Subject: Correct The Record Thursday July 31, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:09:30 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Thursday July 31, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The Hill opinion: Lanny Davis: “Lanny Davis: Americans want a dealmaker,
not an ideologue”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/213868-lanny-davis-americans-want-a-dealmaker-not-an-ideologue>*

“Here are the facts concerning Clinton’s positions on the issues.”

*Politico: “Books test market for Hillary Clinton hostility”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-books-2016-elections-109573.html>*

“Leading the charge against the titles is David Brock, who once made his
living attacking the Clintons and Democrats as a conservative writer but is
now their chief public defender through the group he founded, Media
Matters.”

*Toledo Blade (O.H.): “Clinton remains Ohio voters' choice for U.S. leader”
<http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2014/07/31/Clinton-remains-Ohio-voters-choice-for-U-S-leader.html>*

“Hillary Clinton remains Ohioans' choice for the next president even as
their opinion of the current Democratic occupant of the White House remains
near an all-time low, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll released
today.”

*National Journal: “Should Democratic Candidates Care About Hillary
Clinton’s 2016 Timeline?”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/should-democratic-candidates-care-about-hillary-clinton-s-2016-timeline-20140730>*

“Trying to divine the strategy for Clinton's announcement is like graphing
a Punnett square with two variables. The first variable: Will she or won't
she run? The second: Will she announce her decision early on, or take her
sweet time?”

*The Wire: “The NeverEnding Book Tour: 52 Days of Hillary Clinton... And
Counting”
<http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/the-neverending-book-tour-52-days-of-hillary-clinton-and-counting/375278/>*

“Let's take a look back at where Hillary, and her book, have been in the
last 52 days.”

*The Hill: “Obama pivots to economic legacy”
<http://thehill.com/news/administration/213888-obama-pivots-to-economic-legacy>*

“Those close to the White House say Obama’s success on the economy could
help Hillary Clinton should she run in the 2016 election. And Clinton
allies agree.”

*Time: “Joe Lieberman: Obama Administration ‘Has Gone Off The Track’ On
Israel” <http://time.com/3059340/joe-lieberman-israel-obama-gaza-hillary/>*

“He [Sen. Lieberman] said he believes former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton would keep the Democratic Party engaged in the world.”

*The Week: “Why Mitt Romney is perfectly poised for a comeback in 2016”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/265552/why-mitt-romney-is-perfectly-poised-for-a-comeback-in-2016>*

[Subtitle:] “Nobody has ever rooted for that scrappy Romney kid to overcome
the odds. Until, maybe, now.”

*Articles:*

*The Hill opinion: Lanny Davis: “Lanny Davis: Americans want a dealmaker,
not an ideologue”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/213868-lanny-davis-americans-want-a-dealmaker-not-an-ideologue>*

By Lanny Davis

July 30, 2014, 7:11 p.m. EDT

When it comes to judging someone’s political ideology, many people and
pundits end up arguing about labels and characterizations rather than the
facts and the objective record. For example, I recall recently reading
about someone who attended a Ready for Hillary meeting in Iowa who declared
his concern about Hillary Clinton being a “corporatist.” A few recent
articles refer to Clinton as a “centrist” or not a genuine “populist,”
words meaning different things to different people.

Fortunately, polling data show that most people make their judgments based
on facts, not labels.

So here are the facts concerning Clinton’s positions on the issues.

On economic issues during her eight years in the Senate and to the present,
Clinton consistently supported increasing the minimum wage (and still
does). She opposed former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the
wealthy, favored tax cuts for the middle class and tax credits for student
loans. She consistently voted against repealing the estate tax on
millionaires. She supported the establishment of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, praising Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to this day for
her leadership on this issue.

On social issues, as everyone knows, Clinton led the fight as first lady
for the passage of a national health insurance system and was — and is — a
steadfast supporter of President Obama’s most important achievement as
president: the Affordable Care Act.

She consistently supported programs helping the middle class, regulating
and preserving the environment, and creating opportunities for the poor and
minorities. She has been in favor of comprehensive immigration reform,
including the Dream Act.

She has always supported affirmative action, privacy rights, human rights,
civil rights and civil liberties.

One of the great causes of her life is concern about children and
education. Like Warren and many other Democrats, she is committed to
substantial assistance to public schools and relief to students on their
student loans.

In short, she believes in an active federal government regulating excesses
of the private market for the public interest and public good — the classic
definition of Democratic Party liberalism, from Andrew Jackson to Franklin
Roosevelt to Bill Clinton. She also believes that the country needs a
healthy and vibrant private sector that is the engine of job creation and
lifting the poor and the middle class.

On cultural issues, the former secretary of State supports choice, gay
rights, gay marriage, gun control and strict safeguards to protect the
separation of church and state.

On income inequality, Clinton has expressed great concern. “This is not an
issue that’s going to go away. In fact, it will only get worse unless we
address it now,” she said recently.

“We’ve got to do a better job of getting our economy growing and producing
results and renewing the American Dream so Americans feel ... that the
economy and the political system is not stacked against them, because that
will erode the trust that is at the basis of our democracy.”

Polls prove that most self-described liberal Democrats judge Clinton on the
actual facts of her record, not on someone’s labels. In the most recent
national polls, 72 percent of liberal Democrats say they would support
Clinton for president in 2016 if she were to run. Only 5 percent of
Democrats and 6 percent of liberals think she is “too conservative.”

It is true that Clinton, despite her liberal voting record in the Senate,
was perceived by many Republicans as someone you could work with to get
things done — exactly as the liberal icon, former Sen. Ted Kennedy
(D-Mass.), was seen. That may bother the furthest wing of the Democratic
base, who prefer confrontation and ideological wars to compromise and real
solutions to help people most in need. These are likely the 6 percent of
liberals who think Clinton is “too conservative.”

But fortunately, most Democrats and most Americans prefer fact-driven,
bipartisan solutions rather than confrontation and ideological wars. I
believe Clinton currently shows such strong support as a future president
not only among Democrats but among all Americans.

But there is plenty of time to go. If Hillary Clinton runs for president —
and she has said she has not made that decision yet — she will run hard and
work hard to earn the support of the all voters: red, blue and purple.

*Politico: “Books test market for Hillary Clinton hostility”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-books-2016-elections-109573.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

July 31, 2014, 5:00 a.m. EDT

It’s the summer of anti-Clinton books.

There may be no clearer sign of Hillary Clinton’s political reemergence
than the flurry of new books critical of her — two in the past month alone,
with another pair coming soon. It’s all testing the depth of a market for
anti-Clinton fare that had gone mostly dormant — and triggering a fierce
campaign by her defenders to shame the mainstream media not to write about
the books, lest they lend them legitimacy.

Sales so far are mixed. A widely disparaged book by former New York Times
Magazine Editor Ed Klein, “Blood Feud,” has done well, even knocking
Clinton’s own biography from the top spot on the Times’ best-seller list
over the past month. But a second book published last week by Weekly
Standard writer Daniel Halper, “Clinton Inc.,” has sold just under 3,500
copies, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks book sales for the
publishing industry.

Leading the charge against the titles is David Brock, who once made his
living attacking the Clintons and Democrats as a conservative writer but is
now their chief public defender through the group he founded, Media
Matters. Brock has found himself doing battle with his onetime editor,
veteran conservative Publisher Adam Bellow (son of Saul Bellow), who edited
“Clinton Inc.”

“Conservatives don’t buy books the way other people do,” Brock said in an
interview. “I think they buy them as political statements or to see their
own prejudices and fantasies in black and white … [Hillary Clinton] called
it a cottage industry on ‘The Daily Show’ and that’s right, it’s a
business.”

It’s not clear how broad the interest is these days for any book about
Clinton, pro- or anti-. Her own book about her time at the State
Department, which came out in June, has sold just under 250,000 copies,
including e-book estimates. That’s a solid figure in a depleted publishing
industry but far from the juggernaut her backers hoped for. Klein’s book,
meanwhile, has sold just over 100,000 copies so far, also accounting for
e-book estimates.

After those two, the market may drop off.

“Clinton Inc.,” which looks at the Clintons from the impeachment crisis in
the late 1990s through today, hit the stands to underwhelming figures
(though in a sign of the strength of the book industry and the summer
slowdown, it’s still set to land at No. 10 on the Times best-seller list,
according to his publisher.) The book, along with an upcoming one by Secret
Service chronicler Ronald Kessler, includes rumors about infidelity by Bill
Clinton. The Halper book also focuses on Chelsea Clinton’s rise within her
family’s foundation.

Klein’s book, “Blood Feud,” claims to lay out the messy relationship
between Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, replete
with quotes from alleged conversations between the first families.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been among those who have
questioned the material, saying he found some of the book’s dialogue “odd
in the sense that I don’t know people who speak this way.”

Clinton’s team, and Media Matters, have moved to lump all three books —
plus a fourth one, by WND writer Aaron Klein, about the Benghazi attacks,
due in September — in the same bucket. Media Matters has taken specific
issue with key pieces of Halper’s book, including the author’s reporting on
speculation that Hillary Clinton’s health scare in December 2012 was a
stroke, not a concussion.

“With Klein, Halper and [author Ronald] Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of
despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense for a quick buck, at the
expense of anything even remotely resembling the truth,” a joint statement
from spokesmen for Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton read. “It’s an insult
to readers [and] authors, and should be reserved for the fiction bin, if
not the trash.”

In a squeeze on mainstream media, the Clintons added of the authors: “Their
behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media
outlets who know with every fiber of their being that this is complete crap
should know not to get down in the gutter with them and spread their lies.
But if anyone isn’t sure, let’s strap all three to a polygraph machine on
live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

The attacks on anti-Hillary books is part of Clinton lore. In 1999, Gail
Sheehy’s “Hillary Choice” was lambasted by Clinton loyalists as a piece of
overreaching psychobabble. In the years since, Clinton allies have
frequently deployed a similar effort to undercut unauthorized books about
the former first lady, stoking doubt about their credibility by finding,
and amplifying, inaccuracies in them. In the current go-around, most of the
coverage of the books has been in conservative media outlets.

The last surge in the anti-Clinton book market was around 2005. That was
when Ed Klein, through Penguin Books, published “The Truth about Hillary.”
Brock and other Clinton allies savaged the book, and Penguin. It went on to
be a commercial success, but the credibility gap was established.
HarperCollins, which published “Clinton Inc.,” dropped plans to publish Ed
Klein’s latest Clinton book earlier this year, amid concerns about his
reporting.

Other books that were printed soon after failed to take off.

Marji Ross, the president of Regnery — the conservative publishing house
that picked up Ed Klein’s latest book — acknowledged there have been “a
number of anti-Hillary books that haven’t worked in the years since [she
left the White House], and we just felt that the time was right.”

As for allegations of a lack of truthfulness and a plethora of quotes that
sound suspect in Klein’s work, she insisted, “No one’s ever been able to
point to something specific that he had in one of his books that is untrue.”

Ross said the release date for “Blood Feud” was moved up, the thinking
being that “anyone who wasn’t a fan of hers would be hungering for some
kind of news from the other side” after her own book tour.

Brock, who gained fame in 1993 for writing a book about Anita Hill that was
edited by Bellow, has witnessed the rise and fall of anti-Clinton books up
close. His own, which was initially supposed to be a critical book that
ended up as a positive look at Hillary Clinton, was also edited by Bellow.

“When I started reading [“Clinton Inc.”], I started noticing what I thought
were Adam Bellow touches,” Brock said.

“He wants his books to be seen as serious and well-researched and he works
really hard to give them that patina, and that means sanding down the rough
edges to fool mainstream reviewers,” Brock added, explaining that that
formula maximized sales of his own book on Hill.

In the case of “Clinton Inc.,” though, Brock said the “red meat” got
“overcooked by Adam, and then nobody wants it.”

Bellow, who declined to be interviewed, wrote in an email that the Halper
book is off to “a very good start. We have a tremendous media lineup in
place and expect the book to continue to sell well through the summer and
into the fall.”

As for the criticism from Brock, Bellow added: “I don’t plan on getting
into a pissing match with David. However, since he has cast me as some kind
of evil conservative publishing wizard I would just like to note that I
also published his Hillary book and that I backed him up completely when he
turned in a positive portrait instead of the hit job he originally pitched.

“We would have been within our rights to cancel the book but I made sure
that it got published and that his full advance was paid,” Bellow added.
“And I never even got invited to his beach house in Rehoboth!”

Halper, who wrote a first-person account for POLITICO Magazine in which he
claimed to have been hounded by Clinton allies during the reporting of his
book, said his book is a reported work that also takes on some of Hillary
Clinton’s critics.

“I try my best to be fair to all sides,” said Halper, whose book had a
well-timed title, at a moment when people are examining the Clintons’
wealth. “The Clintons have been criticized by a number of people over the
years, from both the right and the left. Some of it is rightfully so and
some of it is overboard.”

Kessler, noting he has broken several stories involving the Secret Service,
also took issue with the notion that his book isn’t a serious work of
journalism.

“The fact is that my book is entirely nonpartisan and presents startling
revelations about both Republicans — including some of the saints of the
GOP — and Democrats, as well as about Secret Service laxness and corner
cutting that threaten the life of the president,” said Kessler, whose book
is expected to have a chapter on Hillary and a prologue related to Bill
Clinton. He added that the book, which comes out next week, includes
positive passages about Barack and Michelle Obama. “Not exactly a political
hatchet job!”

Regardless of criticism, one publishing source predicted that Kessler’s
book would sell, since he has a following based on past books. And Aaron
Klein’s book would appeal to a different audience, the publishing source
said, a subset of readers deeply interested in the Benghazi attacks and
convinced of an administration coverup.

Roger Stone, the former Richard Nixon operative and proud political
dirty-trickster, predicted that the current market for anti-Clinton books
will prove robust.

“The one segment of the book market this is thriving is conservatives,”
Stone said. “They read. The tabloids also show there is also an insatiable
public interest in any gossip about the Clintons.” And “it will only get
bigger if she runs.”

*Toledo Blade (O.H.): “Clinton remains Ohio voters' choice for U.S. leader”
<http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2014/07/31/Clinton-remains-Ohio-voters-choice-for-U-S-leader.html>*

By Jim Provance

July 31, 2014

COLUMBUS — Hillary Clinton remains Ohioans' choice for the next president
even as their opinion of the current Democratic occupant of the White House
remains near an all-time low, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll
released today.

Ms. Clinton — the former first lady, U.S. senator, and secretary of state —
would defeat all Republican comers in hypothetical 2016 match-ups,
including one with Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

If that election were held today, 47 percent of registered Ohio voters say
they'd vote for Clinton compared to 40 percent who say they'd prefer the
GOP governor currently seeking re-election to his current job.

A Quinnipiac Poll released Wednesday showed Governor Kasich with a 12-point
lead over his Democratic challenger, Cuyahoga County Executive Ed
FitzGerald, to keep his current job.

The best GOP performer against Ms. Clinton is U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, of
Kentucky, who would get 42 percent of the vote to Ms. Clinton's 46 percent.
That's within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage
points.

In no scenario does she score higher than 50 percent. She does, however,
have a 52 percent favorability rating among Ohio's registered voters.

"Obviously there is a long way to go until 2016, but at this point the
political problems the president is encountering are not rubbing off on
her,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll.

Thirty-six percent of those questioned approve of the job performance of
President Barack Obama, less than two years after the Buckeye State helped
to keep him in the White House. Fifty-nine percent disapprove, slightly
above the record low of 34 percent-to-61 percent last November, the lowest
ever recorded by Quinnipiac in the nine states where the Connecticut-based
university poll regularly questions voters.

“Only three in 10 men or independent voters approve of his job performance,
a far cry from almost two years ago where he won the nation’s most
important swing state, and the Democratic approval rating in the low 70s is
anemic, at best." Mr. Brown said.

The poll has Ms. Clinton defeating former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush 48 percent
to 27 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie 46 percent to 37 percent.

At one point, Mr. Christie had been one of Ms. Clinton's strongest
competitors for the Buckeye vote, but he has fallen in their opinion since
the bridge scandal early this year. He is now underwater with 34 percent
having a favorable opinion of him compared to 36 percent who do not.

Ms. Clinton's numbers are strongest among women, although Mr. Paul is the
only Republican who currently beats her in Ohio among independents.

The university questioned 1,366 registered voters between July 24 and 28.

*National Journal: “Should Democratic Candidates Care About Hillary
Clinton’s 2016 Timeline?”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/should-democratic-candidates-care-about-hillary-clinton-s-2016-timeline-20140730>*

By Emma Roller

July 30, 2014

[Subtitle:] Long-lasting question marks around a possible Clinton
presidential run could leave Democrats unprepared for 2016.

Writing about the choice in front of Hillary Clinton—a hard choice, if you
will—is like an advanced course in hypotheticals.

Trying to divine the strategy for Clinton's announcement is like graphing a
Punnett square with two variables. The first variable: Will she or won't
she run? The second: Will she announce her decision early on, or take her
sweet time?

Either way, Clinton's decision is sure to delight some Democratic
politicians and stymie others. If she announces her candidacy too early,
that opens the floodgates to conservative attacks. Diametrically, if she
announces late in the game that she is not going to run, other Democrats
who were waiting on her go-ahead may find it's too late to build up their
own campaigns.

It's unlikely that Clinton will announce early either way, which leaves us
with two options. Option one: She announces late that she is running, thus
confirming the idea everyone has been taking for granted for at least the
past six months, and sinking every other Democrat's hopes of running a
competitive campaign. Option two: Clinton announces in early 2015 that no,
she's not running—thus rendering the months of think pieces totally
useless, and opening up the nomination to someone you're likely not
thinking too much about.

If Clinton decides not to run, it could be an enormous boon to one of her
fellow Democrats in particular. According to Steve McMahon, a presidential
campaign veteran and the cofounder of the political consulting firm Purple
Strategies, Clinton's un-candidacy would all but open the door for
Democratic Nominee Joe Biden, and the vice president wouldn't hurt for lack
of setup time.

"It's hers to lose if she wants it, but she may not want it," McMahon said.
"If she doesn't run, then there will be a big field, but the longer it
takes for the field to materialize, the weaker everybody in it—except Joe
Biden—will be."

This theory, of course, discounts the fact that while there is a fledgling
"Run, Liz, Run" movement there's no "Ready for Joe" movement yet. A recent
CNN poll found that 67 percent of likely Democratic voters would vote for
Clinton, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Biden each trailing her by at least
50 points. Warren received 10 percent to Biden's 8 percent.

But what a Biden candidacy lacks in grassroots enthusiasm would be more
than made up for with a well-oiled campaign apparatus.

"There's no barrier for him," McMahon said. "He's vice president, he's run
before, he would inherit the bulk of the Obama campaign machinery and
people, and he would be running 60 miles an hour while everybody else was
putting on their track shoes."

One Democratic consultant noted that the 2016 cycle is odd because of the
lack of Democratic candidates who are at least openly flirting with running
at this stage.

"It's very strange that in 2014, you don't see any of that," the
consultant, who asked to be quoted anonymously because of work with
potential candidates, said. "And I think it's because many national
Democrats are afraid that it will look like they are positioning themselves
against Clinton."

The general attitude of the Democratic Party leaves Clinton in an enviable
position.

"I think it's in her best interest to wait," the consultant said. "That
doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the Democratic Party."

Steve McMahon agrees. "Given the level of organization that's popped up
around her, she certainly isn't harmed by waiting," he said. "If I were
Hillary Clinton, I would be in absolutely no hurry to decide or announce
what I'm doing. If I were somebody else who wants to run for president, I
would be desperate to get an answer from her as quickly as possible."

That desperation has left Democrats (and political reporters) looking for
any tell-tale dog whistles from Clinton—traveling to Iowa or New Hampshire,
for instance. But Clinton has been wary not to send any signals.

Meanwhile, other national Democrats have used their star power in local
races. Warren recently headlined a New Hampshire fundraiser for Sen. Jeanne
Shaheen, and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has campaigned for candidates in
New Hampshire and Iowa.

But Warren's campaign work and her rising star in the party—despite her
oft-repeated denial that she is running for president—are nothing compared
with Clinton's reputation among the well-heeled Democratic donor base. As
one New York donor recently told the Daily Beast, "If Elizabeth called me
up and said, 'I am thinking of running for president,' I would say,
'Elizabeth, are you out of your [expletive] mind?' "

Michael McCurry, a former press secretary to Bill Clinton, said the
pressure for Clinton to announce her run could be ratcheted up, depending
on the outcome of the midterm elections.

"If Democrats lose the Senate in November, then every Democrat will believe
that a Democratic president is all that stands between a GOP Congress and
reversing some of the progress made in the last generation or so," McCurry
said in an email. "Because if she is NOT running, then someone needs time
and opportunity to build to her level of national support and name
recognition."

Joe Trippi, a veteran of Democratic presidential campaigns, says other
Democrats who want to run shouldn't hold their breath waiting for Clinton.

"There are plenty of people like Martin O'Malley who are out there, going
to Iowa, going to New Hampshire, putting the fundraising structure in place
if they decide to go," Trippi told National Journal. "And if somebody isn't
doing that because they think Hillary Clinton's running ... then they
deserve to lose."

Clinton has said she would make her announcement (and delete the "TBD" line
from her Twitter bio) in "early 2015." But what does history say about when
candidates are likely to get into the race?

The New Hampshire primary—the first presidential primary in the country—is
often used as a benchmark for when candidates should throw their hat into
the ring. Before 1972, no presidential nominees declared their candidacy
until roughly six months, or 200 days, before the New Hampshire primary.
But since 1996, each party's presidential nominee has announced his
candidacy earlier, ahead of that six-month mark. In 2008, both John McCain
and Barack Obama announced their candidacies more than 300 days ahead of
the New Hampshire primary.

Some perspective: We are still more than 500 days out from the New
Hampshire primary, which will take place on Jan. 26, 2016. So, going by the
300-day benchmark, Clinton has until roughly April 2015 to announce her
decision—at least. That could mean eight more excruciating months for
pundits and waffling Democratic candidates alike.

But Clinton could just as easily wait longer to announce her decision and
draw out the suspense. And why not? She has every reason to take her time
announcing a decision, and hold off the inevitable oppo-avalanche.

"I don't think there are really any real political consequences to her for
waiting," Trippi said. "In fact, I think it's to her advantage to wait as
long as she wants."

*The Wire: “The NeverEnding Book Tour: 52 Days of Hillary Clinton... And
Counting”
<http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/07/the-neverending-book-tour-52-days-of-hillary-clinton-and-counting/375278/>*

By David Ludwig

July 30, 2014, 3:58 p.m. EDT

During her four-year tenure as head of the State Department, Hillary
Clinton traveled 956,733 miles and visited 112 countries, the most ever by
a U.S. Secretary of State. Leaving aside the fact that anyone who served
before the airplane didn't have much of a fighting chance, that's still a
pretty impressive schedule to keep, and it's one that Hillary looks like
she's trying to replicate on her current book tour.

For the last 52 days HRC has been the lone competitor in her own Tour de
France, peddling from book stores, to universities, to interviews, to book
stores in England: Stage 1: Dianne Sawyer; Stage 2: A Costco in Virginia;
Stage 3: Okay you get the idea.

But unlike the actual Tour de France, this one doesn't seem to have an end
date. No, the Tour de Hillary, which started on June 10, is showing no
signs of stopping, leaving many of us asking if the eventual sprint to the
finish line could include a motorcade traveling down Pennsylvania Avenue
during the 2016 Inaugural Parade.

Let's take a look back at where Hillary, and her book, have been in the
last 52 days.

Monday, June 9: Hillary gets off to a rocky start, telling ABC's Dianne
Sawyer that the former First Family were "dead broke" after leaving the
White House in 2000.

Tuesday, June 10: Hillary sits down with Robin Roberts on Good Morning
America, then does a book signing at Barnes and Nobles in Union Square in
New York City.

Wednesday, June 11: Hillary travels to her hometown of Chicago for an
interview with Mayor and longtime Clinton supporter Rahm Emanuel at the
Harris Theater.

Thursday, June 12: Hillary has a tense exchange over gay marriage with
NPR's Terry Gross, the same day as her interview on BBC's of Newsnight
aired in England.

Friday, June 13: Hillary did a book signing at a Philadelphia library at
11:30am, then traveled south to D.C. for a "conversation" at George
Washington University at 6pm.

Saturday, June 14:  While signing copies of her book, Hillary casually ran
into her BFF Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor at a Costco in
Arlington, Virginia.

Sunday, June 15:  Hillary looked at pictures from her Wellesley College
graduation on CBS Sunday Morning with Jane Pauley. "Yes. Boy, I had long,
long hair," she said.

Monday, June 16: Hillary traveled north, first to Toronto, Canada in the
afternoon and then to the Harvard Book Store in Cambridge, Massachusetts
that evening.

Tuesday, June 17: Back in Washington D.C., Hillary briefly stops her
motorcade to greet an intern from the Republican Campaign Committee who is
dressed as a giant squirrel wearing a tee shirt reading "another Clinton in
the White House is nuts." She then continued on to a CNN town hall with
Christiane Amanpour, wrapping things up with a Fox News interview with Bret
Baier and Greta Van Susteren.

Wednesday, June 18:  Hillary flew to Edmonton in Alberta, Canada to tell
more Canadians about her book. Speaking on both a literal and figurative
level, Hillary told the packed house "No two countries are closer than we
are."

Thursday, June 19:  Hillary met Glee Star Chris Colfer at a signing in Los
Angeles.

Friday, June 20: Another day in L.A., another celebrity's book to sign.
This time it was music superstar Katy Perry who offered to write Hillary a
campaign song.

The same day Hillary headed to Austin, Texas where she did another signing
at the store BookPeople followed by a speech at the Long Center where she
talked about nights spent at the music venue The Armadillo in 1972, The
Texas Tribune reported.

Saturday, June 21: An interview with Hillary was published in The
Guardian.  "I wish I had some stock in a scrunchie company," she told Ed
Pilkington.

Sunday, June 22: Hillary went west to Kansas City, Montana for a speech at
The Midland Theater where a ticket came with an autographed copy of Hard
Choices.

Monday, June 23: Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver, Colorado hosted
Hillary for a book signing. She made no public trips to Colorado's
recreational marijuana stores.

Wednesday, June 25: Hillary hit up Warwicks in La Jolla, California for a
signing, also appearing on the PBS NewsHour in an interview with Gwen Ifill
that night.

Thursday, June 26: In San Francisco, Hillary got a visit from former Mayor
Willie Brown at her Hard Choices signing before doing an event at the
Orpheum Theater.

Friday, June 27: Hillary spent the morning in Little Rock, Arkansas, then
traveled to Dayton, Ohio — Swing state. Cough — for another book signing
later that afternoon.

Sunday, June 29: Hillary traveled to the town of Chappaqua, New York where
she has owned a house since mounting her successful campaign for Senate in
1999.

Monday, June 30: Hillary sat down with Aspen Institute CEO Walter Isaacson
for a conversation at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which was broadcast live on
Facebook.

Thursday, July 3: Starting the European portion of her tour, Hillary
traveled across the pond, visiting Europe's largest bookstore, Waterstones
Piccadilly in London.

Friday, July 4:  In London, HRC stopped by the set of ITV's This Morning,
drawing criticism from Red Alert Politics for "[betraying] the American
holiday of July 4."

Saturday, July 5: The BBC aired an interview with Hillary on Woman's Hour.

Sunday, July 6:  At The Schiller Theater in Berlin, Hillary praised German
Chancellor Angela Merkel for her style (they both love pant suits) and
leadership. "I say in the book I think she is the greatest leader in
Europe..." she told the crowd.

Tuesday, July 8: On a rainy day in Paris, French President Francois
Hollande welcomed Hillary (and her book) to the Elysee Palace with a smile
and an umbrella.

Tuesday, July 15: Hillary joked with comedian Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

Thursday, July 17:  With enough copies of Hard Choices for over a thousand
attendees, Hillary signed her book at Bookends in Rigewood, New Jersey.

Friday, July 18: Hillary's interview on The Charlie Rose Show aired on PBS.

Saturday, July 19:  Off to another signing. This time in Madison,
Connecticut.

Sunday, July 20: Governor Mark Dayton joined Hillary at a signing in St.
Paul Minnesota. "I would have waited a week," Hillary enthusiast Shar
Anderson told Fox 9 News . "I would have waited out in the sun. I would
have waited for anything."

Thursday, July 24: Hillary talked about her book with The New York Time's
John Harwood in an interview that aired on NPR's "On Point with Tom
Ashbrook."

Saturday, July 26:  Hillary greeted fans at Sam's Club in Seekonk,
Massachusetts.

Sunday, July 27: Fareed Zakaria's interview with Hillary aired on his GPS
on CNN.

Tuesday, July 29: The traveling book saleswoman was back in New York
yesterday, this time for an event upstate at a bookstore in the town of
Saratoga Springs.

And there's more to come... Yes, just yesterday the website for Hard
Choices added three more scheduled appearances, including one on Martha's
Vineyard August 13, four days into President Obama's two-week vacation on
the Massachusetts island.

Could Hillary's neverending book tour have have a Presidential visit in its
future?

*The Hill: “Obama pivots to economic legacy”
<http://thehill.com/news/administration/213888-obama-pivots-to-economic-legacy>*

By Amie Parnes and Peter Schroeder

July 31, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT

President Obama is tying his legacy to a growing economy, seizing on the
administration’s successes in boosting the nation during financial woes.

Bolstered by a string of positive economic reports, the administration
hopes it can increase Democrats’ chances of holding the Senate this fall by
highlighting Obama’s stewardship of the economy.

More broadly, the White House hopes to ride the wave of an economic
recovery to improve Obama’s approval numbers over the final two years of
his presidency, setting up a possible Democratic successor at the White
House.

“It’s the best possible legacy item,” said one former senior administration
official. “The elections in 2008 and 2012 were all about the economy and if
the nation could bounce back after such terrible times. And look, it shows
that, not only did we bounce back, but things are going to an even better
place, one where a potential predecessor could build a foundation.”

On Wednesday, the Commerce Department said the economy grew at a 4 percent
annual rate in the second quarter. The report also included revised figures
for 2013 that showed much stronger growth at the end of last year.

In the final three months of 2013, the economy expanded at a 3.5 percent
rate, up from the previous estimate of 2.6 percent. And in the third
quarter, growth was revised to 4.5 percent from 4.1 percent.

Hours after the report was released, Obama adopted a confident and fiery
tone while making remarks on the economy.

For much of his speech in Kansas City, Mo., he ticked off the nation’s
economic successes. Since he took over at the helm, millions of new jobs
have been added, he said.

“Manufacturing is back,” he said. And “our energy, our technology, our auto
industries, they’re all booming.”

Time and again, he recalled where the nation stood at the height of the
financial crisis when he entered the Oval Office at the beginning of 2009.

“The crisis that hit near the end of my campaign back in 2008, it would end
up costing millions of Americans their jobs, their homes, their sense of
security,” Obama told the packed crowd at a theater in the Show Me State.
“But we have fought back. We have got back on our feet. We have dusted
ourselves off.”

The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs per month for the past five
months ahead of the release of a new jobs report on Friday, helping to
lower the unemployment rate to 6.1 percent. Economists expect that Friday’s
report will also be over 200,000 jobs.

“None of this is an accident,” Obama said on Wednesday. “It’s thanks to the
decisions we made early on. And now America has recovered faster and come
farther than just about any other advanced country on earth.”

Republicans argue the country is experiencing the slowest economic recovery
since a recession on record, and they say Obama’s White House is to blame.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), chairman of Congress’s Joint Economic
Committee, doubled over with laughter when asked about the president’s
legacy on the economy.

“Seriously?!” he said.

The GOP has pointed to ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul,
arguing regulations from those laws have led to economic uncertainties that
have slowed the growth of business.

Republicans regularly hammer the Senate for not taking up jobs bills passed
by the lower chamber.

Brady acknowledged that the president was handed a very rough situation
when he took power, but said Obama has had more than enough time to put
together a recovery that should be far more robust at this point.

“The truth is, the weakest economic recovery in President Obama’s lifetime
is his own,” he said. “We’re wildly applauding a C-minus economic
performance.”

But White House aides say Obama will tout the economy as a legacy item in
the coming months.

“The president will continue to spend time traveling across the country
talking to the American people about his domestic priority: expanding
economic opportunity for the middle class,” one White House official said
on Wednesday.

“We’ve made important progress over the last several years,” the official
continued, before adding, “but the president believes there is more we can
do.”

Those close to the White House say Obama’s success on the economy could
help Hillary Clinton should she run in the 2016 election. And Clinton
allies agree.

“I think she will highlight the successful economic initiatives the
president has put in place,” one source close to Clintonworld said. “But if
she runs, she will run on her own record and will tout her own policy
proposals to keep our economy on track and moving forward.”

In his speech on Wednesday, a flip Obama had some fun with House
Republicans, alluding to the fact that there could be a Democratic
president in office after he leaves in 2017.

“I know they’re not that happy that I’m president, but that’s OK,” he said.
“Come on, I’ve only got a couple of years left. Come on, let’s get some
work done. Then you can be mad at the next president.”

*Time: “Joe Lieberman: Obama Administration ‘Has Gone Off The Track’ On
Israel” <http://time.com/3059340/joe-lieberman-israel-obama-gaza-hillary/>*

By Zeke J. Miller

July 30, 2014

[Subtitle:] The former Democratic Vice Presidential
nominee-turned-independent also says he is watching the rise of Rand Paul
"with concern."

After 24 years representing Connecticut in the Senate, Joe Lieberman left
Washington in Jan. 2013 as a man without a party—a
Democrat-turned-independent-turned-GOP-endorser.

Speaking to TIME 18 months later, Lieberman is content with his decision to
quit the Senate, but still has doubts about Washington’s handling of
domestic issues and global crises. “I do feel that the Obama administration
has gone off the track in the efforts to broker a ceasefire,” he says,
saying that the reported terms of a U.S.-offered agreement would have left
Hamas stronger from its ongoing conflict with Israel.

The former Democratic vice presidential nominee said he takes issue with
the growing “neo-isolationism” within the Democratic and Republican
parties, saying he’s watched the rise of Sen. Rand Paul “with concern.”
“The world suffers and the American people suffer eventually both in terms
of our security and our prosperity—and ultimately our freedom—if we’re not
engaged in problems elsewhere,” he says.

Lieberman said he has yet to make a decision about who to endorse in 2016,
after drawing fire from Democrats for his outspoken support for Sen. John
McCain over then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008. But he said he believes former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would keep the Democratic Party engaged
in the world.

Lieberman was recently named the inaugural Joseph Lieberman Chair in Public
Policy and Public Service at Yeshiva University where he will deliver
lectures and teach in the upcoming academic year. Lieberman says he hopes
to convince young people to pursue public service despite the gridlock in
Washington.

The following conversation has been lightly condensed and edited:

Looking at the dysfunction in Washington today, are you glad you left
Congress? How do you plan on encouraging young people to go into public
service in this political climate?

I didn’t leave because of the partisanship and the lack of getting anything
done, but it made it a lot easier to leave. I will tell you that my last
two years was the least productive of my 24 for me and for the Congress
really. And I watch it needless to say from here with a sense of, oh,
disappointment, frustration, and in some sense embarrassment because I
still feel an identity with the institution. And I know how important it is
that it gets some problems solved.

Notwithstanding all of that, or maybe in some sense because of all the
dysfunction in the federal government and government generally, but the
federal government particularly, people like me have to try to convince
students that it’s worth getting involved and that they can still make a
difference and maybe together with others of like mind and heart they can
actually change things for the better. I look back on my years in public
service with a lot of gratitude for the various things that I was able to
do. Part of my message to the students at YU is going to be I never got,
honestly, anything significant done without the support of people in the
Republican Party. In other words, I never felt that I could do it alone as
a Democrat, and obviously in my last term as an independent I needed
support of people in both parties. It’s all about a willingness to put—as
formalistic as it sounds—to put the interests of country ahead of the
interests of party or ideology.

How do you view the turmoil in the world today and the American response,
particularly to the conflict in Gaza?

These events have occurred of their own momentum. They have a life of their
own. On the other hand, I’m afraid that the U.S. has sent a message that
we’re going to be less engaged in the world than we have been at other
times in our history and I’m afraid that encourages some others to try to
take advantage of us and our allies. It’s not just President Obama and the
U.S. government, I think in many ways it’s the Europeans as well. And I’m
afraid that may have encouraged Putin to seize the moment and seize Crimea.
So the world suffers and the American people suffer eventually both in
terms of our security and our prosperity—and ultimately our freedom—if
we’re not engaged in problems elsewhere. So that’s a general statement.

I think in the Hamas-Israel conflict, which is just one of a broader series
of conflicts going on in the middle east, the administration has been
strong in supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against the Hamas
missile attacks and the Hamas terrorist attacks. But lately, I do feel that
the Obama administration has gone off the track in the efforts to broker a
ceasefire, as much as everybody would like to see the violence stop.
Because I think those efforts, if they had been pushed any harder—it seems
like they have fallen by the wayside now—would have really allowed Hamas to
emerge from this much stronger than they went into it and they began this.
Israel is our ally and Israel is a democracy and Israel is governed by the
rule of law. Hamas is a terrorist organization that is a declared enemy of
the U.S. as well as Israel. And the last proposal made by Secretary Kerry,
who I greatly admire and like, but nonetheless if the proposal was as it
was reported, it really would have strengthened Hamas and weakened Israel.
And in some sense coincidentally strengthened Qatar, Turkey, and Iran who
are backing Hamas and weakened our other allies in the Arab world like
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and the Palestinian Authority who
don’t want to see Hamas strengthened. So I think it was a mistake and I’m
glad it seems to have fallen by the wayside and I hope the Secretary tries
again but with another plan.

Looking ahead to the 2016 election, what do you make of the field. Many
Democrats are coalescing around former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
do you think you will as well?

I don’t know yet. It’s good to be out of active politics and watching it.
I’ve known Secretary Clinton for a long time. We met briefly, though I got
to know President Clinton much better, when they were both at Yale Law
School. And I’ve known them well. So I have a lot of respect for Hillary
Clinton and some of the things that I’ve worried about in both the Obama
administration and the drift of the Democratic party which is away from
American international leadership, I hope and believe would not be true
with Hillary Clinton as the candidate, and if she’s elected, as the
president. But it’s much too early for me, anyway, to decide what or
whether or if anybody cares I will do in this campaign. The more
fascinating part of the campaign, of course, will be the Republican
presidential primaries.

What do you make of the rise of Sen. Rand Paul and the Republican Party’s
isolationist wing.

I’ve watched it with concern, because honestly, as a pro-defense Democrat,
there’s a way in which I relied for some period of time on the
Republicans—and some Democrats, but not other Democrats—to support strong
defense, muscular foreign policy, etc. Now there is a certain attrition
happening on the Republican side, mostly among the so-called libertarians
and to a certain extent among tea party people who are so focused on
reducing taxes that they seem more willing than Republicans have in recent
years to cut back on support of America’s defense. There is—I don’t think
any of us have found the right word for it, so I opt for neo-isolationism.
There is a kind neo-isolationism, certainly a retrenchment from
internationalism going on in both parties and to me it’s troubling. It’s
troubling for the future of the country.

How did this appointment come about? What are you hoping to accomplish?

It ended up with an unexpected result. Richard Joel, the president of YU,
reached out to me last year about wanting to do something in my name at YU
in public policy. For the obvious reason, I suppose, that I am both
Orthodox Jewish and was involved in public service. I was touched and
honored by that. Because I hoped and still do that it’s going to be a
permanent, endowed chair, but then they surprised me toward the end of the
process asking me to be the first occupant of the chair, which I’ll do for
a while as long as it’s working for me and the students, but i’m exciting
about it. It’s very much part time. I’m going to give three public lectures
in the fall semester in various schools of the university, probably
starting with one Yeshiva College, one at Stern [College for Women], and
then one at Cardozo [Law School]. And then in the second semester I will
teach an undergraduate course in public policy, public service. So I’m
looking forward to it. I actually taught this last semester at Columbia law
School and I’m going to repeat that course this fall and I enjoyed it
immensely, more than I expected actually. It was just very rewarding to try
to convey what I experienced and learned to the next generation of
students, some of whom, hopefully, will consider public service.

I’ve taught college courses way back to the late 70s and early 80s at Yale.
So those were residential college seminars and I enjoyed that too. But I
must say that I’m at a different stage of my life. I finished my time in
elected office, I look back at it with great gratitude that I had the
opportunities I did. There is no question I was influenced by people who
were in once sense or another teachers of mine. So I view this as an
opportunity both to try to inform students today about public policy, but
also to hopefully attract some of them into public service.

*The Week: “Why Mitt Romney is perfectly poised for a comeback in 2016”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/265552/why-mitt-romney-is-perfectly-poised-for-a-comeback-in-2016>*

By Matt K. Lewis

July 31, 2014, 6:18 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Nobody has ever rooted for that scrappy Romney kid to overcome
the odds. Until, maybe, now.

Perhaps it says something about us that our most interesting presidential
candidates swear they won't run for president. This is true of Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, and it's increasingly true of Mitt Romney.

As regular readers of this column know, I've never been much of a Romney
booster. I've also expressed skepticism about the notion he would run
again. But let's not let 'a foolish consistency' cloud our judgment. There
is reason to believe that a third try wouldn't be an absurd venture.

First, in the intervening years since 2012 — and on a range of issues, not
the least of which is Russia — Romney has been proven right. And second —
perhaps more importantly — one of the reasons so many observers viscerally
disliked Romney was the cloying "goody-goody" quality that this fortunate
son seemed to ooze. But do you know what the cure for that is? Losing.

That's right, Mitt Romney the scrappy underdog — the loser who's out to
redeem himself — is a more attractive Mitt.

You know the term, "lovable loser?" He should embrace it.

There's a reason why Rocky gets knocked out by "Clubber" Lang early on in
Rocky III. The rest of the movie is about the comeback. This journey
involves Rocky shedding the trappings of fame and wealth — and getting real.

Romney would similarly have to get real. No more phoniness. No more telling
us what he thinks we want to hear. He would have to be utterly authentic,
and he would have to show that losing caused him to encounter pain and
reflection. (The good news is that the Netflix film, Mitt, already helped
show this side of Romney.)

Could Romney III be like Rocky III? Maybe, if the narrative is true and
convincing.

There's a reason the "comeback" trope resonates with us (aside from Rocky,
it's a prevalent theme in almost every boxing movie, ranging from The
Fighter to Cinderella Man). These tropes are timeless precisely because
they tap into something that we intuitively understand about nobility,
courage, and humility.

People like comebacks. We can identify with the guy or gal who is
struggling to redeem themselves (and nobody has ever identified with Mitt
Romney before).

Ironically, Romney is almost tailor made to benefit from having lost
before. What might be a devastating blow to most political figures — a
blight on their resume — actually transforms Romney into a more compelling
candidate. Having struggled and stumbled is, for Romney, at least, a
feature, not a bug. The same could be said for Hillary Clinton, who only
became a compelling candidate in 2008 when she lost her frontrunner status.

People who were hated the first time around — when their lives seemed
charmed — can, by facing adversity and overcoming the odds, transform into
sympathetic figures — heroes, even — that we actually root for (think
Robert Downey, Jr.). Nobody has ever rooted for that scrappy Romney kid to
overcome the odds. Until, maybe, now.

Someone who knows a thing or two about comebacks is Pat Buchanan. In fact,
his new book is called The Greatest Comeback; How Richard Nixon Rose from
Defeat to Create the New Majority.

During a recent discussion, I asked Buchanan about the prospects of Mitt
Romney taking a page from the Nixon playbook. After all, George Romney
figures prominently into the Nixon comeback story. "First, I admire that
Romney is thinking of this," Buchanan told me during a recent podcast
discussion, "and he ought to follow what's in his heart."

Buchanan, whose sister was a Romney advisor, believes that Romney should
take a page from the Nixon handbook. Having lost to Kennedy in 1960, and
then having lost the 1962 gubernatorial election in California, Nixon was
assumed politically dead. But he was revived by working hard for other
candidates — he worked hard for conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964, and
backed liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller's candidacy in New York — just
to name two of the many GOPers he hit the hustings for between 1962 and
1968.

"If I were Romney, there's no doubt I would do it," Buchanan (who thrice
ran for president, himself) continued, adding: "But I'm not him."

*Calendar:*

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

·  August 6 – Huntington, NY: Sec. Clinton signs books at Book Revue (
HillaryClintonMemoir.com
<http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/long_island_book_signing>)

·  August 9 – Water Mill, NY: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the Clinton
Foundation at the home of George and Joan Hornig (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/17/for-50000-best-dinner-seats-with-the-clintons-in-the-hamptons/>
)

·  August 13 – Martha’s Vinyard, MA: Sec. Clinton signs books at Bunch of
Grapes (HillaryClintonMemoir.com
<http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/martha_s_vineyard_book_signing>)

·  August 16 – East Hampton, New York: Sec. Clinton signs books at
Bookhampton East Hampton (HillaryClintonMemoir.com
<http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/long_island_book_signing2>)

·  August 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes Nexenta’s OpenSDx
Summit (BusinessWire
<http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140702005709/en/Secretary-State-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Deliver-Keynote#.U7QoafldV8E>
)

·  September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean
Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today
<http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html>
)

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

·  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 13-16 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/keynotes.jsp>)

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