Subject: Correct The Record Saturday July 19, 2014 Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:42:33 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Saturday July 19, 2014 Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Talking Points Memo: “GOP's 'Hillary Fatigue' Meme Unravels Even More With
New Poll Findings”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gallup-poll-hillary-clinton-well-known-best-liked-fatigue-meme>*

“Gallup released findings earlier this week indicating that Hillary Clinton
is by far the best-known and most popular 2016 contender, which wouldn't be
too notable if Republicans hadn't spent last month claiming that the
country is tired of the former secretary of state.”

*Washington Post: “With liberals pining for a Clinton challenger, ambitious
Democrats get in position”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-liberals-pining-for-a-clinton-challenger-ambitious-democrats-get-in-position/2014/07/18/b2892f80-0e1b-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html>*

“Even as Hillary Rodham Clinton looms as the overwhelming favorite for the
2016 Democratic presidential nomination, the party’s base is stirring for a
primary fight.”

*NBC News: "Progressives Love Warren, But They're Ready to Settle for
Hillary"
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/progressives-love-warren-theyre-ready-settle-hillary-n159696>*

“Progressive Democrats like Hillary Clinton just fine for the 2016
presidential race. But they like Elizabeth Warren, the feisty populist
Massachusetts Senator, a lot more as a future leader for their party.”

*Politico: “Warren feels the love at Netroots”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/elizabeth-warren-netroots-nation-2014-109114.html>*

“Elizabeth Warren is far and away the biggest celebrity at Netroots Nation
— and she’s loving it.”

*MSNBC: “Conservative PAC raises money over possible Warren 2016 candidacy”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/conservative-pac-raises-over-possible-warren-2016-candidacy>*

“America Rising, the super PAC that has largely focused on undermining a
potential Hillary Clinton candidacy, sent an email titled ‘Warren Warning’
to supporters Thursday evening asking for contributions to help thwart the
popular Democrat.”

*Atlanta Journal Constitution blog: Political Insider with Jim Galloway:
“For Georgia Democrats, Act One has barely begun — but so has Act Two”
<http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/07/19/for-georgia-democrats-act-one-has-barely-begun-but-so-has-act-two/>*

“Following the ragged paper-towel rule, Act Two began last Thursday, with a
small gathering of Hillary Clinton fans on the edge of Piedmont Park in
Atlanta.”

*Politico Magazine: “What’s Jill Abramson Made Of?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/whats-jill-abramson-made-of-109115.html#.U8qLSfldWSq>*

“‘Hillary is incredibly unrealistic about journalists,’ Abramson told me.
‘She expects you to be 100 percent in her corner, especially women
journalists. She got angry with me because when I became the top-ranking
woman at the New York Times, she thought I should be loyal. An editor is
going to be independent, always.’”

*Salon: “Al Gore is the single-issue candidate we need”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/19/al_gore_is_the_single_issue_candidate_we_need/>*

[Subtitle:] “Maybe he wouldn't win, but Al Gore could still make climate
change one of the biggest stories of 2016”

*Articles:*

*Talking Points Memo: “GOP's 'Hillary Fatigue' Meme Unravels Even More With
New Poll Findings”
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gallup-poll-hillary-clinton-well-known-best-liked-fatigue-meme>*

By Tom Kludt

July 19, 2014, 11:02 a.m. EDT

Gallup released findings earlier this week indicating that Hillary Clinton
is by far the best-known and most popular 2016 contender, which wouldn't be
too notable if Republicans hadn't spent last month claiming that the
country is tired of the former secretary of state.

The survey showed that 91 percent of American adults are familiar with
Clinton, and 55 percent have a favorable opinion of her. Clinton's numbers
in both categories far exceed potential GOP rivals like Chris Christie,
Rand Paul and Jeb Bush.

And Gallup noted that, although Clinton's popularity has declined as she's
moved from her relatively non-political role at the State Department, her
standing remains stronger than in July of 2006 — a year-and-half before she
ran her first presidential campaign.

Essentially, the poll represents a continuation of a steady trend. But it
also serves as counter-evidence to Republican National Committee chairman
Reince Priebus, who provided no evidence late last month when he insisted
that the country is sick of Clinton.

"There's Hillary fatigue already out there," Priebus said during an
appearance on "Meet the Press." "It's setting in. People are tired of this
story. And I just happen to believe that this early run for the White House
is going to come back and bite them. And it already is. People are tired of
it."

Priebus and other Republicans were eager to highlight Clinton's rocky book
tour, widely seen as a launching pad for her White House bid, as proof that
she isn't ready for prime time. Her gaffes on her personal wealth,
Republicans argued, showed that she is out of touch with regular Americans.

But polling at the time didn't provide much support for those claims either.

*Washington Post: “With liberals pining for a Clinton challenger, ambitious
Democrats get in position”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-liberals-pining-for-a-clinton-challenger-ambitious-democrats-get-in-position/2014/07/18/b2892f80-0e1b-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html>*

By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa

July 18, 2014, 2:49 p.m. EDT

DETROIT — On the night before her Friday keynote address to a gathering of
progressive activists here, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tried to slip
into a hotel restaurant for a quiet dinner. But the former law professor
has become a liberal superstar, and when a few admirers spotted her walking
to the corner of the dining room, they cheered loudly. A moment later, more
joined in the applause. Then one urged her, “Run for president!”

The next morning at Netroots Nation, where Warren gave a fiery sermon for
economic populism — “The game is rigged and it isn’t right!” — scores of
swooning supporters wore faux-straw boater hats with “Warren for President”
stickers and chanted, “Run, Liz, run!”

Even as Hillary Rodham Clinton looms as the overwhelming favorite for the
2016 Democratic presidential nomination, the party’s base is stirring for a
primary fight. There’s a pining for someone else, and a medley of ambitious
Democrats are making moves — many of them previously unreported — to
position themselves to perhaps be that someone.

In stark contrast to the overt maneuvering on the Republican side, the 2016
Democratic presidential sweepstakes has been largely frozen in place as
Clinton decides whether to run. But with the former secretary of state’s
book tour stumbles exposing her serious vulnerability with grass-roots
voters, small cracks are beginning to emerge.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) will test her folksy politics next month in
Iowa, home to the first-in-the-nation caucuses. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
(N.Y.) is coming out this fall with a book, “Off the Sidelines,” that is
part political memoir, part modern feminist playbook and certain to
generate presidential buzz. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also is publishing a
memoir this fall with a wink-wink title: “All Things Possible.”

Meanwhile, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley seems to respond yes to every
party speaking invitation that comes his way and is slated to address
Democrats in Nebraska and Mississippi in coming weeks. He also endeared
himself to liberals in recent days by breaking with President Obama on how
to deal with an influx of unaccompanied minors along the border.

Vice President Biden is making the rounds this summer rallying key
Democratic constituencies and recently spoke on a conference call with his
former aides — among the hundreds of Biden alumni that date back to his
1972 Senate campaign. The call was ostensibly just to say hello, but it
keeps his political circle engaged.

During a recent vacation in Kiawah Island, S.C., Biden reconnected with old
political friends. He played golf with Dick Harpootlian, a former state
party chairman, who suggested that Biden is far more “authentic” than
Clinton.

“I said, ‘Mr. Vice President, I’ll drive the golf cart,’ ” Harpootlian
recalled. “And he said, ‘No, no, no. . . . I’m driving this freaking golf
cart. Move over.’ There are some people in this world who like to be driven
and some people who like to be in the driver’s seat.”

Itching to build a national network of his own, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is
heading to Aspen, Colo., next month with O’Malley for a retreat for major
party donors. Nixon recently said the 2016 field could use a candidate from
the heartland who, like himself, gives voice to blue-collar concerns but
has red-state appeal.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has teased the possibility of a long-shot
challenge to Clinton with trips to Iowa and New Hampshire — both early
voting states — and plans to return to Iowa for three town hall meetings in
September.

One Democrat who knows a thing or two about insurgent campaigns, former
senator Gary Hart of Colorado, said he intends to huddle with California
Gov. Jerry Brown at their upcoming Yale Law School reunion (class of 1964)
to chat about the possibility of Brown running for the White House.

“Don’t rule out my law school classmate,” said Hart, who ran unsuccessfully
for president in 1984 and 1988. “If you pay attention to his career, you
see that he does very unexpected things.”

Hart added that Clinton is cautious “politically and personally and in
every way. I think her caution on Iraq cost her the nomination [in 2008].
She’s always trying to find the mythical center on controversial issues —
and if you do that, someone else is going to take the bouquet for courage.”

The driving force behind the Democratic maneuvering is a yearning among
progressives for a candidate who will champion their economic populist
agenda. Anna Galland, executive director of the liberal group MoveOn.org,
said income inequality will be the driving issue for the base, just as the
Iraq war was in 2008.

“Our members don’t want to see their preferred candidates going to give
speeches to big Wall Street banks,” Galland said, a reference to Clinton’s
paid speaking gigs, including one next week to a group of financiers in
Boston. “They want to see them talking about inequality.”

Although Clinton turned down an invitation to Netroots, she has sought to
seize on the issue in other venues. She began talking this spring about
“the cancer of inequality” and told television host Charlie Roseon
Thursday that
if she runs she would offer a detailed agenda “to tackle [economic] growth,
which is the handmaiden of inequality.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton are paying close attention to Warren’s rise, said
former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, “but they are sagacious enough to
understand that Elizabeth Warren couldn’t raise the money.”

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean said he lost his presidential race in
2004 because Democrats “didn’t want to take a chance on the hell, fire and
brimstone guy.” Dean said he thinks history will repeat itself.

“There will be a primary, and there is always grousing,” said Dean, who
insists he has no intention of running again. “But Hillary, who most
Democrats believe has earned it and paid her dues, would have to totally
implode in order for a grass-roots candidate to win the nomination.”

Even Clinton’s skeptics acknowledge the difficulty of derailing her
juggernaut. If they can’t defeat her, their goal is to shape the debate and
pull Clinton to the left on issues like toughening regulations on Wall
Street, expanding Social Security benefits and easing student loan debt.

Warren, with her populist pitch, sharp rhetoric and authentic presence, is
the biggest potential threat to Clinton. But although she has insisted she
is not running for president, she is doing some of the things a person
running for president does.

Warren published a book this spring, “A Fighting Chance,” and is an
in-demand surrogate in the run-up to November’s midterm elections —
stumping for Senate and gubernatorial candidates in blue states and red
states alike and raising more than $2.6 million for Democratic candidates.

But she is not doing behind-the-scenes spadework expected for a White House
run. When she headlined the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party’s
Humphrey-Mondale dinner in March, Warren did not take down names and
numbers of the people she met. She traveled with only one aide, hitching a
ride from the airport from a local party official, said Corey Day, the
party’s executive director.

“There was no advance guy making sure the room was exactly right and her
water was cold,” Day said. “You didn’t sense an urgency for her to build a
political operation. It was just her and her message, all very low key.”

By contrast, O’Malley has been getting acquainted with organizers in early
voting states in addition to frequent trips. “He’s all over,” said Raymond
Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “He has built up
significant goodwill.”

Klobuchar also has kept her calendar full, getting positive reviews for
speeches to Democrats in Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and
Texas. On Aug. 23, she will return to Iowa to stump for Senate nominee
Bruce Braley, aides said.

But Klobuchar has been careful to signal she wouldn’t run against Clinton,
signing up last month to fundraise for Ready for Hillary, the pro-Clinton
super PAC.

Hart said it is foolish for Democratic hopefuls to allow Clinton’s
indecision to stunt their ambitions.“What are they afraid of?” he asked.
“Losing a chance to be in Clinton’s Cabinet? If that’s part of your
thinking, you shouldn’t even think about running for president.”

More than anyone else, Warren is speaking directly to the hopes of
Democratic activists, who have grown disenchanted with Obama and hope his
successor will be a strong progressive change agent.

Here at Netroots, Warren railed against the influence of banks and
corporations, which she said have too many “lobbyists and lawyers and
plenty of friends in Congress.”

“We can whine about it, we can whimper about it, or we can fight back,”
Warren said, punching her first in the air. “I’m fighting back!”

The crowd went wild and screamed for her to run for president. Warren,
beaming, tried to hush them so she could carry on with her speech.

One thing made clear by the scene in Detroit — and others like it recently
in Shepherdstown, W.Va., Louisville, Ky., and Portland, Ore. — is that
candidate Clinton would be running against Warren in the primaries whether
or not the Massachusetts senator enters the race.

“This primary will be about the Wall Street wing versus the Warren wing of
the party,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for
America, a liberal group that spun out of Dean’s 2004 campaign. “The
question is, will Hillary be with Wall Street like she’s been all along or
will she evolve like the party to be with the Warren wing?”

*NBC News: Progressives Love Warren, But They're Ready to Settle for
Hillary
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/progressives-love-warren-theyre-ready-settle-hillary-n159696>*

By Perry Bacon Jr.

June 18, 2014

DETROIT -- Progressive Democrats like Hillary Clinton just fine for the
2016 presidential race. But they like Elizabeth Warren, the feisty populist
Massachusetts Senator, a lot more as a future leader for their party.

The message from the more than 1,000 activists who attended Netroots Nation
here was simple: they are okay with Clinton as the Democrats’ candidate.
They’ve read the polls showing her huge lead. They agree with her on most
issues, even as many of them complain about her huge speaking fees, ties to
Wall Street and occasionally hawkish views on foreign policy.

But these progressives have a dream, or really two of them. They would love
to see Clinton turn into a uber-liberal like Warren who slams big banks
instead of speaking at their events. Or better yet, Clinton would somehow
decide not to run for president, clearing the way for their hero Warren.

 “I have a love-hate relationship with her (Clinton),” said Victoria Roush,
a 60-year-old activist from Key West, Florida who manages a wine shop. “At
any moment, I can love her, or be pissed. Some of the stuff she does I
don’t like, but I can’t wait to see the first female president.”

Warren, Roush said, “is her dream candidate.”

“Her actions have proven she means what she says,” Roush said.

This year Netroots Nation should have been dubbed Warren’s World. At one
panel discussion here, an activist described her goal as electing “300 more
Elizabeth Warrens” to Congress.

Warren’s speech was the main event of the three-day conference, with people
loudly chanting “Run, Liz, Run” during her remarks. (Vice President Biden’s
appearance drew much less enthusiasm).

When attendees weren’t raving about Warren, they were talking about how
more Democrats should be economic populists like Warren.

At the same time, the people who attend this conference are political
junkies. They are aware of the challenges of a political newcomer like
Warren, who had never held elective office before winning her Senate seat
in 2012, taking on a powerful figure like Clinton in the Democratic primary
and then trying to win the general election.

"At any moment, I can love her, or be pissed. Some of the stuff she does I
don’t like, but I can’t wait to see the first female president."

And unlike in the run-up to the 2008 election, when many here refused to
back the frontrunner Clinton and opted for stronger Iraq War critics like
Barack Obama or John Edwards, liberals don’t have a huge quarrel on any
single issue with Clinton.

“I would support her as a strong Democrat, and she’s the strongest
candidate in terms of winning,” said Bob Fertik, a liberal blogger and
longtime party activist. But he added, “she hasn’t always been the most
outspoken progressive champion, especially on economic issues.”

David Karpf, a liberal activist who is also a political communications
professor at George Washington University, described himself as “prepared
and resigned for Hillary Clinton to be our next president.”

“I think she’ll be excellent at being president ,but I’m not particularly
excited about her being president,” he said. “I think Elizabeth Warren is
the most exciting politician of our generation, but as a progressive, I
just don’t believe yet that she will run for (that) office, so I haven’t
gotten behind it.’

Activists here said they want to push Clinton to adopt a more populist
platform, although it was not clear exactly how they can influence Clinton
or in turn what would truly satisfy them. The former first lady, in her
appearances over the last few months, has spoken about the problems of
rising income inequality, urged a greater focus creating middle-class jobs
and called for an increase in the minimum wage, in echoes of Warren.

But the “Netroots” wants to see more, like Clinton casting the American
economic system as ‘rigged,” or opposing some international trade
agreements the way the Massachusetts senator does. Former President Bill
Clinton has said Democrats should not spend too much time bashing the rich,
suggesting a divide between Warren-style liberals and the Clintons.

“We can’t deal with the economic inequality issue without dealing with the
fact that some people are making too much,” said Brad Miller, a former
North Carolina congressman who attended the conference.

“Whoever the Democratic Party nominee is, is going to end up running as an
economic populist, because they going to look at the polling. Even if they
didn’t think that was how they going to run beforehand, they’re going to
look at the polling and the consultants are going to say, ‘holy crap,
you’ve got to talk about these issues.”

He added, “The question is whether we’ll have someone who will actually
govern that way as president.’

Activists here say that Warren leads on populist issues, such as her recent
proposal to make it easier for students to refinance their student loans.
That idea was eventually adopted by the Obama administration.

Clinton, according to these activists, is more a follower in her populism.

"Someone's gotta address the disgusting greed that's happening on Wall
Street. Someone’s gotta address money in politics in this country."

“I would love to see her adopt Elizabeth Warren's politics, honestly,” said
the actor Mark Ruffalo, who attended part of this conference and rushed
onto the elevator Warren was in after her speech just to speak with her for
a few moments.

“Somebody's gotta address the inequality,” he added. “Someone's gotta
address the disgusting greed that's happening on Wall Street. Someone’s
gotta address money in politics in this country. This is not a Democrat or
Republican issue-- this affects all of us negatively. There is a mass
movement of wealth into the upper class, out of the middle and lower
classes-- the wealth discrepancy. We are in big trouble, and Clintonian
politics of the days of old are not gonna fly. It's not popular with people
-- people want to see change. And if she (Clinton) is willing to embrace
those principles, then sign me up."

Clinton declined an invitation to speak here. But the group “Ready for
Hillary,’ which is not officially aligned with Clinton but is advised by
some of her longtime aides, was one of the main sponsors of Netroots
Nation. Their presence here was the latest sign of a relative détente
between Clinton and progressives, who booed Clinton when she came to this
conference in 2007.

And for some activists, disagreements with Clinton on policy are not as
significant as two other factors. Her polling suggests she would be a
strong candidate to win the general election. And they want to see her make
history.

“It’s Hillary. It has to be. We have to break that ceiling. We need to
break that ceiling,” said Sundiata Aschenge, who came to this event from
St. Petersburg, Florida.

*Politico: “Warren feels the love at Netroots”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/elizabeth-warren-netroots-nation-2014-109114.html>*

By Katie Glueck

July 18, 2014, 4:39 p.m. EDT

DETROIT —Elizabeth Warren is far and away the biggest celebrity at Netroots
Nation — and she’s loving it.

In a brief interview with reporters at the annual liberal gathering, the
Massachusetts senator waved off questions about the outpouring of support
on the ground here, complete with chants of “Run, Liz, Run” and signs
reading “Elizabeth Warren for President.”

“This is about our values,” an enthusiastic Warren said after signing
copies of her new book, “A Fighting Chance.” “I talked about what we’re
fighting for, what progressives are fighting for, what America is for … I
love being here because ultimately this is about democracy, and democracy
is on our side, so I had a great time.”

Warren has repeatedly said she won’t run for president in 2016, despite
urging from many on the left. Pressed about her fans’ hopes, she replied
that she’s focused on the midterms.

“It is absolutely critical to this country,” she said of the upcoming
election. “We can’t get distracted from that. But what is most important is
the people who are here are people who have deeply held values, who get out
and fight for what they believe in. And I respect that all the way down to
my toes. So I’m delighted to be here with them because I know we’re going
to be fighting on the same side, for the same values, in 2014.”

*MSNBC: “Conservative PAC raises money over possible Warren 2016 candidacy”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/conservative-pac-raises-over-possible-warren-2016-candidacy>*

By Aliyah Frumin

July 19, 2014, 9:44 a.m. EDT

Elizabeth Warren has insisted repeatedly that she’s not running for
president in 2016. But that’s not stopping conservatives from trying to use
her imagined candidacy to incite the base into handing over cash to fight
the Massachusetts senator.

America Rising, the super PAC that has largely focused on undermining a
potential Hillary Clinton candidacy, sent an email titled “Warren Warning”
to supporters Thursday evening asking for contributions to help thwart the
popular Democrat. “Don’t let the White House fall into Warren’s hands,” it
cautions. “America can’t afford to let that happen.”

The group said it would also send video trackers to Warren’s events across
the country, in order to catch her in a gaffe or larger mistake that might
undermine her potential candidacy. A spokeswoman for Warren did not
immediately return requests for comment.

But while Clinton, the former secretary of state, is clearly seriously
mulling a bid, Warren – seen as a progressive bogeywoman by the right – has
consistently nixed the idea. The freshman senator elected in 2012 has
pledged to serve out her term and says she wants to focus on her job and on
supporting Democratic candidates running for the 2014 midterm elections.

“I am not running for president,” she told the Boston Globe on June 30. “Do
you want to put an exclamation point at the end of that?” Most analysts
agree – while liberal voters across the country might really want a Warren
candidacy, it is extremely unlikely in 2016. That didn’t stop Warren
supporters in Detroit screaming”Run Liz Run!” before she delivered a
keynote address to Netroots Nation, a gathering of progressive activists
from across the U.S.

America Rising’s fundraising initiative comes on the heels of a group of
Warren supporters forming a “Ready For Warren” campaign to encourage her to
run. Warren’s press secretary told msnbc earlier this week that the senator
“does not support this effort.”

Still, Tim Miller, the executive director for America Rising, told msnbc
that “Elizabeth Warren would absolutely be a formidable challenger to
Hillary Clinton from the left.”

Miller pointed to Warren’s recent campaigning on behalf of Democrats like
West Virginia Senate candidate Natalie Tennant and Kentucky Senate
candidate Alison Lindergan Grimes.

“She is clearly trying to position herself as a leader in the party and an
influencer in the national debate … Our job is to make sure anyone who
fills that profile is held accountable.” Miller said, adding the
fundraising response, so far, has been “positive.”

Miller also seemed to pit Warren against Clinton Friday, tweeting,
“Warren—lobbyists are the worst; Hillary—lobbyists are real people”  along
with a link to an America Rising video highlighting their differing remarks
about lobbyists.

 In the video, a clip of Warren’s remarks at the Netroots conference is
played. “Billionaires pay taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. How
does this happen? It happens because they all have lobbyists,” says Warren.
That clip is then contrasted with one from 2007, in which Clinton defends
lobbyists.

Clinton is asked at the same conference—then called the YearlyKos
Convention –  if she will continue to take money from lobbyists. “You know,
I will.  A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent
real Americans,” the former first lady says.

Clinton, at the time, was responding to a challenge from other Democrats to
stop taking cash from federal lobbyists. Clinton, at the time, added:
“They represent nurses they represent social workers, yes, they represent
corporations that employ a lot of people…I don’t think, based on my 35
years of fighting for what I believe in, I don’t think anybody seriously
believes I’m going to be influenced by a lobbyist.”

No other conservative PACs are fundraising off of a potential 2016 Warren
bid so far. But Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for American Crossroads, said
while there is nothing planned at the moment, “If she does decide to run,
we’d certainly be right there making sure she’s held accountable for her
record.”

*Atlanta Journal Constitution blog: Political Insider with Jim Galloway:
“For Georgia Democrats, Act One has barely begun — but so has Act Two”
<http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/07/19/for-georgia-democrats-act-one-has-barely-begun-but-so-has-act-two/>*

By Jim Galloway

July 19, 2014, 9:00 a.m. EDT

To understand Thomas Jefferson and his lifelong suspicion of all things
British, biographer Jon Meacham writes, you have to stop thinking of the
American Revolution as the brief episode that began July 4, 1776, and ended
with the Battle of Yorktown five years later.

Shaking off the English was a five-decade effort, Meacham argues, that
began in 1764 and didn’t end until Andy Jackson settled their hash once and
for all in the Battle of New Orleans in 1812.

Political movements, in other words, are like paper towels. They don’t
always tear along the dotted lines. In fact, they seldom do.

Georgia’s most contentious general election in a dozen years will begin at 7:01
p.m. on Tuesday. One way or the other, Georgia Republicans will field a
strong U.S. Senate candidate, Jack Kingston or David Perdue. They have a
sitting Republican governor, Nathan Deal, and all the advantages that
incumbency brings with it.

But for the first time since 2002, Democrats have two capable and
well-financed candidates at the top of their ticket. The legacy pair of
Michelle Nunn, the U.S. Senate candidate, and Jason Carter, the candidate
for governor, received encouraging poll news late last week.

Surveys by Channel 2 Action News put both Carter and Nunn at the top of
their respective races.

If they are smart, the two candidates will send that news to every Democrat
with a wallet – then closet their staffs and tell them never to mention it
again. Taking over the reins of power in a state as large as Georgia won’t
be a walk in park.

If it were, we would mark 1980 as the beginning of Republican rule, when
the upstart Mack Mattingly ousted Democratic U.S. Sen. Herman Talmadge. The
real shift was still 22 years away.

In fact, you have to think of the current Democratic uprising as a
three-part play. We are in the middle of Act One. Act Three, the climax, is
the 2018 race for governor.

The governor who is elected in 2018 (or re-elected, should Carter strike
gold this year) will preside over the redrawing of congressional and
legislative district lines following the 2020 census. That is where the
real power lies. A 2018 shutout could send Georgia Democrats wandering
another decade in the desert.

But you’ll notice we’ve left out the middle act, when the laws of
stagecraft require the plot to thicken. Following the ragged paper-towel
rule, Act Two began last Thursday, with a small gathering of Hillary
Clinton fans on the edge of Piedmont Park in Atlanta.

The 2016 presidential contest in Georgia is considered crucial to a
Democratic clawback — an extra infusion of millions dollars that might be
spent on voter contact and registration. Unlike eight years ago, the former
secretary of state is quickly emerging as the consensus candidate among
both black and white Democrats here.

The first Atlanta meeting of “Ready for Hillary,” the stalking-horse
movement anticipating Clinton’s candidacy, was a deliberately low-key
affair. Organizers wanted to make sure that any fervor for 2016 didn’t
overshadow Carter or Nunn, the stars of 2014. Perhaps 100 showed up for the
two-hour affair – a mixture of black and white, young and old, gay and
straight.

“Under the radar” has been almost a byword of the Clinton group. “It’s just
about all social-media driven. The real purpose of the Ready for Hillary
movement is to build a donor base of small-donors, and secondly to build an
email data base,” said one of its Atlanta organizers, Andy McKinnon, 64, a
retired Ford Motor Co. marketer.

Former Atlanta mayor Shirley Franklin was absent, but she has already
signed on as a senior advisor for “Ready for Hillary.” Mayor Kasim Reed,
who has his own connections to the Clinton operation, was likewise missing.
But he has already laid down a Varsity hotdog bet that Clinton will take
Georgia in 2016.

Both Franklin and Reed were serious supporters of Barack Obama in 2008, and
helped lead a stampede of African-American leaders – most notably John
Lewis – that stripped Hillary Clinton of much of her black support in
Georgia.

“I don’t have any hesitation about supporting her this time,” Franklin said
by phone on Friday, pointing to Clinton’s recent service as America’s top
diplomat as an additional argument in her favor.

John Eaves, the Fulton County Commission chairman, was the ranking public
official at the Thursdaygathering. He had just had his May 20 re-election
victory upheld in court that day, and was circulating through the event,
collecting congratulations.

Eaves was an Obama supporter in 2008. He, too, intends to line up behind
Clinton this time.

“I think the Democrats in general are solid behind her. Hillary has strong
roots here. Bill Clinton is greatly admired,” said Eaves, an
African-American. He admits he has no personal connections to his future
presidential candidate.

“I don’t but I’m going to develop some. It’s going to behoove me at some
point, to develop a relationship,” he said.

It is hard to underestimate the importance that Democrats are assigning to
unanimity this time around. Juliana Illari, a Democrat from Cobb County,
was a Clinton supporter in 2007.

“It was very difficult, especially for women. We had been waiting for
Hillary to run since the ERA and [1984 Democratic vice presidential
candidate] Geraldine Ferraro,” Illari said. “It made some sense, but it was
not a good campaign. It just wasn’t. And it was hard to engage people at a
certain point. And Atlanta was ground-zero.”

Ultimately, Illari adopted her own symbol of neutrality – a 1972
presidential campaign button for Shirley Chilsolm, the black Texas
congresswoman.

Obama supporters were the newcomers in 2008, and Clinton supporters were
the party establishment, Illari said. This time, there’s no such division.

Which establishes the plotline for the all-important Act Two for Democrats
in Georgia: It’s Hillary’s turn.

*Politico Magazine: “What’s Jill Abramson Made Of?”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/whats-jill-abramson-made-of-109115.html#.U8qLSfldWSq>*

By Gail Sheehy

July 18, 2014

[Subtitle:] The fired Times editor on Hillary Clinton, sexist “double
standards”—and a lifetime of daring.

The first thing one notices about Jill Abramson is her short stature. The
second is her intensity.

When she came to my home earlier this week to speak to an NGO crowd, she
slipped off her shoes and stepped up on a footstool, perspiring but
indefatigable. Wearing a sleeveless print dress, she showed off a green
tattoo on each upper arm. “I got them when I turned 50,” she said, to
testify to her cool.

The night beforehand, Abramson, who is now 60, and I sat down for a
one-on-one conversation about the most daring moments in her life. She was
about to break her two-month silence about being dismissed as the top woman
news editor in America, and she wasn’t licking her wounds. “I’ve always
been on the daring side,” she told me, adding wryly, “for better or worse.”

This week’s press tour was vintage Abramson: She ran it herself by choosing
what she called “kickass women,” from Cosmo’s Leslie Yazel to Fox News’
Greta van Susteren to tell her story as a proud tale of survivorship.

In our chat, Abramson spoke about press freedom, her career and the
powerful women she’s encountered along the way.

Among them was Hillary Clinton, whom she met in 1978, while Bill Clinton
was running for governor. At the time, Abramson found her to be friendly
and very helpful as a source. But once Hillary became first lady, their
relationship cooled. “Hillary is incredibly unrealistic about journalists,”
Abramson told me. “She expects you to be 100 percent in her corner,
especially women journalists. She got angry with me because when I became
the top-ranking woman at the New York Times, she thought I should be loyal.
An editor is going to be independent, always.”

As for getting fired from a newspaper that has tolerated men with far more
prickly demeanors, “It’s a double standard,” she says unflinchingly. But
Abramson is not feeling sorry for herself. If anything, she’s reveling in
the chance to inspire other women to take on their own battles. That’s why
she launched her unconventional media tour, and I believe that’s why she
spoke with me.

***

With all the attention on how “tough” she is, what’s lost in the reporting
is how often Abramson has been under attack. If she’s abrasive, maybe it’s
because she’s had to be.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush
approved the widespread eavesdropping program to hunt for terrorist
activity. The Bush administration continued to push back on any stories on
the spying operation, insisting it would compromise national security.
After Abramson was named the first woman managing editor of the Times in
2003, she became increasingly passionate about exposing the illegal spying
problem. The Times held back until 2004, when she assigned James Risen and
Eric Lichtblau to break the super-scoop about the illegal spying program.
The article ran in December 2005. It won a Pulitzer.

Abramson has received much stronger pushback from the Obama administration
on stories of national intelligence than from the Bush crowd. Recently,
when she wanted to run a story about an intelligence intercept in Yemen,
James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, threatened her: “You will
have blood on your hands.” “Those were literally his words,” she said. With
minor censoring, she ran the story. (When I called Abramson to fact-check
this paragraph, the newly liberated editor said: “That’s all. I am going
back to the beach.”)

“I’ve had the same threat from Obama government officials,” Abramson told
me. “They have argued that if I ran a story about our operations, I would
be helping terrorists carry out an attack.” In some cases, she says, the
information is already in the public domain. “When an intel operation goes
well, the administration is happy to talk about it—for example, the capture
of bin Laden. When it doesn’t go well, they don’t want it revealed.”

I asked her: Was her daring nature inborn or cultivated? As a child, Jill
was not a natural athlete. She was a brainy kid who attended the Ethical
Culture and Fieldston School, an elite set of private academies in the
Upper West Side and the Bronx, and read the New York Times each day before
class. Her father liked nothing better, on summer evenings after work, than
to take his little daughter to Central Park with a bat and a softball.

“Keep your eye on the ball!” he’d say. “And hit hard.” These were the most
useful life lessons a future editor could have had.

“I’ve always been confident about competing in male-dominated
environments,” she said. At age 18, Jill was one of the few women to dare
to invade the all-male preserve of Harvard Yard. It was 1972 and for the
first time, the university allowed women to live in a male dorm. Out of
1,200 students, almost 900 were men. Jill was one of the fraction of the
300 women who asked to move into the hostile corridors of male dorms.

It was the earliest of her many invasions as a “first woman.” It excited
her to dare again.

Her first full-time job in journalism was at the Boston bureau of Time
magazine. “It seemed daring to me to go up to people I didn’t know and get
in their face and start asking questions,” she remembers. “I’d have to talk
myself into doing it. But once you do, it quickly becomes second nature.”

She came under the mentorship of the highest-ranking woman at Time, Sandy
Burton, who had started as a secretary. “I was under the impression that
the professional world must be full of accomplished women like Sandy,”
Abramson said with a laugh. She never again had a woman boss. It was
clearly up to her to be daring enough to crack the glass ceiling again and
again.

At the Wall Street Journal, where she went next, she was given two prime
subjects to cover: money and politics. When she broke stories that beat the
Times, an editor called to recruit her to come over to the Grey Lady. It
had always been her goal to reach the pinnacle at the Times. Hired in 1997,
she was soon promoted as the No. 2 editor in the Washington bureau.

It was thrilling to be there for 9/11, she recalls, reporting to readers
everything there was to know about Osama bin Laden. “I kept pushing for the
Times to ramp up its Iraq war coverage,” she said.

I asked Abramson if she’d had daring moments in her personal life. “Many,”
she said. “I decided to have children at a pretty young age.” It was the
very early 1980s, when the social instructions for women who wanted a big
career were to wait until 35 or later, until one’s career was
well-established. The Abramsons had nothing like a stable income. Jill had
taken a job with Steven Brill at a startup magazine, The American Lawyer,
while her husband worked for a labor union.

Jill had her daughter at 29 and her son at 31. “That was a daring choice,”
she told me. “And it’s the happiest choice I made in my life, because now
I’m reminded that jobs come and go, but your family is forever.”

***

At the gathering the next evening—organized by the Common Good, a
non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to encouraging civil
dialogue—60 guests crowded into my overheated living room, eager for direct
exposure to a woman media boss portrayed by press reports as “tough,”
“abrasive,” “mercurial,” even “belligerent.”

Abramson began laying out the most urgent issue on her mind: the
encroachment on press freedom. Jim Risen, a colleague of hers in the
Washington bureau of the Times, has recently been subpoenaed by the Justice
Department. Abramson was vehement in pointing out that this is one of the
eight criminal leak investigations that the Obama administration has
initiated.

“That is more than twice the number of criminal cases against
whistleblowers that have been prosecuted in all of history,” she said. She
urged the crowd to follow the news about the Risen case “because it strikes
at the heart of our democracy.”

She invited dialogue, and for half an hour gave clear, nuanced answers to
every question. Gender bias in political reporting? “No question.” She
offered advice for young women assigned to a political campaign. “Right now
there are more women senior campaign aides—they’ll want to help you out, so
make them your best sources.”

When an audience member finally broke the ice to ask how she felt about her
dismissal from the job she dearly loved, Abramson was unapologetic but not
angrily defensive about her “management style. “I dig in behind the surface
to get to the real story,” she asserted, “and you have to be tough to do
that. But I don’t think I’m any tougher than most journalists, men or
women, who strive to do that in their work.”

Earlier, she and I had laughed about the management style of Abe Rosenthal,
never accused of being diplomatic. A tyrant who sustained a reign of terror
over the newsroom from 1968 to the mid-1980s, he was legendary for his
rages, rants and homophobia. No one dared fire him, and he only left,
unwillingly, when ageism retired him at 65.

Why then, could she be fired for her “management style?” In her deep,
gravelly voice, she said, “It’s a double standard. I am very proud of the
newsroom I ran and the people I hired.”

Her proudest achievement, she said, was the hiring of strong women as
senior writers and editors. At the end of her first year, she could open
the paper to the masthead page and for the first time ever see an equal
number of women and men.

She seemed genuine about looking forward to returning to her alma mater
this fall and teaching Harvard students a course on narrative non-fiction.

At the end of the evening, many remarked on how “likeable” Jill Abramson
was. She had lived up to the advice she had given earlier. “If you are
fired—and lots of people are being fired these days—show what you are made
of.”

John Harwood, a popular CNBC correspondent, had come along to vouch for
exactly that. Having worked with Abramson twice, at the Wall Street Journal
and at the Times, he told the audience, “I’ve seen all the great
journalists of our generation, and there’s nobody that I have worked with
who has the talent, the values, the integrity, the brains and—despite her
badass exterior—who has the heart of Jill Abramson.”

*Salon: “Al Gore is the single-issue candidate we need”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/19/al_gore_is_the_single_issue_candidate_we_need/>*

By Matt Rozsa

July 19, 2014, 6:30 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Maybe he wouldn't win, but Al Gore could still make climate
change one of the biggest stories of 2016

With Republican pundits speculating on the possibility of a third Mitt
Romney bid for the White House, I think it’s appropriate to mention another
two-time presidential candidate whose moment has come in 2016 — Al Gore.

Allow me to explain.

I have never met Gore, nor am I connected with anyone who has a
professional interest in seeing a renaissance for Gore’s political career.
Similarly, I am not writing this article in my capacities as a political
columnist, graduate student or local Pennsylvania politician, but as a
concerned citizen — not only of the United States, but of the world. Like
President Obama, who made news this week by pointing out that the climate
change crisis threatens every aspect of America’s future, I want to make
sure my children will grow up in a strong country, one that is safe and
secure on a healthy planet. And America needs Al Gore to make a bid for the
White House because of his unique credibility on anthropogenic global
warming.

As the EPA explains on their website, a failure to reduce greenhouse gases
in our atmosphere will have a devastating effect on “our food supply, water
resources, infrastructure, ecosystems, and even our own health.” In
addition, as former Navy Rear Admiral David Titley explained in a recent
Op-Ed to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the confluence of violently
unpredictable changes in our weather patterns and drastic reduction in
vital resources will destabilize the international political scene, as the
countries that stand to gain or lose the most from climate change will be
compelled to overhaul their economic and foreign policies accordingly. As
Titley somberly put it, “Climate change is an accelerating threat to
national security.”

Yet even though a recent survey of more than 12,000 peer-reviewed climate
science papers found that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that
global warming is man-made, a CBS News poll last May found that only 49
percent of Americans accept that climate change has been caused by human
activity, with 33 percent attributing it mainly to natural patterns, 11
percent claiming it doesn’t exist, and 6 percent either saying that they
don’t know or that it is caused by both. Moreover, climate change has long
struggled to be taken seriously as a major national priority, a problem
reinforced last month when a Bloomberg National Poll found only 5 percent
of Americans ranked it as the most important issue facing the country today
(placing it seventh).

The good news is that, as Berkeley psychology professor Michael Ranney
demonstrated in a 2012 study, people can change their minds when the
dynamics of climate change are broken down for them in a straightforward
and easily digestible manner. To quote snippets of the 400-word explanation
that Ranney found was most persuasive:

“Since the industrial age began around the year 1750, atmospheric carbon
dioxide has increased by 40% and methane has increased by 150%. Such
increases cause extra infrared light absorption, further heating Earth
above its typical temperature range (even as energy from the sun stays
basically the same). In other words, energy that gets to Earth has an even
harder time leaving it, causing Earth’s average temperature to increase –
producing global climate change…

“(a) Earth absorbs most of the sunlight it receives; (b) Earth then emits
the absorbed light’s energy as infrared light; (c) greenhouse gases absorb
a lot of the infrared light before it can leave our atmosphere; (d) being
absorbed slows the rate at which energy escapes to space; and (e) the
slower passage of energy heats up the atmosphere, water, and ground.”

Unfortunately, the simple science has been obscured in our political
debate. While special interest groups can make some headway by lobbying, no
weapon comes remotely close to the potency of a high-profile presidential
campaign when it comes to mobilizing large sections of the population and
transforming public opinion. Even an Academy Award-winning movie that
became part of our pop culture zeitgeist — I’m referring, of course, to
Gore’s iconic documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” — had a limited effect
because it was viewed as the pet project of a supporting character in the
ongoing American story. For better or worse, we live in a society that is
over-saturated with issues and advocates; as a result, anyone who is not an
active main character on today’s political stage quickly finds his or her
cause lost in the noise or, at best, championed only by a static niche of
activists and casual policy junkies. The people running for president,
however — and in particular someone like Gore, who has the unique
distinction of having won the popular vote in a general election, even if
he lost the war — are never just supporting characters.

This brings me to the critical detail of a hypothetical Gore candidacy: It
would have to be a single-issue campaign. In part this is a fail-safe
measure; while a strong case can be made that Gore would make an excellent
president (a premise with which a plurality of American voters agreed in
2000), the primary objective would not be to promote Gore the man, but to
guarantee due attention is paid to the threat of climate change. While
other campaigns on both sides would continue the practice of focusing on
several issues in the name of advancing a name brand (i.e., the individual
candidate), Gore would have the advantage of representing not his own
cause, but the cause of creating an environmentally sustainable future.
Indeed, he wouldn’t have to actually win in the primaries to achieve his
goal. As long as he consistently received a large enough percentage of the
primary vote to be considered a “major player,” he would (a) keep climate
change in the national headlines; and (b) force the other candidates to
prioritize climate change in the hope of winning over his supporters.

I don’t want to oversell what a Gore candidacy can accomplish to save our
planet. Obviously it would be a game-changer if he were elected, but should
the Democrats instead nominate, say, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, Gore
could force them to take a hardline stand on the issue. Even though most
Democrats agree that global warming needs to be addressed, it is usually
prioritized below other matters like the economy or foreign policy. This is
no doubt because it is viewed as a distant threat rather than an immediate
one — a perspective that may be the luxury of baby boomers, but, alas, not
for the millennials who will inherit the ecological disaster they leave
behind.

Gore’s goal should be to force them to commit to a proactive and emphatic
position on this matter, making the fight against climate change one of
their top priorities, similar to what Ross Perot did for both parties on
balancing the budget in 1992; Eugene McCarthy did for Democrats to mobilize
opposition to the Vietnam War in 1968; or President John Tyler did to
pressure the (still Jacksonian) Democrats to nominate a candidate who would
annex Texas in 1844.

Although there have been plenty of single-issue candidates in the past, few
have had Gore’s eminence or name recognition. As such, this approach — if
executed correctly, especially from a PR standpoint — could come across as
refreshingly novel, helping Gore stand out from the pack. This is where the
argument that Gore has a civic duty to run comes into play: If he truly
believes that we are running out of time to effectively address man-made
climate change, then he must appreciate the importance of elevating the
issue in our national debate.

While most people associate Gore with the tragedy of the 2000 presidential
election, his greatest political campaign occurred more than a decade
earlier, when he ran against the likes of Michael Dukakis, Dick Gephardt,
Paul Simon and Jesse Jackson for the 1988 Democratic presidential
nomination. Aside from Jackson, Gore was the only Democratic candidate in
that race who associated himself with a clear cause, not only calling
attention to the urgency of addressing global warming but striving to make
it one of the central issues of the election — to no avail. As he later
recalled, “I made hundreds of speeches about the greenhouse effect, the
ozone problem, that were almost never reported at all. There were several
occasions where I prepared the ground in advance, released advanced texts,
chose the place for the speech with symbolic care — and then nothing,
nothing.”

Thanks in no small part to Gore’s own efforts, public awareness of this
important issue has dramatically increased in the twenty-six years since
that first campaign. While Gore would have probably had a better chance of
beating George H. W. Bush than any of the other Democratic aspirants (his
reputation as a Southern centrist made him the least vulnerable to the Bush
team’s dirty tactics, which were ultimately successful against Dukakis, the
eventual nominee), he simply lacked the fame and clout to force global
warming onto the national radar. Today he is a former vice president, a
Nobel Prize and Academy Award-winner and an elder statesman; his name and
reputation alone will make him a major contender as soon as he announces
his candidacy (something true of no other Democrat in 2016 except for
Clinton).

I know that I am asking a lot of him. Of the four Americans who were denied
the presidency despite winning the popular vote, he is one of only two to
have never made another bid for the White House (Andrew Jackson and Grover
Cleveland both ran again — and, it’s worth noting, won). The other one,
Samuel Tilden, was satisfied knowing that he would famously “receive from
posterity the credit of having been elected to the highest position in the
gift of the people, without any of the cares and responsibilities of the
office.” While only Gore knows for certain why he has retired from
electoral politics, I would imagine Tilden’s reasoning at least factors
into Gore’s rationalization of his decision … to say nothing of his legacy
in history.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree. As Gore knows better than anyone
else, however, we are running out of time to address global warming, and no
weapon would be as effective in fighting it as a Gore presidential
candidacy. If ever a man and a moment have met, Gore is that man and the
2016 presidential election is his moment.

*Calendar:*

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

·  July 19 – Madison, CT: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour stop
at R.J. Julia (Day of New London
<http://www.theday.com/article/20140708/NWS01/140709708/1047>)

·  July 20 – St. Paul, MN: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour stop
at Common Good Books (AP
<http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-plans-st-paul-stop-on-book-tour/>
)

·  July 20 – St. Paul, MN: Sec. Clinton visits Minn. Gov. Mark Dayton at
the Governor's Mansion (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/490172158510112768>)

·  July 21 – Menlo Park, CA: Sec. Clinton visits Facebook headquarters and
holds live Q&A online (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/490269389640720384>)

·  ~ 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 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>)