Subject: Correct The Record Friday July 25, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:17:12 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Friday July 25, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*YourHoustonNews.com opinion: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: “We can save lives
and change history”
<http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/opinion/jackson-lee-we-can-save-lives-and-change-history/article_1de35a64-a196-5397-882f-d570742f0e87.html>*

“While Hillary Clinton has been engaged in this issue since the 1990s, she
played a key role at the State Department in bringing modern-day slavery to
the forefront of United States’ foreign and domestic policy.”

*Washington Examiner: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! Read all about Hillary
<http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-clinton-clinton-read-all-about-her/article/2551239>*

But Clinton’s allies insist that they aren’t losing sleep over the new
books. If they’re looking to sully Clinton’s reputation, said Adrienne
Elrod, communications director at Correct The Record, a pro-Clinton group,
“the right-wing’s tactics are ineffective and are not working."

"The anti-Clinton literature industry has been pushing lies and profiting
off the Clinton’s for well over two decades,” Elrod said, “yet Bill and
Hillary Clinton remain two of the most popular, admired individuals
throughout the world.”

*New York Times blog: The Caucus: “10 Questions for Hillary Rodham Clinton”
<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/10-questions-for-hillary-rodham-clinton/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0>*

“She [Sec. Clinton] spoke Thursday with The Times’s John Harwood on the
National Public Radio program “On Point” about America’s current foreign
policy crises, potential presidential rivals and her relationship with the
press.”

*Politico Magazine: “Did Hillary’s Book Tour Work?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/did-hillarys-book-tour-work-109358.html#.U9I8JvldV8E>*

“Hillary Clinton’s book tour is winding down, so it’s time to assess what
the Hard Choices rollout means for what just about everyone in American
politics assumes is her coming presidential bid.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton would back changing border law”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/213251-clinton-backs-changing-border-law>*

“Hillary Clinton said Thursday that she was open to changing a 2008
trafficking law to help the administration deal with an influx of child
migrants crossing the border illegally.”

*Fast Company: “Most Americans Think the U.S. Would Be Better Governed If
More Women Were In Charge”
<http://www.fastcompany.com/3033477/strong-female-lead/most-americans-think-the-us-would-be-better-governed-if-more-women-were-i>*

“A new poll from Gallup shows that 63% of Americans say the country would
be better governed with more female political leaders, which is up slightly
from 57% in past polls in 1995 and 2000.”

*U.S. News & World Report blog: Washington Whispers: “Another Pro-Hillary
PAC Tries to Make Clinton Cool”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/07/24/another-pro-hillary-pac-tries-to-make-clinton-cool>*

“Williams, a 22-year-old from Alabama, who now lives across the Potomac
from Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, is a founder of Hillary 2016 PAC,
yet another outside group supporting a potential Clinton 2016 presidential
run.”

*CNN: “Why liberals don't trust Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/politics/clinton-liberals-trust/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)>*

“Activists point to Clinton's voting record in the Senate, where she voted
to authorize the Iraq war and increase domestic surveillance. They say that
and decisions her husband made while president, like the Defense of
Marriage Act and the authorization of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, give her little street cred among liberals and populists.”

*Politico: “Deval Patrick: I'm not 'pals' with Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/deval-patrick-hillary-clinton-not-friends-109342.html>*

“Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who raised eyebrows earlier this year by
questioning the sense of ‘inevitability’ around Hillary Clinton’s potential
presidential candidacy, emphasized Thursday that he’s worried Clinton’s
inner circle will perpetuate an ‘off-putting’ feeling of ‘entitlement’
surrounding her possible White House bid.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton: You’re lucky ‘Hard Choices’ isn’t longer”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-hard-choices-book-could-have-been-longer>*

“But, Clinton revealed Thursday, her book could have been even longer. Much
longer.”

*Articles:*

*YourHoustonNews.com opinion: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: “We can save lives
and change history”
<http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/opinion/jackson-lee-we-can-save-lives-and-change-history/article_1de35a64-a196-5397-882f-d570742f0e87.html>*

By Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

July 24, 2014 3:10 pm

As a Senior Member on both the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees
and the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security,
I have worked diligently on human trafficking issues and seen its
devastating impact in the city of Houston, which is known as the epicenter
of human trafficking.

Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery where men, women, and
children are forced into servitude. Some victims are trafficked for sex;
some are trafficked for domestic labor. All are held against their will.

It’s hard for many in the United States to fully comprehend that this goes
on within our borders and on our streets. But it does, and it breaks my
heart.

Did you know that there are more individuals enslaved today than at the
height of the transatlantic slave trade?

Even more surprising, human trafficking doesn’t just occur in illegal or
underground operations. Victims of this horrible practice can also be found
working in private homes, hotels, nail salons, restaurants, and bars.

In Secretary Clinton’s new book “Hard Choices,” she so adeptly reminds us,
“The crime of human trafficking is not limited to Cambodia or Southeast
Asia. Nearly 30 million people around the world are in modern-day slavery
of one form or another, trapped in prostitution or laboring in fields or
factories or on fishing boats.” She continues, “The United States is not
immune.”

While Hillary Clinton has been engaged in this issue since the 1990s, she
played a key role at the State Department in bringing modern-day slavery to
the forefront of United States’ foreign and domestic policy.

As Sec. Clinton herself wrote in 2009, “The United States funds 140
anti-trafficking programs in nearly 70 countries, as well as 42 domestic
task forces that bring state and local authorities together with
nongovernmental organizations to combat trafficking. But there is so much
more to do.”

Having the privilege to serve on the two jurisdictional committees, I am
thankful for the steps Hillary Clinton took while Secretary of State.
Presently and looking forward, I want to work with more leaders who will
draw attention to this horrific practice and take action to eradicate it by
working with members of the faith community, law enforcement officials, and
community leaders. We must rescue victims, strengthen our justice system,
and bring criminals to justice.

Let’s all take Secretary Clinton’s lead, for, as she said, “this is a
moment for people to ask themselves not just what government can do to end
modern slavery, but what can I do, what can we do together.” We can save
lives. We can change history.

Sheila Jackson Lee is the representative for the 18th Congressional
District of Texas.

*Washington Examiner: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton! Read all about Hillary
<http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-clinton-clinton-read-all-about-her/article/2551239>*

​By Rebecca Berg
July 25, 2014, 6:00 am

It's the summer of Hillary Clinton -- but not exactly on her terms.

Clinton had planned a triumphant return to the political arena with the
campaign-style rollout of her new memoir, Hard Choices. The book's first
printing of 1 million copies showed that her publisher expected a good
return on its $14 million advance, especially since Clinton's book tour
would receive the kind of blanket coverage accorded a prospective
presidential candidate.

But sales of the book have been disappointing, with only about 200,000 hard
copies having sold so far. And while Clinton has received extensive media
attention, much of it has focused on her missteps, notably her assertion
that she and her husband Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White
House in January 2001.

Still, Clinton has become the most valuable name in the publishing industry
this summer, although only in part because of her own memoir. She and
former President Clinton have also inspired three other heavily promoted
books, all by right-leaning authors: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The
Obamas by Ed Klein; Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political
Machine by Daniel Halper; and The First Family Detail: Secret Service
Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of Presidents by Ronald Kessler, parts of
which have been leaked ahead of its Aug. 5 release.

Klein’s Blood Feud, in spite of its many dubious claims and some outright
fact errors, surpassed Clinton’s memoir recently to become the No. 1 New
York Times bestselling nonfiction work. Even after it fell a few spots this
week, it still outsold Hard Choices.

"I've been amazed at what a cottage industry it is,” Clinton said of books
about her. She made her observation during a recent appearance on “The
Daily Show” with Jon Stewart.

“Another book?” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill marveled to the New York
Post when asked about Kessler’s work.

Merrill and other Clinton allies are navigating familiar territory. In the
summer of 2007, Clinton faced the publication of three major books about
her alone or in combination with her husband: A Woman in Charge: The Life
of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Carl Bernstein, Her Way: The Hopes and
Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. and
For Love of Politics: Inside the Clinton White House by Sally Bedell Smith.

In 2007, Clinton's team tried to dismiss the books and their revelations as
nothing new. "Is it possible to be quoted yawning?" her spokesperson
Philippe Reines said at the time. But all three books became bestsellers.

This time, Clinton’s allies are working to discredit Halper’s and Kessler’s
books in a more aggressive fashion, as they have with Klein’s, dismissing
their authors as “despicable” and agenda-driven.

“With Klein, Halper and Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable
actors concocting trashy nonsense,” Merrill charged in an interview with
theWashington Examiner. “Their behavior should neither be allowed nor
enabled, and legitimate media outlets who know with every fiber of their
beings that it is completely made up should not get down in the gutter with
them.”

Halper speculated in a recent Politico Magazine column that other
counter-offensives have been launched behind the scenes, including a leak
of his book in its entirety to hundreds of journalists. (Clinton's office,
for its part, has denied any involvement.)

“Why might they leak the book early?” Halper wrote. “The best explanation
is so that the book’s contents could come out well before publication and
the Clintons can then rely on another standard mode of operation —
denouncing any unfavorable allegations as ‘old news.’ ”

But Clinton’s allies insist that they aren’t losing sleep over the new
books. If they’re looking to sully Clinton’s reputation, said Adrienne
Elrod, communications director at Correct The Record, a pro-Clinton group,
“the right-wing’s tactics are ineffective and are not working."

"The anti-Clinton literature industry has been pushing lies and profiting
off the Clinton’s for well over two decades,” Elrod said, “yet Bill and
Hillary Clinton remain two of the most popular, admired individuals
throughout the world.”

*New York Times blog: The Caucus: “10 Questions for Hillary Rodham Clinton”
<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/10-questions-for-hillary-rodham-clinton/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-thecaucus&_r=0>*

By John Harwood

July 24, 2014, 4:26 p.m. EDT

As she ponders a second bid for the presidency in 2016, former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton continues a string of media appearance
promoting her foreign policy memoir, “Hard Choices.” She spoke Thursday with
The Times’s John Harwood on the National Public Radio program “On Point”
about America’s current foreign policy crises, potential presidential
rivals and her relationship with the press.

What follows is a condensed, edited transcript of their conversation.

Q.

I’d like to start with simply the range of problems facing us in the world:
Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza. I’m well aware of the propensity
for an out-party to look at events like that and say the party in the White
House is to blame for all of it. The party in the White House says, “Well,
we can’t control events in the world.” But how much responsibility should
the Obama administration accept, and should you accept, having run foreign
policy for four years, for the chaos that we see right now?

A.

Well, John, that’s why I wrote this book, “Hard Choices.” One of the main
points I make in the book is that we are living in a much more complex,
fast moving world for many reasons. Obviously the end of the bipolar world
with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which I think we’re still trying to
adjust to and manage, the increase in nonstate actors, terrorist groups
first and foremost, but also other players, for good and for bad. The rise
of technology, which has been overall a real positive, but which has
empowered all kinds of people and groups.

It doesn’t do us much good to point fingers at each other. What we should
be trying to do is re-establish a bipartisan consensus on foreign policy
that requires America to demonstrate leadership, to be deeply involved in
trying to do what we can to manage these crises. I negotiated the last
cease-fire in Gaza November 2012. It lasted until this month. I fully
support Secretary Kerry’s efforts to try to end the violence once again.
But look at what happened in just two years. You had Hamas getting access
to much more technologically sophisticated missiles, to launch at Israel.
You had the very serious problem of the tunnels. You had a change in
leadership in Egypt that we certainly had nothing to do with, the overthrow
of the Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi. So you constantly have to be
evaluating, where can we make a difference? But the one big lesson that I
hope Americans are taking from this is when we back off, or step away, that
doesn’t bode well for either managing or resolving a lot of these disputes.

Q.

For Americans who are looking and saying, “Well, do we want the party
that’s controlling foreign policy now, or do we want to make a different
choice when we move forward in elections,” are you saying to them, “These
problems are not to any degree our fault or my fault?”

A.

Well, I’m saying that every administration, every party in the White House,
has the responsibility during the time it’s there to do the best we can, to
lead and manage the many problems we face, and I think we did in the first
term.

If you look at what we accomplished, number one, restoring American
leadership and reputation after inheriting two wars, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib
and a collapsed economic system, I think that President Obama’s leadership
and those of us who were his partners did a great deal to move us forward
in the right direction. The pivot to Asia was necessary because many of our
Asian friends and partners thought the United States had basically walked
away from being a presence in the Pacific. I brought about three
face-to-face meetings between Netanyahu and Abbas in an effort to continue
to push for a two-state solution. The United States can help facilitate,
but not dictate to other people what they should be doing for their own
self-interest.

But we never stopped working, and I think it’s not just the headlines,
John, it’s what I call the trend lines. Not only re-establish our
reputation and our leadership, but beginning to do more to try to improve
conditions around the world that affect women and girls. That’s not just a
nice thing to do, that’s very integrated into our foreign policy objective,
because where women are treated fairly and equally you’re likely to see
more stability, more democracy, less insecurity and terrorism. I think
there was an enormous amount accomplished in four years.

Q.

Let’s talk about Russia for a second. There is a line of criticism that the
president’s reset didn’t work, that he was played by Vladimir Putin. You
point out in your book, of course, that when George W. Bush with a doctrine
of preventive war was president, Russia seized parts of Georgia. You say in
the book that America can’t solve everything, but nothing can be solved
without America; we’re the indispensable nation. If neither approach — the
Bush administration’s or the Obama administration’s — worked with Putin,
what exactly are we indispensable for?

A.

Well, I would take issue with the way you characterize that, because what I
think I demonstrate in the book is that the reset worked. It was an effort
to try to obtain Russian cooperation on some key objectives while Medvedev
was president. Of course Putin still pulled the strings but he gave
Medvedev a certain amount of independence to negotiate, number one, a new
arms control treaty, which was absolutely necessary. We brought Russia
around to understanding why we thought there needed to be international
sanctions against Iran.

I’ll never forget the meeting that we had, the president and I and just one
other person on our side and Medvedev and two on his side, where we told
him that we had evidence, conclusive evidence, about Iran building an
underground facility. And the Russians were shocked because they thought
they knew what was going on in Iran. So we brought them to the table, at
the Security Council, we got those tough sanctions, and we were eventually
able to get to the negotiations that are going on now with the hope that
something real can come out of them. We got support from the Russians to go
across Russia, to resupply our troops in Afghanistan. The reset was a
device to try to refocus attention on the transactional efforts that we
needed to get done with the Russians.

Now, when Putin announced in the fall of 2011 that he was coming back, I
had no illusions. I wrote two memos to the president pointing out that we
were going to have to change our thinking and approach. We’d gotten all we
could get from the reset. The reset succeeded, but we had to make
adjustments, given the fact that Putin was going to resume both the real
position of presidency and begin, I thought and argued, to be more
aggressive in his foreign policy.

Q.

Let me go back to Gaza for a second. Are you pleased that the F.A.A.
reversed its decision after complaints from Mike Bloomberg and Prime
Minister Netanyahu and allowed U.S. flights back into Tel Aviv even though
many European countries have not?

A.

Well, a number of Europeans have reversed their policy as well. Look, I
think it needs to be based on the best understanding of the circumstances
and I think that the F.A.A. received additional information about steps
that Israel has taken. From my understanding, with the reversal here and
then the reversal in a number of European nations, they were basically
sending a message out to passengers that we’re going to keep a close watch
on this and you’ll have to be aware of potential changes in plans as we go
forward.

Q.

I’m a Methodist, as you are. You say in your book that you were inspired to
go into public service by the Methodist faith — do as much good as you can
for as long as you can. The United Methodist Church yesterday signed a
letter with other religious organizations saying the underlying cause of
the resumption of violence after repeated cease-fires is what they call the
“legal, structural, physical violence inherent in Israel’s siege of Gaza
and the West Bank.” Do they have a point? Are they right?

A.

Well I’m very proud to be a Methodist too, John, and very grateful for my
lifetime involvement in the church. Of course they have a point. There are
always arguments that can be made that have merit to them. But I think that
particular analysis right now misses what I believe to be the central
reason why this conflict has once again flared up, and that is the desire
by Hamas to assert itself since it feels it’s got its back to the wall. It
doesn’t really have very many friends left in the region — thrown out of
Damascus by Assad, basically losing their relationship in Cairo.

I think they’re doing it both out of a calculation that they can engender
more sympathy and support for their cause, but also to put Israel on the
back heel. And I have no doubt it was a deliberate provocation. Now, I do
think if we can get to another cease-fire — which I think is going to be
difficult because Hamas wants to hold out for all kinds of substantive
negotiations, which will be very difficult to negotiate and agree upon in
the kind of time pressure that a cease-fire requires — then issues like
greater access to Gaza or food and another materials can certainly be taken
into account. But I think in this particular case, I think the
responsibility falls on Hamas. I think they knew exactly what they were
doing, which was to try to put Israel in this position and try to engender
some sympathy because they don’t really have support very much anymore.

Q.

Another thing you say in the book when you’re describing your role as
secretary of state: It includes the policy element, but it also involves
being the C.E.O. of the big, vast State Department apparatus. Every four
years when people run for president, governors say, “You ought to elect a
governor because we’ve run things, we know how to manage.” Are part of the
problems we’re now seeing in the Obama administration, both in foreign
policy and domestically, a function of the fact that their leading figures,
President Obama, Joe Biden, you as secretary of state, were legislators who
came out of the Senate and not people who had run things before?

A.

Oh, you don’t expect me to agree with that, do you? Look, I think it
depends on the individual. I had serious disagreements with George Bush and
he was a two-term governor.

Q.

But is there a management deficit in this administration?

A.

I think there is a political deficit in Washington because of gridlock and
opposition to the president that started the first day he went into office.
And I find that so regrettable. I don’t want to sound naive or
Pollyanna-ish about it, but I think we’ve got two big crises in our country.

One of them is the economic crisis, which we all know has just dramatically
increased inequality and stagnated middle-class incomes and outcomes. But
we also have a political crisis. Our democracy is not working and I do not
see how we’re going to resolve a lot of our issues. If you look at the
reforms our president has put forward time and time again that would make
the government more manageable, move it into the 21st century, they’re just
met by a solid wall of resistance.

Q.

A couple of things before we run out of time. Paul Ryan’s out with a plan
today proposing that states be allowed to take all of the programs for
those in need in one revenue stream as a way of finding better ways to make
them work. Is that a good idea?

A.

No, not in the current atmosphere. It is not a good idea. All one has to
look at is that nearly half the states refuse to expand Medicaid to realize
why it’s a bad idea. If states won’t even take what are very generous terms
from the federal government to give working people and poor people access
to health care, how can we turn over all of the resources that are meant to
assist those in need?

Q.

Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, is out with an op-ed calling for
comprehensive immigration reform as you do, but saying that the law his
brother signed, which passed when you were in the Senate in 2008, ought to
be changed to make it easier to send those other than the “deserving few”
back to their home countries in Central America. Should that law be changed?

A.

I think it should be looked at as part of an overall package. We have two
categories of people that are represented by these poor children that have
come across our border. We have migrants, children who are leaving for a
variety of reasons — economic, they want to reunite with family members.
And we have refugees, people who have reason to be threatened, people who
have bad probabilities if they return home as to what might happen to them.

So we do need more resources very quickly deployed, which is what the
president and the Democrats have asked for. We need some flexibility within
the laws. Our laws right now are not particularly well-suited for making
the kind of determinations that are required, and that we should, as
Americans, want to see happen.

Q.

Last question. It’s about you and the press. Jill Abramson, my long-time
boss and friend, said recently “Hillary Clinton has terribly unrealistic
expectations for journalists.” And my question for you is, have you been so
scalded by your past interactions that it makes it difficult for you to
communicate in the way that you would need to as a presidential candidate
or otherwise?

A.

I don’t think so. I think maybe one of the points Jill was making is that I
do sometimes expect more than perhaps I should. I’ll have to work on my
expectations. But I had an excellent relationship with the State Department
press that followed me for four years and I enjoyed working with them.
Whatever I do in the future, I look forward to having the same kind of
opportunities.

*Politico Magazine: “Did Hillary’s Book Tour Work?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/did-hillarys-book-tour-work-109358.html#.U9I8JvldV8E>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 24, 2014

[Subtitle:] Top Democratic and Republican strategists weigh in.

Hillary Clinton’s book tour is winding down, so it’s time to assess what
the Hard Choices rollout means for what just about everyone in American
politics assumes is her coming presidential bid.

Thus far, the former secretary of state has made a few blunders—her comment
about being “dead broke” after leaving the White House, for instance, tied
her in knots for days—and invited fresh scrutiny toward her very well
compensated speeches (since leaving Foggy Bottom, she’s pulled down an
estimated $12 million). Her book itself, though lauded by some, has also
been panned by critics as a cautious, colorless account of her time as
secretary of state. If Hillary Clinton is headed for a coronation, the
chattering class hasn’t gotten the invitation.

So we asked a panel of top strategists and analysts in both parties: What,
if anything, does Clinton’s 2014 book tour teach us about 2016? From Karen
Hughes to Newt Gingrich, Joel Benenson to Anita Dunn, here's what they told
us.

***

Karen Hughes

Republican strategist and former George W. Bush adviser

The 2014 book tour made me think a 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential race
would feel like a replay of the Bob Dole campaign, only two decades later.
She seemed defensive and cautious, with not much new to say. Her husband
had inspired us with the “bridge to the 21st century,” but it seemed as if
she was stuck on the wrong side of it. And her “dead broke” comment was
revealing because it shows she still feels put upon despite the many
advantages she has.

***

Anne-Marie Slaughter

President of the New America Foundation and former State Department official

Having taught a course that featured secretary of state memoirs from
Acheson to Albright (paired with some international relations theory for
ballast), I can attest that it is a rather specialized genre. Secretary
Clinton followed in the footsteps of Albright’s Madame Secretary, which was
the first such memoir to mix the high politics of foreign policy
brinkmanship with personal anecdotes (how and when she got her hair done)
that would make the business of the State Department more accessible and
enjoyable for lay readers. Clinton similarly combines some genuinely new
ideas about how to conduct foreign policy in a world of digital
communication and mass politics with personal stories about other world
leaders (Aung San Suu Kyi, Angela Merkel) and her own life (preparing for
Chelsea’s wedding). From my perspective, the chief lesson of the 2014 tour
for 2016 is that it is very hard to write a book about being secretary of
state for a press audience that is primarily interested in whether you will
be president.

***

Mark McKinnon

Former media adviser to George W. Bush and co-cofounder of No Labels

The one thing that is absolute about Hillary Clinton is that when it comes
to the press, she’s damned if she does, and she’s damned if she doesn’t.
Before the book tour she was being criticized for being too cloistered, and
not opening herself up in public and not being available to the press. Now
she’s being criticized for being too spontaneous, too off the leash and too
exposed.

At the end of the day, I think it hardly matters. I think just given the
physics, there was a real need for her to get out of the bubble. She did.
Took a few hits. But she also relieved a lot of pressure that had been
building to be more public, answered a bunch of questions and still looks
like the Ferrari of the field.

***

Joel Benenson

Democratic pollster

I don’t believe that a single voter will care at all about Secretary
Clinton’s book tour or the media coverage of it. Elections—especially
presidential elections—are about big things that are going on in people’s
lives at that time. and should Hillary Clinton decide to run, her success,
like any other candidate, will hinge solely on how strongly she makes that
connection.

***

Newt Gingrich

Former speaker of the House and presidential candidate

Hillary Clinton’s book tour was a grim reminder of what happened during the
2008 presidential campaign. She is very smart and very hard-working. She
would have been a very powerful senator if she had stayed. She seems to
find it very hard to find the rhythm of public media at a national level.
Her performance did no damage among Democratic loyalists, but for
independents it raised dismaying questions about how out of touch she is
with reality. For Republicans, it was a wonderful comedy break from the
pain of the Obama presidency.

***

Douglas E. Schoen

Democratic political consultant and former pollster for President Bill
Clinton

The book tour underscores in fine relief the challenges facing a
prospective Hillary Clinton candidacy for president in 2016. As in 2008,
there is a compelling need for former Secretary Clinton to develop an
overarching message of change and inclusion—something the book tour
suggests quite compellingly is still very much a work in progress.

***

William Kristol

Editor of the Weekly Standard

Hillary Clinton’s book tour should have emboldened any Democrat who’s ever
toyed with the idea of running in 2016 to get to work organizing his or her
campaign. Hillary has sold many fewer books than expected. If she runs,
she’ll win many fewer delegates than expected.

***

Anita Dunn

Senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker and former Barack Obama adviser

I’ve been amused by the many “lessons” being drawn about 2016 out of a 2014
book tour, because the one lesson the press and political establishment
never seem to learn is what is important to voters and what isn’t. A book
tour in 2014 teaches us very little about a presidential campaign in 2016,
particularly because the book was a memoir as opposed to being the classic
“presidential campaign book” filled with policy proposals for the future.
Should Secretary Clinton decide to run for the presidency, voters are going
pay a lot more attention to the vision she outlines for the future as a
candidate than to what happened in the spring of 2014 when she was talking
about her book, and they will have a lot of questions for her. Their
questions will be tough and pointed across a number of issues. How
Secretary Clinton answers to the voters, should she choose to run, is what
will determine the success of her candidacy, not this book tour. And that
is a lesson I think Secretary Clinton, who has run before, understands
better than most of the other potential candidates.

***

Beth Myers

Mitt Romney campaign adviser

Bill and Hillary Clinton have created a new post-presidential model that
includes self-promotion, corporate consulting, paid speaking fees,
mega-book deals and massive wealth accumulation. There is nothing
necessarily wrong with accumulating great wealth, but no former first
family has done anything like it before. The Washington establishment may
have embraced this model, but Hillary 2014 demonstrates that American
voters will want to understand “Clinton, Inc.” a whole lot better before
they are sold on a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

***

Alex Vogel

Co-founder and managing partner, VogelHood research

First, it shows the broader Democratic primary base that she is not in
close touch with the populist mood of her own party. Her struggle to deal
with questions about her own wealth highlights that disparity. Second,
while her popularity remains high, her stumbles show there is a real
opportunity for someone else in the race—and will encourage them to hang
around in case she trips harder. Third, and maybe most importantly, her
less-than-amazing book sales show that people aren’t looking for a new
definition of Hillary. Americans have a fairly defined view of
her—something that cuts both ways—and aren’t hyper-interested in laying
down hardcover money to listen to a new version of it.

***

Ramesh Ponnuru

Conservative pundit

Hillary Clinton’s book tour doesn’t tell us much about how she will do in
2016—but what it does tell us isn’t good news for her. She can’t be happy
about the gaffe-filled coverage of it, or the fact that her favorability
ratings have been dropping. She will be a formidable candidate but not an
unbeatable one. But then we already knew that.

***

Ana Navarro

Republican strategist

The Hillary book tour taught us that Hillary has the same problems—being
overly cautious, measured, scripted, uninspiring and boring—going into 2016
that she had going into 2008. And she has one more: Now she has to stay
within the lines of the Obama administration’s coloring book.

Jetting around world capitals as secretary of state to talk lofty issues
with international leaders is very different from U.S. retail politics. She
came across as rusty. It was just crazy to see her dig herself deeper and
deeper in trying to explain her personal wealth. Calling the way she dealt
with it “unartful” is being charitable.

We also learned that she views not having seized in 2008 the historical
aspect of being the first woman candidate as a mistake. This time around,
she obviously plans to embrace it fully.

***

Lanhee Chen

Former Mitt Romney adviser

Hillary Clinton’s book tour showed us how out of touch a rusty politician
can look. But beyond the gaffes, I think it demonstrated that Clinton’s
efforts to showcase her record as secretary of state will end up
backfiring. In fact, what she thinks is her biggest political strength will
actually be her biggest liability if she decides to run for president. The
world is in tumult, in no small part because of the role Clinton played as
the chief executioner of President Obama’s failed foreign policy. One needs
to look no further than her obsession with pursuing a “reset” in our
relations with Russia, her coddling of Bashar Assad in Syria or her
inability to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the
Iraqis to see how her time as America’s chief diplomat will come back to
haunt her. The media and political elites in Washington may have focused on
Clinton’s gaffes and other missteps during her recent book tour, but the
bad news for her is that it showed us that the worst is yet to come.

***

Zac Moffat

Republican consultant

In 2008, the Obama campaign ran circles around Clinton, and the cycle has
gotten exponentially faster since. It appears that the Clinton staff has
been effective at getting one-off predetermined tweets through approval,
but much has changed since 2008, and their success will be contingent on
their ability to adapt and be more responsive than their current
communications strategy.

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Clinton would back changing border law”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/213251-clinton-backs-changing-border-law>*

By Jesse Byrnes

July 24, 2014, 1:31 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton said Thursday that she was open to changing a 2008
trafficking law to help the administration deal with an influx of child
migrants crossing the border illegally.

"I think it should be looked at as part of an overall package," Clinton
said on NPR's "On Point.”

Clinton said Obama needed more “flexibility” to deal with the crisis on the
border, noting the large number of migrants are fleeing their countries for
many reasons.

“We do need more resources very quickly deployed, which is what the
president and the Democrats have asked for. We need some flexibility within
the laws,” she added.

The 2008 law has become a sticking point in the debate over how to handle
the large number of child migrants who have entered the U.S. this year.

About three-quarters of the unaccompanied children crossing the southern
border are from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. More than 50,000 have
immigrated to the U.S. since October.

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
of 2008, named after the 19th-century British abolitionist, prevents
officials from quickly deporting migrants from countries other than Canada
or Mexico.

A House GOP border working group called for changes to the law, which
Republicans say creates an incentive for children to cross the border.
Republicans will likely include those changes in their $1.5 billion
emergency funding bill for the border, while Senate Democrats are moving a
$2.7 billion plan without changes to the 2008 law.

Congressional Democrats oppose changing the law, saying that doing so would
weaken legal protections for young migrants.

But the Obama administration has called for measures to help speed up the
deportation process.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the law should be
changed to expedite processing for those ineligible for asylum.

House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday urged President Obama to publicly
support changing the law.

Clinton at a CNN Town Hall last month said unaccompanied immigrant children
would have to be sent home.

“The laws, our laws right now are not particularly well suited for making
the kind of determinations that are required, and that we should, as
Americans, want to see happen,” Clinton said Thursday.

*Fast Company: “Most Americans Think the U.S. Would Be Better Governed If
More Women Were In Charge”
<http://www.fastcompany.com/3033477/strong-female-lead/most-americans-think-the-us-would-be-better-governed-if-more-women-were-i>*

By Kathleen Davis

July 25, 2014, 5:43 a.m. EDT

Tina Fey famously quipped on SNL in 2008 that “bitch is the new black,”
asserting that the reason that Hillary Clinton was trailing Barack Obama
was because of a lot of not-so-subtle misogyny.

Of course it’s not just Hillary Clinton who has faced an uphill battle;
many female politicians have found themselves the subjects of questions,
criticisms, and scrutiny that their male counterparts never have to face.

However, a new poll from Gallup shows that 63% of Americans say the country
would be better governed with more female political leaders, which is up
slightly from 57% in past polls in 1995 and 2000. But not everyone feels
this way: While 78% of liberals as well as 78% of unmarried women think we
need more female political leaders, only 46% of Republicans feel that
having more women in office would result in better government, and almost
one in five (19%) feel it would be worse.

[GALLUP POLLS]

Meanwhile, four in five Americans (81%) say the U.S. would be better
governed if more people with business and management experience were in
political office. Which means in theory that everyone in the tiny pool of
women CEOs should run for office.

Of course, a lot goes into the public’s voting decisions, and while
Americans may claim to view demographic and professional backgrounds in a
certain way, their final voting decisions can be swayed by many other
factors. And there’s the argument that less women than men run for public
office in the first place.

Still, the proportion of women in elected offices remains staggeringly low
when you consider that women make up 51% of the U.S. population: Women’s
representation in both the House and the Senate hovers around 20% (there
are currently 20 female U.S. senators and 79 female U.S. House members),
and there are only five female state governors in office.

According to Gallup’s research however, we are at least slowly moving in a
more equitable direction. “Far more women have been elected to federal or
statewide office in the years since 1990,” writes Justin McCarthy in the
Gallup report. Maybe next we can finally stop talking about what they are
wearing.

*U.S. News & World Report blog: Washington Whispers: “Another Pro-Hillary
PAC Tries to Make Clinton Cool”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/07/24/another-pro-hillary-pac-tries-to-make-clinton-cool>*

By Nikki Schwab

July 24, 2014, 6:01 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] But who's the most grass-roots of them all?

If Eric Williams had his way, you’d be kicking back, sipping a pantsuit
cocktail and supporting Hillary Clinton.

Williams, a 22-year-old from Alabama, who now lives across the Potomac from
Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, is a founder of Hillary 2016 PAC, yet
another outside group supporting a potential Clinton 2016 presidential run.

On Thursday night, he’s throwing down. The group is hosting a second
Washington fundraiser at the Soho Tea & Coffee shop, a Dupont Circle joint
with bright art, mismatched tables, cement floors and, of course, a bar.

“Soho Tea & Coffee brings a unique flavor to D.C., like the candidate
Hillary Clinton,” Williams told Whispers. (The owner is also a big Clinton
supporter.) The event promises specialty drinks, fun and music. Beverages
served will include the nonalcoholic “Hillary’s Hammerhead,” a coffee
drink, and a “White House Wine Spritzer,” a boozy one. The pantsuit-themed
drink ​was served at the group’s first fundraiser, which took place in
June, at a bowling alley in Georgetown, that’s also a bar.

Tickets for the Thursday night event are $16. “A ‘suggested donation’ of
$16 we felt would make it accessible to anybody who wanted to attend,”
Williams said. “And it’s a suggested donation as well,” he repeated,
suggesting someone could get into the party for even less.

There’s a similar flavor here to what Ready for Hillary has tried to
accomplish with small dollar donation parties, though the organizers of
that PAC, which is more connected with the Clintons, ask attendees for
$20.16.

Williams said Hillary 2016 PAC isn’t a copycat, but more authentically
grass roots.

That’s because Williams has no ties to the Clinton family – he was born
when they were already in the White House.

“I fell in love with Hillary when I was 3 years old,” Williams explained.

The super PAC came about earlier this year when Williams joined forces with
Kelley Johnson, a veteran of Terry McAuliffe's successful campaign for
governor of Virginia in 2013, who also voted for Clinton when she ran for
the U.S. Senate in New York. Together, the two of them are trying to get
young people involved. “The things that we value and the things that the
young progressive movement values … [Clinton] spent her entire life on
those issues,” Williams explained, noting that young people don’t
necessarily know her record.

Evidence of that delighted conservatives when, in May, right-of-center
video journalist Michelle Fields went to the campus of George Washington
University and failed to find a college student who could really pinpoint
Clinton’s record as secretary of state. (Though Fields found a lot of fans.)

Williams, however, has seen progress. “I see it first hand,” he said. “I
think more and more every day my generation has become more familiar with
her as she’s become the hot topic.”

He aims to have the Hillary 2016 PAC educate, along with raise funds. So
far, the super PAC, which can raise unlimited money, has only brought in
about $10,000, with much of that eaten by operating expenditures. That
doesn't seem to bother the founder.

“The stigma of political action committees is that we’re just raising tons
of money, we’re just going to raise money to sway their opinions or
whatever,” Williams said. “But we believe in political action being action.”

*CNN: “Why liberals don't trust Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/politics/clinton-liberals-trust/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)>*

By Dan Merica

July 25, 2014, 5:45 a.m. EDT

To prove she wasn't just an opportunist hoping to use a U.S. Senate seat in
New York as a ticket to bigger things, then-first lady Hillary Clinton
tried to show voters that she cared about their values and views -- she
listened.

More than a year before the 2000 election, Clinton sat in farmhouses and in
community centers, listening to voters' needs and concerns and their
problems with government.

Many liberal and progressive activists don't trust Clinton because they
think she sides with big banks and big money instead of the middle class
and they're wary of her on national security. With a Clinton presidential
campaign a possibility, they want the same treatment New York voters got.

"If there was an actual, authentic 'I am going to listen to you about your
issues' from Clinton, instead of kind of pounding the drum of inevitability
and stampeding over the left on her way to assumed victory, that would be
effective," said Sally Kohn, a progressive activist, CNN contributor and
Clinton critic.

Until then, the trust deficit between Clinton and the left of her party
will grow, Kohn and other liberals predict.

Activists point to Clinton's voting record in the Senate, where she voted
to authorize the Iraq war and increase domestic surveillance. They say that
and decisions her husband made while president, like the Defense of
Marriage Act and the authorization of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, give her little street cred among liberals and populists.

Possibly the biggest concern among liberals is Clinton's coziness with Wall
Street, their big bogeyman. Since leaving the State Department in 2013, she
has spoken at events sponsored by Wall Street giants like Fidelity, Goldman
Sachs and Ameriprise Financial, and during her Senate runs and 2008
presidential run, Clinton defended lobbyists.

"I don't think she has been aggressive on the banks," said Nelini Stamp, a
progressive political organizer from New York. "When I think of Hillary
Clinton, I actually think she is in bed with some of the banks and Wall
Street is her ally."

There is also an overarching suspicion among liberals that Clinton is
saying what she needs to get elected, but would govern differently.

"You wonder if it is a pivot or whether she is saying what the moment
demands," Kohn said.

Starting in May, before Clinton crisscrossed the country selling her book
"Hard Choices," the former secretary of state started to talk about
populist and liberal issues like college affordability and income
inequality.

Clinton told an audience at the liberal New American Foundation in May that
"the dream of upward mobility that made this country a model for the world
feels further and further out of reach" and because of that, "many
Americans understandably feel frustrated, even angry."

Clinton has also recently labeled college affordability "one of the biggest
problems we have in the country," and says if she were elected president
she would "tackle growth, which is the handmaiden of inequality." People
close to her have started to trumpet her record on pay equity and the
minimum wage.

"She has come with a more populist tone because she knows what people want
to hear," Stamp said. Asked if she trusts Clinton when she talks about
income inequality, Stamp said bluntly, "Right now, not that much."

Clinton's changing message has been overshadowed by gaffes during her book
tour, like countering questions about her wealth by saying her family was
"dead broke" when it left the White House.

At the same time, possible opponents from the left -- like Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Vice President Joe Biden -- have
generated more buzz among liberals as alternatives to Clinton.

Other than changing her tune, Clinton hasn't been quick to address liberals
who have questions for her. Instead of sitting down with them -- something
that a candidate would certainly do, especially one battling distrust --
she has continued to hold events around her book and her family's
foundation.

Polls might explain why she hasn't reached out yet: Right now, liberals
don't matter that much to whether Clinton would win the Democratic
nomination in 2016.

A CNN/ORC International Poll from June found that only 11% of Democrats
want a more liberal option to Clinton. Twenty percent want someone more
conservative and 63% want Clinton.

What's more, a Washington Post/ABC News poll from the same time showed that
72% of self-described liberals supported Clinton, a number that was larger
than moderate and conservative Democrats.

But liberals do make a lot of noise. Some of that has already boosted
possible opponents from the left.

Earlier this month both Biden and Warren ignited the crowd of liberal
bloggers and activists at the annual Netroots Nation conference in Detroit.
Warren's speech was interrupted by chants of "Run, Liz, Run" from eager
supporters who want to see her challenge Clinton for the presidency.

Clinton wasn't there, instead continuing with her "Hard Choices" memoir
tour in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Madison, Connecticut.

While Stamp, who attended Netroots Nation, said there wasn't an overarching
feeling of being snubbed by Clinton, she acknowledged, "It would have been
interesting to hear her in a progressive setting."

"People want to hear from a potential candidate and have those candidates
hear about the work they are doing on the ground," she added.

After the conference, left-leaning Democrats said they felt more energized
and organized than ever -- and they hope that will lead to more influence
on who their party nominates in 2016.

"She shouldn't be the inevitable candidate," said Erica Sagrans, the
campaign manager for Ready for Warren, an effort to enlist Warren to run
for president in 2016. "Our take is that no one should feel like they can't
support a candidate that they like or are excited about just because there
is a lot of support for Hillary."

Ready for Warren is a direct response to what many liberal organizers say
is an assumption of inevitability among the cadre of groups and political
operatives organizing for a possible Clinton campaign. The name itself is a
play on Ready for Hillary, an organized group of Clinton loyalists who have
raised over $8 million to help Clinton if she chooses to run in 2016.

Sagrans, whose group received a great deal of attention at Netroots this
month, said it hopes to "channel the excitement about Warren into tangible
results and a tangible organization."

But just as much as the group's goal is to "elevate Warren," as Sagrans
said, progressives also want to direct the 2016 conversation.

On this goal, progressives seem to be winning. Clinton has talked more
about populist issues since embarking on the book tour and will likely be
forced to continue this rhetoric if she runs for president.

And liberals hope their influence will grow with time.

"There is this sort of inherent question, is Hillary ready for us?" Kohn
said about 2016. "It is not enough to just be the next in line. The
question is: Are you really, truly listening?"

*Politico: “Deval Patrick: I'm not 'pals' with Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/deval-patrick-hillary-clinton-not-friends-109342.html>*

By Kyle Cheney

July 24, 2014, 1:43 p.m. EDT

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who raised eyebrows earlier this year by
questioning the sense of “inevitability” around Hillary Clinton’s potential
presidential candidacy, emphasized Thursday that he’s worried Clinton’s
inner circle will perpetuate an “off-putting” feeling of “entitlement”
surrounding her possible White House bid.

“I worry about the campaign; I don’t think it’s so much her,” the Bay State
Democrat said during an appearance on WGBH-FM, a public radio station in
Boston.

Patrick added that he had a chance to speak with Clinton at a biotech
conference in San Diego last month but said that he and the former
secretary of state aren’t close.

“It’s not like we’re pals,” he said.

Patrick, echoing comments he made to CNN earlier this year, said the
feeling of inevitability played a role in sinking Clinton’s 2008
presidential campaign.

“The worry of that is that that can be interpreted by people as
entitlement. And that can be off-putting to folks,” he said. “They want you
to sweat for it.”

Patrick wasn’t asked directly if he’d consider running for president in
2016, but, asked by a listener whether he believes a presidential candidate
from “liberal Massachusetts” could ever win the presidency, Patrick
rejected the premise.

“The worry of that is that that can be interpreted by people as
entitlement. And that can be off-putting to folks,” he said. “They want you
to sweat for it.”

Patrick wasn’t asked directly if he’d consider running for president in
2016, but, asked by a listener whether he believes a presidential candidate
from “liberal Massachusetts” could ever win the presidency, Patrick
rejected the premise.

“Massachusetts is not that liberal,” he said. “We have more unenrolled
independents than we do registered Democrats and registered Republicans
combined. … We have Democrats in Massachusetts who would be Republicans
anywhere else.”

He added that he thinks Americans prefer “good leadership” no matter the
candidate’s home state.

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton: You’re lucky ‘Hard Choices’ isn’t longer”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-hard-choices-book-could-have-been-longer>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

July 24, 2014, 7:12 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton’s new book “Hard Choices” is many things: a best-selling
memoir, a detailed record of her time as secretary of state, a careful
campaign document and, as Clinton likes to joke, a handy door stop. It’s
very thick.

The book’s 650 pages have drawn complaints from the likes of Google CEO
Eric Schmidt, who compared its length unfavorably to his own 37-page book
while interviewing Clinton this week. “This would just slip under the door.
You can’t imagine using that as a door stop,” Clinton scoffed while holding
Schmidt’s slim text on stage. To other interviewers, Clinton has joked that
her book can be used as an exercise weight, encouraging audiences to buy
two copies so they can work out both arms at once.

But, Clinton revealed Thursday, her book could have been even longer. Much
longer. Speaking with CNBC’s John Harwood, who was guest-hosting the public
radio show “On Point,” produced by WBUR in Boston, Clinton said her book is
a slimmed down version of what it could have been.

“I know I wrote a long book, but I cut about two-thirds of it out!” she
added with a laugh. Harwood heartily agreed it was long.

With about 600 pages of text (minus the lengthy index, and other
appendages), that suggests the potential presidential candidate could have
produced a roughly 1,800 page manuscript. ”War and Peace” runs about 1,400
pages in the Oxford World’s Classic paperback printing.

More seriously, Clinton defended the Obama administration’s controversial
“reset” policy with Russia, which has been criticized in the wake of
Russia’s incursion into Crimea and the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight
17 last week. “What I think I demonstrate in the book is that the reset
worked,” she told Harwood, insisting it was successful in extracting key
concessions from then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev before Vladimir
Putin resumed power. “We’d gotten all we could get from the reset. The
reset succeeded, but we had to make adjustments, given the fact that Putin
was going … to be more aggressive in his foreign policy.”

*Calendar:*

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

·  ~ July 23-27 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Ameriprise
Financial Conference (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/george-w-bush-hillary-clinton-substitute-speaker-109010.html>
)

·  July 25 – New York City, NY: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Bronx Children’s
Museum Dream Big Day (CNN
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/23/clinton-sotomayor-and-castro-to-attend-friday-event-togethe/>
)

·  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/>)