mary Landrieu. The former president will be in Atlanta next weekend to
raise money for Senate candidate Michelle Nunn before joining with the
former first lady in Iowa.

During a New York fundraiser last week to support House Democrats, Bill
Clinton told attendees that Republicans in Congress had stoked conflict and
division instead of finding common ground, noting dozens of votes to repeal
Obama's health care law. The former president also spoke of the need to
raise the minimum wage, which he increased as Arkansas governor and as
president, according to a Democratic official who spoke on condition of
anonymity because the event was private.

The former secretary of state's campaigning comes with risks - her approval
ratings have fallen in the past when she engages in partisan activities.
Republicans are already looking to engage her at every turn.

When Mrs. Clinton called climate change the "most consequential, urgent,
sweeping collection of challenges we face" at a Nevada energy conference
last week, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was quick with a retort. "I don't think
we really want a commander-in-chief who's battling climate change instead
of terrorism," Paul told Fox News.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Ready for Hillary plans November
strategy meeting with top national donors”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/08/ready-for-hillary-plans-november-strategy-meeting-with-top-national-donors/>*

By Philip Rucker

September 8, 2014, 8:18 p.m. EDT

Ready for Hillary, the super PAC laying the groundwork for Hillary Rodham
Clinton's potential 2016 presidential campaign, has called a meeting of its
top national donors to discuss its strategy following the November midterm
elections.

The super PAC has invited members of its National Finance Council to a
daylong summit in New York City onNov. 21 to a discussion of the group's
next steps as it prepares for Clinton's likely entry into the presidential
race.

Clinton, a former secretary of state who would be the overwhelming favorite
for the Democratic nomination, has said she will make her decision about
the 2016 race early next year. Meanwhile, Ready for Hillary has been
building a grassroots infrastructure on her behalf and has signed up more
than 2.5 million supporters.

Craig Smith, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary and a longtime political
adviser to former President Bill Clinton, invited top donors to the summit
in an e-mail sent Monday night and obtained by The Washington Post.

"This meeting will be the premier opportunity to hear from those
individuals who will be shaping the next few years in our Nation’s politics
and a chance for Finance Council Members to come together and meet one
another while we wait to hear what Hillary will decide," Smith wrote.

At least 222 donors have signed up as co-chairs of Ready for Hillary's
National Finance Council — a commitment that requires donating or raising
$25,000 each, according to a membership list obtained by The Post this
summer. More than 600 other donors are considered members of the finance
council, required to give or raise $5,000 each.

Smith invited the co-chairs to gather for a dinner on Nov. 20, the night
before the broader meeting.

*Politico blog: Joe Scarborough: “Obama right on ISIL response”
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/joe-scarborough/2014/09/scarborough-obama-right-on-isil-response-195069.html>*

By Joe Scarborough

September 8, 2014, 1:23 p.m. EDT

I have been a consistent critic of President Obama's policy initiatives. I
called the stimulus package a steaming pile of garbage, said his health
care plan was bad for America, and said his massive spending programs would
undermine American capitalism.

I repeatedly warned against tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan, I
condemned the administration's expansive drone policy, and have always had
concerns about a management style that leaves the president isolated in
D.C. and inside his own White House.

But when it comes down to facing down the greatest threat since 9/11, I
think this president has it just about right. Let Republicans and neocons
like Hillary Clinton play the cynical game that politicians love to play by
second guessing his lack of action in Syria and speculating about what
might have been.

Let's not argue over counter realities and instead stick to the reality
that confronted the White House and Congress. Neither Democrats nor
Republicans would have supported a third war against a Muslim country in
less than a decade even if Barack Obama wanted to launch a full-scale
invasion into Syria. And as Dwight Eisenhower taught us during the Suez
Crisis in 1956, less is usually more when it comes to military operations
in the Middle East.

Because the president refused to rush in with guns blazing in the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant crisis, when he goes before the American
people on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will talk about launching a military
operation that has the support of the Arab League, the United Arab
Emirates, Egypt and most of the Arab world.

And for first time in a long time, United States troops will be entering a
battle against an evil force in the Middle East with the support of most
Arab leaders.

It's only a start in our battle against ISIL, but it is a good start.

*Bloomberg View: Albert R. Hunt: “Could Jim Webb Mount Credible Challenge
to Clinton?”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-07/could-jim-webb-mount-credible-challenge-to-clinton>*

By Albert R. Hunt

September 7, 2014, 11:00 a.m. EDT

Jim Webb could be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare.

The former one-term Virginia senator and Vietnam War veteran is making
sounds about running for president as a Democrat. He was in Iowa last
month; a New Hampshire trip may be in the offing, and he's giving a major
speech at the National Press Club in two weeks.

He seems an improbable candidate. He has taken illiberal positions, was
President Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary, has few relationships within the
Democratic Party, and has no serious fundraising network.

What he does possess is a long-held and forceful opposition to U.S.
interventions in Iraq and Libya, and potentially Syria, as well as solid
anti-Wall Street credentials. In Democratic primaries, these may be
Clinton's greatest impediments to rallying a hard-core activist base.

In 2002, Webb warned of the perils of invading and occupying Iraq; he has
been proven right by the violence and sectarian strife of the post-Saddam
Hussein era. As a senator, Clinton voted for the war and supported it for
years. She recently acknowledged she had been wrong.

As secretary of state, Clinton was the chief advocate in the Barack Obama
administration for intervening against Muammar Qaddafi. When the Libyan
dictator was toppled and killed in 2011, she thought it would be her
signature foreign-policy achievement.

Webb, then a senator, adamantly opposed this venture. The U.S. has since
withdrawn its personnel from Libya, and radical jihadists now occupy a
compound belonging to the U.S. embassy.

Clinton recently said she disagreed with Obama's decision not to intervene
in the Syrian civil war. Webb warns that the Syrian opposition includes not
only elements friendly to the U.S., but also the radical Islamic State
forces that have wreaked mayhem there and in Iraq, murdering thousands and
beheading two American journalists. Syria, he has warned, is "Lebanon on
steroids."

Clinton has close ties to Wall Street, a source of campaign funds for her
and the Clinton Foundation. Since leaving office, she has received large
speaking fees from hedge funds, private-equity companies and big banks such
as Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Webb, 68, has long taken a populist, anti-Wall Street stance. In 2007, he
delivered the Democratic response to President George W. Bush's State of
the Union address. Webb declared that the health of American society should
be measured "not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with
the living conditions that exist on Main Street."

He pushed a measure to slap a special tax on big bonuses paid out by Wall
Street companies that received government assistance during the financial
crisis. When it failed, he complained that Democrats, beholden to Wall
Street, killed it.

If Webb decides to run -- fearlessness and unpredictability are his
trademarks -- there's plenty of ammunition against him. He's against gun
control, and he has made comments that angered feminists, many of whom
consider Clinton a cause as well as a candidate, and environmentalists. He
also has been involved in numerous personal controversies.

In a recent Virginia Senate debate, Republican Ed Gillespie sought to paint
the moderate Democratic incumbent, Mark Warner, as too left, citing
occasions when he didn't join Webb in voting along a more conservative line.

The maverick lawmaker had a few notable successes, passing a major
veterans' education bill, putting criminal justice reform on the agenda,
and calling for a pivot to Asia before Obama was elected. He has criticized
executive overreach by both Bush and Obama.

A decorated war hero -- he received the Navy Cross for "extraordinary
heroism" -- and author of nine books, he would run principally on the
issues most likely to cut Clinton: opposition to an
interventionist-centered foreign policy and softness toward Wall Street. He
would bring more authenticity to these two issues than any other would-be
Clinton challenger. In Iowa, he made no secret of his criticism of
Clinton's tenure at State.

Clintonites will dismiss the Webb threat by pointing to his political
weaknesses. But here's a safe bet: They will closely monitor his Sept. 23 Press
Club speech.

*The Week column: Damon Linker, senior correspondent at TheWeek.com: “Bring
on the Hillary Clinton-Rand Paul smackdown!”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/267744/bring-on-the-hillary-clinton-rand-paul-smackdown>*

By Damon Linker

September 9, 2014, 6:02 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] If you want an election that clarifies the choices facing
voters, then you can't do better than a match-up between the centrist and
the libertarian

I'll be honest: The prospect of Hillary Clinton winning her party's
nomination without even trying and then coasting to victory in the general
election against a lame Republican opponent leaves me feeling depressed,
and not only because I'm paid to write about politics.

Our political system ought to do better than that — by giving the American
people a genuine choice. But most of the likely match-ups wouldn't do that.

Clinton is a centrist Democrat all the way down. She's spent the past 22
years near the peak of power inside the Beltway. If she ends up squaring
off against Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or (God help
us) Mitt Romney, it will be a contest played out from deep within the
reigning Washington consensus.

The candidates will pretend to disagree about foreign policy, but it will
be an act, with neocon-ish Clinton perfectly matching her opponent's
blustery bellicosity point for point.

On domestic policy, Clinton will promise to defend ObamaCare while
reforming its least popular and successful elements. She'll also signal her
intent to do what Democrats always do, which is to protect government
programs and keep tax rates at their current level or raise them slightly
on the top end.

The Republican, meanwhile, will do what Republicans always do, which is to
rail against government and promise tax and spending cuts that everyone
knows will translate into tax cuts for the wealthy alone, sending the
deficit back into the stratosphere. (Despite what Republicans say in their
speeches, their actions reveal that it is not the deficit that matters to
them, but rather cutting taxes on the highest earners while protecting
government programs that benefit the aging white voters who form the base
of their party.)

There is only one realistic way to break out of this tired state of
affairs. And no, it doesn't involve a run by Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, or
any other candidate from the GOP's delusional
there-are-more-general-election-votes-on-the-far-right-than-in-the-center
caucus. If someone from that faction manages to land the nomination, I
fully expect the median-voter theorem to be vindicated and Clinton to win
in a historic landslide.

No, the only scenario that promises to deliver a genuine contest and spark
a serious, important debate is one that involves an electoral smackdown
between Clinton and Rand Paul. That is the presidential match-up America
needs.

Let me be clear: I am not a libertarian. It's very unlikely I will cast a
vote for Paul or any other Republican in 2016. I anticipate supporting
Clinton in the general election.

But I nonetheless believe that American democracy would benefit from a
contest that forces the establishment candidate (Clinton) to defend herself
and her positions against a challenger who presents a genuine alternative —
and one that confounds at least some of the pieties that have gripped the
GOP through the last several election cycles.

The biggest contrast would be felt on foreign policy. Paul's expressions of
support for a military response to ISIS have obscured just how skeptical he
is of the GOP's reflexive, unmodulated hawkishness, which inspires nearly
all of its leading figures — as well as a good many Democrats, very much
including Hillary Clinton — to propose military force as an all-purpose
solution to nearly every problem in the world. Paul appears eager to break
from this consensus in favor of a stricter calculation of America's
national interests, and with those interests defined more narrowly than
neocons and liberal interventionists tend to do.

Paul's desire to reorient America's foreign policy extends to other aspects
of the national security state that has emerged in the U.S. since the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. As Americans learned from his
blockbuster 13-hour filibuster on March 6, 2013, Paul strongly opposes
warrantless surveillance and extra-judicial killings, especially when
American citizens are targeted. Clinton's position on these issues, by
contrast, is...somewhat more difficult to pin down.

Paul's libertarian suspicion of government police powers even led him to
criticize the Ferguson, Missouri, police department in the wake of the
shooting death of the unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown. In a column for
Time, Paul declared that "it is impossible for African-Americans not to
feel like their government is particularly targeting them." That might
sound like an uncontroversial position, but for a member of a party that
has defined itself since the era of Richard Nixon as a champion of
law-and-order and unapologetically tough on crime, it is.

When it comes to taxes and entitlements, Paul is closer to being a
mainstream Republican — though his libertarian commitments give us reason
to think he may be slightly more willing than other members of his party to
match tax cuts with real reductions in spending. I don't support slashing
either taxes or spending, but if we're going to have the first, it's far
better to combine it with the second than to pay for the tax cuts by
increasing levels of public debt.

Now none of this means that Rand Paul will have an easy time on the
campaign trail. On the contrary, as Ross Douthat argued last spring, Paul
will likely face long odds in the primaries precisely because his agenda
simultaneously challenges so many elements of the GOP electoral coalition.

And even if he does somehow run the Republican gauntlet and manage to come
out at the head of the pack, he'd still have to face the Hillary Clinton
juggernaut in the general election. Despite recent hype about a
"libertarian moment," I tend to think Clinton would do quite well in such a
match-up.

But I could be wrong. And wouldn't it be clarifying to test the proposition?

*New York Times column: Ambs. to the USSR and Russia Jack F. Matlock, Jr.,
Thomas R. Pickering, and James F. Collins: “Give Diplomacy With Russia a
Chance”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/give-diplomacy-with-russia-a-chance.html?_r=0>*

By Jack F. Matlock, Jr., Thomas R. Pickering, and James F. Collins

September 8, 2014

The crisis over Ukraine has all but frozen official communication between
the United States and Russia. The Russian reaction to the political
upheaval in Kiev — the absorption of Crimea, and the armed intervention in
eastern Ukraine — and the American responses to those actions have brought
about a near-complete breakdown in normal and regular dialogue between
Washington and Moscow. Relations between the two capitals have descended
into attempts by each side to pressure the other, tit-for-tat actions,
shrill propaganda statements, and the steady diminution of engagement
between the two governments and societies.

Reports from the NATO summit meeting that ended in Newport, Wales, on
Friday indicate
that the United States and its allies will respond to Russia’s intervention
and violence in Ukraine with an escalation of their own — including further
sanctions, enhanced military presence in front-line states, and possibly
greater support for Ukraine’s armed forces. This amounts to more of the
same, with little if any assurance of better outcomes.

What the Western strategy lacks is an equally vigorous diplomatic approach
to ending this conflict. Diplomatic efforts should aim to provide Ukraine
and its neighbors with a future that can sustain peace and security for all
countries in the area; re-establish respect for the core principles of
Europe’s political order; and open the way for more productive
American-Russian relations.

As three former United States ambassadors who served in Moscow, we believe
that the time is right for American leadership in a serious diplomatic
effort to achieve these ends. Each of us has seen the high price paid when
relations and dialogue between Washington and Moscow break down, as in the
effort to prevent Baltic independence at the end of the Soviet era, the
Kosovo crisis and the insurgency in Chechnya.

Each time relations broke down, there was a high cost to the cause of peace
and security for both the United States and Russia, as well as their
allies. Our experience convinces us that creative, disciplined, serious
active diplomacy — through both official and unofficial channels — provides
the one path out of destructive crises and a reliance on violence and
confrontation. So-called Track 2 dialogue between nonstate actors — experts
and groups of individuals on both sides — can also play a useful role.

For now, fortunately, a cease-fire agreement announced on Friday by
President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine and President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia appears to be holding. It is also encouraging that the parties have
begun discussion about how to maintain the halt in fighting and address the
political issues that will have to be tackled to bring about a lasting
settlement.

There is ample reason to treat this opening with caution. But this
potential opportunity should not be allowed to slip away. This is a moment
when American leadership will be essential. The terms of any durable
cease-fire must, of course, provide for adequate numbers of international
observers, most appropriately from the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, to ensure that no side exploits the halt in fighting.

Any lasting agreement must also build on the fragile political process
begun over the weekend. That process must involve the search for agreement
on fair and equal treatment, and adequate political representation, of all
Ukrainians; on respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territory; and on
international cooperation to rebuild Ukraine’s economy.

Firm and unwavering support by the United States for these principles will
be critical to the success of any negotiated outcome. The resumption of
regular dialogue between Moscow and Washington will be central to the
restoration of relations.

Fortunately, the arrival in Moscow of America’s new ambassador, John F.
Tefft, provides an opening to enhance communication and dialogue. A
seasoned career diplomat with previous service in Lithuania, Georgia and
Ukraine, as well as Russia, Mr. Tefft brings to Moscow a capacity to
express American views and positions clearly and to listen to and explain
Russian thinking to Washington. His arrival gives both governments an
opportunity to rebuild relations and to move away from the present path of
confrontation.

Reinvigorating American-Russian diplomacy will be challenging. The negative
effects of the Ukraine crisis are part of a broader downturn in relations
over the last few years. The escalation of violence in Ukraine, and rising
calls among Europeans and Americans for more forceful action and tougher
sanctions to confront Russian military activity, have increased the
prospect for further escalation and a further downturn in bilateral
relations.

Although spokesmen and leaders in Washington have suggested that Russia has
an “off ramp” to extricate itself from the present situation and the United
States is ready to cooperate in that effort, this uphill path is strewn
with rocks and largely uncharted. Additional sanctions, increased military
pressure and battlefield escalation will not, by themselves, help define a
way forward.

Only the use of diplomacy can help Mr. Poroshenko take advantage of new
openings to define his country’s relations with its neighbors, restore
Ukrainian sovereignty and effect a permanent end to the bloodshed.
Sanctions and further efforts to escalate political and military pressure,
and reliance on unilateral action without accompanying diplomacy, would all
but assure continued suffering for the people of Ukraine.

It is time for the United States to use its diplomatic assets, including
our new ambassador in Moscow, to take active leadership of diplomatic
efforts to resolve the crisis over Ukraine and set American relations with
Russia on a new, more productive course.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  September 9 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DSCC at
her Washington home (DSCC
<https://d1ly3598e1hx6r.cloudfront.net/sites/dscc/files/uploads/9.9.14%20HRC%20Dinner.pdf>
)

·  September 12 – Tokyo, Japan: Sec. Clinton, Christine Lagarde, and
Caroline Kennedy speak at an event on improving the participation of women
in the economy (Washington Post
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NBE5HC6TTDS701-5BKDBI2BQLDAGHGNS02DFJ1V12>
)

·  September 12 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a DGA fundraiser (
Twitter <https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/507209428274143234>)

·  September 14 – Indianola, IA: Sec. Clinton headlines Sen. Harkin’s Steak
Fry (LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-tom-harkin-clinton-steak-fry-20140818-story.html>
)

·  September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Transcatheter
Cardiovascular Therapeutics Conference (CRF
<http://www.crf.org/tct/agenda/keynote-address>)

·  September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at Legal Services
Corp. 40th Anniversary (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/AP_Ken_Thomas/status/507549332846178304>)

·  September 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a 9/11 Health Watch
fundraiser (NY Daily News
<http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/hillary-clinton-mark-9-11-anniversary-nyc-fundraiser-responders-kin-blog-entry-1.1926372>
)

·  September 19 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DNC with
Pres. Obama (CNN
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>)

·  October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network
Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network
<http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>)

·  October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa
Citizen
<http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-speaking-in-ottawa-oct-6>
)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation
Annual Dinner (UNLV
<http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>)

·  October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/highlights.jsp#tuesday>)

·  October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House
Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>
)

 ·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)