Subject: Correct The Record Saturday September 6, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 13:27:04 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Saturday September 6, 2014 Roundup:*

*From @BStrider
<http://action.americanbridgepac.org/page/m/65489233/3cfd85b7/46ef2275/6080630e/3624649818/VEsF/>
on
Twitter: *".@PaulBegala
<http://action.americanbridgepac.org/page/m/65489233/3cfd85b7/46ef2275/6080630d/3624649818/VEsC/>
hangs
out w the @CorrectRecord
<http://action.americanbridgepac.org/page/m/65489233/3cfd85b7/46ef2275/6080630c/3624649818/VEsD/>
team
for happy hour. @davidbrockdc
<http://action.americanbridgepac.org/page/m/65489233/3cfd85b7/46ef2275/6080630b/3624649818/VEsA/>
hangs
w team, too. #HillaryParty! pic.twitter.com/oaGroztXZM
<http://action.americanbridgepac.org/page/m/65489233/3cfd85b7/46ef2275/6080630a/3624649818/VEsB/>
"

*Headlines:*

*National Journal: “Proof That the Left Is Ready for a Clinton Presidential
Run”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/proof-that-the-left-is-ready-for-a-clinton-presidential-run-20140906>*

“Shortly after Paul's remarks, a pro-Clinton ‘rapid response’ group called
Correct The Record circulated a statement attacking the Kentucky senator.
They also emailed me personally to (politely) inquire if I might add it to
National Journal's story.”

*National Journal: “Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul Just Kicked Off 2016's
Climate Battle”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy-edge/hillary-clinton-and-rand-paul-just-kicked-off-2016-s-climate-battle-20140905>*

“‘For Rand Paul to dismiss climate change as a national priority is
shameful, and is in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton, whose leadership on
so many issues, including climate change and fighting terrorism, is
critical for our future,’ said Adrienne Watson of Correct The Record, which
is an arm of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge.”

*Media Matters for America: “Fox News Provides Rand Paul A Platform To
Fabricate Quotes From Hillary Clinton”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/05/fox-news-provides-rand-paul-a-platform-to-fabri/200664>*

“Fox News offered Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) a platform to attack former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the terrorist group known as the
Islamic State, raising questions about the network's willingness to be
manipulated using unverified quotes in order to harm a potential
presidential candidate.”

*New York Review of Books: Joseph Lelyveld: “Hillary”
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/sep/25/hillary-clinton-hard-choices/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=September+5+2014&utm_content=September+5+2014+CID_6aa5d1781fd5108d1f8fd29818cdf11d&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Hillary>*

“The memoirs of Hillary Clinton have to be viewed, like their author, as a
work in progress.”

*Washington Post blog: WorldViews: “Clinton in Mexico, worried about
Russia”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/05/clinton-in-mexico-worried-about-russia/>*

“Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, in a mostly upbeat speech about
the state of the world, said Friday that she was ‘particularly concerned’
about Europe faltering in the face of Russian intimidation.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Sees ISIS, Ukraine as
Central U.S. Worries”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/05/clinton-sees-isis-ukraine-as-central-u-s-worries/>*

“Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the ‘aggressive,
hostile’ Islamic State and tensions between Russia and Ukraine are her main
points of concern overseas, in a speech to graduate students in Mexico
City.”

*MSNBC: “Want to know what Hillary Clinton thinks? Read her book”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/want-know-what-hillary-clinton-thinks-read-her-book>*

“Rather than trying to be a page-turner, the book serves as an official
record of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, with the final few
chapters giving Clinton’s sanctioned take on some key policy areas.”

*National Journal: “How Hillary Clinton Once Disappointed Elizabeth Warren
on Wall Street Reform”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-hillary-clinton-once-disappointed-elizabeth-warren-on-wall-street-reform-20140905>*

“On Friday, the Bill Moyers show released a vintage clip of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren appearing on the show in 2004. In the video, Warren talks about a
prescient meeting with then-first lady Hillary Clinton.”

*Mother Jones: “Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His
Hands”
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order>*

[Subtitle:] “In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic
presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.”

*Associated Press: “Clinton Rallies Support For Crist in Governor Race”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/clinton-rallies-support-crist-governor-race-0>*

“Bill Clinton is lending his political star power to Democrat Charlie
Crist, a former Republican governor who is locked in a tight race for his
old job in the nation's largest swing state.”

*Articles:*

*National Journal: “Proof That the Left Is Ready for a Clinton Presidential
Run”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/proof-that-the-left-is-ready-for-a-clinton-presidential-run-20140906>*

By Ben Geman

September 6, 2014

At midday Friday I posted a short item about GOP Sen. Rand Paul bashing
Hillary Clinton over climate change.

Clinton called climate change "the most consequential, urgent, sweeping
collection of challenges we face." Paul accused Clinton of wanting to
battle climate change instead of terrorism.

It was a noteworthy exchange between a pair of potential 2016 contenders,
but the disagreement itself is not particularly surprising: Clinton is a
longtime proponent of climate action. Paul is a critic of Clinton's and
lives on the other side of the partisan divide.

It was what happened next that caught my eye: Shortly after Paul's remarks,
a pro-Clinton "rapid response" group called Correct The Record circulated a
statement attacking the Kentucky senator. They also emailed me personally
to (politely) inquire if I might add it to National Journal's story.

And they weren't alone.

Later in the afternoon, the League of Conservation Voters chimed in with a
defense of Clinton's remarks at a green-energy conference Thursdaynight in
Nevada, claiming that Paul's response "reflects a profound lack of
understanding of how serious a threat" climate change poses.

NextGen Climate, the group backed by billionaire green activist Tom Steyer,
also went after Paul for his stance on global warming: "A real threat would
come from a science-denier as the leader of the free world."

It remains to be seen whether Clinton will run in 2016—she says she'll
decide early next year. But Friday's press flurry demonstrates that
environmental groups and others on the left are already circling the wagons
behind their potential front-runner. And it's demonstrative of the campaign
infrastructure that would be awaiting Clinton the moment she entered the
race.

So what did Paul say that set off the green fury?

He attacked Clinton during a Fox News interview about battling the radical
Islamist group ISIS, arguing: "For her to be out there saying that the
biggest threat to our safety and to our well-being is climate change, I
think ... goes to the heart of the matter or whether or not she has the
wisdom to lead the country, which I think it's obvious that she doesn't."

That prompted environmentalists to offer reminders of military planners'
warnings about the security dimensions of climate change. They said:

"Rather than repeating tea-party and Koch Brothers talking points to deny
the science of climate change, Senator Paul would be better served reading
the Department of Defense's latest Quadrennial review, which recognized
that the impacts of climate change like extreme weather, drought, and
sea-level rise will act as 'threat multipliers that will aggravate
stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political
instability, and social tensions—conditions that can enable terrorist
activity and other forms of violence.' "

NextGen Climate, which is billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer's group,
also made the military link in a statement titled "Science-Denier-In-Chief
Rand Paul Thinks He Knows Better Than the Military."

"Rand Paul, listen to the four-star generals: 16 retired three- and
four-star generals and admirals issued a report and identified climate
change as a 'catalyst for conflict,' " the group said in a statement.

*National Journal: “Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul Just Kicked Off 2016's
Climate Battle”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy-edge/hillary-clinton-and-rand-paul-just-kicked-off-2016-s-climate-battle-20140905>*

By Ben Geman, Jason Plautz, and Clare Foran

September 5, 2014

HILLARY CLINTON AND RAND PAUL JUST KICKED OFF 2016'S CLIMATE BATTLE. Sen.
Rand Paul is attacking Hillary Clinton's Thursday night comments on climate
change in what may be a preview of battles during the 2016
presidential-election cycle. Paul on Friday bashed Clinton's claims about
the gravity of the threat of climate change, arguing that she's giving too
little weight to terrorism. "I don't think we really want a commander in
chief who's battling climate change instead of terrorism," Paul, a Kentucky
Republican weighing a White House bid, said in a Fox News appearance.
Clinton, speaking at a green-energy conference in Nevada, said, "Climate
change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges
we face." (Ben Geman, National Journal)

CLINTON ALLIES PUSH BACK AGAINST RAND PAUL'S CLIMATE SLAM. The pro-Hillary
Clinton group Correct The Record is knocking Sen. Rand Paul for knocking
Clinton's comments about climate change (see above). "For Rand Paul to
dismiss climate change as a national priority is shameful, and is in stark
contrast to Hillary Clinton, whose leadership on so many issues, including
climate change and fighting terrorism, is critical for our future," said
Adrienne Watson of Correct The Record, which is an arm of the Democratic
super PAC American Bridge. The League of Conservation Voters also
circulated a statement criticizing Paul. The 2016 battle over climate
policy is underway.

FLASHBACK. In her Las Vegas speech, Clinton didn't delve into many specific
policies or touch on any controversial topics, although she did back
natural-gas drilling as long as the right safeguards are in place. (Jason
Plautz, National Journal)

GREEN GROUPS REALIZE THEY GET WHAT THEY PAY FOR. The Washington Post
reports that environmental groups are sharply increasing the amount of cash
they're pouring into elections. "Environmentalists' deeper involvement in
both state and federal campaigns represents, to a large extent, a
recognition that legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions on a broad
scale will remain out of reach for years without a major political shift in
Washington and state capitals," the newspaper reports. (Juliet Eilperin,
Washington Post)

OZONE POLLUTION WIPED OUT FOOD FOR 94 MILLION—STUDY. Ozone pollution in
India damaged enough good crops to cost the country more than a billion
dollars and supplies that could have fed tens of millions of impoverished
people, according to researchers at the University of California (San
Diego)'s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The study looked at the
impact of surface-level ozone pollution in 2005 and found that it damaged
6.7 million U.S. tons of wheat, rice, soybeans, and cotton crops, enough to
feed about a third of the country's poor. Read more about the research here.

JEWELL: 'SURPRISING' WASHINGTON FOOTBALL TEAM HASN'T CHANGED NAME. Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell said it was "surprising" that the Washington
Redskins hadn't changed their controversial name, but that it wasn't an
issue that tribal leaders had raised with her. "[I]n talking with tribal
leaders, this has not been the issue that they have talked about with me,
and I think that there is debate, even among the Native American community,
on the Washington Redskins, and certainly there are a lot of people who
have pride in that team," she said in an interview with ABC News.

WHAT INSIDERS ARE SAYING

WHERE DOES HILLARY CLINTON STAND ON ENERGY? Did the former secretary of
State show her cards on energy policy in her speech at Harry Reid's
clean-energy summit? How would a Clinton EPA deal with climate change?

"Some might argue that combating global terrorism as well as Russian and
Chinese revanchism pose greater challenges to the planet than climate
change. But even accepting Secretary Clinton's premise, one could make the
case that America has already taken the lead in pursuing clean energy." –
Bernard Weinstein, associate director, Maguire Energy Institute.

Read the full responses from National Journal's Energy Insiders.

HAPPENING MONDAY

MONIZ TALKS ENERGY TRANSPORT. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz participates in
a discussion during a Quadrennial Energy Review outreach session on
electricity transmission storage and distribution for the eastern
electricity interconnection, hosted by the Energy Department's Office of
Energy Policy and Systems Analysis.

ENDANGERED SPECIES HEARING. The House Natural Resources Committee holds a
field hearing on "The Northern Long-Eared Bat: The Federal Endangered
Species Act and Impacts of a Listing on Pennsylvania and 37 Other States."

CHESAPEAKE BAY SENATE HEARING. The Senate Environment and Public Works
Water and Wildlife Subcommittee holds a field hearing on "Examining the
Strategy for Achieving the Goals of the New Voluntary Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Agreement."

*Media Matters for America: “Fox News Provides Rand Paul A Platform To
Fabricate Quotes From Hillary Clinton”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/05/fox-news-provides-rand-paul-a-platform-to-fabri/200664>*

By Alexandrea Boguhn

September 5, 2014, 6:17 p.m. EDT

Fox News offered Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) a platform to attack former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the terrorist group known as the
Islamic State, raising questions about the network's willingness to be
manipulated using unverified quotes in order to harm a potential
presidential candidate.

During the September 3 edition of Hannity, Paul joined host Sean Hannity to
discuss the threat of the Islamic State to the U.S. After Hannity asked him
if IS "has declared war on us," Paul blamed Clinton for the Islamic State's
rise, asserting that "in the past, you know, Hillary Clinton has said ISIS
is not a threat to the United States."

Fox's Bill Hemmer later hosted Paul on the September 5 edition of America's
Newsroom, where Paul again claimed Clinton has "been out there saying that
ISIS is not a threat, and so not a threat to America. Those I think were
her exact words." After Hemmer asked Paul whether Clinton actually said the
terror group was not a threat, Paul was unable to pin down where the
alleged quote was from, but responded that it was his "belief" that "a
couple of months ago there was a quote saying ISIS was not a threat to
America." Hemmer subsequently failed to follow up on Paul's lack of
specifics.

Hemmer's question was a critical one for any journalist to ask, but his
failure to demand the specific quote and Hannity's total acceptance of
Paul's claim is troubling. By not pushing for proof of Paul's claim, Fox
News is letting itself be used as a conduit for misinformation from one
potential presidential candidate to another.

*New York Review of Books: Joseph Lelyveld: “Hillary”
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/sep/25/hillary-clinton-hard-choices/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=September+5+2014&utm_content=September+5+2014+CID_6aa5d1781fd5108d1f8fd29818cdf11d&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Hillary>*

By Joseph Lelyveld, executive editor of the New York Times, 1994-2001

September 25, 2014

The memoirs of Hillary Clinton have to be viewed, like their author, as a
work in progress. Volume one carried her all the way from her days as a
Goldwater girl in Park Ridge, Illinois, to her years as a political
lightning rod in the Clinton White House, then finally to the United States
Senate, which was never going to be her last stop.* Volume two, picking up
the story at the end of her 2008 presidential campaign, recounts her four
years at the State Department as what she accurately enough but a tad
vaingloriously calls “the chief diplomat of the most powerful nation on
earth.”

Taken together, the two volumes add up to nearly 1,200 pages, and a third
can hardly be ruled out. Passages toward the end of the latest, on building
the middle class at home and abroad and restoring the American dream for
the twenty-first century, read like early drafts for an acceptance speech
at the next Democratic convention. Just possibly, by the time that third
volume is written, the first African-American president will have long
since given way to the first woman to hold the office; and Hillary and Bill
will have spent more time in the White House than Eleanor and Franklin.

If it comes to that, Hard Choices won’t be the reason. The book landed with
a thud. It’s a stiff-jointed, careful performance, assembled by a “book
team” of former and present aides from briefing papers, old speeches, town
hall transcripts, and interviews. What we get are the highly edited
reflections of a prospective candidate: part résumé, designed to reveal the
depth of her immersion in global affairs and the extent of her familiarity
with the world’s great and near great, scores of them (from the Empress of
Japan to His All Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox
Church, to Bono); part rampart, designed not to reveal too much.

Here and there, maybe every eighty pages, it’s flecked with stabs at wry
humor, mostly about her wardrobe and hair. (“How many times, as Senator
from New York, did I go on David Letterman’s show to deliver a pantsuit
joke?” she asks.) Here and there also, flashes of real feeling briefly
light up dry recitals of yet another trip, another itinerary. “That drove
me crazy,” Clinton exclaims over her discovery that there were no schools
in a vast Congolese refugee camp she visited. A “senior administration
official” invites a blast from the secretary by posing a question about the
wound that could be inflicted on Pakistan’s sense of national honor by a
raid on Osama bin Laden’s presumed hideout. “What about our national
honor?” the exasperated Clinton shoots back. The senior official—unnamed,
of course—is left to absorb this notice that there may not be a place for
him (or her) in the next Clinton administration.

This edgy, tough Hillary often stays home in Hard Choices. Her other
persona, the exceptionally diligent chief diplomat, escorts us on a literal
tour d’horizon through many of the 112 nations she visited while foreign
policy was largely being shaped in the White House by the man who defeated
her. Republican campaign hirelings engaged in what’s called opposition
research are likely to read these pages more avidly than casual Clinton
adherents who may have difficulty getting past clunky, cursory accounts of
how she pulled off a thaw in relations with New Zealand or spoke up for
democracy in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Kosovo. The book has few
revelations, let alone pleasures. Its gazetteer notes compete with one
another for lameness. (The Sinai is “famous for its role in the Bible.”
Lahore is “full of fantastic Mogul architecture.” Copenhagen is “a
picturesque city, full of cobblestoned streets.”)

Still, there’s more here than impressions gathered from a motorcade. This
installment of Clinton’s memoirs is strewn with clues to the way the
odds-makers’ favorite for next president thinks about the world and our
place in it. Fond as she is of proclaiming “new eras” and “new beginnings,”
little in her approach reflects new thinking.

Having it both ways, she describes herself as neither an idealist nor a
realist in foreign policy but an “idealistic realist,” which is to say a
“hybrid” (her word). On the evidence here, Hillary Clinton belongs to the
Yes…but school on foreign policy whose basic premise boils down to this:
Yes, our interventions in other countries don’t always or often work out
the way we mean them to, but we have to get involved, have to uphold the
leadership role history has assigned us, for we are the “indispensable
nation.” That self-glorifying slogan, usually attributed to Madeleine
Albright, Bill Clinton’s second secretary of state, rolls easily off her
lips: “Everything that I have done and seen has convinced me that America
remains the ‘indispensable nation.’” No opponent will ever get away with
accusing her of not embracing the doctrine of American exceptionalism, a
civil religion to which every recent president, including Barack Obama, has
had to pay homage.

On a swing through North Africa, confronted by a question from a Tunisian
lawyer who asks whether she understands why her country is so mistrusted by
young people aspiring to democracy, given its compromises with corrupt
autocrats who abuse human rights, Clinton gives the Yes…but response.
“Yes,” it’s true, she concedes, “We’ve made a lot of mistakes. But I think
if you look at the entire historical record, the entire historical record
shows we’ve been on the side of freedom, we’ve been on the side of human
rights.”

Not to the Tunisian lawyer but in an aside to her readers, almost as if
she’s letting them in on a secret, she also says: “America will always do
what it takes to keep our people safe and advance our core interests.
Sometimes that means working with partners with whom we have deep
disagreements.” It’s a proposition she illustrates by conceding that
American values were bent in our dependence on the then president of Yemen,
Ali Abdullah Saleh: “He was corrupt and autocratic, but he was also
committed to fighting al Qaeda and keeping his fractious country together.”
He’s our man in Sanaa, at least until we drop him.

She writes of “actual, real-world trade-offs” and acknowledges: “There are
always choices we regret, consequences we do not foresee, and alternate
paths we wish we had taken.” For instance, in Iran (“a classic Cold War
move,” she calls the 1953 coup there), Indochina (Laos paid “a terrible
price”), Chile (“a dark chapter”), and Iraq. She ticks off each as
blemishes on our sterling record but doesn’t see a pattern. Her hardheaded
credo boils down to this: “Making policy is a balancing act. Hopefully we
get it more right than wrong.”

The hard choice she regrets most keenly is her vote in the Senate in 2002
authorizing President Bush to use military force in Iraq. She says she took
too long to acknowledge that it was a mistake, held out too long “against
using the word mistake” during the 2008 primary season. Indirectly, she
attributes her defeat to that vote, referring to Obama as “a President who
had been elected in part because of his opposition to the war in Iraq and
his pledge to end it.”

She also writes about her 2007 vote against the “surge” in Iraq that Bush
promoted on the advice of General David Petraeus. But we have to turn to
Duty, the recent memoir by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who isn’t
running for anything, to find her admission to Obama that the vote had more
to do with her need not to be wrong-footed by him in the Iowa caucuses than
her real thoughts about Iraq. Politics aside, it seems, she could have
supported it. Gates then has the president indicating “vaguely” that the
same could have been true of him. As a peace candidate, Gates infers, Obama
couldn’t support a strategy for war.

A cold warrior of the old school who spent most of his career in the CIA,
Gates harrumphs: “To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in
front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.” As a moment of truth
viewed in retrospect with a measure of candor, it might also be called
refreshing.

An earnest-sounding Clinton leads us to believe her conclusions about hard
choices have been hard-won. When choices on war and peace are made at the
highest level, she writes, it’s necessary to search for “the unintended
consequences of every decision.” She says she vowed to do this “with more
experience, wisdom, skepticism, and humility.” How this vow played out in
strategy sessions in the White House situation room, when she was consulted
on major decisions, tells a lot about her instincts and what they say, or
imply, about any differences she may have had with the instinctively
prudent Barack Obama. By the standards of recent American statecraft, he’s
more unconventional, more inclined for better or worse to question the
predictable options and the supposedly tried-and-true assumptions behind
them.

Faced with a thorny choice—on Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya—her own
instinct is usually to act in furtherance of America’s “global leadership”
role, not abstain. On Afghanistan, for instance, she supports Obama’s 2009
decision to send in a “surge” of 30,000 more troops but wishes he hadn’t
capped the number so firmly or publicly committed himself to their
withdrawal by the end of this year. But when the Arab Spring sweeps into
Cairo’s Tahir Square she’s understandably confounded. It’s Yes…but time
again. Mubarak may have been “a heavy-handed autocrat who presided over a
corrupt and calcified regime,” but he was “a longtime partner” who
“supported peace and cooperation with Israel and hunted terrorists.” Here
she advances the best (at least, the normative) thinking of State
Department professionals who worry about “other partners” (synonymous with
other autocrats) who might “lose trust and confidence in their
relationships with us” if we pushed this “key strategic ally” out.

The argument is “unpopular in some quarters of the White House.” This is
Clinton’s recurrent narrative trope for a situation in which she finds
herself out of sync with the president. In such circumstances, his
residence is more likely to be named than he is. Over time, as she explains
it, he has evolved in her mind from opponent to partner to the even more
exalted rank of personal friend. Of course, he’s also president. She not
only writes of their “shared agenda,” but touchingly describes “a lovely,
quiet moment” shared in a Cairo mosque, followed by similar stolen moments
in a Buddhist temple in Bangkok and the Shwedagon pagoda in Yangon. So
comfortable have they become in one another’s company that he doesn’t
hesitate to nudge her aside at an international summit to whisper, “You’ve
got something in your teeth.”

Strains with the disembodied “White House” are frequently ascribed to
“younger White House aides” who are invariably nameless. The president is
“swayed” when they appeal to his “idealism,” according to the
self-described “idealistic realist” who has—at least in this retrospective,
inevitably self-serving rendition—a more nuanced view of the forces at
work, of the staying power of the pro-democracy demonstrators; still, Obama
calls on Mubarak to step down.

When a retired former ambassador to Egypt voices an apparently dissenting
view about Mubarak after visiting him on behalf of Clinton, Obama phones
his secretary of state to complain about “mixed messages.” Clinton
explains: “That’s a diplomatic way of saying he took me to the woodshed.”

A longer-lasting, more serious strain was over the role of Richard
Holbrooke, Clinton’s choice to oversee diplomatic strategy and tactics in
the conflict- ridden region known in State Department jargon as Af-Pak. The
freewheeling Holbrooke, credited with ending the war in Bosnia in 1995,
never succeeded in getting on the same wavelength as the president (and
vice versa). The harder he pushed, the more he tried Obama’s patience. Soon
the source of power known as the White House was finding ways to trim his
mandate and circumvent him. Increasingly unveiled messages were sent to
Clinton to ditch him. She went to Obama to save Holbrooke’s job but it’s
not clear in this retelling how forcefully she supported the game plan he
was seeking to advance, or indeed what the game plan was beyond drawing the
Taliban into a negotiation and sponsoring some kind of détente between the
Pakistani military and the government in Kabul.

President Hamid Karzai was convinced that Holbrooke was scheming to
undermine him, she says. Clinton considered Karzai “a linchpin of our
mission in Afghanistan.” She doesn’t say her chief representative agreed.
They didn’t agree on everything. She thought more troops were needed; he
didn’t. One time in Pakistan, she tells us, this self-propelled “force of
nature” pursued the secretary of state into a ladies’ restroom to continue
making a point.

The standoff over the envoy’s role ended in December 2011 with his collapse
in Clinton’s office with a torn aorta and death two days later. Our author
doesn’t say what thoughts ran through her mind as she listened to Obama’s
somewhat wooden, not much more than adequate eulogy at the memorial service
in the National Cathedral.

Built to thwart opposition researchers scrounging for vulnerabilities, Hard
Choices has more pages on Libya than China, including a whole chapter on
Benghazi and the 2012 attack there on the US consulate in which Ambassador
Chris Stevens and three other Americans died. House Republicans and Fox
News have kept up a clamor on Benghazi ever since in hopes of wounding a
presumptive nominee with no discernable challenger in the ranks of her own
party. A feisty Clinton shows in these pages that she’s ready for them.

In October 2011, she landed in Tripoli and declared, “I am proud to stand
here on the soil of a free Libya.” It was a typical Hillary moment. “Proud”
is a favorite word, used to congratulate her audience as well as herself,
to bask in a sense of shared accomplishment. But now that Libya has
descended into anarchy, with the militias that arose with Western (and
Arab) backing to oust Muammar Qaddafi carrying on as local mafias and
fighting among themselves, how are we to weigh that accomplishment, that
pride? Is this unraveling any business of the United States and its allies?
Having intervened once to prevent what was branded a “humanitarian
catastrophe,” do we have any residual interest or responsibility there, let
alone in Afghanistan or Iraq where, as it happens, we’ve decided we have a
new “humanitarian catastrophe” on our hands? So severe was this latest
crisis, brought on by the rise of ISIS, that US aircraft had to be sent in
for the first time in more than two years to halt the jihadist advance,
raising the question: How many times, in how many places, can we
reintervene?

From where we now sit, Clinton’s day in Tripoli seems faintly reminiscent
of George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” show on a carrier flight deck.
More recently, Clinton was off on her book tour when, taking no chances,
the snake-bitten State Department transferred its Libya personnel to a
temporary station in Tunisia. “When America is absent, extremism takes
root,” she warns in her Benghazi chapter. Retreat, she asserts, is “just
not in our country’s DNA.” So what would she do now? The best wisdom we can
draw from these pages is the self-evident observation that Libya might face
“very difficult challenges translating the hopes of a revolution into a
free, secure, and prosperous future.” It seems a fair translation to say
that that amounts, in present circumstances, to “Good luck, Libya.”

President Obama, more willing to focus on bad results, to try to draw
lessons from them, recently told Thomas Friedman in an interview that the
time to move on is emphatically not the moment “when everybody is feeling
good and everybody is holding up posters saying, ‘Thank you, America.’”
That’s when “there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild
societies that didn’t have any civic traditions.” The United States and its
allies “under-estimated” what would be needed in Libya, he said.

At this point, the discussion threatens to turn circular. Isn’t it
possible, even likely, that we wouldn’t have intervened at all if we’d
allowed ourselves a more realistic estimate, understood from the start that
intervening to the extent we did meant taking on the burden of trying to
rebuild a ferociously divided Libya? Wasn’t that one of the many lessons of
Iraq?

“Challenges” is another favorite Clinton word. And they are everywhere
demanding a response, none more so than Syria. In these pages, she’s
respectful of Obama’s deliberative approach but eagerly backs a plan drawn
up by David Petraeus, by then heading the CIA, for arming and training
certifiably “moderate” Syrian rebels. A cautious Obama asks for “examples
of instances when the United States had backed an insurgency that could be
considered a success.” No one, it seems, has a ready answer. The idea of
success has to be redefined. It’s not to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, Obama
is told; it’s to take the initiative away from Qatar and Saudia Arabia,
which are “dumping weapons into the country,” in order to have “a partner
on the ground we could work with.” It was, Clinton writes, “the least bad
option among many even worse alternatives.” Leon Panetta, Gates’s successor
at the Pentagon, is on her side. “He knew from his own time leading the CIA
what our intelligence operatives could do.”

“Some in the White House” are skeptical. They doubt that a credible
“moderate” force can be created. It may not be irrelevant that Obama was in
the midst of his reelection campaign. In any case, he wasn’t persuaded. “He
had promised me,” she writes, “that I would always get a fair hearing. And
I always did. In this case, my position did not prevail.”

In her memoir, she presents the choice as a close call, one on which
reasonable people could differ. Now, with the launch of her second run for
the presidency presumably drawing near and Obama’s poll numbers in the
dumps, she views it as having been a no-brainer. “The failure to build up a
credible fighting force,” she recently told Jeffrey Goldberg of The
Atlantic, left “a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” The
“least bad option” was always the obvious one to grasp. The former
secretary speaks again in the voice of the senator who was proud to serve
on the Armed Service Committee, who cultivated top generals, showing that a
woman commander in chief could be trusted to command.

She thus aligns herself, at least in one interview, with the commentators
for whom Obama’s decision to reject “the least bad option” on Syria stood
as proof of his weakness, America’s decline. Now that we see ISIS fighting
in Iraq with American weapons seized in armories abandoned by forces we
trained, the argument has become muddled. Possibly it takes more strength
for a president to reject military intervention when the national security
establishment lines up behind it than to give the order everyone is
expecting. What seems pretty clear is that Hillary Clinton, experienced and
knowledgeable as she now is, wouldn’t be such a president. Like Panetta,
she knows what our intelligence operatives can do.

The rollout of Hard Choices hasn’t been helped by the summer’s depressing
news feeds from around the world. Vladimir Putin’s reckless, thumb-in-your
eye forays in eastern Ukraine began early enough for Clinton to work in a
mention of his seizure of Crimea. This suggests that she may have recast
other parts of her chapter on Russia, which now is appropriately downbeat.
There had been high hopes of a new relationship with Russia, nicknamed “the
reset” when Obama reached the White House in 2009. Clinton, who early on
staged the jokey presentation of a gift-wrapped “reset button” to her
Russian counterpart, now tells us she had only “modest expectations”
herself. Leaving office, she advised Obama in what was presumably a highly
classified memo that Putin was on a “negative trajectory” and it was now
time to hit the “pause button,” to take a tougher line. This was another of
those occasions when “not everyone at the White House agreed.” Obama
accepted an invitation to a Moscow summit she’d advised him to skip. Months
later he “began taking a harder line with Putin” and finally did back out
of the Moscow visit. Now it’s important for her to have us (and those pesky
opposition researchers) know that she was never taken in, even if that
means leaving an impression that the president was a little soft.

Her care in distinguishing her inclinations from Obama’s is even more
conspicuous in her pages on the Israelis and Palestinians. As might perhaps
be expected of a former senator from New York, she can’t find it in herself
to scold Israel over its occupation of the West Bank; in fact, she never
uses the word “occupation.” She recognizes the expanding settlements as a
political problem, and she pressed hard while in office for a limited
construction “freeze,” but says nothing to suggest that the problems posed
by existing settlements or the actual conditions on the West Bank—the
suffocating overlay of security checks, road blocks, army patrols—offend
her sense of fairness or human rights. Of course, like all secretaries of
state of the last half-century, she doesn’t mention that Israel never
signed the nuclear nonproliferation pact, the treaty we’re rightly pressing
Iran to observe. First she says that she feels “personally invested in
Israel’s security and success,” then that she’s “someone who cares deeply
about Israel’s security and future.”

We get the point. Still, it’s instructive to see how carefully she
distances herself from Obama in recounting his difficulties with Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The two men repeatedly go to the edge of
confrontation while she and the Israeli leader are able to work together as
“partners and friends.”

“I learned that Bibi would fight if he felt he was being cornered, but if
you connected with him as a friend, there was a chance that you could get
something done together.” Someone who was “friending” long before the
invention of Facebook, she believes in “building relationships and
understanding how and when to use them.” What she gets out of this one is
an agreement to extend the freeze on settlement construction for ninety
days, except in East Jerusalem, at the cost of an additional $3 billion in
military aid. Earlier, when Joe Biden was greeted on a visit to Israel with
an announcement of new Jewish construction in the Arab quarter of
Jerusalem, a “furious” Obama instructed her to tell Netanyahu that he
viewed the provocation “as a personal insult to him, the Vice President,
and the United States.” Clinton puts the words in quotes so we understand
that they’re the president’s. She delivers the blast but almost seems to
excuse herself. “I didn’t like playing bad cop,” she writes, “but it was
part of the job.”

Late in 2012, with her time in office running down, she persuades the
president to let her fly to the Middle East to see if she can head off a
threatened Israeli ground invasion of Gaza. An air campaign is already
underway in retaliation for rockets fired into Israel by Hamas. Civilian
casualties are rising. “There was no substitute for American leadership,”
she argued. She even succeeds in lining up Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim
Brotherhood president of Egypt who’ll soon be on his way to jail. A
cease-fire is struck, thanks to her “diplomatic intervention.” Now in the
summer of 2014, less than two years later, her account of this achievement
makes sour reading (no fault of Clinton’s, obviously). Hamas and Israel
have been at it again. Another “intervention” is required. Clinton’s
successor flies in and out of Cairo, doing what he can through the good
offices of Hosni Mubarak’s real successor, Egypt’s latest military ruler.

Florida’s Marco Rubio, twenty-four years her junior, a first-term senator
hoping to replicate Obama’s 2008 run, recently put Hillary Clinton down as
a “twentieth century candidate.” She could see this line of attack on her
longevity in politics and her age—sixty-nine on Election Day 2016—coming.
Having been there in 1992 as well as 2008, she doesn’t need to be told that
a new face often trumps a long résumé. So she stakes out positions on the
near side of the generational line. The last pages of her memoir are
crammed with up-to-the-minute references not only to her struggles on
behalf of women but also (for eight of those pages) efforts as secretary to
inscribe the fraught subject of LGBT rights on the international agenda.

She mentions, too, a push to spread democratic values by offering
technological support and smart phones to networking young dissidents
around the globe. Of course, if they then rise up against rulers who have
been important strategic partners, she could face even more hard choices.

*Washington Post blog: WorldViews: “Clinton in Mexico, worried about
Russia”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/05/clinton-in-mexico-worried-about-russia/>*

By Joshua Partlow

September 5, 2014, 2:54 p.m. EDT

MEXICO CITY — Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, in a mostly upbeat
speech about the state of the world, said Friday that she was “particularly
concerned” about Europe faltering in the face of Russian intimidation.

“I do worry about President Putin’s view that Russia should dominate its
border and intimidate people beyond its borders,” Clinton said in a speech
in Mexico City.

It was important, she said, that Europe remain whole and stable in the face
of this and that Russia should be “persuaded or somehow convinced or
coerced into looking towards the future” and not the past.

Clinton was visiting Mexico — on the same day that her potential future
presidential opponent New Jersey Gov. Chris Chirstie was wrapping up his
three-day visit to the city — to speak at an event hosted by Mexican
telecom baron Carlos Slim. Her audience was students who received
scholarships from Slim’s foundation, and her remarks mostly extolled the
virtues of equal rights and hard work.

Clinton didn’t spend much time on the relationship between Mexico and the
United States except to say that it was “critical” and that “we have to
cooperate where we can.” Christie’s visit, with mostly a business-focused
itinerary, has been styled as a humble rookie-diplomat listening tour,
while Clinton projected the image of a seasoned stateswoman imparting her
wisdom about the world.

She said that Latin America, with its female presidents and prime ministers
in places such as Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Jamaica, were a “great
example” for the rest of the world.

“Countries that don’t have the full participation of girls and women, their
economies are not as strong, they are not as stable and democratic,”
Clinton said. “We’ve gotten so much further than most of the rest of the
world in knocking down barriers.”

Clinton said that “obviously” she was thinking about running for president
in 2016 but she had not yet made a decision. Attending the event with her
were billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, actor Antonio Banderas and former
Brazilian soccer star Ronaldinho.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Sees ISIS, Ukraine as
Central U.S. Worries”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/05/clinton-sees-isis-ukraine-as-central-u-s-worries/>*

By Anthony Harrup

September 5, 2014, 2:35 p.m. EDT

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the “aggressive,
hostile” Islamic State and tensions between Russia and Ukraine are her main
points of concern overseas, in a speech to graduate students in Mexico City.

Mrs. Clinton also said she will said she will announce a decision on
whether she is running for president “probably after the first of the year.”

“Obviously I’m thinking about it, but I haven’t made a decision yet,” she
said.

This is in line with her previous remarks on the subject. In an extended
interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer in June, Mrs. Clinton said she would be
“well on the way to making a decision” by the end of this year. But in that
interview, she added she would not announce a decision until some time in
2015.

In her remarks Friday, Mrs. Clinton said the Middle East and Eastern Europe
are her main foreign-policy concerns.

“In the Middle East, the rise of a very aggressive, hostile form of
jihadism through  the Islamic State which is trying to carve out a
so-called caliphate in Syria, and in Iraq, which is a very direct threat to
all the countries in the region but even beyond,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton also had harsh words for President Vladimir Putin and his
attitude toward the eastern Ukraine.

“I did worry about President Putin’s view that Russia should dominate its
borders and intimidate people beyond its borders, using gas and oil as a
weapon even where we’re seeing now in Ukraine military force. It’s very
important that Europe remain whole, stable and that Russia be persuaded and
somehow convinced, even coerced, into looking toward the future not the
past.”

Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, had nothing but praise for Mexico, which also this
week is hosting a possible rival for the White House, New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie.

“I really do believe … that Mexico’s future is extraordinarily positive,”
she said, adding that the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. is
critical for both countries, the region and the world. “I think
economically and  socially there are so many advances  that need to keep
going.”

The event was organized by billionaire Carlos Slim’s Telmex Foundation.

*MSNBC: “Want to know what Hillary Clinton thinks? Read her book”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/want-know-what-hillary-clinton-thinks-read-her-book>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

September 5, 2014, 6:45 p.m. EDT

When Hillary Clinton stepped onto the stage at an clean energy conference
in Las Vegas Thursday night, many observers eagerly hoping for some fresh
comments on natural gas extraction or the Keystone XL pipeline were instead
treated to a veritable book reading.

On fracking, the controversial technique used to extract natural gas and
oil, Clinton praised its economic benefits before warning of its dangers.
“We have to face head-on the legitimate, pressing environmental concerns
about some new extraction practices and their impacts on local water, soil,
and air supplies,” she said. She cited methane leaks as “particularly
troubling.”

That’s an almost word-for-word reproduction of what she wrote in her new
book, “Hard Choices.” There, she warned there are “legitimate … concerns
about the new extraction practices and their impact on local water, soil,
and air supplies.” She cited methane leaks as “particularly worrisome.”

On Thursday night, she added: “It’s crucial that we put in place smart
regulations and enforce them, including deciding not to drill when the
risks are too high.”

In her book, she wrote: “It’s crucial that we put in place smart
regulations and enforce them, including deciding not to drill when the
risks are too high.”

On Keystone, she said in Las Vegas exactly what she wrote in her book:
Absolutely nothing.

Those seeking something new from Clinton were almost certainly
disappointed. Instead, she stuck to her practice — in play since stepping
down as secretary of state — of largely staying above the domestic
political fray and offering few details on her policy views.

Of course, attendees of the Last Vegas event could have just read her book.
Many critics were disappointed by the 650-page tome, dismissing it as a
“low-salt, low-fat, low-calorie offering with vanilla pudding as the
dessert,” as Slate’s John Dickerson wrote.

Rather than trying to be a page-turner, the book serves as an official
record of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, with the final few
chapters giving Clinton’s sanctioned take on some key policy areas. It’s a
carefully crafted work that undoubtedly helped Clinton and her team clarify
their thinking, and will provide a blueprint for Clinton’s future speeches.

Think of it as 600 pages of ready-made talking points, anecdotes, and
policy positions.

This is common for likely presidential candidates. Jeff Shesol, a
speechwriter in the Clinton White House who went on to found West Wing
Writers, told msnbc that candidates’ books often become the ultimate “text
of the presidency.”

While some politicians’ books are thrown together for quick sale, a book
like “Hard Choices” is the product of “intensive efforts to really get it
right,” he said. “The dividends of that effort will payout over an extended
period of time, both for her and for anyone writing for her,” he added.

Jon Lovett, a former speechwriter for both Clinton and Barack Obama, said
Clinton’s earlier book was an enormous resource when he was writing
speeches for the then-senator, both for its substance and to help capture
her voice. “When I was first learning how to be a speechwriter, when in
doubt I would crib from ‘Living History,’ and it always ended up sounding
like Hillary Clinton,” he told msnbc.

“You’re constantly trying to find good stories to tell, constantly trying
to find good anecdotes,” he explained. “‘Living History’ was a repository
on about almost every possible topic you could ever want.”

When Lovett moved to the White House, he said the process for any major
speech started with reviewing both what Obama had said previously on the
subject, as well as any relevant passages from his books. “It’s a natural
place to start,” he said.

As Clinton puts herself on more public stages and delves into new policy
areas, a similar cycle of high expectations met with a rehash of existing
talking points will probably repeat itself.

So if you want to know what Clinton thinks about something … start by
reading her book.

*National Journal: “How Hillary Clinton Once Disappointed Elizabeth Warren
on Wall Street Reform”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-hillary-clinton-once-disappointed-elizabeth-warren-on-wall-street-reform-20140905>*

By Emma Roller

September 5, 2014

[Subtitle:] As a senator, Clinton doubled back on the advice Warren once
gave her.

On Friday, the Bill Moyers show released a vintage clip of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren appearing on the show in 2004. In the video, Warren talks about a
prescient meeting with then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

Warren tells the story like this: In the late 1990s, Congress was set to
pass a bill that would make it harder for customers to alleviate their debt
by claiming bankruptcy. Banks and credit card companies were pushing the
bill hard.

Warren wrote an op-ed opposing the legislation, arguing the bill would
disproportionately hurt single mothers. The first lady apparently read the
piece, because Warren got a call from the White House asking if she'd meet
with Clinton to discuss bankruptcy.

After Clinton gave a speech in Boston, Warren met with her. Over hamburgers
and french fries, Clinton said to Warren, "Tell me about bankruptcy."

"I gotta tell you, I never had a smarter student," Warren told Moyers,
saying Clinton understood the principles of bankruptcy "quick right to the
heart of it."

After their conversation, Clinton got up and said, "Professor Warren, we've
got to stop that awful bill." And stop the bill they did. The bankruptcy
bill was the last one to cross President Bill Clinton's desk, and he vetoed
it. On the campaign trail in 2007, Hillary Clinton used the bill as
evidence that she "fought the banks."

But when Clinton joined the Senate in 2001 and the bankruptcy bill came up
again, Clinton the senator did what Clinton the first lady opposed—she
voted for it.

"As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different," Warren told Moyers.
"She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries
about them as a constituency."

As Warren sees it, the "student" she saw in that meeting over burgers and
fries ultimately fell victim to a corrupt system. In Clinton-as-ideologue,
Warren saw an ability to resist the lure of Wall Street. But Clinton the
lawmaker could not resist its influence. "This is the scary part about
democracy today," Warren said.

Warren's comments from 10 years ago align with her position on Wall Street
today. In an interview with Katie Couric on Wednesday, Warren took former
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to task for taking a well-paying gig at
an investment bank. When Couric asked Warren what she thought about
Clinton's "cozy" relationship with Wall Street, Warren demurred—but did not
go so far as to defend Clinton's track record.

While some pundits may proffer a superficial "catfight" narrative between
Warren and Clinton, there is a more substantive ideological gulf between
them. And even though Clinton's reversal came all those years ago, it's a
lingering contrast neither of them can avoid.

*Mother Jones: “Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His
Hands”
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-world-order>*

By David Corn

September 5, 2014, 1:44 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] In lauding Henry Kissinger, the possible Democratic
presidential nominee goes far beyond her usual hawkish rhetoric.

Hillary Clinton often plays the hawk card: She voted for the Iraq war,
dissed President Barack Obama for not being tough enough on Syria, and
compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. This is to be expected from a
politician who has angled for a certain title: the first female president
of the United States. Whether her muscular views are sincerely held or not,
a conventional political calculation would lead her to assume it may be
difficult for many voters to elect as commander-in-chief a woman who did
not project an aggressive and assertive stance on foreign policy. So her
tough talk might be charitably evaluated in such a (somewhat) forgiving
context. Yet what remains more puzzling and alarming is the big wet kiss
she planted (rhetorically) on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
this week, with a fawning review of his latest book, World Order.

Sure, perhaps there is secretary's privilege—an old boy and girls club, in
which the ex-foreign-policy chiefs do not speak ill of each other and try
to help out the person presently in the post. Nothing wrong with that. But
former-Madam Secretary Clinton had no obligation to praise Kissinger and
publicly participate in his decades-long mission to rehabilitate his image.
In the review, she calls Kissinger a "friend" and reports, "I relied on his
counsel when I served as secretary of state. He checked in with me
regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me
written reports on his travels." She does add that she and Henry "have
often seen the world and some of our challenges quite differently, and
advocated different responses now and in the past." But here's the kicker:
At the end of the review, she notes that Kissinger is "surprisingly
idealistic":

Even when there are tensions between our values and other objectives,
America, he reminds us, succeeds by standing up for our values, not
shirking them, and leads by engaging peoples and societies, the sources of
legitimacy, not governments alone.

Kissinger reminds us that America succeeds by standing up for its values?
Did she inhale?

Kissinger, who served as secretary of state for President Richard Nixon and
then President Gerald Ford, is a symbol of the worst of US foreign policy.
Though he guided the United States through détente with the Soviet Union
and initiated the historic opening to China, he engaged in underhanded and
covert diplomacy that led to massacres around the globe, as he pursued his
version of foreign policy realism. This is no secret.

·         Chile: Nixon and Kissinger plotted to thwart the democratic
election of a socialist president. The eventual outcome: a military coup
and a military dictatorship that killed thousands of Chileans.

·         Argentina: Kissinger gave a "green light" to the military junta's
dirty war against political opponents that led to the deaths of an
estimated 30,000.

·         East Timor: Another "green light" from Kissinger, this one for
the Indonesian military dictatorship's bloody invasion of East Timor that
yielded up to 200,000 deaths.

·         Cambodia: The secret bombing there during the Nixon phase of the
Vietnam War killed between 150,000 and 500,000 civilians.

·         Bangladesh: Kissinger and Nixon turned a blind eye to—arguably,
they tacitly approved—Pakistan's genocidal slaughter of 300,000 Bengalis,
most of them Hindus.

And there's more. Kissinger's mendacity has been chronicled for years. See
Gary Bass' recent and damning book on the Bangladesh tragedy, The Blood
Telegram. There's Seymour Hersh's classic, The Price of Power. In The Trial
of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens presented the case against
Kissinger in his full polemical style. As secretary of state, Kissinger
made common cause with—and encouraged—tyrants who repressed and massacred
many. He did not serve the American values of democracy, free expression,
and human rights. He shredded them.

Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton protested the Vietnam War. She attended
the 1968 GOP convention in Miami to join the effort to draft Nelson
Rockefeller in order to prevent Nixon from winning the party's presidential
nomination. She served on the staff of the House judiciary committee, which
voted to impeach Nixon; one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the
staff (but which was not approved) slammed Nixon for covering up the
bombing in Cambodia. She knows what Kissinger has done. She knows what
Kissinger represents. There's none of that in her self-serving review.
Instead, she hails him as a champion of a values-driven foreign policy.
Maybe when he's typing in front of a computer these days—but not when he
wielded power. Clinton lets him off the hook and participates in the
long-running pretense that Kissinger is a grand old statesman who deserves
respect rather than scorn.

Democrats uneasy with Clinton as their party's standard-bearer have often
wondered if there is a limit to what she might say or do to win the White
House. Embracing Kissinger in this manner shows how low she can go. It
likely will cause cringing among not-there-yet Democrats who can only fear
that, with plenty of time before the campaign truly starts, Hillary Clinton
is not yet done disappointing them.

*Associated Press: “Clinton Rallies Support For Crist in Governor Race”
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/clinton-rallies-support-crist-governor-race-0>*

By Michael J. Mishak

September 6, 2014, 3:42 a.m. EDT

MIAMI (AP) — Bill Clinton is lending his political star power to Democrat
Charlie Crist, a former Republican governor who is locked in a tight race
for his old job in the nation's largest swing state.

The former president on Friday headlined a rally in Miami where he implored
Democrats to defy historical trends and turn out and vote in November.

"We're great at doing what's right if there's a presidential election on
the ballot but we're not nearly as good as our Republican opponents are at
showing up in the midterm elections," Clinton said. "The whole shebang is
going to depend on who shows up."

Speaking to several hundred supporters, Clinton painted Crist as a
bipartisan conciliator who would rebuild the middle class by raising the
minimum wage, ensuring equal pay for women and expanding Medicaid to
hundreds of thousands of Floridians. He cast incumbent Republican Gov. Rick
Scott as a multimillionaire who has favored corporate interests.

"If you're trying to raise a kid or two on the minimum wage, you need
somebody with the facts to be on your side, and Charlie Crist will be on
your side," Clinton said.

The Clinton rally was the first in a series of high-profile events
featuring Democratic heavyweights designed to boost party enthusiasm for
Crist, a former Republican governor who has run four statewide races on the
GOP ticket as well as one as an independent.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is set to appear with Crist in Florida on
Monday, while Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who is weighing a 2016 White
House bid, will campaign with the Democratic nominee on Sept. 20.

While Crist easily secured his new party's nomination last month, his
campaign must still reassure some of the key Democratic activists who have
opposed him throughout his political career. He also must work to overcome
an unprecedented barrage of negative advertising, which has hurt his
popularity and helped erase his lead in public polls. Scott has spent more
than $25 million, much of it portraying Crist as a "slick politician" and
"lousy governor."

Speaking to a half-empty ballroom at the Friday evening rally, Clinton
asked Democrats to spread the word that Crist's political conversion is for
real. He focused his comments on hot-button topics that resonate with some
of the party's most loyal voters, including women, Hispanics and
African-Americans.

Standing next to Crist, the former president reminded supporters that when
Crist was a Republican governor he extended early voting hours in the 2008
presidential election and enacted the automatic restoration of voting
rights for former nonviolent felons -- an effort, he noted, that Scott has
since undone. He also recalled voting restrictions that Scott and the
GOP-controlled Legislature enacted before the 2012 election, measures that
resulted in long lines on Election Day.

Later, Clinton, a native Southerner, invoked the Jim Crow South and its
history of poll taxes designed to prevent black voters from casting
ballots. "For me, when somebody messes with the right to vote, I take it
personally," he said to roaring applause.

Clinton's appearance is a clear sign of the gubernatorial race's importance
to national Democrats.

Retaking the governor's office in the nation's largest swing state would
give the long-suffering state party a governing and political platform to
try to reverse decades of conservative rule, build its candidate bench and
help lay the groundwork for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016.

During his trip to Miami, Clinton also visited with his former attorney
general, Janet Reno, who has been ailing with Parkinson's disease. The
former president and Donna Shalala, the president of the University of
Miami and a former Clinton Health & Human Services secretary, spent an hour
with Reno and her family at the family's house in the Kendall section of
Miami.

"We had a wonderful visit with him and it was very kind of him to come,"
said Reno's sister, Maggy Hurchalla. "He told us stories — he was Bill
Clinton at his best."

*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 – 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/>)