Subject: Correct The Record Monday July 21, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:50:44 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Monday July 21, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Twitter:*

*Pres. Bill Clinton* @billclinton: Congrats @McIlroyRory on your 2014
British Open title. See you for another round next time I'm in Ireland.
[7/21/14, 3:48 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/billclinton/status/491127500224102400>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton’s record as secretary
of state
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/benghazi-and-hillary-clintons-misunderstood-record-as-secretary-of-state/
…
<http://t.co/EbiBQYA5nE> via @AaronBlakeWP [7/21/14, 12:36 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/491260554989043712>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton "We have an economic
crisis and...a political crisis of our democracy and I think they are
related." http://youtu.be/Ot-WT7QY9oY?t=25m11s … <http://t.co/IK9wNBS9eI>
 [7/20/14, 3:30 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/490941940352180225>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: As FLOTUS, @HillaryClinton spoke at
summit about power of microcredit to stimulate economic activity #HRC365
http://1.usa.gov/1i5Fryu  <http://t.co/2XTMVKONyI>[7/20/14, 2:30 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/490926829142695937>]

*Headlines:*

*Washington Post blog: Plum Line: “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/>*

“Today the Republican party unveiled a new web site titled Poor Hillary
Clinton, making the devastating point that Hillary Clinton has lots of
money and should therefore not be elected president. If that’s what the
geniuses at the RNC think is going to win the 2016 election for them, it
may be time to start figuring out who’s going to be in Clinton’s cabinet.”

*Vox: “5 reasons Hillary Clinton's weaknesses are greatly exaggerated”
<http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5916383/hillary-clinton-running-for-president-2016>*

“If you've been reading political coverage lately, you will have learned
that Hillary Clinton is currently on a gaffe-laden book tour where she has
proven how out of touch she is with ordinary Americans, while Elizabeth
Warren is getting a rapturous reception from progressive activists yearning
for her candidacy. This is an entertaining narrative, but it's missing a
few key facts…”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton’s
misunderstood record as secretary of state”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/benghazi-and-hillary-clintons-misunderstood-record-as-secretary-of-state/>*

“The biggest takeaway from this poll is that Clinton's time as secretary of
state might not be the feather in the cap that many thought it was. But
people shouldn't look at this poll and suddenly see it as a liability.”

*Slate blog: Weigel: “The Poll That Will Make Democrats Panic About Hillary
Clinton”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/21/the_poll_that_will_make_democrats_panic_about_hillary_clinton.html>*

“So it should be interesting to see if the criticism of Clinton is turned
back by an aggressive left -- by David Brock's groups like Correct the
Record and Media Matters, for example -- or if it emboldens one of the
junior Democrats to criticize her and raise speculation about primary
challenges. So far, there's a little of the former and none of the latter.”

*Christian Science Monitor blog: DC Decoder: “Hillary Clinton's $12 million
problem: Will focus on her wealth persist?”
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0721/Hillary-Clinton-s-12-million-problem-Will-focus-on-her-wealth-persist>*

“When she switches into a more overtly political mode, she will begin
making policy proposals and speaking more directly about the national
situation. Then the media focus will move from Clinton wealth gaffes and
book sales to the newer, more substantive material.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Payback: Republicans Paint
‘Millionaire’ Democrats as Out of Touch”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/21/payback-republicans-paint-millionaire-democrats-as-out-of-touch/>*

“And of course there is the nonstop Republican smirking about Hillary
Clinton‘s wealth — virtually all of it emanating from Mrs. Clinton’s book
tour statement that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” upon leaving the
White House 13 years ago.”

*Salon column: Joan Walsh: “GOP’s ’16 consolation vanishes: Suddenly,
Democrats have the deep bench!”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/gops_16_consolation_vanishes_suddenly_democrats_have_the_deep_bench/>*

“In the end, the rising number of possible alternatives to Hillary Clinton
is a sign of Democratic strength, even if the media tends to bill it as
weakness.”

*Twitter: “Today at Twitter: Ask @HillaryClinton your questions”
<https://blog.twitter.com/2014/today-at-twitter-ask-hillaryclinton-your-questions>*

“We’re thrilled to welcome Secretary Hillary Clinton to Twitter
headquarters in San Francisco today.”

*Politico: “Bill Clinton: Hillary 'wants time'”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-wants-time-109175.html>*

“Hillary Clinton still needs ‘time’ to think through her message ahead of a
possible presidential run, according to her husband, former President Bill
Clinton.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Joe Biden is the most interesting
politician that has no chance of becoming president”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/joe-biden-is-the-most-interesting-politician-that-has-no-chance-of-becoming-president/>*

“Osnos conducted many interviews with Biden -- and even talked to President
Obama. You should read the whole thing -- especially since the New Yorker
archives are now open for browsing this summer -- but here's a look at some
of the most interesting tidbits.”

*Articles:*

*Washington Post blog: Plum Line: “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/>*

By Paul Waldman

July 21, 2014, 12:08 p.m. EDT

Today the Republican party unveiled a new web site titled Poor Hillary
Clinton, making the devastating point that Hillary Clinton has lots of
money and should therefore not be elected president. If that’s what the
geniuses at the RNC think is going to win the 2016 election for them, it
may be time to start figuring out who’s going to be in Clinton’s cabinet.

But what may be even more remarkable is that so many in the press go right
along with this stupidity. For instance, a Bloomberg News story from this
morning begins this way:

“Hillary Clinton has earned at least $12 million in 16 months since leaving
the State Department, a windfall at odds with her party’s call to shrink
the gap between the rich and the poor.”

There’s a hidden assumption in some of this coverage that candidates should
be nothing more than advocates for their class. If you’re rich, then you
can’t sincerely care about the well-being of people who aren’t, and
anything other than advocacy on behalf of other rich people is odd, even
suspect. But politicians aren’t motivated only by self-interest. How,
exactly, is Clinton making a lot money “at odds with her party’s call to
shrink the gap between the rich and the poor”? Did I miss the Democratic
policy paper demanding a national cap on speaking fees, or a proposed law
making it illegal to get rich? No, I don’t believe I did.

What we see here is actually a journalistic version of the paranoid
billionaire whining that people who criticize wealth inequality are like
Nazis ready to herd hedge fund managers into concentration camps, because
it portrays the inequality issue as one in which poor and middle-class
people are completely absent. The only question it asks is whether the rich
are heroic job-creators or evil kleptocrats, and you’re supposed to take
one position or the other.

So let’s say this real slow: You can simultaneously believe that 1) It’s
perfectly fine for some people to get rich, even spectacularly rich, and 2)
government policies should be geared toward maximizing fair economic
treatment of everyone, particularly those at the bottom.

That is, more or less, the position of Hillary Clinton’s party. And it has
been for the entire lifetime of anyone who will vote in 2016.

It’s absolutely legitimate for reporters to look closely at Clinton’s
income, just as they should for every presidential candidate. But much of
the coverage of the dispute over it fails to supply political context.
What’s often missing is a discussion of what the parties stand for, how
they’re perceived, and why it matters. The fact that Democrats advocate
policies like increasing the minimum wage and achieving universal health
coverage that are aimed at the interests of the non-wealthy, while
Republicans advocate policies like upper-income tax cuts and the weakening
of labor unions that are aimed at the interests of the wealthy, is one of
the foundational contrasts of American politics. The dynamic that contrast
creates — how much success Democrats have in exploiting it and how much
success Republicans have in working around it — helps determine the outcome
of pretty much every presidential campaign.

And it is in this context that the question of whether Clinton’s wealth is
politically damaging needs to be considered.

In recent history there has not been a single instance in which a
Democratic presidential candidate was significantly harmed, let alone lost
an election, because of his or her personal wealth. Yet it has been a
problem for Republican candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain (who,
you’ll recall, couldn’t remember how many homes he and his wife owned). Why
might that be?

The answer is that when it comes to extremely practical issues like
economic policy, voters draw connections between the personal and the
political. They didn’t care that Franklin Roosevelt was rich, because he
was clearly an advocate for the downtrodden. The reason the issue of
personal wealth was a potent one for Democrats to use against Romney was
that they successfully told a story in which he gained his wealth by
stepping over the broken lives of working-class people, and that showed,
they argued, how he would act as president. What story are Republicans
trying to tell about Clinton’s speaking fees?

There doesn’t appear to be one, and there is precisely zero evidence that
anyone who thinks income inequality is a problem that should be addressed
will vote against Clinton because she has a lot of money — particularly
when the Republican nominee in 2016 will almost certainly say that
inequality isn’t actually a problem at all.

The “who’s on your side” issue will work to Democrats’ advantage whether
Republicans nominate a career politician whose wealth is limited (which
describes many of the 2016 GOP contenders) or whether they nominate Scrooge
McDuck. Democrats will make it an issue, because they always do; the only
question is whether it turns out to be somewhat effective or extremely
effective. Unless Clinton’s rather sudden elevation into the ranks of the
super-wealthy actually made her change her policy positions and what should
would do as president — in other words, unless getting rich turned her into
a Republican — there’s no reason to believe her wealth will have any
serious impact at all.

*Vox: “5 reasons Hillary Clinton's weaknesses are greatly exaggerated”
<http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5916383/hillary-clinton-running-for-president-2016>*

By Andrew Prokop

July 20, 2014, 4:00 p.m. EDT

If you've been reading political coverage lately, you will have learned
that Hillary Clinton is currently on a gaffe-laden book tour where she has
proven how out of touch she is with ordinary Americans, while Elizabeth
Warren is getting a rapturous reception from progressive activists yearning
for her candidacy. This is an entertaining narrative, but it's missing a
few key facts about what's going on in advance of the Democratic
presidential primary right now — facts indicating that Clinton remains the
overwhelming favorite.

1) Clinton's lead in polling is much larger than it was in 2008

Yes, Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner in 2008 and then lost the
nomination. But back in early 2007, she reached only 30 to 40 percent in
polls of Democratic voters — indicating that a majority of Democrats
weren't yet on board with a Clinton candidacy. Now, she regularly tops 60
percent in polls, and sometimes even breaks 70 percent, as you can see on
RealClearPolitics. In particular, her position in Iowa, where she lost to
Obama in 2008, is now enormously stronger, as Harry Enten of
FiveThirtyEight points out:

*FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten* @ForecasterEnten: At this point in the 2008
cycle, Clinton was at 26% in Iowa Caucus polling
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/the_first_iowa_.html …
<http://t.co/umrNSvVBlv> Right now? 70%
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/what-we-learned-about-christie-clinton-rand-paul-week-n158281
…
<http://t.co/XtBdvS6241> [7/18/14,12:53 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/statuses/490177603362648065>]

With clear majorities of Democrats nationally and in the two major early
states already saying they'll back Clinton, it's difficult to see an
opportunity for a challenger.

2) Democrats don't actually want a more liberal nominee

The assumption among people who talk to a lot of very progressive activists
is that the Democratic base is yearning for a much more liberal nominee.
But according to a poll from CNN and ORC International, that's not the case
at all.

Only 11 percent of Democrats would prefer a nominee who's more liberal than
Clinton — compared to 20 percent who'd like a more conservative nominee.
Once again, it's difficult to see the opening for a progressive challenger
here.

3) The experience of Obama's presidency has discredited the main
anti-Clinton argument

In 2008, Obama ran on an inspirational platform of bringing hope and change
to America and transcending partisan politics. Of course, this didn't
happen. Therefore, any Democratic candidate sounding similar themes in 2016
will face serious skepticism from the party's voters. TNR's Noam Scheiber
made this point in a recent article — he found support for Clinton among
many progressive activists, and expounded on why in an interview with Vox.
"When you pressed further it was about disappointment in President Obama,"
Scheiber said. "Watching the system not change really made an impact on
these people. I don't think they want to get burned again."

4) Inequality is not Iraq

In 2008, Obama and Clinton were quite similar in most policy areas. But he
always had one issue on which he could draw a very clear contrast with
Clinton — her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. "Most of you know I
opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake," Obama
said in his February 2007 announcement speech. He continued to emphasize
this contrast throughout the primary campaign, and capitalized on serious
resentment from party activists against Clinton and other Democratic
leaders who had authorized the war.

Some commentators have argued that Clinton could be similarly vulnerable on
issues of economic inequality in 2012. But every major figure in the party,
including Clinton, now agrees that inequality is a serious concern. The
rhetoric Clinton uses on the issue sounds quite a lot like Warren's, as you
can see in the video above, and in this video mashup of the two by the
Huffington Post. Now, on the narrower issue of banking regulation, there
are some serious rhetorical and substantive differences between Clinton and
Warren. But there's no real indication that that issue has enough national
resonance to dislodge a front-runner — especially considering the above
poll results that indicate there's little desire among Democrats for a more
liberal candidate.

5) There's no credible challenger who can amass broad party support

A recent article by Phil Rucker and Robert Costa of the Washington Post
lists many examples of potential Democratic candidates purportedly "making
moves" to "position themselves" as an alternative to Clinton. Martin
O'Malley has been giving speeches to Democrats all over the country. Amy
Klobuchar is visiting Iowa. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and
Governor Andrew Cuomo are releasing books. Vice President Biden even called
some of his former aides, "ostensibly to say hello"!

Yet while all this happens, Clinton has been racking up actual endorsements
from Democrats — even though she's not yet running. These include figures
who endorsed Obama last time around, like Tim Kaine and Claire McCaskill.
Indeed, several of the potential contenders mentioned in the Post article —
including Warren — actually signed a private letter urging Clinton to run
for president. (Warren has said she hopes Clinton runs and that "Hillary is
terrific," but hasn't publicly endorsed so far.)

It's more plausible that the politicians mentioned by the Post are
positioning themselves so they can jump in if Clinton doesn't run. It's
prudent for them to prepare for that possibility, however small, since the
nomination really would be up for grabs, as Amy Walter lays out here. Plus,
for the younger potential candidates, building a national network now might
help prepare them for 2020 (if Clinton loses) or 2024 elections. But
serious challenges to Clinton still seem extremely unlikely — except,
perhaps, for the most quixotic of contenders.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton’s
misunderstood record as secretary of state”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/benghazi-and-hillary-clintons-misunderstood-record-as-secretary-of-state/>*

By Aaron Blake

July 21, 2014, 10:47 a.m. EDT

There's something of a bombshell headline this morning at Politico: "Dim
views of Hillary Clinton’s time at State."

The story, which is based on a new poll conducted by GfK, has quite a
different take than previous polling on Clinton's record as secretary of
state, which has regularly shown that people view her as a success. In
fact, a Washington Post poll just last month showed 59 percent of people
approved of her tenure.

Here are a few sample headlines for similar polls:

NBC/WSJ poll: Nearly 70% approve of Hillary Clinton’s job

Hillary Clinton remains popular for her time as secretary of state, viewed
apart from Obama

Hillary Clinton’s Strengths: Record at State, Toughness, Honesty

So why the disconnect? Are people suddenly rethinking one of Clinton's
biggest qualifications for running for president? Is Benghazi having the
impact Republicans always thought it would?

Not completely. But the poll does lend us some valuable perspective on what
has been a widely misunderstood portion of Clinton's resume.

The big reason for the disparate results: While most polls ask whether
people approve or disapprove of Clinton's time as secretary of state, the
new poll asked people to rate it as "excellent," "good," "fair" or "poor."

We generally dislike this type of question -- mostly because those writing
about such polls lump "fair" together with "poor" to suggest people in both
camps disapprove of the person in question. We see "fair" as a much more
neutral response. (The great Maggie Haberman, who wrote the story, did not
make this conflation, but others undoubtedly will.)

One person might look at this poll and see that a majority of people (53
percent) rate Clinton as either "fair" or "poor," while another could make
a credible argument that it shows more people think she did well (42
percent said "excellent" or "good") than poorly (32 percent). Both are okay
arguments, as long as they are in the correct context.

But in this case, we actually like this question, because it exposes the
casual nature of support for Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.

Secretary of state is a great resume-builder, and the vast majority of the
United States' top diplomats have emerged from the job quite popular (proof
here). It's a job that sets you up for success. But just because people say
they approve of their secretary of state doesn't mean they are huge fans.
Perhaps she did well enough to earn people's "approval" but not necessarily
enough to get positive marks -- hence "fair."

But part of the new poll is also that the bloom is off the rose. Clinton's
numbers in general have dropped pretty significantly, to the point where
she's not really all that popular anymore. Her numbers as secretary of
state have remained a little better, but it's not surprising to see
scrutiny of Clinton -- including on Benghazi -- to prompt even those
numbers to drop.

The biggest takeaway from this poll is that Clinton's time as secretary of
state might not be the feather in the cap that many thought it was. But
people shouldn't look at this poll and suddenly see it as a liability.

*Slate blog: Weigel: “The Poll That Will Make Democrats Panic About Hillary
Clinton”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/21/the_poll_that_will_make_democrats_panic_about_hillary_clinton.html>*

By David Weigel

July 21, 2014, 8:22 a.m. EDT

At the moment I'm wrapping up a piece about progressive activists and
Netroots Nation, having found (as most reporters found) young party
activists pretty much satisfied by the promise of Hillary 2016 campaign.
Other candidates, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, have their
adherents who want to shift the party's stances on banks, on student loans,
on inequality. But few doubt that Hillary is the most electable, most
Republican-infuriating candidate on the horizon.

Comes now this Politico poll:

[GRAPHIC OF POLITICO POLL “HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE JOB THAT HILLARY CLINTON
DID AS SECRETARY OF STATE?]

As Maggie Haberman writes in her summary of the poll, Clinton left Foggy
Bottom with a favorable rating well above 60 percent. Profiles of her
tenure took for granted that she was a "rock star," a historic figure, a
success. The decline is undoubtedly, as Haberman writes, tied in part to 18
months of no-end-in-sight Benghazi investigations; I wish the Politico
pollster had asked voters to think of a single word to describe Clinton,
because surely "Benghazi" would have erupted from most Republicans and led
the list.

What else might explain the swoon? Well, turn your eyes north from Libya,
up to Russia. In a piece subtly titled "Is Hillary Clinton imploding?"
Jonathan Last asked readers to look at what Hillary Clinton told the BBC
about the administration's Russia stance. Was it untenable? Well, according
to Hillary, the thoughtful observer had to look at the situation when she
arrived at State.

“Medvedev is President, Putin is Prime Minister, and there were jobs that
we wanted to get done. We wanted to get Russia on board with tough
sanctions against Iran. We wanted to have a new START Treaty to limit
nuclear weapons. We wanted to get their help in transiting across through
huge country to get things we needed into Afghanistan. We got all that
done. Putin comes back. Look where we are now. He invaded another country,
so yes, but while we had that moment, we seized it, we used it, and
succeeded.”

"He invaded another country, so..." is, to my ears, a more face-palm-worthy
quote than "we were dead broke" (which was basically true) and "what
difference does it make?" (which was about the Republican focus on
September 2012 talking points, not a callous dismissal of dead heroes). Is
there some way for Hillary to run as the person who was at the wheel before
the Obama administration's policy failures? Maybe. But her re-emergence
happened to concede with a run of major setbacks, and that's complicating
the storyline of Clinton as a "rock star" secretary. It follows months and
months of Republicans chortling at the inability of Clinton allies to name
a major accomplishment. (In this interview she cites START, but her allies
are really lost at sea in discussing this stuff).

So it should be interesting to see if the criticism of Clinton is turned
back by an aggressive left -- by David Brock's groups like Correct the
Record and Media Matters, for example -- or if it emboldens one of the
junior Democrats to criticize her and raise speculation about primary
challenges. So far, there's a little of the former and none of the latter.

*Christian Science Monitor blog: DC Decoder: “Hillary Clinton's $12 million
problem: Will focus on her wealth persist?”
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0721/Hillary-Clinton-s-12-million-problem-Will-focus-on-her-wealth-persist>*

By Peter Grier

July 21, 2014

[Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton has earned $12 million since leaving the State
Department in early 2013, says a Bloomberg News report. Though GOP
officials are gleefully sharing this story on social media, here's why the
issue of her wealth is likely to fade.

Hillary Clinton’s wealth problem isn’t fading. It began in June when she
said she and husband, Bill, were “dead broke” when they left the White
House – a comment she later publicly labeled “inartful.” It has continued
through July as media reports document the Clintons' wealth and Republicans
bash the former secretary of State as a closet 1 percenter.

The latest episode in this political soap opera is Monday’s Bloomberg News
report that, since resigning as secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton has earned
at least $12 million by giving speeches and selling books.

“Her earnings represent a fraction of the Clinton family’s total income and
yet were large enough to rank her not only in the top 1 percent of the
nation’s earners but in the top one-hundredth of the 1 percent,” write
Bloomberg’s Lisa Lerer and Lauren Streib.

Republican Party officials have gleefully disseminated this story on social
media. They’re using it as a means to promote their latest anti-Hillary
website, poorhillaryclinton.com.

“How out of touch is Hillary? ... We’ve documented it,” tweeted the
Republican National Committee on Monday morning.

Will mocking Clinton for her “hard knock life” help the GOP in the long
run? Maybe – that’s the sort of political trend line it’s impossible to
precisely predict. Perhaps Republican strategists hope to simply increase
vague negative feelings about Clinton in the months prior to her expected
2016 presidential run.

But there are some problems with the tactic of attacking Clinton for her
cash, per se. Presumably Democratic voters are the ones most concerned with
the issue of inequality and concentration of US wealth. However, they don’t
appear at all concerned about charges of Clinton buck-raking.

As we reported last week, polls show Clinton rolling full throttle toward
the Democratic 2016 nomination, if she wants it. She’s crushing all
potential intraparty challengers. That stuff about a challenge from the
left by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Basically it’s bored
journalists looking for ways to inject drama into a foreordained race.

Republican voters will be happy to tut-tut about Clinton’s perceived
hypocrisy on money. But there’s a twist: What will they feel about their
own party attacking someone for making money? Kind of a role reversal, no?

That’s what Politico’s Dylan Byers opines Monday in his post about
Bloomberg’s new Clinton numbers.

“Wouldn’t it be rich if the same Republicans who complain about the
demonization of wealth decided to turn this into a talking point? Oh wait,”
writes Byers.

It’s likely the focus on wealth will fade at some point. It has persisted
partly because Clinton is an unusual presidential precandidate, writes
Bloomberg View political pundit Jonathan Bernstein.

At this point in a campaign the media are generally busy filling in the
life story and political background of potential candidates. But everybody
knows Clinton, so instead they’re picking at holes in her story.

When she switches into a more overtly political mode, she will begin making
policy proposals and speaking more directly about the national situation.
Then the media focus will move from Clinton wealth gaffes and book sales to
the newer, more substantive material.

“None of the [current media] attention appears to be obstructing her path
to the nomination, and it will be long forgotten by fall 2016. Except,
perhaps, by those who aren’t going to vote for her anyway,” writes Mr.
Bernstein.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Payback: Republicans Paint
‘Millionaire’ Democrats as Out of Touch”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/21/payback-republicans-paint-millionaire-democrats-as-out-of-touch/>*

By Reid J. Epstein

July 21, 2014, 1:18 p.m. EDT

When Democrats in 2012 tarred Mitt Romney as so wealthy he was out of
touch, the Republican pushback was to assert that there’s no shame in being
rich. “Republicans come here and say everyone should live like this,” Mr.
Romney said at one fundraiser held at a supporter’s mansion.

Back then it worked, as President Barack Obama and his allied Democrats
launched a full-scale campaign to tag Mr. Romney as the candidate of the
rich, by the rich and for the rich. By and large, that worked, with a
handful of assists from Mr. Romney himself.

Two years later, it’s Republicans who are using their opponents’ wealth as
a campaign cudgel. In Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania and Georgia, GOP
candidates have taken shots at their opponents for being wealthy – usually
as part of trying to build a larger case that the foe is out of touch.

And of course there is the nonstop Republican smirking about Hillary
Clinton‘s wealth — virtually all of it emanating from Mrs. Clinton’s book
tour statement that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” upon leaving the
White House 13 years ago. On Monday morning the Republican National
Committee launched a website called poorhillaryclinton.com.

Almost every attack Republicans are throwing at Democrats on their wealth
could have been made against Mr. Romney – some of them were, almost
verbatim.

Starting last fall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker branded his Democratic
opponent Mary Burke “Millionaire Mary.” The Walker-controlled Wisconsin GOP
mocked her for owning a “swanky second home valued at nearly $600,000.” And
last week Mr. Walker’s campaign released a new TV ad called “Fortune” in
which it accused Ms. Burke of “making millions of dollars” when her
family’s bicycle company moved some of its manufacturing operations to
China. (That whether the company actually did outsource jobs to China is in
debate mirrors the Romney campaign’s insistence it did not offshore jobs.)

On Friday Allysia Finley of the Journal’s editorial page criticized Mr.
Walker’s attacks on Ms. Burke’s business record. “Economic populism is
usually the province of Democrats who don’t understand how free markets
work or who cynically hope to exploit voters’ insecurities,” she wrote.

But Mr. Walker is hardly the only Republican attacking a Democratic
opponent’s wealth. In Pennsylvania, GOP Gov. Tom Corbett‘s campaign dubbed
his Democratic self-funding opponent “Millionaire Tom Wolf.” And in New
York, Republicans are trying to tar Democratic House candidate Sean
Eldridge as wealthy and out of touch.

Virtually every missive the National Republican Campaign Committee blasts
about Mr. Eldridge – the husband of Facebook billionaire Chris Hughes who
has spent more than $1 million of his own funds in his campaign against GOP
Rep. Chris Gibson in an upstate New York district – replaces the first
letter of his first name with a dollar sign.

“After repeatedly ignoring the media, refusing to answer questions about
the stunning hypocrisy of his multimillion dollar investment portfolio, and
putting voters off by using his dark money group to try and buy an
election, the only thing Eldridge is going to gain on Election Day is some
much needed humility,” NRCC spokesman Ian Prior said in one representative
missive.

Obama campaign aide David Axelrod, in a plea for campaign donations in
October 2012, wrote: “I’ll be blunt: They are trying to buy this election.”

And in Georgia – where Republicans will vote Tuesday in a run-off election
between Rep. Jack Kingston and David Perdue – the highlight of the final
debate was Mr. Kingston laying into the wealth of Mr. Perdue, the former
CEO of Reebok and Dollar General.

“Your whole lifestyle is based in a different way,” Mr. Kingston snapped at
Mr. Perdue, the Associated Press reported. “You live inside a gate inside a
gated community with a gate on your house.”

Mr. Perdue responded much the same way Mr. Romney did in 2012: “I’m not
going to apologize for my success.”

*Salon column: Joan Walsh: “GOP’s ’16 consolation vanishes: Suddenly,
Democrats have the deep bench!”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/gops_16_consolation_vanishes_suddenly_democrats_have_the_deep_bench/>*

By Joan Walsh

July 21, 2014, 1:10 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] After Romney’s 2012 loss, pundits raved about the GOP’s new
leaders. But two years later, Democrats have the edge

In the wake of President Obama’s re-election in 2012, reporters found one
soothing source of solace for the GOP. “One race the Republicans appear to
be winning is the one for the deepest bench of rising stars,” wrote the
Washington Post, and plenty of folks followed up. Democrats, meanwhile, had
nobody on the bench but Hillary Clinton – a formidable candidate if she
were to run, but that wasn’t even certain.

Beyond Clinton, there seemed to be a wasteland populated by ambitious
governors no one had ever heard of (Martin O’Malley), some who were well
known but not widely liked (Andrew Cuomo). Oh, and Brian Schweitzer.

The Republican list, meanwhile, seemed almost infinite: blue and purple
state governors like New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker,
Ohio’s John Kasich and Virginia’s Bob McConnell, and Tea Party senators
like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Romney’s ambitious, “wonky”
running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, had his fans, as did former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush. Even Texas Gov. Rick Perry, recovered from back surgery and sporting
hot new glasses, could have another life in 2016.

But in two years, the situation has almost reversed itself. Promising GOP
governors – McDonnell, Christie, Walker – find themselves dogged by
scandal. The Tea Party trio of Paul, Cruz and Rubio still vies for media
attention and right wing adoration, but Rubio’s immigration reform work
doomed him on the right. Unbelievably, Paul is widely labeled the
frontrunner (but don’t tell that to Cruz), while the party establishment
and neocon hawks search for an alternative. Despite all that impressive
talent, Mitt Romney leads the pack in New Hampshire.

Meanwhile, in what’s widely being reported as trouble for Hillary Clinton,
because that’s the narrative the media know best, it turns out there are a
bunch of popular and maybe even formidable Democrats. Vice President Joe
Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren wowed the crowd at Netroots Nation. (Check
out this great New Yorker Biden profile if you want to know how the VP is
keeping his options open). The Netroots buzz inspired the Washington Post’s
Phillip Rucker and Robert Costa to survey the landscape of Democrats who’ve
put a toe or more in the water for 2016.

We learned that Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar is visiting Iowa (it is only
one state away), while New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has a book coming
out. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is said to be huddling with donors, believing
the party could use a dose of red state common sense.

This is all framed as mildly ominous news for Hillary Clinton – the
headline is “With liberals pining for a Clinton challenger, ambitious
Democrats get in position” — but Klobuchar, Gillibrand and Nixon have all
endorsed Clinton, and Warren has encouraged Clinton to run while insisting
she won’t do so herself. The only Democrats listed who may still run even
if Clinton does too are O’Malley and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders.

Regardless of the intent of the framing, the Rucker-Costa story actually
pointed up the vitality in the Democratic Party, where lively debates over
income inequality and foreign policy have so far fallen short of creating
bitter divisions and factions, at least so far. Again, contrast that with
the GOP, where Ted Cruz seems to be staking his 2016 hopes on his ability
to humiliate every party leader and make sure Republicans will never make
inroads with the Latino population. He’s blocking bipartisan emergency
legislation to deal with the border crisis, and pushing to reverse
President Obama’s deferred action on deportation for young people brought
here by their parents.

Meanwhile Warren, the progressive elected the same time as Cruz, is touring
the country campaigning for Democratic Senate candidates, even some who are
more centrist than she is, like Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes and West
Virginia’s Natalie Tennant.  She’s focused on growing the Democratic Party,
not cutting down colleagues who are less progressive.

So: the GOP’s right wing firebrand is a loose cannon who is completely out
for himself, while the Democrats’ left wing firebrand is working amiably
with party leaders and deflecting talk of a primary challenge to Clinton.
In the end, the rising number of possible alternatives to Hillary Clinton
is a sign of Democratic strength, even if the media tends to bill it as
weakness.

*Twitter: “Today at Twitter: Ask @HillaryClinton your questions”
<https://blog.twitter.com/2014/today-at-twitter-ask-hillaryclinton-your-questions>*

By Katie Stanton

July 21, 2014, 15:57 UTC

We’re thrilled to welcome Secretary Hillary Clinton to Twitter headquarters
in San Francisco today. We frequently welcome delightful and inspiring
people in to meet our employees and talk about their careers, their
passions and how they use Twitter to connect with the world.

Given the impact Secretary Clinton’s work throughout her career has had on
the world—much of which she documents in her new book about her time as
America’s chief diplomat, “Hard Choices“—we want to open her visit to you
too. At about 5:20 p.m. PT, I will join the Secretary on stage in front of
our employees to hear from her about the challenges she faced and the
lessons she learned during her time as America’s 67th Secretary of State.
We’ll explore how those experiences have shaped her views on human rights,
domestic policy and other topics. And of course I’m curious to learn the
backstory of Tweets like this:

*Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: It’s so much more fun to
watch FOX when it’s someone else being blitzed & sacked! #SuperBowl
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/SuperBowl?src=hash> [2/2/13, 8:44 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statuses/430154695860953088>]

You can tune in live at about 5:20 p.m. PT by visiting Secretary Clinton’s
Twitter profile at Twitter.com/@HillaryClinton; we’ll stream the event from
a Tweet pinned to the top of her page. You can also send the Secretary
questions that I will do my best to ask her by using the hashtag
#AskHillary. I’ll be checking Twitter throughout the day so feel free to
start sending your questions now.

We look forward to sharing this special event with all of you. See you
later this afternoon!

*Politico: “Bill Clinton: Hillary 'wants time'”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-wants-time-109175.html>*

By Katie Glueck

July 21, 2014, 11:30 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton still needs “time” to think through her message ahead of a
possible presidential run, according to her husband, former President Bill
Clinton.

In an interview with CNN published Monday, he said that the former
secretary of state — and presumptive Democratic frontrunner if she gets in
— needs space to “work through” that. His comments come as Clinton
continues on her book tour to promote her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” amid
questions of what her case would be for 2016.

“We’ve reached a point in our life when we think you really shouldn’t run
for office if you don’t have a clear idea of what you can do and a unique
contribution you can make and you can outline that,” Clinton told CNN,
according to the news organization’s write-up. “Now that the book is done,
she wants time to think about that and work through it. “

He added that Clinton “hasn’t asked me yet” about his advice on 2016, but
called her the “ablest public servant” with whom he’s ever worked.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Joe Biden is the most interesting
politician that has no chance of becoming president”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/joe-biden-is-the-most-interesting-politician-that-has-no-chance-of-becoming-president/>*

By Jaime Fuller

July 21, 2014, 12:43 p.m. EDT

The New Yorker's Evan Osnos has been working on a profile about Vice
President  Biden for months, and it finally published this week -- with a
big focus on the vice president's role in the Ukraine crisis. Osnos
conducted many interviews with Biden -- and even talked to President Obama.
You should read the whole thing -- especially since the New Yorker archives
are now open for browsing this summer -- but here's a look at some of the
most interesting tidbits.

*Obama: "In the foreign-policy front, I think Joe’s biggest influence was
in the Afghanistan debate."*

As the wars in the Middle East have ended, Biden has shifted to smaller
foreign policy priorities, although his relationships in Ukraine have also
proved invaluable. Osnos sums up his foreign policy role now as "big
assignments that may not have a huge political upside" especially for
someone who may be eying another presidential bid.

Obama adds, “You know, when I sent him to Ukraine for the recent
inauguration of Poroshenko, and he’s there, a world figure that people
know, and he’s signifying the importance that we place on the Ukrainian
election,” Obama went on. “And then world leaders can transmit directly to
him their thoughts about how we proceed. That’s not necessarily helping him
in Iowa. ”

However, his political schmoozing skills have proved invaluable in
international affairs throughout his career -- and continue to come in
handy. Osnos writes, "After so many years, he has an arsenal of opening
lines that he can deploy in Baghdad, Beijing, or Wilmington. One of his
favorites: 'If I had hair like yours, I’d be President.'" George Mitchell,
the Maine Senator who helped bring about the Good Friday Agreement, told
Osnos that he "remembers welcoming visiting heads of state to Capitol Hill.
'I’d say, ‘Here’s Senator Smith, here’s Senator Jones.’ When I got to Joe,
the leader would look out and say, 'Hi, Joe.' "

*Joe Biden and Robert Gates do not like each other at all.*

In his memoir, "Duty," former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Biden was
"impossible not to like” but he was also “wrong on nearly every major
foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
When Osnos asked Biden about Gates, the vice president called him “a really
decent guy,” but ... he went on to add, "You go back, and everything in the
last forty years, there’s nothing that I can think of, major fundamental
decisions relative to foreign policy, that I can think he’s been right
about!"

Biden ended his soliloquy on Gates by later saying, “I can hardly wait —
either in a Presidential campaign or when I’m out of here — to debate Bob
Gates. Oh, Jesus.”

*While we're on the topic of presidential campaigns, Biden's obviously
thinking about one.*

As you might have already noticed. He talks about it a lot.

But only if Hillary Clinton decides not to start her own campaign. When
Osnos "asked John McCain, who is one of Biden’s close friends, if Biden
would run without Clinton in the race, McCain said,'In a New York minute.' "

Obama doesn't get why either Clinton or Biden would ever want to run again.

“I think that, for both Joe and for Hillary, they’ve already accomplished
an awful lot in their lives. The question is, do they, at this phase in
their lives, want to go through the pretty undignifying process of running
all over again.”

*Biden and Obama are pretty surprised they get along so well.*

Osnos writes,

“The trials facing the President and the Vice-President, who are separated
by nineteen years and a canyon in style, have brought them closer than many
expected — not least of all themselves. John Marttila, one of Biden’s
political advisers, told me, ‘Joe and Barack were having lunch, and Obama
said to Biden, ‘You and I are becoming good friends! I find that very
surprising.’ And Joe says, ‘You’re [f***ing] surprised!’”

However, Biden adds that if he ever had a "fundamental moral disagreement"
with Obama,"I’d announce I had prostate cancer and I had to leave.”

*Bush once said he had gotten "a sense of his soul" after staring into the
eyes of Vladimir Putin. Biden later told Putin, "I don’t think you have a
soul."*

Borrowing comedic tactics from "Arrested Development," Biden turned an
immortal line from the Bush presidency into a callback.

“To illustrate his emphasis on personality as a factor in foreign affairs,
Biden recalled visiting Putin at the Kremlin in 2011: ‘I had an
interpreter, and when he was showing me his office I said, ‘It’s amazing
what capitalism will do, won’t it? A magnificent office!’ And he laughed.
As I turned, I was this close to him.’ Biden held his hand a few inches
from his nose. ‘I said, ‘Mr. Prime Minister, I’m looking into your eyes,
and I don’t think you have a soul.’ ‘

“‘You said that?’ I asked. It sounded like a movie line.

“‘Absolutely, positively,’ Biden said, and continued, ‘And he looked back
at me, and he smiled, and he said, ‘We understand one another.’ ‘ Biden sat
back, and said, ‘This is who this guy is!’”

Biden isn't a fan of the more rebellious additions to the Senate.

He told Osnos,  "I’ll never forget the first time I heard someone on the
floor of the Senate refer to the President as Bubba." The profile also
notes that "Biden’s friendships were so varied that he was the only senator
who was asked to speak at funerals for both Strom Thurmond, the former
segregationist, and Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat, who called
Biden 'the only Catholic Jew.' "

*There are lots of wonderful descriptions of Biden's inherent Biden-ness.*

*To wit:*

"When he was thirty years old, he became one of the youngest senators in
history, and he has parted with youth begrudgingly. His smile has been
rejuvenated to such a gleam that it inspired a popular tweet during the
last campaign: 'Biden’s teeth are so white they’re voting for Romney.' At
seventy-one, with his hairline reforested and his forehead looking
becalmed, Biden projects the glow of a grandfather just back from the gym,
which is often the case."

"Biden likes to be candid in such settings. In 1979, on one of his first
trips to the Soviet Union, he listened to an argument from his Soviet
counterpart, and replied, 'Where I come from, we have a saying: You can’t
[sh** a sh**ter.]' Bill Bradley, then a fellow-senator on the delegation,
later asked the American interpreter how he had translated Biden’s comment
into Russian. 'Not literally,' the interpreter said."

"The full package — the Ray-Ban aviators, the shameless schmalz, the echoes
of the Fonz — has never endeared him to the establishment, but it lends him
an air of authenticity that is rare in his profession. It has also produced
a whiff of cult appeal, such that his image now has more in common with
Betty White than with John Boehner."

"Biden rule No. 1: No funny hats."

"Biden held on to his locker at the Senate gym, where he liked to kibbitz."

"Biden is such a close talker that he occasionally bumps his forehead into
you mid-chat, a gesture so minor that it’s notable only when you try to
picture Barack Obama doing the same thing."

*Daily Caller: “Republicans Launch New Hillary Attack:
PoorHillaryClinton.com”
<http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/21/republicans-launch-new-hillary-attack-poorhillaryclinton-com/>*

By Sarah Hurtubise

July 21, 2014, 12:12 p.m. EDT

The Republican National Committee launched PoorHillaryClinton.com Monday to
attack the Democrat for claiming that she and Bill struggled financially
after leaving the White House.

The website features claims by the Clintons downplaying their wealth and
reports on their current earnings, which make Hillary one of the richest
individuals in the country. Clinton claimed recently that she and Bill are
not “truly well off,” and were “dead broke” when they left the White House
in 2000.

Clinton has already earned $12 million in speaking fees since leaving the
State Department just 16 months ago, according to a Bloomberg analysis out
Monday; President Bill Clinton has amassed a fortune of almost $106 million
in speaking fees alone since leaving the White House over a decade ago.

“Is this really what ‘dead broke’  looks like? Seems like the Clintons
should be just fine with their two multi-million dollar houses,” the
website says. “No need to add the ‘White House’ to the list.”

The site launched Monday with a sampling of links to stories that undercut
Clinton’s attempts to connect with Americans that are struggling
financially.

Hillary has pulled in hefty speaking fees at public universities. Clinton
most notably charged the University of Buffalo $275,000 to be featured in a
Distinguished Speaker Series. She has said that she donates speaking fees
at public universities to the family’s charity — The Bill, Hillary and
Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

As a leading contender for the 2016 presidential race, Clinton’s already
received significant pushback for her Wall Street-friendly policies and
long history in Washington. Rival Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth
Warren has already attracted an intense following — largely because she can
be taken more seriously on income inequality issues.

“In the span of just a few weeks, Hillary Clinton made enough out-of-touch
comments about her wealth to fill an entire website. So the RNC created
one,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. “Here’s the truth
Hillary doesn’t understand: you’re not ‘dead broke’ when you can make five
times the median household income with a single speech.”