Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday July 22, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:06:48 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Tuesday July 22, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: On my way to @Twitter! Tweet
your questions to me with #AskHillary & watch my conversation with @KatieS
here:http://youtu.be/kcMbpeRINZc  <http://t.co/RBLJKyLk24>[7/21/14, 7:30
p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/491364575392964608>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton calls for additional
sanctions on Russia, working with our European allies.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/212896-clinton-calls-for-tougher-sanctions-on-putin
…
<http://t.co/kkiTwsUX1c> [7/22/14, 1:15 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/491632563723595776>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: See what @HillaryClinton thinks is one
of the biggest problems facing our country right now #AskHillary
http://youtu.be/wHy-z_zxnYc  <http://t.co/Dw2ru58tT8> [7/22/14, 12:39 p.m.
EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/491623630418485248>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@AmericaRising What is it you dislike
more about charity, helping people or helping people? #AskRising [7/21/14, 5:59
p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/491341707850825730>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Why the ‘rich Hillary Clinton’
storyline is so dumb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/21/why-the-rich-hillary-clinton-storyline-is-so-dumb/
…
<http://t.co/CtKGl7EYNc> via @paulwaldman1 [7/21/14, 4:23 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/491317506670592001>]

*Headlines:*

*CNN: “Rubio calls Clinton 'a 20th century candidate'”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/22/rubio-calls-clinton-a-20th-century-candidate/>*

“‘Should she decide to run for president, Hillary Clinton would present a
forward-thinking agenda, one that presents new, bold ideas to keep our
country moving in the right direction. With his history supporting the Tea
Party’s outdated, regressive policies, Senator Rubio is the one stuck in
the stone ages. This is nothing but a desperate attempt by him to divert
from his failed legislative record,’ Adrienne Elrod, communications
director at the pro-Clinton rapid response shop Correct The Record, told
CNN.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Marco Rubio calls Hillary Clinton a
‘20th century candidate’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/22/marco-rubio-calls-hillary-clinton-a-20th-century-candidate/>*

“Adrienne Elrod, communications director for Correct the Record, a
pro-Clinton super PAC, responded in a statement: ‘Should she decide to run
for president, Hillary Clinton would present a forward-thinking agenda, one
that presents new, bold ideas to keep our country moving in the right
direction.’”

*Media Matters for America: “When A GOP Presidential Hopeful Earned $11
Million In Speaking Fees And D.C. Press Didn't Care”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/22/when-a-gop-presidential-hopeful-earned-11-milli/200163>*

“Even though the Republican hopeful in thirteen months prior to his
candidacy earned nearly twice as much money in speaking fees as Clinton has
in the sixteen months since stepping down as Secretary of State, the press
has universally agreed that Clinton's fee are not only newsworthy but
deeply disturbing and that her family wealth poses a ‘a political
liability.’”

*Washington Post opinion: Catherine Rampell: “Limousine liberalism’s good
works”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-limousine-liberalisms-good-works/2014/07/21/f36e38ce-110e-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html>*

“The term I’d use for a 1 percenter who expresses concern about the wages,
economic opportunities and safety nets available to the 99 percent is not
hypocrisy; it’s empathy.”

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Rubio: Clinton is ‘20th century candidate’”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/212935-rubio-clinton-is-20th-century-candidate>*

“The criticism of Clinton is ‘rich coming from a Senator who wants the
minimum wage to have less purchasing power than it did in the 1960’s, take
women’s health care back to the 1950’s, shut down the government like
Republicans did in the 1990’s and has voted time and again to end Medicare
as we know it,’ Democratic National Committee nation press secretary
Michael Czin said in an e-mail.”

*Des Moines Register: “Possible presidential rival to Hillary Clinton
coming to Iowa again”
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/07/22/martin-omalley-returns/12987739/>*

“Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley seems willing to fill the void in Iowa from
the relative lack of Democratic White House hopefuls touching base here.”

*Slate: “Adventures in Warrenland”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/elizabeth_warren_and_netroots_nation_movement_to_elect_the_massachusetts.html>*

“The evidence for a left-wing challenge to Clinton that could defeat her is
thin to nonexistent.”

*Washington Examiner: “'Lost control': MSNBC hits Hillary Clinton for
wrecking her personal Image”
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/lost-control-msnbc-hits-hillary-clinton-for-wrecking-her-personal-image/article/2551105>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has ‘lost control’ of her public
Image, a sorry place to be for someone who's reportedly considering a 2016
presidential bid, and she has no one to blame but herself, an MSNBC panel
suggested Tuesday morning.”

*Articles:*

*CNN: “Rubio calls Clinton 'a 20th century candidate'”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/22/rubio-calls-clinton-a-20th-century-candidate/>*

By CNN Political Unit

July 22, 2014, 9:52 a.m. EDT

Marco Rubio's apparently not so concerned if Hillary Clinton decides to
make another run for the White House.

"I just think she's a 20th century candidate," the first-term senator from
Florida and potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate told NPR.

"I think she does not offer an agenda for moving America forward in the
21st century, at least not up till now," Rubio said, in an interview with
"Morning Edition" that posted early Tuesday.

"The truth of the matter is she was the secretary of state during an
administration that has had virtually no successes on foreign policy,"
Rubio added.

This is far from the first time Rubio's been critical of Clinton's tenure
as America's top diplomat.

"First, I think she's going to be asked to account for her time as
secretary of state and I don't think it's the sterling success people think
it is. Quite frankly, much of the foreign policy failures we see in place
today began when she ran the Department of State," Rubio told CNN's Wolf
Blitzer in an interview in February on "The Situation Room."

"Should she decide to run for president, Hillary Clinton would present a
forward-thinking agenda, one that presents new, bold ideas to keep our
country moving in the right direction. With his history supporting the Tea
Party’s outdated, regressive policies, Senator Rubio is the one stuck in
the stone ages. This is nothing but a desperate attempt by him to divert
from his failed legislative record," Adrienne Elrod, communications
director at the pro-Clinton rapid response shop Correct The Record, told
CNN.

Clinton has said she'll decide on running for the White House by the end of
this year or early next year. Rubio, who's also up for re-election to the
Senate in 2016, said in the NPR interview that he'd make up his mind by
early 2015.

"There's a lot of work to be done if you're going to run for president, or
if you're going to run for re-election in a state as big as Florida," Rubio
added.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Marco Rubio calls Hillary Clinton a
‘20th century candidate’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/22/marco-rubio-calls-hillary-clinton-a-20th-century-candidate/>*

By Sean Sullivan

July 22, 2014, 9:28 a.m. EDT

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says former secretary of state Hillary Rodham
Clinton (D) would not offer a platform that addresses the country's future
challenges if she runs for president in 2016.

"I just think she's a 20th century candidate," Rubio told NPR in an
interview published Tuesday. "I think she does not offer an agenda for
moving America forward in the 21st century -- at least not up to now."

Rubio argued that Clinton is "extremely vulnerable in her record" because
of the foreign policy "failures" of the Obama administration.

Rubio, like Clinton, is a possible candidate for president.

It's not the first time Rubio has made the "20th century"" argument. He
said something similar in New Hampshire in May, though he did not mention
Clinton by name. Democrats, Rubio said then, could "nominate someone now
who wants to take us to the past, to an era that is gone and is never
coming back. The 20th century is gone. We live in the 21st century, a time
of extraordinary challenges but also extraordinary opportunities."

Adrienne Elrod, communications director for Correct the Record, a
pro-Clinton super PAC, responded in a statement: "Should she decide to run
for president, Hillary Clinton would present a forward-thinking agenda, one
that presents new, bold ideas to keep our country moving in the right
direction."

*Media Matters for America: “When A GOP Presidential Hopeful Earned $11
Million In Speaking Fees And D.C. Press Didn't Care”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/22/when-a-gop-presidential-hopeful-earned-11-milli/200163>*

By Eric Boehlert

July 22, 2014

[Subtitle:] Different "Wealth" Coverage For Democrats And Republicans

In the thirteen months directly prior to kicking off his Republican
presidential campaign in February 2007, Rudy Giuliani earned more than $11
million dollars giving paid speeches. The former New York City Mayor, who
was thrust into the national and international spotlight after the terror
attacks of September 11, 2001, typically charged between $100,000 and
$300,000 for his speeches and spoke more than 120 times.

According to one speaking contract published at the time, Giuliani required
clients pay for meals and lodging for himself and four travel companions.
Giuliani required a two-bedroom suite (with a king-sized bed) for his
overnight stays; a suite preferably located on an upper floor with a
balcony. Clients also had to pay for four additional rooms to house
Giuliani's entourage.

As for travel, the contract stipulated that clients "should provide Mr.
Giuliani with first class travel expenses for up to 5 people to include a
private plane." What kind of private plane? "Please note that the private
aircraft MUST BE a Gulfstream IV or bigger."

Note that along with the $11 million in speaking fees Giuliani pocketed in
2006, he also earned $8 million on the speech circuit in 2002. If Giuliani
was able to average between $8 and $11 million in speaking fees from 2002
until he announced his candidacy in early 2007, he would have earned more
than $40 million giving speeches in the five years prior to his White House
campaign. (Speaking fees represented only part of his income.)

What's newsworthy about that today? Simply the fact that back in 2007 when
a wealthy Republican became a presidential hopeful the Beltway press didn't
care that he'd earned an eight-figure income giving 45-minute speeches.
(With an additional 15 minutes allotted for Q & A.) Indeed, Giuliani's
financial revelations barely registered with pundits and reporters who gave
the information little time and attention. The  Washington Post, for
example, published just three mentions of Giuliani's multi-million dollar
"speaking fees."

The press certainly never elevated the issue to a defining narrative for
the Republican's campaign. Perhaps they realized there was nothing
intrinsically wrong with a speaker being paid what organizations are
willing to offer them.

Compare that collective shoulder shrug with the nearly month-long media
fascination still churning over Hillary Clinton's speaking fees; a
fascination that's part of a larger, misguided media obsession over the
issue of Clinton wealth. ("Speaking fee" articles  and columns published by
Post so far this year regarding Clinton? 28.)

Even though the Republican hopeful in thirteen months prior to his
candidacy earned nearly twice as much money in speaking fees as Clinton has
in the sixteen months since stepping down as Secretary of State, the press
has universally agreed that Clinton's fee are not only newsworthy but
deeply disturbing and that her family wealth poses a "a political
liability."

Why a major political hurdle? Clinton's "windfall [is] at odds with her
party's call to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor," Bloomberg
News preposterously proclaimed this week.

Note to media: American history is filled with wealthy Democrats who have
fought for income equality and on behalf of the working class. Based on her
past performance, as a candidate Hillary Clinton would simply extend that
tradition. And last time I checked, the Democratic Party platform doesn't
discourage the accumulation of personal wealth. That's simply a media
stereotype.

The other steadfast media angle in play has been that Clinton's
speech-driven wealth means she's no longer "authentic" and that she's "out
of touch" with everyday voters. But a recent poll thoroughly debunked that
notion, so why does the lazy press keep pushing it?

When you examine the two sets of facts, the press treatment and the gaping
media double standards in play for Giuliani and Clinton could not be more
vivid: The D.C. press holds the Clintons, and Democrats, to a much tougher
standard than they do Republican candidates.

Note that last week, appearing on Morning Joe, while hosts and guests all
agreed that the Clinton speaking fees were a big problem for Hillary, NBC's
Chuck Todd insisted the inflated paychecks looked unseemly [emphasis added]:

“All of this book tour; all of these decisions to go out and basically make
your post-presidential money before you run for--before you actually are
president? Which is really what's going [on]. *Ex-presidents make money
like this, not candidates before they run*.”

But what did Giuliani do in 2006? He went out and made big, "ex-president"
speech money before he ran for president. But most pundits remained quiet.

And how about the Washington Post harping on the fact that Clinton received
big speaking fees from college and universities and that it just looked
bad. (Even though no student fees were used to pay Clinton and she donated
the fees to charity.) Article after article from the Post has obsessed over
that angle.

But guess what Giuliani did? He not only cashed a big university paycheck,
paid for by student fees, but the Republican also demanded the school pay
for his pricey travel.

From the Chicago Tribune, one of the few news organization that took a
close look at Giuliani's speech earnings in 2007:

“In one speech last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested
and received travel *on a private Gulfstream jet that cost the school
$47,000 to operate*. *His visit essentially wiped out the student speakers
annual fund*.”

By the way, if anyone thinks my description of the Post's Clinton speaking
fees as having been obsessive represents an exaggeration, here's a sampling
from Washingtonpost.com archives of recent, fevered dispatches from the
Clinton speech beat:

University at Buffalo paid $275,000 for Hillary Clinton speech

At time of austerity, 8 universities spent top dollar on Hillary Rodham
Clinton speeches

Hillary Clinton's speaking fees are a drop in the Clinton Foundation's
massive fundraising bucket

Hillary Clinton paid $300,000 and Bill Clinton paid $250,000 for UCLA
speeches

Hillary Clinton says she donated all money from college speeches

Chelsea Clinton speaking fees can reach $75,000

Here's what Hillary Clinton's $225,000 speaking fee could buy on the
campaign trail

Ten questions about those donated speaking fees

What did the Post's coverage of Giuliani's speaking fees look like in 2007?
It looked liked this:

Disclosure Forms Show Wealthy Lot Of Hopefuls

Giuliani to Seek Advice From FEC About Speaking Fees

That, according to a Nexis search, captures most of the Post's coverage and
commentary about Giuliani's $11 million earnings from speaking fees. You'll
note in the first piece the Post didn't even publish a stand-alone article
about the topic. Instead, the paper simply grouped Giuliani's speaking fees
with the other candidates and detailed all their earnings. (The issue
garnered three additional sentences of coverage is this Post article.)

As for the second article -- the only one the paper published devoted
entirely to Giuliani's speeches -- the Post focused exclusively on any
ethical issues raised by Giuliani continuing to give paid speeches after he
had formed a presidential exploratory committee, not on whether he'd earned
too much money, which is what the current Clinton coverage revolves around.

For Giuliani, being a Republican and cashing large checks for speaking fees
was definitely not a political problem according to the Washington Post,
and according to the rest of the Beltway press, which now on a weekly, and
sometimes even daily, basis devotes time and space to harshly examining
Hillary's earnings.

*Washington Post opinion: Catherine Rampell: “Limousine liberalism’s good
works”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/catherine-rampell-limousine-liberalisms-good-works/2014/07/21/f36e38ce-110e-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html>*

By Catherine Rampell

July 21, 2014, 7:28 p.m. EDT

Is it hypocritical for a really, really rich person to object to rising
inequality?

I’ve been thinking about this in light of the derision the Clintons are
facing for charging six-figure speaking fees while pontificating about
income polarization and the plight of the poor.

Other high-income, high-net-worth figures have been similarly mocked for
expressing concerns about a growing income and wealth imbalance that
benefited them. Among the targeted upper-crusters are Goldman Sachs chief
executive Lloyd Blankfein, who said in a recent interview that “too much of
the [gross domestic product] over the last generation has gone to too few
of the people”; Warren Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha, who has advocated
higher tax rates on high-earners such as himself and consistently decried
rising inequality; and Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist and New
York Times columnist who will soon receive $25,000 a month from an
institute that studies income inequality.

These economic elites aren’t alone in balking at rising inequality. A rare
survey of 1 percenters found that nearly two-thirds believe “differences in
income in America are too large,” according to research by Benjamin I.
Page, Larry M. Bartels and Jason Seawright. That’s almost identical to the
share of the general population that espouses this view.

Given the e-mails I received when I wrote last week about Chelsea Clinton’s
lucrative speaking gigs, lots of people see this sort of “limousine
liberalism” as, if not outright hypocrisy, at least a sign of cognitive
dissonance. The implication is that to credibly care about — and advocate
on behalf of — poor people, you need to take a vow of poverty yourself.

I find this view highly problematic.

First of all, when low-income people do jump on the soapbox about raising
taxes on the rich or expanding the social safety net, they’re usually
accused of class warfare. But more important, the poor, unlike
billionaires, don’t get a lot of airtime.

Pretty much every time a rich person sneezes, a banner headline sprouts.
Some of this outsize influence over the public discourse comes from the
fact that very rich people tend to be more politically active than the
typical American. Billionaires have the resources to spritz their agendas
throughout the airwaves, and when they ask the White House for a meeting,
they can be pretty sure they will be accommodated . But some of their
influence reflects the fact that regular Americans, for whatever reason,
put a lot of stock in what rich people think, no matter how inane such
commentary might be. We listen when Kim Kardashian prattles on about
“having it all” and when Tom Perkins mouths off about apportioning votes
according to taxes paid. Why? Because, as Tevye the Milkman wisely
surmised, “When you’re rich, they think you really know.”

Given this state of affairs, I would much rather the megarich wield their
wealth and influence to try to improve conditions for the working class,
rather than to further pad their pocketbooks.

Of course, when it comes to inequality, these two goals are not necessarily
mutually exclusive. Blankfein’s objections to rising inequality, for
example, could be said to represent a sort of enlightened self-interest, as
he emphasized that he thinks the yawning income gap is politically
“destabilizing” and could lead to legislative gridlock and slower economic
growth — all of which potentially affect his own well-being.

But for some rags-to-riches moguls — including Blankfein and Bill Clinton,
both of whom grew up poor — objections to economic inequity may also
reflect a fear that the system is now stacked against the kinds of people
they once were. As social structures ossify and the income ladder becomes
more rickety, the son of a postal clerk, growing up in a Brooklyn housing
project, might never again be able to rise to become the chief executive of
one of the United States’ biggest financial institutions.

Amassing a great fortune can lead to a very different outlook on life. For
some, success begets contempt for those not similarly situated, those lazy
schmoes who didn’t manage to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.
(One recent study of lottery winners, for example, found that a financial
windfall typically leads people to become less egalitarian-minded and more
approving of the existing distribution of wealth.) But for others,
proximity to poor and working-class Americans can be a constant reminder
that there but for the grace of God go they. The term I’d use for a 1
percenter who expresses concern about the wages, economic opportunities and
safety nets available to the 99 percent is not hypocrisy; it’s empathy.

*The Hill blog: Ballot Box: “Rubio: Clinton is ‘20th century candidate’”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/212935-rubio-clinton-is-20th-century-candidate>*

By Jesse Byrnes

July 22, 2014, 9:13 a.m. EDT

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Tuesday said Hillary Clinton is a “20th
century candidate” ill-suited to leading the nation going forward.

“I just think she’s a 20th century candidate,” Rubio told NPR. “I think she
does not offer an agenda for moving America forward in the 21st century, at
least not up till now.”

Rubio, who’s weighing a White House bid or reelection in Florida, said he
would make his decision about a presidential run by early 2015.

“There's a lot of work to be done if you're going to run for president, or
if you're going to run for reelection in a state as big as Florida,” Rubio
said.

Earlier this month the freshman senator said he believed he could beat
Clinton in a race for the White House.

“Multiple people can beat her. Hillary Clinton is not unbeatable,” he said
in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt.

On Tuesday, Rubio reiterated his attack on the former secretary of State's
record, saying she worked in “an administration that has had virtually no
successes on foreign policy.”

The Cuban-American senator, who last year co-sponsored an immigration
overhaul that passed the Senate but failed in the House, also called for
immigration reform amid the recent border crisis. But he said there first
must be better border security and a modernization of the immigration
system.

Democrats fired back, arguing Rubio's policies would take the coutnry back
even further.

The criticism of Clinton is "rich coming from a Senator who wants the
minimum wage to have less purchasing power than it did in the 1960’s, take
women’s health care back to the 1950’s, shut down the government like
Republicans did in the 1990’s and has voted time and again to end Medicare
as we know it," Democratic National Committee nation press secretary
Michael Czin said in an e-mail.

*Des Moines Register: “Possible presidential rival to Hillary Clinton
coming to Iowa again”
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/07/22/martin-omalley-returns/12987739/>*

By Jennifer Jacobs

July 22, 2014, 10:15 a.m. EDT

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley seems willing to fill the void in Iowa from
the relative lack of Democratic White House hopefuls touching base here.

It has been 2,392 days since Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' most popular
choice for a 2016 presidential run, stepped foot in Iowa in 2008.

But O'Malley, who was just here a month ago for his introductory visit of
the 2016 cycle will return this weekend to gain more exposure - and to
campaign for Iowa candidates running for office this fall.

O'Malley will help raise money for Iowa Democrat Jack Hatch, who is
challenging Republican Terry Branstad for the governor's office, as well as
for state Sen. Rita Hart of Wheatland and for Kevin Kinney, a sheriff's
deputy from Johnson County who's running for the Iowa Senate this fall. His
pending trip was first reported by Politico.

In comparison to the traffic from the GOP presidential aspirants, Iowa
hasn't gotten much attention from Democrats who are on the buzz list for
2016. Liberal blogger John Deeth keeps a running tally on his website on
Clinton's absence; she has said she is still trying to decide whether to
run for president a second time.

U.S. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota will be back in Iowa on Aug. 23 to campaign
for U.S. Senate hopeful Bruce Braley; she was last here in August 2013.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent will make his second
Iowa visit this year when he holds events in Dubuque on Sept. 13 and in
Waterloo and Des Moines on Sept. 14 – the likely weekend of the Harkin
Steak Fry. Vice President Joe Biden dropped in on a couple hundred Iowans
who were in D.C. for an annual lobbying trip in May, and was last in Iowa
for the steak fry in September 2013. Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer
was here in December. And a group of people who claim to be from Iowa are
trying to recruit U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to run for
president.

O'Malley who received a warm welcome from Iowa Democratic activists during
a two-day visit a month ago. He praised retired U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin at a
dinner on June 20, then gave the keynote speech at the Democrats' state
convention on June 21. In his speech, orated with the aid of teleprompters,
O'Malley offered up commentary on his achievements and his belief in the
future.

Linda Langston, who is one of Iowa's representatives to the Democratic
National Committee, in an interview with the Register last month predicted
that Iowans will be intrigued by O'Malley. "He's well positioned to run
should (Clinton) decide not to run," she said. "And obviously if she does
run, she's got to figure out who she's going to put her on the ticket with
her."

In summer 2012, O'Malley courted Iowa activists at the Democratic National
Convention in North Carolina, and he was the keynote speaker at U.S. Sen.
Tom Harkin's 35th annualsteak fry fundraiser in fall 2012.

*Slate: “Adventures in Warrenland”
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/elizabeth_warren_and_netroots_nation_movement_to_elect_the_massachusetts.html>*

By David Weigel

July 21, 2014, 5:51 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] The movement to elect Elizabeth Warren president is make
believe.

DETROIT—Every time she’s asked, Sen. Elizabeth Warren gives the same
frustrated answer. No. Nope. She is not running for president. She has
literally rolled her eyes at the question. She’s offered to “add an
exclamation point.” She’s even signed a letter calling on Hillary Clinton,
who leads polls of Democrats by up to 50 points, to run for president.

And yet there they were on Friday morning, the people who wanted Warren to
reconsider. Days before this year’s Netroots Nation conference, the annual
gathering of the online left, an Obama campaign veteran launched a draft
campaign called Ready for Warren. (The name is a wink at the pro-Clinton
PAC Ready for Hillary, which claims to have 2.5 million supporters in its
database.) The new group printed “Warren for President” signs and plastered
“Warren for President” stickers on free skimmer hats. As activists entered
the Cobo Center, which resembles a pile of faded Rubik’s Cubes that have
tumbled from a closet, volunteers handed out the goods. There was even a
folk song soundtrack, by Jessie Murphy:

Americans want our next president to be a woman

Hey babe, here’s lookin’ at you, Senator Elizabeth Warren

The planet is warming and the power is shifting

We will need a leader who won’t stand for all the Wall Street bullshit, the
lobbyist grifting

The reluctant hero never stood a chance. When her applause lines hit, up
went the signs.

“The game is rigged,” said Warren toward the end of her remarks. “We can
whine about it, we can whimper about it, or we can fight back. I’m ready to
fight back. Are you ready to fight back on this?”

Up went the signs, up went the chant: “Run, Liz, Run.”

“Si’down,” Warren chuckled. “Si’down.”

But the story was already being told. The signs made it into write-ups by
Politico, Huffington Post, McClatchy, and a Washington Post story about how
“cracks are beginning to emerge” in the Clinton restoration’s coalition.

The evidence for a left-wing challenge to Clinton that could defeat her is
thin to nonexistent. Defeating Clinton wasn’t even a theme at Netroots
Nation, where in 2007 both Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards clearly
outpaced her in support. Anyone who could force Clinton to the left—on Wall
Street, on bank reform, on student loans, on inequality—was worth talking
about. Not far from where Warren was speaking, a D.C. activist named Edrie
Irvine was sporting a Bernie Sanders for President 2016 shirt, and getting
into conversations that assumed the Vermont senator could never win.

“I love my Bernie,” said Irvine. “I want him to run not because I expect
that he would ever win, but because he would force the conversation in a
direction it might not otherwise go.”

That’s just it. Progressives want to change the party, which means more
than choosing a president. (Several Netroots panels featured activists who
had moved the Obama administration when it was acting too slowly on issues
like immigration.) The institutions that created the online left were
birthed by no-chance campaigns. MoveOn was founded in 1998 by Silicon
Valley liberals who wanted Congress to stop short of impeaching Bill
Clinton. “Censure,” it said, “and move on.” Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign
brought in a young generation of activists and techies, spawning some of
the data and campaign companies that would elect Barack Obama.

Yet MoveOn lost its first fight. The Dean campaign lost every major
primary. The lesson activists took away: Try something. The media, at
least, is going to cover a primary threat more than it covers a sui generis
student loan bill.

Thus the Warren “presidential campaign,” a masterful branding and messaging
exercise. In September 2013, the New York Times wrote an attention-getting
profile of Warren’s appeal to progressives, proven by the growing crowds
for organizers wise enough to book her. “Bumper stickers and T-shirts
surfacing in liberal enclaves proclaim, ‘I’m from the Elizabeth Warren Wing
of the Democratic Party.’ ” Jonathan Martin reported that those stickers
were mass-produced by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which was
founded in 2009 by Adam Green (a veteran of MoveOn and Democratic
campaigns) and Stephanie Taylor (a veteran of the SEIU, AFL-CIO, and yes,
MoveOn).

In its early years, the PCCC confounded Democrats, losing a run of
primaries and buying ads to pressure red state Senate Democrats who were
slow-walking the Affordable Care Act. The Warren brand—earned after the
group signed up activists and donors for her nascent Senate bid—is
self-evidently a way to move the conversation, whether or not anyone
challenges Clinton. “We’re going to make sure that every Democrat who runs
for president is forced to say whether they agree with Elizabeth Warren on
key issues,” Green told the Boston Globe last year, “like expanding Social
Security benefits and more Wall Street reform.”

Green repeated that point at the Netroots conference, though he hardly
needed to. Rep. Dan Kildee, a freshman Democrat from one of the new safe
Michigan districts, said it was “clear” that any 2016 candidate had to cop
from Warren.

“The basic premise, that we need to restore some balance in the equation
between corporate interests and consumers—that’s what she’s done for a long
time,” he said, recalling how he’d cited her when he worked at a think
tank. “More people should embrace it. It cuts across partisan lines. “

But he wasn’t calling for a primary. The point was getting the next
candidate to move where the Netroots crowd wanted her to move.

“Hillary Clinton is going to say these things,” said former Rep. Brad
Miller, a North Carolina Democrat who left his seat after a 2011
gerrymander. “Whoever our Democratic nominee is will run as an economic
populist. When the pollsters and consultants come back with the numbers,
they’ll tell her: Holy crap, you may not have been a populist before, but
you are one now! The problem will be credibility, and whether it’s
believable coming from someone who has close ties to the financial sector.”

At the conference, for most attendees, Clinton was credible enough. A Ready
for Hillary organizer pointed out that some of the people who applauded
when they saw Warren at a nearby hotel were sporting Hillary gear. There
was no mass boycott of the main Friday night party, sponsored by Ready for
Hillary, held at a downtown music venue called St. Andrews, with the PAC’s
bus parked right outside. As guests arrived, they ran into a table loaded
with PAC stickers (“I’m ready for Hillary”) and the room-filling pop of
KGB, a Motown cover band.

Activists born in the 1980s; music from the 1960s. Not the ideal metaphor
for a Clinton campaign, but it got a PCCC leader tweeting that after “one
more margarita” even he, too, would be ready for the Clintons.

I didn’t find a true Clinton critic, actually, until the next night’s
after-party. It was hosted by the Alliance for American Manufacturing. (In
a Saturday speech, the labor group’s president, Scott Paul, had told
activists to nominate “a woman who not only says the right thing but does
the right thing.”) At the party, I ran into the last guy who challenged
Clinton from the left and lost. Jonathan Tasini, a writer and activist who
ran against Clinton in the 2006 New York U.S. Senate race, was at least
willing to muse about one of the progressive branding campaigns turning
into an actual primary.

“Warren would have the best chance,” he said. “Whenever [Hillary] opens her
mouth, there’s enough people who say: ‘I just don’t believe her.’ ”

But how many Democrats? In 2006, Tasini asked progressives to hold Clinton
accountable for backing the Iraq War. She won the primary with 83 percent
of the vote. And on this particular Saturday night, the Clinton agita was
not too serious. On the way out of the party, Scott Paul spotted me and
corrected the record on his quote—the one absolutely everyone interpreted
as a call for Warren to run.

“I saw the tweet about that,” he said. “I wasn’t talking about Warren!”

*Washington Examiner: “'Lost control': MSNBC hits Hillary Clinton for
wrecking her personal Image”
<http://washingtonexaminer.com/lost-control-msnbc-hits-hillary-clinton-for-wrecking-her-personal-image/article/2551105>*

By T. Becket Adams

July 22, 2014, 8:57 a.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has “lost control” of her public
Image, a sorry place to be for someone who's reportedly considering a 2016
presidential bid, and she has no one to blame but herself, an MSNBC panel
suggested Tuesday morning.

Questions about whether Clinton has done irreparable harm to her Image
began with "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski citing a recent Politico
survey that shows a majority of voters disapprove of how the former first
lady performed as secretary of state.

The poll found that only 14 percent of voters rate Clinton's performance at
state as “excellent,” while 28 percent rate her performance as “good,” 21
percent rate it as “fair” and 32 percent rate it as “poor.”

“[I]t's a major change from a year-and-a-half ago when the then-secretary
of state had a 70 percent approval rating,” Brzezinski said, noting a
separate Bloomberg article that reported Clinton has made roughly $12
million since stepping down from state in February 2013.

Co-panelist and political analyst Mark Halperin weighed in on the issue:
“She has lost control of her public Image. It's the worst thing that can
happen to somebody thinking of running for president, and it's at a time
when she should be in command. You know, she had a book tour, she can
control the message,” he said.

“Her operation is playing defense on a lot of stories and, again, it's
fine. She can recover from it. But right now, she has lost control of how
people are thinking about her, how the media is covering her."

The Clinton machine, for its part, claims that much of the negative press
surrounding the former secretary of state is either uninteresting or simply
untrue. Meanwhile, Clinton's tour promoting her new book, Hard Choices,
continues apace, providing the media with one wealth-related gaffe after
another.

“Would it have been better -- in hindsight -- if Hillary Clinton had not
written this book and gone on a book tour?” co-panelist Willie Geist asked.
“Because look where she was when she was out of the fray: No one was
talking about her in terms of politics, just in terms of how she had done
as secretary of state.”

“She’d have less money,” Halperin responded, grinning like a Cheshire cat.