Subject: Correct The Record Monday July 28, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:04:14 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Monday July 28, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*National Journal: Neera Tanden: “Working Mother, Washington Powerhouse?
Good Luck.”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/working-mother-washington-powerhouse-good-luck-20140725>*

“In late 2006, my old boss Hillary Clinton started talking to me about the
ideas that would fuel her presidential campaign.”

*CNN: “Clinton jokes: Darth Vader would not be my choice for president”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/27/clinton-jokes-darth-vader-would-not-be-my-choice-for-president/>*

“Instead, Clinton would prefer someone with a not-so-dark disposition.
‘Somebody of perhaps a slightly more positive attitude in his
presentation,’ she said.”

*The Telegraph (U.K.): “He's arrogant, tough, insecure and charming – but
he has such bright blue eyes: Hillary Clinton's verdict on Vladimir Putin”
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10994389/Hes-arrogant-tough-insecure-and-charming-but-he-has-such-bright-blue-eyes-Hillary-Clintons-verdict-on-Vladimir-Putin.html>*

[Subtitle:] “Hillary Clinton says she warned White House Vladimir Putin
would be ‘more aggressive’ in second shot as Russian president”

*The Hill: “Clinton not running away from Wall Street”
<http://thehill.com/policy/finance/213434-clinton-doesnt-run-away-from-wall-street>*

“As cries from within her own party grow louder for the all-but-declared
2016 Democratic presidential candidate to distance herself from high
finance’s titans, Clinton is continuing to address Wall Street audiences.”

*Politico blog: Politico Now: “Albright: 'The world is a mess'”
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/07/albright-the-world-is-a-mess-192914.html?hp=l1>*

“Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Sunday offered a pithy
summary of recent international events: ‘To put it mildly: the world is a
mess.’”

*CNN: “British, U.S. diplomats out of Libya as militia fighting rages”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/world/meast/libya-embassy-evacuations/>*

“GOP critics say they plan to make Benghazi an issue for former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, under whose watch the attacks occurred, should
she decide to run for president.”

*Salon: Bill Curry: “My party has lost its soul: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama
and the victory of Wall Street Democrats”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_party_has_lost_its_soul_bill_clinton_barack_obama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/>*

“Two years out, Republicans seem headed for a bloody knife fight while
Hillary Clinton may be headed for the most decorous, seniority-based
succession in either party’s history.”

*Articles:*

*National Journal: Neera Tanden: “Working Mother, Washington Powerhouse?
Good Luck.”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/working-mother-washington-powerhouse-good-luck-20140725>*

By Neera Tanden

July 26, 2014

[Subtitle:] Family-work balance is far from the only challenge powerful
women face in this town.

In late 2006, my old boss Hillary Clinton started talking to me about the
ideas that would fuel her presidential campaign. I had advised Hillary on
policy when she was first lady, Senate candidate, and senator, so it seemed
natural that I'd be part of her presidential run. Natural to everyone but
me, that is. At the time I had two young children, ages 1 and 4; advising a
presidential campaign while caring for them seemed a gargantuan task.

I ached over the decision but ultimately said yes. Unlike most women, I was
fortunate in two crucial ways: I had a husband who was truly a co-parent,
and I had a boss who would give me the flexibility to do my work while
still upholding my responsibilities as a mom. One memorable day, Hillary
even flipped her schedule to ensure that I could attend my daughter's pre-K
graduation and still run her debate prep. She never gave me less work or
responsibility—believe me!—just the ability to do it on a schedule that let
me get home for dinner (but not cook it) most nights and allowed me to work
through the wee hours of the morning at home. I didn't get much sleep, but
it worked.

Today I'm one of just a handful of women running major Washington
institutions. But I'm fully aware that I would not be heading the Center
for American Progress, as a mother of two, without being so lucky in my
husband and former boss. I had the chance to step up in my career when my
kids were young, not step back. That's impossible for most women in the U.S.

Because working women still shoulder the lion's share of caregiving at
home, inadequate public policies mean that far too many professional women
leave the workforce during the prime of their careers to bond with a new
baby or care for a sick parent. When they return to work, they are forever
behind their peers, both in the leadership pack and in earning potential.

The mores of high-pressure jobs in Washington—which emphasize long hours
and put a premium on face time with the higher-ups—convince a lot of women
that they can't succeed at the highest level and be good moms. But mores
are a function of culture, and we can shape the culture. That's why, at
CAP, we expect excellent work, but if a parent has to leave the office to
take a child to the doctor, nobody sweats it.

Of course, family/work balance is far from the only challenge powerful
women face in this town. And if you're a woman of color, well, watch out. I
vividly remember one meeting with business leaders and academics early in
Hillary's presidential campaign; at the time I was in my late 30s and
rising through the ranks. I had called the meeting, and was doing most of
the talking. But many of the men around the table aimed their questions
right past me, to my white, male deputy. I could also see them looking to
him for confirmation of what I was saying.

At first I thought it was because I was young. But then I realized my
deputy looked half my age. Did they not see me as a leader because I was a
woman? Because I was Indian? Because I was short? Because I was all three?
I will never know. But I do know they didn't, or couldn't, see me as an
authority figure.

What holds back women in Washington is not so much that they lack the
proverbial "seat at the table"; after all, I wasn't just sitting at the
table in that meeting, it was my table. It's not how they negotiate their
salaries, either, or when they choose to have children, or whether they
"lean in" enough; Washington has no shortage of brilliant, assertive young
women. They are held back by a culture that often marginalizes their
voices, by a society that undervalues their work, and by public policy that
fails to support and empower them. You shouldn't have to win the boss
lottery, or the husband lottery, to be able to thrive professionally while
raising your children. But that's still the reality for too many.

*CNN: “Clinton jokes: Darth Vader would not be my choice for president”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/27/clinton-jokes-darth-vader-would-not-be-my-choice-for-president/>*

By Marina Cracchiolo

July 27, 2014, 4:44 p.m. EDT

Attention potential presidential candidates: Beware of the dark side.

A recent tongue-in-cheek analysis shows Americans prefer Darth Vader more
than any potential 2016 presidential candidate. Never mind that Darth Vader
has done some pretty evil things across the “Star Wars” films, including
blowing up planets and torturing his own son, Luke Skywalker.

What does former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton think?

Clinton chuckled when asked during a taped interview with CNN's Fareed
Zakaria that aired Sunday on "CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS."

"Darth would not be my choice," she joked.

Instead, Clinton would prefer someone with a not-so-dark disposition.
"Somebody of perhaps a slightly more positive attitude in his
presentation," she said.

A poll from earlier this week, from FiveThirtyEight.com, showed results of
who was most – and least – popular among "Star Wars" characters.  A
Washington Post blog then took those numbers and compared them to
favorability numbers of potential 2016 presidential candidates.

In the Post's analysis, Clinton was the front-runner of any politician on
this planet, though she still trailed Vader. Republicans Mike Huckabee and
Sen. Rand Paul trailed her.

Amid her laughter, Clinton offered a somewhat serious answer.

"I think the deeper meaning is that people love fantasies," she said,
highlighting Americans' frustration "with the gridlock in Washington."

Clinton remains undecided about a possible 2016 presidential run.

*The Telegraph (U.K.): “He's arrogant, tough, insecure and charming – but
he has such bright blue eyes: Hillary Clinton's verdict on Vladimir Putin”
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10994389/Hes-arrogant-tough-insecure-and-charming-but-he-has-such-bright-blue-eyes-Hillary-Clintons-verdict-on-Vladimir-Putin.html>*

By Rosa Prince

July 27, 2014, 8:32 p.m. BST

[Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton says she warned White House Vladimir Putin
would be ‘more aggressive’ in second shot as Russian president

Hillary Clinton has described Russian President Vladimir Putin as “tough”
and “arrogant” but says he secretly suffers from a “fundamental insecurity”
and can turn on the charm when he wants to.

The former First Lady, US Secretary of State and potential future
presidential candidate, described her experiences of dealing with Mr Putin
on the world stage, saying he would turn his “bright blue eyes” on those he
wanted to dazzle.

Revealing she had sent memos warning US president Barack Obama that the
Russian leader was likely to be more “aggressive” following his return to
the presidency, she also said he bore indirect responsibility for the
shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine last month,
having armed pro-Russian separatists.

“He’s very tough, he’s a very arrogant person to deal with, which I think
is a combination of this vision of Russia and this fundamental insecurity,”
she told CNN.

“When you are with him he often acts as if he could care less; he’s not
interested. He acts bored and dismissive. So he has a lot of personas that
he pulls out.

“If he wants to stare intently at you with his very bright blue eyes,
because he wants something from you, or he wants to convey a message to
you, he can turn on the charm.

“But he can also be very tough to deal with and act as though it’s a burden
on him to be in conversations with other world leaders.”

Mrs Clinton claimed she was among the most “sceptical” within the Obama
administration about Mr Putin following his return to the presidency in
2012, having stood down in 2008, saying: “I certainly made my views known
in meetings, as well as in memos to the president.

“I think that what may have happened is that both the United States and
Europe were really hoping for the best from Putin as a returned president.
And I think we’ve been quickly, unfortunately, disabused of those hopes.”

Mrs Clinton’s scathing assessment of President Putin is the latest sally in
a war of words between the two.

Last month, he rejected her claim that he had acted like Hitler in annexing
Crimea, describing her as “weak” and saying "It's better not to argue with
women."

He went on: “Mrs Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements.

"When people push boundaries too far, it's not because they are strong but
because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a
woman."

*The Hill: “Clinton not running away from Wall Street”
<http://thehill.com/policy/finance/213434-clinton-doesnt-run-away-from-wall-street>*

By Kevin Cirilli

July 28, 2014, 3:49 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton isn’t backing away from Wall Street.

As cries from within her own party grow louder for the all-but-declared
2016 Democratic presidential candidate to distance herself from high
finance’s titans, Clinton is continuing to address Wall Street audiences.

This week she’ll speak at an Ameriprise Financial conference in Boston.
She’s also been booked or given paid speeches at events sponsored by
Fidelity, KKR and Co., the Carlyle Groups and Goldman Sachs.

Supporters of Clinton argue there’s no need for her to change her schedule.

They say her career is highlighted with support for liberals ideals, from
raising the minimum wage to improving healthcare.

Giving a speech to a financial firm means nothing in that context, said
veteran Democratic strategist Robert Shurm.

“Yeah, for some there's a desire to bash banks, but they care more about
raising minimum wage, making college affordable and income inequality,”
Shrum said. “And for Hillary, that's the test — not whether she gave a
speech for Ameriprise.”

Liberals say the problem goes beyond the speeches. They worry that if
Clinton becomes president, she’ll back policies they see as having
contributed to the financial crisis. They want to at least pressure Clinton
to move to the left on financial issues in a Democratic primary race.

“It's not about the pure fact that she's speaking to Wall Street,” griped
Charles Chamberlain, executive director of the liberal Democracy For
America. “The problem is these speeches give the impression that she's
still in the Wall Street wing of the party.”

Chamberlain notes that President Clinton backed the 1999 repeal of the
Glass Steagall banking law requiring commercial banks to split off their
investment banking operations.

Many on the left argue its repeal contributed to the financial crisis, and
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has championed reinstating it.

Warren has given no indication she’s interested in entering the 2016 race,
but she might be the one figure on the left who could emerge as a serious
challenger to Clinton.

Chamberlain said he’d like to see Clinton move toward what he called the
“Warren wing” of the Democratic party.

People in Clinton’s camp scoff at such suggestions.

“Ask any so-called 'left' or 'liberal' critic of Hillary to name a single
vote or position on issue on which Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would
disagree,” said one Clinton political strategist. “Rhetoric is not an
acceptable answer.”

Spokespersons for Clinton declined to comment for this story

Polls suggest that if Clinton enters the race for the 2016 Democratic
nomination for president, she will be an overwhelming favorite.

She garnered 67 percent of Florida Democratic presidential primary voters,
according to a Quinnipiac poll released last week. Warren nabbed just eight
percent, as did Vice President Biden.

Republicans have signaled that they will try to tie Clinton to Wall Street
if she is the Democratic Party’s nominee.

“What exactly does Hillary stand for: Main Street? Wall Street? No one
knows,” mused GOP strategist Ford O'Connell. “She seems to be talking out
of both sides of her mouth.”

But Shrum and others argue those attacks aren’t going to work.

Shrum noted that Barack Obama received considerable support from Wall
Street during both his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, and that it
didn’t prevent him from winning his party’s nomination or the White House.

*Politico blog: Politico Now: “Albright: 'The world is a mess'”
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/07/albright-the-world-is-a-mess-192914.html?hp=l1>*

By Jose Delreal

July 27, 2014, 11:57 a.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Sunday offered a pithy
summary of recent international events: "To put it mildly: the world is a
mess.”

“There are an awful lot of things going on that need understanding and
explanation,” Albright told host Bob Schieffer on CBS's “Face the Nation.”

Albright’s appearance comes as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalates
and events in Ukraine continue to put a strain on US-Russian relations. The
former secretary and Schieffer went on to discuss the saturation of
international news in recent months and marveled at the the lack of media
coverage surrounding the ongoing conflict in Syria and the temporary
closure of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya.

“Can you recall a time when there was so much trouble in so many places
around the world?” asked Schieffer. “We have so much going on right now,
it’s almost like we’re caught up in events out of control.”

Albright offered praise for Secretary of State John Kerry's efforts to put
impose a cease-fire in Gaza.

“I so admire Secretary Kerry for all the effort he’s put into this,” said
Albright. “I think Secretary Kerry is doing everything he can at this
moment to prolong the short peaceful cease-fires. It’s a tough sell for
everybody.”

*CNN: “British, U.S. diplomats out of Libya as militia fighting rages”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/27/world/meast/libya-embassy-evacuations/>*

By Alan Duke

July 27, 2014, 1:36 p.m. EDT

A convoy of British diplomats made it safely into Tunisia from Libya
despite an attack on its vehicles Sunday, British officials said.

"There was an attempted carjacking of a British Embassy convoy this
morning," UK Ambassador Michael Aron said in a Twitter posting Sunday.
"Shots were fired at our vehicles but all safe."

Several Western embassies, including those of Britain and the United
States, were evacuated over the weekend as heavy militia violence raged in
the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

The German government renewed its "urgent call for citizens to leave Libya"
because of the dangers of kidnappings and fighting.

Britain warned its citizens against all travel to Libya and asked that any
of them in the country "leave now" by commercial means, which is made
difficult by the limited flights out of the main airport.

'Libya is reaching a critical stage'

Fighting in Tripoli and Benghazi is the worst seen since the revolution
that overthrew the regime of Moammar Gadhafi nearly three years ago. The
central government has been outgunned by increasingly powerful militias.

Witnesses reported heavy shelling and fighting around the Tripoli
international airport Sunday, which has been under attack by an alliance of
powerful militias from the city of Misrata and Islamist militias. The
fighters are trying to take it from militias from the city of Zintan, which
have controlled it since the 2011 revolution.

Dozens of people, including some women and children, died in fighting in
Benghazi in recent days, according to the Libyan state news agency. Intense
shelling continued Sunday, the reports said. Violence erupted in Benghazi
last Monday when Islamist militias attacked military bases in the city.

The Libyan Health Ministry said at least 32 people who were killed and 62
wounded were taken to the Benghazi medical center on Saturday and Sunday.

The ministry counted at least 97 killed and 404 wounded in Tripoli over the
past two weeks. The casualty numbers do not count those taken to smaller
field hospitals.

Envoys from the Arab League, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy,
Malta, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States issued a joint
statement Saturday calling for "a ceasefire from all sides."

"The situation in Libya is reaching a critical stage. We are deeply
concerned about the ongoing violence across the country and its
humanitarian consequences," the envoys said. The statement called for "a
willingness to compromise" by all sides in "an inclusive political dialogue
on the back of the ceasefire agreement."

U.N. 'should play a leading role'

The United Nations "should play a leading role in reaching a ceasefire in
conjunction with the Libyan government and other internal partners, with
the full support of the international envoys," the statement said.

The U.N. and other international organizations and businesses temporarily
evacuated staff from Libya earlier this month.

The envoys also said Libya's recently elected Council of Representatives
"must have the opportunity to convene according to the time table set out
in the law" and "carry out its tasks in a spirit of inclusiveness,
moderation and in the interest of the country."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, at the U.S. Embassy in Paris meeting
with the Turkish and Qatari foreign ministersSaturday, called upon various
factions to engage in a political process, saying "the current course of
violence would only bring chaos." Kerry added that due to the "freewheeling
militia violence that is taking place in Tripoli" the U.S., along with
other countries including Turkey, has "suspended our current diplomatic
activities at the Embassy."

'Robust package of military forces' standing by

The U.S. evacuated its 150 personnel, including 80 U.S. Marines, from the
embassy in Tripoli on Saturday. Their convoy drove across the border into
Tunisia, U.S. officials confirm to CNN.

U.S. officials stress operations have been "temporarily suspended" until
"the security situation on the ground improves." The embassy will continue
to operate from other locations. A senior State Department official said
some of the staff will be sent to other U.S. embassies in the region and
others will return to Washington.

U.S. President Barack Obama approved the State Department recommendation to
temporarily relocate personnel because of the "ongoing violence resulting
from clashes between Libyan militias in the immediate vicinity" of the
embassy, a White House official said.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the United States is
"currently exploring options for a permanent return to Tripoli as soon as
the security situation on the ground improves. In the interim, staff will
operate from Washington and other posts in the region," Harf said in a
statement.

"Securing our facilities and ensuring the safety of our personnel are top
Department priorities, and we did not make this decision lightly. Security
has to come first. Regrettably, we had to take this step because the
location of our embassy is in very close proximity to intense fighting and
ongoing violence between armed Libyan factions."

The Pentagon had a "robust package of military forces" in the vicinity but
out of sight, ready to move in if the convoy of evacuees had come under
attack. Two F-16s were on combat air patrol overhead, while a drone tracked
the convoy to the border and a Navy destroyer watched from offshore in the
Mediterranean, CNN learned. An "airborne response force" of several dozen
Marines was on V-22 Osprey aircraft flying nearby, prepared to land and
protect the Americans if they came under attack during the transit to the
Tunisian border.

The Pentagon had pressed for weeks to evacuate the embassy, especially
after the Tripoli airport came under repeated militia attack, leaving
Americans no way to get out via commercial air, the official said. The
decision to use vehicles to drive the Americans across the border was seen
as the best low-profile approach to conducting the evacuation rather than
sending U.S. military helicopters and troops into Tripoli.

This comes nearly two years after attacks on U.S. government facilities in
the Libyan city of Benghazi. The assaults of September 11-12, 2012, left
four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and spawned
political controversy in Washington. Republican lawmakers have claimed the
Obama administration tried to mislead the public about the cause of the
attacks and should have done more to prevent them.

GOP critics say they plan to make Benghazi an issue for former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, under whose watch the attacks occurred, should she
decide to run for president.

*Salon: Bill Curry: “My party has lost its soul: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama
and the victory of Wall Street Democrats”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_party_has_lost_its_soul_bill_clinton_barack_obama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/>*

By Bill Curry, White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time
Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut

July 27, 2014, 7:00 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] A former Clinton aide on how Democrats lost their way chasing
Wall Street cash, and new populism the party needs

1.

In 2006 the Atlantic magazine asked a panel of “eminent historians” to name
the 100 most influential people in American history.  Included alongside
George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Mark Twain and Elvis Presley was Ralph
Nader, one of only three living Americans to make the list. It was airy
company for Nader, but if you think about it, an easy call.

Though a private citizen, Nader shepherded more bills through Congress than
all but a handful of American presidents. If that sounds like an outsize
claim, try refuting it. His signature wins included landmark laws on auto,
food, consumer product and workplace safety; clean air and water; freedom
of information, and consumer, citizen, worker and shareholder rights. In a
century only Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson passed
more major legislation.

Nader’s also the only American ever to start a major social or political
movement all by himself. The labor, civil rights and women’s movements all
had multiple mothers and fathers, as did each generation’s peace and
antiwar movements. Not so the consumer movement, which started out as just
one guy banging away at a typewriter. Soon he was a national icon, seen
leaning into Senate microphones on TV or staring down the establishment
from the covers of news magazines.

What lifted Nader to such heights was the 1965 publication of “Unsafe at
Any Speed,” an exposé of the auto industry’s sociopathic indifference to
the health and safety of its customers. In little more than a year Congress
put seat belts in every new car and created the forerunners of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Washington’s rapid response affirmed Nader’s belief that people provided
with critical facts will demand change and that sooner than one might
expect politicians, however listless or corrupt, will give it to them. This
faith in the power of ideas and of public opinion — in the educability of
people and thus in the viability of democracy — distinguishes Nader from
much of what remains of the American left.

For nearly 30 years Nader largely abstained from electoral politics while
turning out a steady stream of testimony and books. But his influence
waned. By the late ’70s the linked forces of corporate and cultural
reaction we memorialize as the Reagan Revolution were gathering force. In
1978 Nader lost a pivotal battle to establish a federal consumer protection
agency as key Democrats, including Jimmy Carter, whom Nader had informally
blessed in 1976, fled the field.

In Reagan’s epic 1980 sweep the GOP picked up 12 Senate seats, the biggest
gain of the last 60 years for either party. Nader had done his best
business with Democrats, especially the liberal lions of the Senate; men
like Warren Magnuson, Gaylord Nelson, Birch Bayh and George McGovern, all
swept out to sea in the Reagan riptide. In the House, a freshman Democrat
from California, Tony Coelho, took over party fundraising. It’s arguable
that Coehlo’s impact on his party was as great as Reagan’s on his. It is
inarguable that Coehlo set Democrats on an identity-altering path toward
ever closer ties to big business and, especially, Wall Street.

In 1985 moderate Democrats including Bill Clinton and Al Gore founded the
Democratic Leadership Council, which proposed innovative policies while
forging ever closer ties to business. Clinton would be the first Democratic
presidential nominee since FDR and probably ever to raise more money than
his Republican opponent. (Even Barry Goldwater outraised Lyndon Johnson.)
In 2008 Obama took the torch passed to Clinton and became the first
Democratic nominee to outraise a GOP opponent on Wall Street. His 2-to-1
spending advantage over John McCain broke a record Richard Nixon set in his
drubbing of George McGovern.

Throughout the 1980s Nader watched as erstwhile Democratic allies vanished
or fell into the welcoming arms of big business.  By the mid-’90s the whole
country was in a swoon over the new baby-faced titans of technology and
global capital. If leading Democrats thought technology threatened anyone’s
privacy or employment or that globalization threatened anyone’s wages, they
kept it to themselves.  In his contempt for oligarchs of any vintage and
rejection of the economic and political democratization myths of the new
technology Nader seemed an anachronism.

His critics would later say Nader was desperate for attention. For certain
he was desperate to reengage the nation in a debate over the concentration
of wealth and power; desperate enough by 1992 to run for president. His
first race was a sort of novelty campaign — he ran in New Hampshire’s
Democratic and Republican primaries “as a stand in for none of the above.”
But the experience proved habit-forming and he got more serious as he went
along. In 1996 and 2000 he ran as the nominee of the Green Party and in
2004 and 2008 as an independent.

The campaigns defined him for a new generation, but he never stopped
writing. His latest book, “Unstoppable,” argues for the existence and
utility of an “emerging left-right alliance to dismantle the corporate
state.” The book is vintage Nader and ranks with his best. The questions it
poses should greatly interest progressives. The question is, will any read
it.

It’s a question because on top of all the hurdles facing even celebrity
authors today, Nader is estranged from much of his natural readership. It
goes back, of course, to his third race for president, the one that gave us
George W. Bush, John Roberts, Sam Alito, the Iraq War and a colossal debt.
Democrats blame Nader for all of it. Some say he not only cost Al Gore the
2000 election but did it on purpose. Nader denies both charges. Both are
more debatable than either he or his critics allow.

In 1996 I served as counselor to President Clinton and met often with Nader
to discuss that campaign. Early on he told me he wouldn’t be a spoiler.
Judging by his message and schedule and the deployment of his meager
resources, he was true to his word. In 2000 his allocation of resources was
little changed: He spent 20 days in deep blue California, two in Florida;
hardly a spoiler’s itinerary. But he was in Florida at the end and his
equation throughout of Gore with Bush — “Tweedledum and Tweedledee” —
outraged Democrats.

The Democrats’ dismissal of Nader in 2000 was of a piece with our
personality-driven politics: a curmudgeon on steroids; older now and
grumpier; driven by ego and personal grievance. But Nader always hit hard;
you don’t get to be the world’s most famous shopper by making allowances or
pulling punches. The difference was that in 2000 Democrats as well as
Republicans bore the brunt of his attacks. What had changed? It says a lot
about the Democratic Party then and now that nobody bothered to ask the
question, the answer to which is, a whole lot.

Between 1996 and 2000 the Wall Street Democrats who by then ruled the
party’s upper roosts scored their first big legislative wins. Until then
their impact was most visible in the quietude of Congress, which had not
enacted any major social or economic reforms since the historic
environmental laws of the early ’70s. It was the longest such stretch since
the 19th century, but no one seemed to notice.

In the late ’70s, deregulation fever swept the nation. Carter deregulated
trucks and airlines; Reagan broke up Ma Bell, ending real oversight of
phone companies. But those forays paled next to the assaults of the late
’90s. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 had solid Democratic backing as
did the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. The communications
bill authorized a massive giveaway of public airwaves to big business and
ended the ban on cross ownership of media. The resultant concentration of
ownership hastened the rise of hate radio and demise of local news and
public affairs programming across America. As for the “modernization” of
financial services, suffice to say its effect proved even more devastating.
Clinton signed and still defends both bills with seeming enthusiasm.

The Telecommunications Act subverted anti-trust principles traceable to
Wilson. The financial services bill gutted Glass-Steagall, FDR’s historic
banking reform. You’d think such reversals would spark intra-party debate
but Democrats made barely a peep. Nader was a vocal critic of both bills.
Democrats, he said, were betraying their heritage and, not incidentally,
undoing his life’s work. No one wanted to hear it. When Democrats noticed
him again in 2000 the only question they thought to ask was, what’s got
into Ralph? Such is politics in the land of the lotus eaters.

The furor over Nader arose partly because issues of economic and political
power had, like Nader himself, grown invisible to Democrats. As Democrats
continued on the path that led from Coehlo to Clinton to Obama, issues
attendant to race, culture and gender came to define them. Had they
nominated a pro-lifer in 2000 and Gloria Steinem run as an independent it’s
easy to imagine many who berated Nader supporting her. Postmortems would
have cited the party’s abandonment of principle as a reason for its defeat.
But Democrats hooked on corporate cash and consultants with long lists of
corporate clients were less attuned to Nader’s issues.

Democrats today defend the triage liberalism of social service spending but
limit their populism to hollow phrase mongering (fighting for working
families, Main Street not Wall Street). The rank and file seem oblivious to
the party’s long Wall Street tryst. Obama’s economic appointees are the
most conservative of any Democratic president since Grover Cleveland but
few Democrats seem to notice, or if they notice, to care.

2.

There’s much talk lately of a “populist” revival but few can say what a
populist is. Like “liberal”and “conservative,” it’s a word best used with
conscious imprecision. As apt to indicate a sensibility as a theory, it’s
often just an epithet, the conjured image being one of class envy and
fist-shaking anger. But populism can be civil; Huey Long was a populist,
but so was Will Rogers. It has conservative as well as liberal elements.
Populists espouse traditional values. They loathe bureaucracy, public or
private. They seldom raise taxes and never on the poor or middle class.

The best template of populism remains the career of William Jennings Bryan.
Like Jefferson and Jackson, Bryan railed against big banks. He thought it
in the nature of big businesses to oppress small businesses and to corrupt
government. He despised the gross income inequality of his day. His
proposed graduated income tax left the lower and middle classes alone.

Bryan took the national stage decrying banks in his Cross of Gold speech
and left it denying evolution at the Scopes trial. He didn’t become a
Bible-thumper in old age, he’d always been one. And he never altered his
view of banks. He reminds us that populism can be economic or cultural —
the first tends to reform, the second to repression — and that both species
may abide in the same person. For a century the parties divided populism
between them; Democrats ran the Cross of Gold speech at Republicans.
Republicans ran the Scopes trial at them. Then Democrats decided to let
Republicans have both cultural and economic populism. It was some gift.

Populism encompasses not just Bryan’s late 19th century agrarians but their
close relations, the early 20th century urban progressives and countless
descendants of each. Jefferson and Jackson are called fathers of both
populism and the Democratic Party. Jackson and Bryan are the only Democrats
other than FDR to be nominated three times for president. All populists
share common traits: love of small business; high standards of public
ethics; concern for individuals, families and communities; suspicion of
elites and of all economic trusts, combinations and cartels.

Some recent populist talk is owing to the election of two liberals,
Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio. (Liberals taking Massachusetts or
Manhattan didn’t used to be news.) It’s unclear how well they and other
Democratic liberals can tap populist sentiment. In any case, Democrats are
late to the populist dance. Mass protests of corrupt oligarchies have
roiled global politics for a decade. In America the Tea Party has been
crying crony capitalism since the Bush bailout and Obama stimulus. Income
inequality’s so bad Mitt Romney wants to raise the minimum wage.

Even the Democrats’ tardy me-too-ism seems insincere, less a churning of
policy than a freshening of message. In 2009, when he had the votes in
Congress, Obama chose not to raise the minimum wage. Not till late 2013 did
Democrats press the issue. Why then? As the New York Times reported, “they
found an issue they believe can lift their fortunes both locally and
nationally in 2014.” If there’s a true populist revolt on the left it is as
yet invisible to the naked eye.

Meanwhile the populist revolt on the right persists. In 2010 the Tea Party
declared open season on GOP incumbents. It has since bagged quite a few.
But Republicans don’t just fight over offices, they fight over ideas. It’s
hard to track all the players in their endless policy scrum: Heritage,
American Enterprise, Focus on the Family, Club for Growth, etc. Rand Paul
pilfers Democratic issues like a fox stealing chickens while dynasty star
Jeb Bush grapples with such timeless questions as whether there can be such
a thing as a conservative social program.

Democrats aren’t even having a debate. Their one think tank, the Center for
American Progress, serves their establishment. (Its founder, John Podesta,
once Clinton’s chief of staff, is now counselor to Obama.) The last real
primary challenge to a Democratic senator was in 2006 when Ned Lamont took
on Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman. They say the GOP picks presidents based on
seniority. Two years out, Republicans seem headed for a bloody knife fight
while Hillary Clinton may be headed for the most decorous, seniority-based
succession in either party’s history. (If she loses this time it will be to
herself.)

If Democrats had caught populist fever they’d be reappraising their own
orthodoxy and offing a few of their own incumbents. Owing only partly to
the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, they instead spend their days
as Republicans do, in an endless search for new ways to help the rich pump
money into politics. As public alienation deepens, polls show Democrats
generally content with their party’s leaders. Of such stuff revolutions are
not made.

3.

Which brings us back to Nader’s book. It opens with a story of left and
right banding together in 1982 to stop construction of Tennessee’s Clinch
River Breeder Reactor. Authorized in 1972, by 1977 this “public private
partnership” had spent $1.3 billion of public money ($4.5 billion in
current dollars) on preconstruction costs. That’s when Jimmy Carter pulled
its plug. Or thought he did.

In 1981 the Reagan administration revived it. It looked good to go until
Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers convened an ad hoc coalition of liberals opposed
to nuclear waste and conservatives opposed to wasting money. Its sublimely
eclectic membership included the International Association of Machinists,
the National Taxpayers Union and the Audubon Society. What happened next
was Reagan and his allies in Congress got rolled. By 1983 the project was
dead, this time for good.

Nader cites other issues, most culled from his own experience, on which
left and right collaborated. He predicts convergence on topics ranging from
civil liberties to defense, corporate welfare and open government. He
assays 25 ideas he deems ripe for alliances and the strategies for forming
them. He says all appeal to a growing populist movement. It’s this movement
he calls unstoppable.

Nader’s belief in convergence isn’t the same as Obama’s naïve pursuit of
the holy grail of bipartisanship.  He doesn’t say Democrats and Republicans
can talk away their differences, only that some of them can work on issues
on which they haven’t any. He concedes that doing even that much is hard
for Republicans, for whom it often proves fatal to work with Democrats even
on Republican ideas.

To many, Nader’s vision will seem naïve, as will the book’s very title.
Surely a lesson of our time is that all progress is stoppable. Not long ago
optimism was in vogue. Obama’s slogan then was “Yes we can.” Today it could
be “It turns out we can’t.” His basic brief: “With an economy so broken,
government so broke, politics so corrupt and Republicans so crazy, no one
could do better, so quit whining: from now on, this is as good as it gets.”
Better the Obama of 2008, or the Nader of today who insists “pessimism has
no place in a democracy.”

Some of the ideas in “Unstoppable” may seem small bore: defending
whistle-blowers, auditing defense budgets, loosening restrictions on
standing to sue. Some need elaboration — encouraging community-based
businesses, reforming government procurement — while others seem too long a
reach: tying the minimum wage to inflation, getting Congress to do its
constitutional duty on declaring war. But all relate to systemic reforms
Democrats no longer espouse.

Democrats envy Republicans their knack for framing issues in foundational
values: thrift, hard work, family, patriotism. Nader espouses values that
form the very substratum of American culture. He often cites lessons
learned as a child, listening to his dad talk politics in the family
restaurant or tagging along with his mom to town meetings. He doesn’t tell
these tales as politicians do, for mere nostalgic connection, but to make
the case for community and small business, to defend families from the
commoditization of privacy and the commercialization of childhood and,
above all, to spark a revival of the grass roots, New England-style
democracy of his youth. One may call such values liberal or conservative,
or simply say they are rooted in American populism.

Republicans can talk values even while defending a corrupt status quo
because, recent Tea Party convulsions aside, defending the status quo is
their job. The Democrats’ job is to challenge the status quo; when they
don’t do it, nothing they say sounds sincere. Nader’s words resonate
because they’re rooted in a populist tradition and connected to a populist
vision. Democratic rhetoric rings hollow because it’s no longer rooted in
any tradition or connected to any vision.

4.

What agrarian populists did best was battle cartels and advocate for a kind
of homegrown communitarian capitalism. They busted price fixing railroads
and granaries, fought for rural free delivery and established cooperative
banks that still provide a third of all credit to rural America. Most
amazing, they did it all via Congress amid the venality of the first Gilded
Age. Powerful trusts were turning farmers into wage slaves and the world’s
greatest democracy into just another corrupt oligarchy when Populists and
Progressives rose as if from nowhere to stop them.

Parallels to our own time could hardly be clearer. Like invasive species
destroying the biodiversity of a pond, today’s global trusts swallow up
everything smaller than themselves.  The rules of global trade make
organizing for higher wages next to impossible in developed and undeveloped
countries alike. Fights for net neutrality and public Wi-Fi are exactly
like the fight for rural free delivery.  Small businesses are as starved
for credit as small farmers ever were. PACs are our Tammany Hall. What’s
missing is a powerful, independent reform movement.

Republicans make their livings off the misappropriation of populism.
Democrats by their silence assist them. Rand Paul is more forceful than any
Democrat on privacy and the impulse to empire. The Tea Party rails loudest
against big banks and corporate corruption. Even on cultural issues
Democrats don’t really lead: Your average college student did more than
your average Democratic congressman to advance gay marriage.

It’s hard for Democrats to see that their problems arise from their own
mistakes. Obama called the 2008 recession “the worst since the Great
Depression.” It wasn’t; by most measures — jobs, wages, exports — it was
the worst since 1982. The valid comparison to the 1930s is that now as then
all our vital institutions are broken. Our healthcare, banking, energy and
transit systems are badly broken. Our defense policy is obsolete. Politics
is a cesspool. Oddly, the one system working relatively well, public
education, is the object of our only sustained reform effort.

Mistaking the nature of the crisis, Obama mistook massive fraud for faulty
computer modeling and a middle-class meltdown for a mere turn of the
business cycle. Had he grasped his situation he’d have known the most he
could do by priming the pump would be to reinflate the bubble. Contrast him
to FDR, who saw the systemic nature of his crisis. To banks Roosevelt
offered only reform; financial help went to customers whose bad mortgages
he bought up and whose savings he insured. By buying into Bush’s bailout,
Obama co-signed the biggest check ever cut by a government, made out to the
culprits, not the victims. As for his stimulus, it didn’t cure the disease
and hefty portions of it smelled like pork.

Populist rage against the bailout and stimulus saved the Republican Party.
In 2006 it had lost Congress, in 2008 the White House. Younger voters
recoiled from its racial and religious politics. Middle-class decline had
even devout Christians focused on family finances. That’s when Democrats
handed over title to economic populism. Absent the bailout and stimulus
it’s hard to imagine the Tea Party being born, Republicans retaking
Congress or the government being so utterly paralyzed.

Liberals have spent the intervening years debating macroeconomic theory but
macroeconomics can’t fathom this crisis. This isn’t just a slow recovery
from a financial sector collapse, or damage done by debt overhang or
Obama’s weak tea Keynesianism. We’re in crisis because of all our broken
systems; because we still let big banks prey on homeowners, students,
consumers and retailers; because our infrastructure is decrepit; because
our tax code breeds inefficiency and inequality; because foreign
interventions bled us dry. We’re in peril because our democracy is dying.
Reviving it will take more than deficit spending and easy money. It will
take reform, and before that, a whole new political debate.

5.

Reading “Unstoppable” reminds one of Nader’s standing among the ’60s
reformers who formed populism’s last great wave. The book is drenched in
populist themes: distrust of big business and big government, faith in
democracy and contempt for its corrupters, defense of all things small —
towns, businesses, people — against the inevitable predations of all things
big. Among its lessons for would be populists:

Populism isn’t about spending. Of Nader’s 25 proposals none costs any
money. Eight actually save money. By cleaning up Reagan’s fiscal mess Bill
Clinton made Democrats the party of fiscal responsibility. With the bailout
and stimulus Obama handed the issue back to Republicans. Populists know we
have a choice: change the rules or write the check. And they know which
choice generally works best. If instead of a bailout and stimulus Obama
raised the minimum wage, secured a public option, rescued homeowners and
cut defense there’d be no budget crisis today and he’d be a folk hero
instead of a punching bag.

Populists challenge big business. Apart from global warming, our most
pressing problem is the mal-distribution of power, opportunity and income.
In their denial, Democrats think they can compete with Republicans for Wall
Street cash and still “fight for working families,” but on many issues —
wages, credit costs, tax burdens — there really are two sides. Soon even
the party’s base will ask which side it is on.

Populists stand up for small business. We think of small business as
Republican. Not necessarily. In a 2012 poll of small-business owners, a
majority picked Obama over Romney, a choice their Washington lobbyists were
at pains to explain way. No constituency gets more lip service and less
actual service than small business, which is why it’s always up for grabs.
Nader’s small town, small business populism speaks to it like nothing else
can. Small business has never been, or felt, more threatened. A party that
earns its trust can govern a long time.

Populists care about ethics. So do voters. In two recent rounds of exit
polls voters named corruption their top concern over jobs and the economy,
this in the teeth of a “jobless recovery.” In 2008 Obama closed stump
speeches with vows to “curb lobbyists’ power” and “change Washington’s
culture.” Voters thought he meant to make it more honest. It turns out he
only meant to make it more polite, and even in that he failed. His longest
list of unkept promises is the one titled “ethics and open government.” Few
among party elites have any sense of the price he has paid.

Populism changes with the issues and times. Ethics means even more to us
than it did to the early populists. Technology has made privacy a populist
issue. The bankruptcy of our foreign and defense policies elevates those
issues. Populism is relevant to global warming. Its frugality fosters
conservation. Its decentralization supports everything from local farms to
distributed generation. Its anti-corporate ethos is a key to any credible
effort to curb the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

It pains us to watch Democrats bungle populist issues. We see Rand Paul
corner the market on privacy and the scrutiny of defense budgets and wonder
why no Democrat rises to expose his specious rantings. We yearn for a new
politics but worry that our democracy, like that Antarctic ice shelf, has
reached its tipping point. For things to improve Democrats must come up
with better ideas and learn how to present them. So why don’t they?

One reason is that today’s Democrats think politics is all about marketing.
While Republicans built think tanks Democrats built relationships with
celebrity pollsters. When things go awry one pops up on TV to tell us how
they “lost control of the narrative.” Asked to name a flaw, Obama
invariably cites his failure to “tell our story.” Judging by his recent
book, Tim Geithner thinks failing to tell his story was the only mistake he
ever made. People don’t hate the bailout because Tim Geithner gives bad
speeches. They hate it because their mortgages are still underwater.

Democrats must learn that policy precedes message; figure out what you
believe, then how to tell people about it. A good idea advertises itself.

Democrats must also learn to argue history. They chortle when Michele
Bachmann credits the founders with ending slavery or Sarah Palin forgets
who Paul Revere rode to warn. Yet they let the right turn our founding
myths into pulp propaganda with nary a reply from any but academics. In
“Unstoppable” Nader enlists Jefferson, Adam Smith, Friederich Hayek and a
raft of others to buttress his case and reclaim valuable ground.

Democrats think the power of money is greater than the power of ideas.
Nader thinks that with the right ideas you can win even if outspent
100-to-1.  Every year Democrats further dilute their ideas to get the money
they think they need to sell them. The weaker the ideas, the more ads they
need, the more money it takes, the weaker the ideas. As you can tell from
their ads, they’ve been at this a long time.

They don’t believe in ideas because they don’t believe in people. Obama
wasted years dickering with Republicans who wished him only ill. He should
have talked to the people and let them talk to the Republicans.

6.

One reason we know voters will embrace populism is that they already have.
It’s what they thought they were getting with Obama. In 2008 Obama said
he’d bail out homeowners, not just banks. He vowed to fight for a public
option, raise the minimum wage and clean up Washington. He called
whistle-blowers heroes and said he’d bar lobbyists from his staff. He was
critical of drones and wary of the use of force to advance American
interests. He spoke eloquently of the threats posed to individual privacy
by a runaway national security state.

He turned out to be something else altogether. To blame Republicans ignores
a glaring truth: Obama’s record is worst where they had little or no role
to play. It wasn’t Republicans who prosecuted all those whistle-blowers and
hired all those lobbyists; who authorized drone strikes or kept the NSA
chugging along; who reneged on the public option, the minimum wage and aid
to homeowners. It wasn’t even Republicans who turned a blind eye to Wall
Street corruption and excessive executive compensation. It was Obama.

A populist revolt among Democrats is unlikely absent their reappraisal of
Obama, which itself seems unlikely. Not since Robert Kennedy have Democrats
been so personally invested in a public figure. Liberals fell hardest so
it’s especially hard for them to admit he’s just not that into them.  If
they could walk away they might resume their relationship with Nader. Of
course that won’t be easy.

Populism isn’t just liberalism on steroids; it too demands compromise.
After any defeat, a party’s base consoles itself with the notion that if
its candidates were pure they’d have won. It’s never true; most voters
differ with both parties. Still, liberals dream of retaking Congress as the
Tea Party dreams of retaking the White House: by being pure. Democratic
elites are always up for compromise, but on the wrong issues. Rather than
back GOP culture wars, as some do, or foreign wars, as many do, or big
business, as nearly all do, they should back libertarians on privacy, small
business on credit and middle-class families on taxes.

If Democrats can’t break up with Obama or make up with Nader, they should
do what they do best: take a poll. They would find that beneath all our
conflicts lies a hidden consensus. It prizes higher ethics, lower taxes and
better governance; community and privacy; family values and the First
Amendment; economic as well as cultural diversity. Its potential coalition
includes unions, small business, nonprofits, the professions, the
economically embattled and all the marginalized and excluded. Such a
coalition could reshape our politics, even our nation.

*Calendar:*

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

·  July 29 – Fusion: Sec. Clinton interview with Jorge Ramos (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/07/hillary-clinton-on-fusion-tuesday-192862.html>
)

·  July 29 – Saratoga Springs, NY: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book
tour stop at Northshire Bookstore (Glens Falls Post-Star
<http://poststar.com/news/local/clinton-to-sign-books-in-spa-city/article_a89caca2-0b57-11e4-95a6-0019bb2963f4.html>
)

·  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 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/>)