Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday July 16, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:19:58 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Wednesday July 16, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Did you catch Secretary Clinton on The Daily Show last night? See the full
segment here! [Link To Sec. Clinton's "The Daily Show" Interview"]
<http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8wmce1/exclusive---hillary-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1>
*

*Headlines:*

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton talks Gaza, media scrutiny on Daily Show”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-daily-show-gaza-media-scrutiny-108967.html#ixzz37azpsIwq>*

“Hillary Clinton joked about an office with ‘fewer corners’ and said she’s
surprised at the ‘cottage industry’ of interest in her but got serious
talking about the violence in the Mideast on Tuesday in an interview with
‘The Daily Show’ host Jon Stewart.”

*Cosmopolitan: “Jill Abramson: ‘I'm Not Ashamed of Getting Fired’”
<http://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/interviews/a29085/jill-abramson-not-ashamed-of-getting-fired/>*

Former Editor-in-chief of the New York Times Jill Abramson, “Both [Bill and
Hillary] have first-class minds, and that is a great building block for a
successful presidency. I think he was a successful president, and I think
she would be too.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Sen. Mark Warner to headline ‘Ready
for Hillary’ fundraiser”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/sen-mark-warner-to-headline-ready-for-hillary-fundraiser/>*

“To the growing list of Democrats proclaiming themselves ‘Ready for
Hillary,’ add Sen. Mark Warner (Va.).”

*Politico: “Priorities keeps pledge with $1,845 haul”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/priorities-keeps-pledge-with-1845-haul-108948.html>*

“The low intake is part of Priorities USA making good on its pledge not to
compete with fundraising efforts in the midterms, after an uproar over
whether it would be helpful during a tough fight for Democrats.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Jon Stewart to Hillary Clinton: No
one cares about your book”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/jon-stewart-to-hillary-clinton-no-one-cares-about-your-book/>*

“Hillary Clinton appeared Tuesday on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to
promote her book, ‘Hard Choices.’ Stewart briefly discussed the 656-page
tome about Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and then asked exactly
what everyone is wondering.”

*Politico: “Ready for Warren? Backers launch site”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/ready-for-warren-backers-launch-site-108946.html>*

“A group encouraging Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president
is ramping up, launching a websiteTuesday just ahead of the liberal
Netroots Nation conference.”

*CNN: “Michele Bachmann's take on Elizabeth Warren: If I were Hillary, I'd
be concerned”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/15/michele-bachmanns-take-on-elizabeth-warren-if-i-were-hillary-id-be-concerned/>*

“Should Hillary Clinton be concerned about a possible Elizabeth Warren
candidacy in 2016? Rep. Michele Bachmann believes so.”

*The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Warren could beat Clinton”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/212374-warren-could-beat-clinton>*

“Elizabeth Warren could beat Hillary Clinton.”

*New York Times: The Upshot: “The Risks of Hillary Clinton’s
Quasi-Campaign”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/upshot/the-risks-of-hillary-clintons-quasi-campaign.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus>*

“Despite looking a lot like a candidate, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t sound much
like one at this stage, and that could be costly in the long run.”

*Salon: “The right’s new, ridiculous Clinton conspiracy will make your head
explode”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/the_rights_new_ridiculous_clinton_conspiracy_makes_no_sense/>*

“That gets to the logic of the alleged scheme – how, exactly, would
emailing entire copies of ‘Clinton, Inc.’ to influential journalists who
salivate over Clinton minutiae serve to dull interest in the book? That’s
precisely what publishers do to increase interest in books. None of this
makes sense."

*CNN: “Progressive group announces $1 million raised for candidates”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/16/progressive-group-announces-1-million-raised-for-candidates/>*

“The Progressive Change Campaign Committee said Wednesday that it raised
over $1 million this campaign cycle. The report comes a day before the
kickoff of Netroots Nation, the largest annual gathering of progressives in
the country.”

*New York Times opinion: Thomas B. Edsall: “The Coming Democratic Schism”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/thomas-edsall-a-shift-in-young-democrats-values.html>*

"When asked by Reason if they would consider voting for Clinton, 53 percent
of those surveyed said yes, and 27 percent said no. Both Joe Biden, the
vice president, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senator from
Massachusetts, received more yesses than nos."

*Articles:*

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton talks Gaza, media scrutiny on Daily Show”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-daily-show-gaza-media-scrutiny-108967.html#ixzz37azpsIwq>*

By Maggie Haberman

July 15, 2014, 10:45 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton joked about an office with “fewer corners” and said she’s
surprised at the “cottage industry” of interest in her but got serious
talking about the violence in the Mideast on Tuesday in an interview with
“The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart.

In her first comments on the broken Gaza cease-fire, the former secretary
of state expressed sympathy for people in Gaza who are “trapped by their
leadership” but also said Israel has a right to defend itself.

“When I negotiated the cease-fire in November of 2012, it was right on the
brink with Israel once again invading Gaza because of the rockets … and the
Israelis are absolutely right in saying that they can’t just sit there and
let rockets rain down,” Clinton told the Comedy Central host. “They have a
missile defense which is working well, but that can’t be certain, and now
there are drones, apparently, that are being launched from Gaza.”

Clinton said the Hamas leadership is now viewed as a threat by the Egyptian
government, saying that Hamas isn’t interested in making “the situation too
much better because that gives them a lot of leverage over the poor people
in Gaza.”

“Unless we can give people enough of a sense of security on both sides that
they will be better off and their children are going to be better off,”
Clinton added, “then the guys with the guns can always disrupt anything.”

For Clinton, it was a chance to show a lighter side that her friends and
aides insist is on display in private but is not frequently seen in public.

At one point, Stewart asked her about her “dead broke” comments, pertaining
to how she and her husband were in debt coming out of the White House.
Clinton repeated her recent cleanup, calling the comments “inartful” and
saying she wants to make sure everyone has opportunities to succeed in the
United States.

Stewart interrupted her and said he knew she was running for president
because of how quickly she pivoted from the “dead broke” line “to income
inequality.”

Clinton said a “combination” of factors is contributing to the Washington
toxicity, including a “Congress that’s no longer functioning” but that’s
“very focused on taking on special interests.”

But she said there’s a ton of lethargy in the bureaucracy of the executive
branch.

There is a “very difficult situation in our executive branch because — I
think if President Obama were here, he would be the first to say — it has
not kept up with the times,” she said.

Clinton also was asked bluntly by Stewart about running for president at
the beginning of the roughly 20-minute interview, which was aimed at
promoting her book, “Hard Choices,” which she is pushing to keep toward the
top of the bestseller list.

Stewart encouraged her to announce her candidacy on his show, referring to
her book and saying, “I think I speak for everybody when I say nobody
cares; they just want to know if you are running for president.” The crowd
howled.

Clinton said he had been a “spoiler,” adding, “I think I’ll just reconsider
where I go do it.” Clinton did little of the “if-I-run” pushback she’s
engaged in during most recent interviews while sitting with Stewart, joking
along with him about her next job.

When Stewart referenced two new unauthorized books about her and her family
and pointed out that a lot of the interest in her would just go away if she
said she was not running, she said, “I think a lot of people would lose
their jobs if it stopped.”

“I’ve been amazed at what a cottage industry it has become,” said Clinton,
who has been the focus of intense media interest since her days as first
lady in the White House.

When Stewart pretended to give her a quiz to help her find her next job,
she said she would like an office with “fewer corners.”

*Cosmopolitan: “Jill Abramson: ‘I'm Not Ashamed of Getting Fired’”
<http://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/interviews/a29085/jill-abramson-not-ashamed-of-getting-fired/>*

By Laura Brounstein and Leslie Yazel

July 15, 2014

[Subtitle:] When Jill Abramson was appointed the first female executive
editor of The New York Times, it was a big deal. When she was fired only
two and a half years into the gig for her "brusque management style," it
was an even bigger deal, making headlines across the globe. In her first
magazine interview since, she talks about how to get ahead ... and fight
your way back.

Boxing Gloves

I knew I was being fired beforehand, but it went public on a Wednesday. My
kids were upset, and the loudness of the coverage was surprising. So I
arrive at my trainer in Manhattan, where I always went early on Thursdays.
He had these boxing gloves, and he said, "You need this." I said, "Take a
picture of me." I wanted to send it to my kids to see I wasn't at home
crying and sitting in a corner. Within a nanosecond, my daughter, Cornelia,
had put it on Instagram, and it went viral. The next morning, it was on the
cover of the New York Post. I did the boxing once more after that. It feels
fantastic.

Men vs. Women

What [New York Times publisher] Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has said publicly is
that he had problems with my management style. The whole issue of how
women's management styles are viewed is an incredibly interesting subject.
In some ways, the reaction was much bigger when Politico ran this hatchet
job on me [the profile by Dylan Byers called her "stubborn,"
"condescending," and "uncaring"]. If there is a silver lining, it was the
giant reaction from other women journalists. These women editors at the
Chicago Tribune, who I have never met, sent me flowers after that article.

No Shame

Is it hard to say I was fired? No. I've said it about 20 times, and it's
not. I was in fact insistent that that be publicly clear because I was not
ashamed of that. And I don't think young women — it's hard, I know — they
should not feel stigmatized if they are fired. Especially in this economy
people are fired right and left for arbitrary reasons, and there are
sometimes forces beyond your control.

Tears

I did cry after reading [that] article about me in Politico. I don't regret
admitting I did. The reason I wanted to do this interview is that I think
it is important to try to speak very candidly to young women. The most
important advice I would still give — and it may seem crazy because I did
lose this job I really loved — you have to be an authentic person. I did
cry. That is my authentic first reaction. I don't regret sharing that.

Rejection

The times I didn't get jobs I wanted, I remember feeling dispirited, really
crestfallen. I didn't get a job as [then Secretary of State] Cyrus Vance's
speech writer in 1977 or 1978. But be careful what you wish for. It can be
best to get passed over for a job as there may be a better job out there.
After that, I was hired into the election unit of NBC News.

Networking Tip

A lot of younger staffers just asked me to coffee. There's a way to do
networking that isn't overly brown-nosing. I was fine if someone just said,
"I want to have coffee and talk about my career."

The Next President?

I met Hillary Clinton the first time in 1978. I was writing for a political
consulting firm, and Bill was running for governor and was one of the
firm's clients. I went to Little Rock for two weeks to gather material. I
was impressed that Bill Clinton had this very smart lawyer wife and this
very brash woman as his top political lieutenant, Betsey Wright. Later, I
went to work at American Lawyer, and I relied on Hillary as a source. Any
time I was calling her for her own expertise, she was fantastic, friendly,
and helpful. But as First Lady and as a candidate's wife, she was sometimes
angry at me and at some of the stories I wrote. Both [Bill and Hillary]
have first-class minds, and that is a great building block for a successful
presidency. I think he was a successful president, and I think she would be
too.

For Journos

I taught at Yale for five years when I was managing editor and what I tried
to stress for students interested in journalism, rather than picking a
specialty, like blogging or being a videographer, was to master the basics
of really good storytelling, have curiosity and a sense of how a topic is
different than a story, and actually go out and witness and report. If you
hone those skills, you will be in demand, as those talents are prized.
There is too much journalism right now that is just based on people
scraping the Internet and riffing off something else.

Pay Days

My advice on getting a raise is what everybody's advice is: to become a
confident negotiator, but that is so hard. My admiration for women who are
good at that is unbridled. Women in general have a harder time talking
about money with their bosses. It's part of that syndrome, like you're so
lucky just to have the job. Sheryl Sandberg has written very brilliantly
about this in Lean In and in her TED talk. Men never chalk up their success
to luck but women often do. In my experience, men more often than women
brought up money and talked about it and pressed for what they wanted in
terms of salary before they agreed to be promoted.

Point of Pride

When I was managing editor, for the first time the masthead [the list of
top editors at the Times] was half women, but it was because they were
great and they deserved it. I am totally proud of that. A couple of times I
had to explain that to men. I think there was some surprise at the speed at
which some women got promoted.

Cheer Squad

It helps that my husband and I have been together since sophomore year at
Harvard. Having him in my corner and my kids and my sister helps. My sister
called me up after I got fired to say our father would be as proud of me
that morning as when I got the job. That's sort of how you dust yourself
off.

Her Posse

This is going to sound incredibly out of it, but I didn't in real time read
what was written about me and losing my job. It was a survival mechanism. A
lot of my friends [like Maureen Dowd, Michiko Kakutani, Jane Mayer, Ellen
Pollock] were like my medieval food tasters. They read, and if I really
needed to know something, they would tell me. One thing I love is TheLi.st,
an e-mail group of women in their 20s and 30s. I was a very big thread.
TheLi.sters called me a badass, which is a cool thing in their view. And
I'm like, "I am!" But, you know, it's a little dangerous to be a badass.

Tough Calls

Sometimes the CIA or the director of national intelligence or the NSA or
the White House will call about a story. You hit the brakes, you hear the
arguments, and it's always a balancing act: the importance of the
information to the public versus the claim of harming national security.
Over time, the government too reflexively said to the Times, "you're going
to have blood on your hands if you publish X," and because of the frequency
of that, the government lost a little credibility. But you do listen and
seriously worry. Editors are Americans too. We don't want to help
terrorists.

Teaching Moments

I'm teaching at Harvard this fall, and the thing is, my daughter is in
Boston so that will be lots of fun. I'll get to hang out with her and her
husband and the new puppy I gave them, Magic, a golden retriever.

Labels

I don't mind the word fired. I do not like the word former. It just sounds
icky.

Leisure Time

I now have time literally to read the whole New York Times print paper
every day. It's great; I love it. I love the institution still. I love
Girls although I didn't love the last season. Marnie has completely fallen
apart as a character, although Allison Williams is a good actress.

Proudest Moment

The Times did such a public service by publishing David Barboza's stories
on the corruption of the Chinese leadership. The New York Times website was
shut down by the Chinese government. The Times had just started a Chinese
language website. They had capitalized on this great market hungry for
news. There were immediate consequences.

Beyond Work

It can be a danger to define yourself by your job. I miss my colleagues and
the substance of my work, but I don't miss saying, "Jill Abramson,
executive editor." I don't. I was once told a former executive editor of
the Times, who knew he was going to stop being editor, made sure to make
reservations at a particular restaurant because he was afraid after that
they wouldn't give him a table anymore. That's not high on my priority list!

Sexism at Work

Of course I experienced sexism early on. I remember being in story
sessions, and so many times, I would have an idea and I would talk about
it. Then the convener of the meeting would say, "And as Jerry was just
saying ..." and they would remember the idea as coming from a male
colleague. I didn't pipe up in real time. I did grouse about it with other
women in the office, which in some ways is safer and more cowardly but is
very comforting and kind of gratifying.

Salad Days

Since getting fired, I've watched every Yankees game, and I've gone to a
couple of day games that I would never have been able to. I've reread a
couple of novels that I read in school. To Kill a Mockingbird and All the
King's Men. My dog, Scout, she is relaxing company. I went to Greece with
my sister, and in Athens, we went to museums then just sat on the beach in
Mykonos for a week and talked and read and laughed. I didn't have to worry
about calling in to the news desk.

What's Next

I still love to write and report, and I'm doing some writing. I just handed
in a piece this morning. A lot of news organizations have approached me. I
know I don't really want to run something again right now.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Sen. Mark Warner to headline ‘Ready
for Hillary’ fundraiser”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/sen-mark-warner-to-headline-ready-for-hillary-fundraiser/>*

By Philip Rucker

July 16, 2014, 12:21 a.m. EDT

To the growing list of Democrats proclaiming themselves "Ready for
Hillary," add Sen. Mark Warner (Va.).

Warner, a former governor and businessman who has long entertained his own
run for national office, is headlining a fundraiser for Ready for Hillary,
the grassroots super PAC laying the groundwork for Hillary Rodham Clinton's
potential 2016 presidential campaign.

Warner is slated to appear as a "special guest" at a fundraiser Aug. 5 in
Richmond alongside a number of close associates and other prominent
Virginia Democrats, according to an invitation posted on Ready for
Hillary's Web site.

Warner's move comes after fellow Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) signed up to
help Ready for Hillary during a May visit to South Carolina, where he
called Clinton "the right person for the job." A number of other senators
have made similar declarations, including two top Democrats, Charles E.
Schumer of New York and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.

Ready for Hillary announced this week it had raised more than $2.5 million
from more than 43,000 contributors between April and June, bringing its
total to $8 million since its founding last year.

The group is working to build a list of Clinton supporters and convince the
former secretary of state that, if she runs for president again, she would
have an enthusiastic base of backers.

Ready for Hillary has relied heavily on small-dollar donations. The ticket
price for the Richmond fundraiser featuring Warner is a symbolic $20.16,
while event hosts are being asked to contribute $201.60.

The Richmond event's co-chairs are: Tyler Bishop, who served in Warner's
administration and has advised current Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Mark T.
Bowles, a Virginia fundraiser and consultant; Keyanna Conner, a party
activist and Warner campaign aide; Larry Framme, a former Virginia
Democratic Party chairman; Eva Hardy, a former Dominion Power executive and
Warner's campaign chairwoman; and Susan Swecker, a Virginia political
consultant.

*Politico: “Priorities keeps pledge with $1,845 haul”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/priorities-keeps-pledge-with-1845-haul-108948.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

July 15, 2014, 5:48 p.m. EDT

The high-dollar super PAC that’s planning to back Hillary Clinton for
president raised in the high four figures for the second quarter of 2014,
bringing in just $1,845.

The low intake is part of Priorities USA making good on its pledge not to
compete with fundraising efforts in the midterms, after an uproar over
whether it would be helpful during a tough fight for Democrats.

“Priorities USA Action continues to focus our efforts on supporting
Democrats in 2014,” said Peter Kauffmann, a spokesman for the group.

Priorities now has $1.48 million in cash on hand and has given out just
over $1 million in disbursements, officials said.

It transferred $250,000 apiece to the House Majority PAC and Senate
Majority PAC this past quarter, as well as $100,000 to the Missouri Voting
Fund.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Jon Stewart to Hillary Clinton: No
one cares about your book”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/jon-stewart-to-hillary-clinton-no-one-cares-about-your-book/>*

By Katie Zezima

July 16, 2014, 12:48 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton appeared Tuesday on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to
promote her book, "Hard Choices." Stewart briefly discussed the 656-page
tome about Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and then asked exactly
what everyone is wondering.

"No one cares," about the book, he said. "They just want to know if you're
running for president."

Stewart, like so many, tried to get the answer -- even telling Clinton that
it sounded like she had just declared that she was running. Like so many
others Stewart couldn't confirm anything, but he gets points for asking the
most creative questions.

"I was going to make an announcement, but you spoiled it for me," Clinton
joked.

"That's a yes?" he asked.

Instead Stewart gave Clinton a mock high school career aptitude test to
gauge whether she would be a good fit for the Oval Office.

Stewart asked if Clinton would rather commute to work or have a home office.

"I've spent so many years commuting, I'd kind of prefer a home office,"
Clinton said.

"Do you have a favorite shape for that office?" Stewart asked. "Would you
like it to have corners or like it not to have corners?"

The fewer corners the better, Clinton replied. The world is complicated
enough, she said.

Pointing to two unauthorized biographies of Clinton and her family and the
hullabaloo around her book, Stewart asked Clinton if she thought the circus
surrounding her would stop if she simply declared that she does not plan to
run for president.

"I think a lot of people would lose their jobs if it all stopped," she
said. "I've been amazed at what a cottage industry it is."

Clinton said she believes that America essentially needs a new marketing
campaign.

"We have not been telling our story very well," she said. "And let's get
back to telling it to ourselves first and foremost."

Clinton said the U.S. has not done this well since the Cold War (what about
Bill Clinton's presidency?) when lines were drawn between the Soviet  Union
and the United States and American ideas permeated the globe, like when
Vaclav Havel said he was inspired by Lou Reed. The first step is getting
America to agree on what the country stands for.

""I think we need to get back to a consensus in our own country of who we
are," she said.

While the show was edited, it was done so in such a way that Clinton
pivoted right to income inequality -- prompting Stewart to remark that it
was a clear sign that she plans to run for president. Clinton backed away
from the comments she made a few weeks ago about how she and Bill Clinton
were "dead broke" after leaving the White House. Instead she focused on how
lucky the two of them were to start their careers at a time when they
thought they could make it simply by working hard, climbing the ladder and
being fortunate enough to take advantages of opportunities given to them.

"I think a lot of people don't believe that it exists for them any more,"
she said.

Clinton said the Congress is "no longer functioning effectively" and that
the executive branch "hasn't kept up with the times." It is not nearly as
technologically driven as it should be, she said, and doesn't have the type
of "agility" and "technology" it needs to function today. Technology has
changed the way governments operate and communicate with one another --
people are now "empowered by the bottom up," she said.

According to Politico, Clinton addresses Hamas's rejection of a cease-fire
in the full interview, which has yet to be posted online.

Clinton expressed concern for people in Gaza, but asserted Israel's right
to defend itself. Clinton negotiated a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel
in 2012.

*Politico: “Ready for Warren? Backers launch site”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/ready-for-warren-backers-launch-site-108946.html>*

By Katie Glueck

July 15, 2014, 5:16 p.m. EDT

A group encouraging Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president
is ramping up, launching a websiteTuesday just ahead of the liberal
Netroots Nation conference.

Ready for Warren’s site, ready4warren.com, went live after several months
of the group pushing its cause on Twitter and Facebook, confirmed Erica
Sagrans, one of its leaders.

Some progressives have long hoped that Warren, with her populist, anti-Wall
Street credentials, might jump into the 2016 race, something the
Massachusetts senator has said she’s ruled out.

“We aren’t wealthy or well-connected,” reads a post on the site. “We don’t
have any lobbyists. What we are is a movement of individuals working
together who believe that folks like us should have a greater say in the
direction of our country. We Are Ready for Elizabeth Warren to run for
President in 2016. Warren is the backbone that the Democratic Party too
often forgets it needs.”

The Ready for Warren site includes a petition urging Warren to run, and,
according to reports, there are plans to generate momentum for the
organization at the Netroots gathering this week in Detroit.

Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose said in an email to POLITICO that the senator
“does not support this effort.”

The Ready for Warren label is similar to Ready for Hillary, the
organization urging Hillary Clinton to run for president. It reported
raising $2.5 million in the second quarter earlier on Tuesday.

A spokesman for Ready for Hillary declined to comment on the new group.

*CNN: “Michele Bachmann's take on Elizabeth Warren: If I were Hillary, I'd
be concerned”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/15/michele-bachmanns-take-on-elizabeth-warren-if-i-were-hillary-id-be-concerned/>*

By Elizabeth Hartfield

July 15, 2014, 7:30 p.m. EDT

Should Hillary Clinton be concerned about a possible Elizabeth Warren
candidacy in 2016?

Rep. Michele Bachmann believes so.

The Minnesota Republican, who ran for president in 2012, was responding to
a question posed Tuesday by CNN’s Van Jones on “Crossfire” on whether
Warren might be somebody who could pull away Republican votes in a
presidential election.

“I don’t see her as necessarily taking Republican votes,” Bachmann said.
“But I think she will be an extremely attractive candidate for Democratic
voters in 2016… If I was Mrs. Clinton, I would be extremely concerned with
what I see.”

On Tuesday, Ready for Warren, a super PAC formed to rally support for a
Warren candidacy in 2016, launched its website as it continues in its
efforts to draft the Massachusetts senator to a White House bid.

Warren has repeatedly denied any interest in running for president,
insisting she plans to serve out the rest of her term in the Senate, which
expires in 2018.

If Warren does run however, Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, a longtime
supporter of Hillary Clinton, offered up his support to his friend.

“If she had Charlie Rangel in her corner and she was concerned about Sen.
Warren, I would tell her darling, they haven’t got anyone to run against
either one of you two,” Rangel said. “And that should give her small
comfort.”

*The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Warren could beat Clinton”
<http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/212374-warren-could-beat-clinton>*

By Dick Morris

July 15, 2014, 7:43 p.m. EDT

Elizabeth Warren could beat Hillary Clinton.

The contrast between the two woman couldn’t be sharper.

Clinton is the ultimate political insider, taking $20 million from Wall
Street including $5 million from Goldman Sachs. In two recent speeches to
Goldman Sachs — at $200,000 a pop — she spoke about why the big banks
shouldn’t be blamed for the financial crisis. “We’re all in this together,”
Clinton reportedly told them.

Her political campaigns have been financed by Wall Street. Her family
foundation is underwritten by banks, corporations and foreign governments

Even as secretary of State, Clinton aggressively lobbied for major U.S.
corporations like Boeing to get lucrative foreign contracts. In Boeing’s
case, it returned the favor by making a $900,000 contribution to her
favorite charity: the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Enter Elizabeth Warren, a new face in the Senate whose reputation was made
by fighting the very same big banks that finance Clinton. Warren pushed for
reforms in bankruptcy, subprime mortgages and student loans.

In her recent book, A Fighting Chance, Warren criticizes the “too big to
fail policy” as one that “allows the megabanks to operate like drunks on a
wild weekend in Vegas.” She attacks Wall Street for rigging our economic
system to favor the top 1 percent. She has become the darling of the left.

Like Clinton, Warren is touring America to promote her book and to campaign
for progressive Democrats. Her populist economic message is attracting
overflow crowds who cheer her anti-Wall Street rhetoric: “Citibank and
Goldman Sachs and all those other guys on Wall Street, they’ve got plenty
of folks in the U.S. Senate willing to work on their side,” she said. “We
need someone one on our side willing to work for America’s families.”

Warren, who insists that she has “no present plans” to run, certainly
hasn’t issued a Shermanesque denial.

If she runs, she might just win.

The overwhelming reason that voters support Clinton is that she would be
the first woman president. But so would Warren.

And Warren has an issue: the crony capitalism of the Clintons. Until
Hillary Clinton’s recent gaffes — and lies — about her family’s finances,
few were interested. But that’s changed. Everyone’s interested now.

Even in her 2003 book The Two-Income Trap, Warren criticized Clinton’s
flip-flop on bankruptcy legislation that was detrimental to working women.
Warren persuaded Clinton to convince her husband to veto it. But once a
senator, Clinton reversed her position and voted for a virtually identical
bill.

Warren has consistently railed against crony capitalism and could credibly
attack the Clintons and paint them with their own speaking fees and
donations. Add in rumors that President Obama wants Warren to run and has
promised financial and organizational support and Warren’s chances jump up
a lot further. The left of the Democratic Party is not interested in
Clinton’s centrist, hawkish, corporatist positions.

Meanwhile, Clinton is repeating the mistake she made in 2008: targeting
general election voters and ignoring the primary electorate. Back then, she
supported the Iraq War until well into 2007 and voted for the Patriot Act,
alienating her base.

Now, fearful of Obama’s drag on a 2016 ticket, she is distancing herself
from the president, obliquely criticizing him as a man who paints “a
beautiful vision” but cannot follow through. This won’t play well with the
base.

The only real argument Clinton would have against Warren is inevitability:
that she will win. That kind of argument holds supporters for a while, but
as more and more turn to Warren, drawn by her ideology and her challenge to
Wall Street power, the odds become shorter and her chances better. Then, a
self-fulfilling prophesy can set in, fueling her candidacy with each gain
in poll numbers.

And then, Democrats will remember how Clinton blew the nomination — once
assumed to be safely hers’ — in 2007and 2008. The less she looks like a
winner, the more they will turn to Warren.

It could happen.

*New York Times: The Upshot: “The Risks of Hillary Clinton’s
Quasi-Campaign”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/upshot/the-risks-of-hillary-clintons-quasi-campaign.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus>*

By Lynn Vavreck

July 15, 2014

Hillary Clinton is not running for president — at least not by her own
admission. But it’s been a month since the start of her “Hard Choices” book
tour, and nearly all the elements of a presidential campaign have emerged.
There are boisterous crowds, speeches, interviews, an appearance tonight on
“The Daily Show,” lists with names and email addresses, attacks from the
opposition, and gaffes.

The only thing the tour is missing is the central element of a campaign: a
raison d'être, a vision. It’s missing this, of course, because to Mrs.
Clinton, it is not a campaign. But no matter how many times Mrs. Clinton
says she isn’t sure if she’s running in 2016, the rest of the world is sure
she’s a candidate, and they are treating her like one.

That divergence makes this book tour risky for Mrs. Clinton, if she does
run for president.

The ritual of introducing a national candidacy through a book goes back at
least as far as John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” and includes recent
titles like Barack Obama’s “Audacity of Hope,” John McCain’s “Faith of my
Fathers” and Mitt Romney’s “No Apology.” In each of these cases, the reader
comes away with a sense of what made the author extraordinary, and the same
is true of “Hard Choices,” with one exception. Most Americans first met
Mrs. Clinton 22 years ago, and hardly anyone needs a primer on how she got
to this moment.

According to survey data from Gallup, fewer than 5 percent of Americans
have no opinion — favorable or unfavorable — of Mrs. Clinton. By way of
comparison, two years before Mr. Romney’s first presidential bid, in
December 2006, 69 percent of Americans had no opinion of him. In the same
survey, Gallup asked people about Mr. Obama, and 47 percent of Americans
couldn’t rate him. He would not reach Mrs. Clinton’s current level of
familiarity until a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucuses in 2008.

There are other attractive reasons beyond introducing the candidate’s
biography to write a book before a presidential campaign. A nationwide tour
can build an up-to-date, geographically diverse network of supporters who
are ready to knock on doors and make phone calls when the time comes. It
gives people the chance to identify with the author and become part of the
team. Similarly, selling books means that the data on people who buy them
can be leveraged to target readers with direct appeals or to recruit more
volunteers. And of course there’s the money, which is typically a benefit
but in Mrs. Clinton’s case has turned into a liability.

Why do people care that the Clintons are now “well-off” and that Mrs.
Clinton has become a celebrity who earns celebrity-type paychecks for her
appearances? The answer centers on one of the biggest costs of a national
book tour for someone who is as viable a presidential candidate as Mrs.
Clinton is.

People are not evaluating her for the party nomination; they are sizing her
up as a president. They evaluate Mrs. Clinton on what they think life would
be like under her presidency, but she’s actually giving them very little
domestic policy information to go on. In the absence of policy statements
to guide the thought experiment about life under President Hillary Clinton,
voters gravitate toward personal traits and characteristics — like how much
money she and Bill Clinton have earned since leaving the White House.

In Sam Popkin’s book on voter decision-making in low-information
environments, he describes the process like this: When policy information
is scarce about what life would be like if this or that candidate wins,
voters extrapolate from observed personal data to unobserved personal data,
and from that to future presidential policies and performance. They judge,
for example, whether candidates will have an honest administration from
perceptions of personal honesty.

It’s just like figuring out if you want to go on a date with someone you’ve
just met. You quickly extrapolate from observed personal traits, like
weight, height or clothing, to unobserved personal traits like whether this
person would be considerate, strong or relatable. In the political realm,
the extrapolation goes one step farther, Mr. Popkin argues — from
unobserved personal traits like compassion or loyalty to future job
performance in the Oval Office.

This is the danger for Mrs. Clinton in running a quasi-campaign instead of
a real campaign and holding off on discussing the things she would do as
president if she were to run and win. She risks campaigning in a
low-information environment of her own making. And that means that instead
of debating whether her tax policies would help the middle class, we are
left to talk about whether her conception of herself as not “truly
well-off” or “dead broke” means she cannot relate to the middle class.
Instead of asking what qualities she would favor in nominating justices to
the Supreme Court, we instead focus on whether she hid or changed her
public position on gay equality over the decades because it was politically
expedient.

Data from presidential campaign speeches going back to 1952 reveal that 91
percent of the appeals candidates make in their stump speeches between
Labor Day and Election Day are centered on policy. On average, 40 percent
of appeals in campaign speeches are about domestic policy goals, and 27
percent are about the economy. Only 9 percent of the appeals in candidates’
speeches are about personal traits.

Voters are used to hearing candidates talk about what they want to do if
elected. It’s what a presidential candidate sounds like. Despite looking a
lot like a candidate, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t sound much like one at this
stage, and that could be costly in the long run.

There are, however, risks and rewards to both strategies. More policy
discussions about what she would prioritize as president would surely
deflate the strong, nonpartisan and statesmanlike narrative she tried to
build as President Obama’s secretary of state. It is not hard to understand
why she would like to avoid that. But the absence of discussion of Mrs.
Clinton’s broader vision for America — and how she might achieve it —
leaves people to fill in the blanks based on personal characteristics.

Given the narrative so far, it is also not hard to understand why she would
like to avoid that.

*Salon: “The right’s new, ridiculous Clinton conspiracy will make your head
explode”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/the_rights_new_ridiculous_clinton_conspiracy_makes_no_sense/>*

By Simon Maloy

July 15, 2014, 2:53 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Conservatives and the media tie the Clintons to an imagined
book-leaking scheme. It's too soon to be this stupid

As of this moment, we are 847 days out from Election Day 2016. There are no
declared 2016 candidates. We haven’t even had a Donald Trump head fake yet.
Hell, we’re still 112 days from Election Day 2014, which means there’s a
long way to go before you can even start making a plausible case that the
2016 election cycle has begun.

And yet, the mere thought of Hillary Clinton as a potential candidate has
us acting like it’s late October 2016 and we’re all freak-show obsessed
idiots.

A bunch of prominent political journalists recently received unsolicited
emails from a person identifying himself as Robert Josef Wright. This
person had apparently obtained an early copy of “Clinton, Inc.,” the
forthcoming book by Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard, and scanned it
into PDF form so he could send it to these journalists. “Will you take it
seriously or will the liberal press coronate the Clintons by attacking the
messenger,” this strange person wrote.

No one seems to know how this guy got a copy of the book or how he had the
email addresses of so many big-shot journalists, but bored reporters and
anonymous sources with wagging tongues quickly helped to fill the
information gap with whatever was at hand.

The theory that quickly emerged was that Robert Josef Wright was a person
pretending to be a conservative and was likely affiliated with the
Clintons. That, at least, was the speculation passed on by Lloyd Grove of
the Daily Beast, who attributed this theory to an anonymous “publishing
source.”

“‘The working theory of who it might be is somebody who wants to come
across as a conservative, but in a way it seems like they’re trying too
hard,’ this source said. ‘So it might be somebody who’s not a conservative.
They have an excellent, sophisticated media list, including people who are
not commonly known, so this is somebody with some Washington-New York media
savvy. The most likely suspect would be someone affiliated with the
Clintons.’”

“That, of course, is pure speculation, unsupported by evidence,” Grove
wrote, stating the glaringly obvious. But unsourced allegations unsupported
by evidence were reason enough to contact Clinton spokespeople and ask them
if they’d set up a fake-conservative sock puppet to illicitly obtain and
blast out copies of Halper’s book. Team Clinton, of course, denied this had
happened.

Regardless, the Clintons had been named by some guy in connection to an
alleged scheme that may or may not have happened, which (if you’re familiar
with the history between the Clintons and the media) is more than enough to
secure a conviction. And even though there’s absolutely nothing to indicate
that this scheme even existed, the Washington Free Beacon is now saying
it’s “backfired.”

“Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast suggests that the ‘strange leak’ threw a
wrench in the ‘ambitious and detailed plans for the rollout’ of the book by
publisher HarperCollins.

“Though many have suggested that the leak is intended to ruin the release,
it seems to have had the opposite effect. The book has received wide
publicity and praise since it was sent around the media world.”

Follow the bouncing ball, if you can: A strange man emails copies of the
book to journalists telling them to read and promote it; the Daily Beast
quotes an anonymous person wondering if this person was actually pretending
to be conservative; from there it’s assumed that this fake-conservative
person was somehow trying to squelch interest in the book; that assumption
is held as true, and conservatives say his scheme backfired because the
book is drawing intense interest (which was exactly what the stated intent
of the original emails was).

That gets to the logic of the alleged scheme – how, exactly, would emailing
entire copies of “Clinton, Inc.” to influential journalists who salivate
over Clinton minutiae serve to dull interest in the book? That’s precisely
what publishers do to increase interest in books. None of this makes sense.

And, of course, hovering over all of it is the assumed involvement of the
Clintons, who obviously had a hand in this because Whitewater Travelgate
Vince Foster etc.

We’re only halfway through July 2014. It’s too early to be this stupid.

*CNN: “Progressive group announces $1 million raised for candidates”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/16/progressive-group-announces-1-million-raised-for-candidates/>*

By Dana Davidsen and Paul Steinhauser

July 16, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT

As liberals flock to Detroit this week for a major progressive confab, a
leading grassroots group announced a big fundraising haul to help
Democratic candidates ahead of the midterm elections.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee said Wednesday that it raised
over $1 million this campaign cycle. The report comes a day before the
kickoff of Netroots Nation, the largest annual gathering of progressives in
the country.

The group bills itself as the Elizabeth Warren side of the Democratic
Party, and will have a significant presence at the four-day liberal
gathering surrounding the Massachusetts senator and liberal icon's keynote
address.

"Elizabeth Warren's economic populist agenda is popular from Maine to Iowa
to Oregon and progressives are working to elect Elizabeth Warren's allies
in 2014," said Adam Green, the group's co-founder.

"This grassroots outpouring shows that the path to winning elections - and
keeping the Senate - is to campaign on an economic populist agenda
including Wall Street reform, expanding Social Security benefits, and
reducing student debt."

The PCCC said it raised over $2.7 million for candidates in 2012, but added
that their most recent fundraising success indicates a solid and growing
progressive infrastructure.

Warren has a large cadre of support among progressives urging her to launch
a campaign, though she's adamantly said she isn't running for the White
House.

Still, she's had a frequent presence on the campaign trail, stumping in
nearly half a dozen states so far this year for other candidates ahead of
the 2014 midterms.

But 2016 is all in full-swing as other possible Democratic contenders court
the gathering of progressives, who are a key part of the Democratic Party's
base.

A tough critic of Wall Street and big banks, the first-term senator's
staple as a politician has been advocating for consumers against unfair
practices in the banking industry.

Vice President Joe Biden, also a possible 2016 contender, will address the
liberal gathering.

The presumed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton,
will not attend the conference but several Clinton supporting groups will
be there.

*New York Times opinion: Thomas B. Edsall: “The Coming Democratic Schism”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/thomas-edsall-a-shift-in-young-democrats-values.html>*

By Thomas B. Edsall

July 15, 2014

There is a striking generational split in the Democratic electorate.

This deepening division is apparent in a June Pew Research Center survey of
more than 10,000 people, “Beyond Red vs. Blue.” The Pew survey points up
the emergence of a cohort of younger voters who are loyal to the Democratic
Party, but much less focused on economic redistribution than on issues of
personal and sexual autonomy.

Back in April, Pew researchers wrote that “huge generation gaps have opened
up in our political and social values, our economic well-being, our family
structure, our racial and ethnic identity, our gender norms, our religious
affiliation, and our technology use.” These trends, Pew noted, point
“toward a future marked by the most striking social, racial, and economic
shifts the country has seen in a century.”

I asked Andrew Kohut, the founding director of the Pew Center, what he made
of these results. He emailed me his thoughts: “There is a libertarian
streak that is apparent among these left-of-center young people. Socially
liberal but very wary of government. Why? They came of age in an anti-
government era when government doesn’t work. They are very liberal on
interpersonal racial dimension, but reject classic liberal notions about
ways of achieving social progress for minorities.”

One reflection of the confused state of generational politics today is that
an earlier Pew poll, which I wrote about during the last presidential
election, revealed that younger voters were less hostile to socialism than
their elders.

Two other studies document the broad trends that the most recent Pew survey
identified. A research paper, “Generational Difference in Perception of Tax
Equity and Attitudes Towards Compliance,” by three professors of accounting
— Susan Jurney, Tim Rupert and Martha Wartick — found that “the Millennial
generation was less likely to recommend progressive taxation than” older
generations.

In addition, a July 10 YouGov poll of young adults (aged 18 to 29),
sponsored by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian research organization --
“Millennials: The Politically Unclaimed Generation” — did not directly
compare younger and older voters but does shed light on the views of
younger voters generally. “Social and cultural issues are currently more
central to millennials’ political judgments than economic policy,” the
report says. “When asked to explain the reasons for their ideological
identifications, social and cultural concerns largely defined their labels.”

Returning to the Pew data, even though younger Democrats are less committed
to the central tenets of traditional economic liberalism, there is a strong
body of evidence suggesting that the partisan commitment these voters made
to the Democratic Party when they first came of political age will endure.

A paper published last month, “The Great Society, Reagan’s Revolution, and
Generations of Presidential Voting” by Yair Ghitza, a doctoral candidate at
Columbia, and Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political
science at Columbia, found that the “political events of a voter’s teenage
and early adult years, centered around the age of 18, are enormously
important in the formation of these long-term partisan preferences.”

My Times colleagues at the Upshot have produced an interactive graphic to
demonstrate the lasting power of the partisan loyalties that men and women
establish in their late teens and early twenties.

Although a majority of younger voters today are reliably Democratic, there
are key issues on which they differ notably from their elders within the
center-left coalition. The July Pew survey identifies two predominately
white core Democratic constituencies: the “solid liberals” of the
traditional left, which is 69 percent white, with an average age of 46, who
exhibit deep progressive commitments on both economic and social issues;
and younger voters, 68 percent white, with an average age of 38, which Pew
calls the “next generation left.”

The two groups were asked to choose whether “most people can get ahead if
they’re willing to work hard” or whether “hard work and determination are
no guarantee of success for most people.” A decisive majority of the older
“solid liberal” group, 67 percent, responded that hard work is no guarantee
of success, while an even larger majority, 77 percent, of the younger “next
generation left” believes that you can get ahead if you are willing to work
hard.

According to Pew, the older group believes, 73-20, that “government should
do more to solve problems.” Only 44 percent of the younger group agrees —
and of younger respondents, 50 percent believe that “government is trying
to do too much.”

Eighty-three percent of the older group of Democratic voters believes that
“circumstances” are to blame for poverty; only 9 percent blame “a lack of
effort.” The younger group of pro-Democratic voters is split, with 47
percent blaming circumstances and 42 percent blaming lack of effort. An
overwhelming majority of the older cohort, 83-12, believes that “government
should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means more debt,” while
a majority of the younger Democratic respondents, 56-39, believes
“government cannot afford to do much more.”

A 56 percent majority of the younger group of Democrats believes that “Wall
Street helps the American economy more than it hurts,” with just 36 percent
believing that Wall Street hurts the economy. Older Democrats have almost
exactly the opposite view. 56 percent believe that Wall Street hurts the
economy; 36 percent believe it helps.

One area of major divergence between young and old Democrats is race.

Asked by Pew to choose between two statements — “Racial discrimination is
the main reason why many blacks can’t get ahead” and “Blacks who can’t get
ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition” – the older
Democratic cohort blamed discrimination, by an 80 to 10 margin. In
contrast, only 19 percent of the younger group of Democrats blamed
discrimination, with 68 percent saying that blacks “are mostly responsible
for their own condition.”

Some 91 percent of the older group said the “U.S. needs to continue making
changes to give blacks equal rights,” and just 6 percent said the “U.S. has
made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights.” 67 percent of the
younger group said the United States has done enough for blacks, and 28
percent said that the country needs to do more to give blacks equal rights.

Even though younger voters lean toward the Democratic Party, they clearly
do not fit into traditional left-right categories.

Looking again at the Reason poll, the survey found that “while millennials
see themselves as closer to Republican governor and potential presidential
candidate Chris Christie on economic issues, and closer to likely
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on social issues, they
say they are voting for Clinton.”

When asked by Reason if they would consider voting for Clinton, 53 percent
of those surveyed said yes, and 27 percent said no. Both Joe Biden, the
vice president, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senator from
Massachusetts, received more yesses than nos.

The Reason survey found, on the other hand, that every one of the
prospective Republican presidential candidates pollsters mentioned —
Christie, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and
Bobby Jindal — received more nos than yesses from millennials, by margins
ranging from two nos for every yes to four nos for every yes.

The young voters in the Reason survey are more pro-business than
anti-business, but not by the overwhelming margins of some Republican
constituencies. Just over half, 54 percent, believe corporate profits are
about right or too low, while 44 percent say corporate profits are too high.

By a margin of 70-35, millennials in the Reason survey chose “competition
is primarily good; it stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas”
over “competition is primarily harmful; it brings out the worst in people.”
By 64-25, millennials picked “profit is generally good because it
encourages businesses to provide valued products to attract customers” as
opposed to “profit is generally bad because it encourages businesses to
take advantage of their customers and employees.”

In some other respects, the millennial voters studied by Reason appear to
hold orthodox liberal views: they support more spending to help the poor,
even if it means higher taxes; government action to guarantee a living
wage, enough for everyone to eat and have a place to sleep; and a
government guarantee of health insurance. Conversely, majorities of the
same voters believe that wealth should be distributed according to
achievement as opposed to need, and that “people should be allowed to keep
what they produce, even if there are others with greater needs.”

Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, believes that the generational
differences within the Democratic Party will not damage the party’s
prospects in the short-to-medium term.

“You may have issue differences within the Democratic Party, but they
become irrelevant when confronted by a Republican Party determined to turn
elections into cultural conflicts,” Greenberg said in a phone interview.
“These differences don’t matter in the context of a Republican party that
brings out the commonality of the Democratic Party.”

David Leege, an emeritus professor of political science at Notre Dame,
wrote in an email to The Times that younger Democrats “are products of a
totally different environment and culture than their grandparents.” As a
result, he said, “there is a vast difference between the communitarianism
of the elders and the individualism of the younger liberals.”

In the future, Leege argues, “the combination of unanchored and
individualistic electorates and the post-Citizens United political arena
can make elections perpetually close.”

Money, in Leege’s view, will likely trump the demographic trends favoring
Democrats.

Leege raises a fundamental question. The Democratic Party could well gain
strength politically as it edges away from economic liberalism to a
coalition determined to protect personal liberties from conservative moral
constraint.

This shift, however, will erode what remains of the opposition to the
business community’s efforts to lower tax rates, especially on the
affluent; to reduce social spending; and to pare back regulation of the
commercial and financial sectors.

Corporate America faces a divided Democratic Party, vulnerable to the kind
of lobbying pressures that the business elite specializes in. Under this
scenario, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce will enjoy increased
leverage in the policy-making arenas of Congress and the executive branch
despite – or even because – of Democratic political success.

 *Calendar:*

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

·  July 17 – Ridgewood, NJ: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour
stop at Bookends (Star-Ledger
<http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/hillary_clinton_to_visit_nj_for_book_signing_next_week.html>
)

·  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 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>)