Subject: ​Correct The Record Thursday September 25, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:06:30 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Thursday September 25, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: #GirlsCHARGE
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/GirlsCHARGE?src=hash> commits to help 15
million girls get access to secondary school. #NoCeilings
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/NoCeilings?src=hash> #CGI2014
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/CGI2014?src=hash> #SmartThingToDo
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/SmartThingToDo?src=hash>
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/press-releases/no-ceilings-announces-charge-collaborative-harnessing-ambition-and-resources-girls
…
<http://t.co/fPAqMyeb2G> [9/24/14, 7:21 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/514917530478317568>]

*Pres. Bill Clinton* @billclinton: After our 10th @ClintonGlobal
<https://twitter.com/ClintonGlobal> meeting, I'm thankful for past progress
& optimistic for future potential. #CGI2014
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/CGI2014?src=hash> pic.twitter.com/Eby4TzSIkN
<http://t.co/Eby4TzSIkN>[9/24/14, 9:43 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/billclinton/status/514953419845828608>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> is leading a $600M effort to help
disadvantaged girls attend secondary school #HRC365
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> #CGI2014
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/CGI2014?src=hash>
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-24/hillary-clinton-leads-600-million-effort-for-girls-in-education
…
<http://t.co/IOgi9tdcNZ> [9/24/14, 4:02 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/514867412869455872>]

*Headlines:*

*The Week: “How Hillary Clinton can be a populist without scaring off Big
Business”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/268564/how-hillary-clinton-can-be-a-populist-without-scaring-off-big-business>*

“Clinton can tackle inequality without alienating business.”

*New York Times: First Draft: “A Bit More Cash to Pave the Way for a
Clinton Candidacy”
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/09/25/?entry=708>*

“Ready for Hillary said it would move its banking accounts from Bank of
America to the Amalgamated Bank, the majority union-owned financial
institution of choice for the Occupy Wall Street movement, according to
Tracy Sefl, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary.”

*Louisville Courier-Journal: “In Virginia, Rand Paul trails Hillary Clinton
by 16 pts.”
<http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/09/25/in-virginia-kentucky-sen-rand-paul-trails-former-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-by-16-points/16206657/>*

“In fact, the survey finds that a majority of Virginians would prefer
Democrat Clinton over Republican Paul, by a 51 percent to 35 percent
margin.”

*MSNBC: “The agony and the ecstasy of the Clintons at CGI”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-clintons-cgi>*

"First, the good: Despite being the nominal point of the entire event, the
charitable work of CGI was often overshadowed by the glitz of celebrity and
the cynicism of politics. But the good is undeniable, even to the most
ardent detractors: 430 million people in 180 countries have been affected
in some way over the past 10 years by charitable “commitments to action”
from CGI attendees, according to a new analysis."

*U.S. News & World Report opinion: Lara M. Brown, George Washington
University associate professor: “Watch Out What You Wish For”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/lara-brown/2014/09/25/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-progressives-watch-what-you-wish-for>*

“While Hillary Clinton’s ‘don’t stop thinking about ... Bill Clinton’s
presidency’ message may prove tiresome and insufficient for victory if the
voters again opt for ‘change,’ it should not go unnoticed that the last
three presidential nominees from Massachusetts have all lost.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Bill Clinton to speak at Human Rights
Campaign dinner”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/218887-bill-clinton-to-speak-at-human-rights-campaign-dinner>*

“Former President Bill Clinton will deliver the keynote address next month
at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner, the group announced on
Thursday.”

*New York Times blog: The Upshot: “Romney in 2016? Never Say Never”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/upshot/romney-in-2016-never-say-never.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0>*

“But look closely at the Republican race, and you’ll see that punters give
Mr. Romney a chance.”

*Articles:*

*The Week: “How Hillary Clinton can be a populist without scaring off Big
Business”
<http://theweek.com/article/index/268564/how-hillary-clinton-can-be-a-populist-without-scaring-off-big-business>*

By Joel Dodge

September 25, 2014, 8:08 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] When it comes to fighting income inequality, what's good for
workers is often good for corporations, too

Income inequality is fast becoming the top domestic issue of the nascent
2016 presidential campaign, and Hillary Clinton is searching for a winning
message on the issue.

Tucked among tea-leaf interpretations of her Midwest travel plans and yoga
regimen, The New York Times reported that she has "talked to friends and
donors in business about how to tackle income inequality without alienating
businesses or castigating the wealthy."

While this could be seen as the latest in a long line of shady Clintonian
triangulations, it actually gets at a longstanding Democratic dilemma over
whether to make big business the enemy or catalyze the private sector to
support liberal policy objectives. Elizabeth Warren, the populist
Democratic senator from Massachusetts, says the game is rigged. But Clinton
seems more disposed to tweak the game in certain areas, rather than tear it
down.

We shouldn't be too quick to blast this instinct as plutocratic cronyism.
It's politically prudent to avoid making legislative enemies of powerful
stakeholders. But it's even wiser to give business a stake in fighting
inequality. And luckily for Clinton, there is a path to combating
inequality that would benefit workers and business alike.

Clinton is already tacking toward a political sweet spot on the issue.
Taking the global perspective of an ex-chief diplomat, she framed
inequality as an issue of basic national well-being in a speech in May. "As
secretary of State," she said, "I saw the way extreme inequality has
corrupted other societies, hobbled growth, and left entire generations
alienated and unmoored."

The private sector similarly sees inequality as a real long-term problem
that jeopardizes its interests. As Elizabeth Bruenig recently pointed out
in The Week, a report from the Harvard Business School warned that "in the
long run, American business will suffer from an inadequate workforce, a
population of depleted consumers, and large blocs of anti-business voters."

This gives business common cause with Americans struggling to get by. Among
average Americans, much of the anxiety about inequality is really anxiety
about stagnant incomes, not about launching a class war. It has been a lost
quarter-century for the middle class, as the real median income has barely
budged since the 1980s.

There happens to be a host of ways we can give people greater economic
security. And these reforms would be mutually beneficial, both putting
money in people's pockets and improving our pro-growth economic climate.

For instance, providing greater support for families with children would
help ease their financial pressures. A federal paid family leave program
would save the vast majority of workers from losing wages while caring for
a new child. Stronger government support with child expenses, daycare, and
early childhood education would similarly help parents and relieve
financial stress while promoting child development.

For their part, businesses would keep workers who could exit the workforce
altogether in the face of prohibitive child-care costs. This is good for
employers, since they would retain valuable employees and avoid needless
training costs.

Social insurance often provides a third-way alternative to both laissez
faire acceptance of rising inequality and heavy-handed regulation to
counteract it. Unemployment insurance, for instance, is a public
alternative to severance pay. And the Earned Income Tax Credit boosts
eroding market wages without a regulatory mandate on business, like a
higher minimum wage.

But these programs must be updated to meet the market's modern
inequalities. We should make unemployment benefits more generous and more
readily available, recognizing that bouts of joblessness are a product of
the economy, instead of blaming it on slackers who "just want to sit
around," as Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently put it. And there are
already proposals from both sides of the aisle to let the EITC provide more
support to more people more regularly.

These government interventions are investments, not entitlements — and
they're smart ones at that. Our economy gains when more people are
economically secure. They generate more economic activity and gain new
flexibility to join innovative start-up companies or become entrepreneurs.

Government investments in young children, in particular, are thought to
save huge sums of money in the long run. Economist James Heckman estimates
that investment in early childhood education yields a 7 to 10 percent
annual rate of return to society — a view endorsed by former Fed Chairman
Ben Bernanke. Every $1 spent on early education produces as much as $12 in
long-term savings by increasing lifetime earnings, reducing future social
welfare usage, and avoiding criminal justice expenses.

Fighting inequality both protects individual security and shores up our
fiscal future. This makes intuitive sense: the health of our
consumer-driven economy will always rest on the state of working- and
middle-class families.

Clinton can tackle inequality without alienating business. If economists
like Thomas Piketty are right that growing inequality is an inevitability
of 21st century capitalism, then good policy will seek to preserve the
vibrant upside of our economy while cushioning against its predictable
dislocations. When it comes to curbing inequality, what's good for
Americans is good for business, too.

*New York Times: First Draft: “A Bit More Cash to Pave the Way for a
Clinton Candidacy”
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/09/25/?entry=708>*

By Amy Chozick

September 25, 2014, 10:48 a.m. EDT

The “super PAC” Ready for Hillary plans to convene as many as 400 donors
and supporters in Manhattan in November, a last-ditch effort to raise money
and lay the groundwork for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly likely
2016 presidential campaign.

Ready for Hillary, which aims to build a voter database ahead of Mrs.
Clinton’s candidacy, has raised more than $10 million, and told First Draft
it expects to raise more during its national finance council meeting, to be
held at the Sheraton Hotel on Nov. 20-21. Presumably, it will be the last
such meeting before Mrs. Clinton announces early next year whether she will
run.

As part of the meeting, the group will host a dinner for donors who have
given the maximum of $25,000 and will brief supporters in panel discussions
about what they can do to help Mrs. Clinton get elected.

In addition to list-building, Ready for Hillary anticipates attacks that
Mrs. Clinton would probably encounter as a candidate. On Wednesday, after
the Republican National Committee accused Mrs. Clinton of having an overly
cozy relationship with Wall Street, Ready for Hillary said it would move
its banking accounts from Bank of America to the Amalgamated Bank, the
majority union-owned financial institution of choice for the Occupy Wall
Street movement, according to Tracy Sefl, a senior adviser to Ready for
Hillary.

*Louisville Courier-Journal: “In Virginia, Rand Paul trails Hillary Clinton
by 16 pts.”
<http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/09/25/in-virginia-kentucky-sen-rand-paul-trails-former-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-by-16-points/16206657/>*

By James R. Carroll

September 25, 2014, 12:39 p.m. EDT

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul trails former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton in Virginia in a hypothetical 2016 presidential election matchup,
according to the latest Roanoke College Poll.

In fact, the survey finds that a majority of Virginians would prefer
Democrat Clinton over Republican Paul, by a 51 percent to 35 percent margin.

Clinton leads New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 10 points, 47 percent to 37
percent; and she leads Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan by a 50 percent to 37
percent margin.

The poll interviewed 630 registered voters in Virginia between Sept. 13 and
19 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

No Republican or Democrat has announced a bid for the presidency yet.

Paul has said he will not make a decision until sometime early next year,
but has been making regular trips to the first-in-the-nation caucus state
of Iowa and to the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire.

Virginia, with 13 Electoral College votes, used to be a reliable Republican
state in presidential elections, and as recently as 2000 and 2004 went for
Republican George W. Bush.

Changing demographics, especially in fast-growing northern Virginia outside
Washington, cut the Democrats' way in 2008 and 2012, when Democrat Barack
Obama carried Virginia.

Even so, it seems likely the state will be at least an early battleground
in 2016.

*MSNBC: “The agony and the ecstasy of the Clintons at CGI”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-clintons-cgi>*

By Alex Seitz-Wald

September 25, 2014, 11:04 a.m. EDT

The Clinton Global Initiative, the signature annual event of America’s
preeminent public family, concluded Wednesday night, and now comes the
search for meaning. Is it a cronyistic confab of global elite? An
innovation in charity that could help save the world? Political theater
ahead of another likely Clinton presidential run?

The only correct answer is all of the above.

Almost everything about the Clintons – good, bad and otherwise – was on
display this week, from the big-money deal-making, to their love-hate
relationship with the press, to the magnetic power of a controversial
family that has managed to captivate America for more than two decades.

If you want to understand the Clintons, the ballroom of the Sheraton in
Times Square was a good place to start.

First, the good: Despite being the nominal point of the entire event, the
charitable work of CGI was often overshadowed by the glitz of celebrity and
the cynicism of politics. But the good is undeniable, even to the most
ardent detractors: 430 million people in 180 countries have been affected
in some way over the past 10 years by charitable “commitments to action”
from CGI attendees, according to a new analysis.

This year, there were 188 new commitments from the corporations,
governments, and nonprofits that make up CGI’s membership, including a
major new campaign from soda makers to reduce caloric consumption from
their products, along with efforts to educate girls in developing countries
and save African elephants.

The elitism problem: There’s a reason the Clintons were attacked from both
the right and left during CGI: The event is basically their elitism
perception problem brought vividly to life.

Even in this high-powered crowd, the Clintons’ position is secure at the
apex of a pyramid made up of people accustomed to sitting atop their own
hierarchies. That includes the current president of the United States, who
came to send more praise in the Clintons’ direction than the reverse.

The Wall Street problem: In an interview with CNBC Tuesday, Bill Clinton
defended corporations who move abroad to avoid paying American taxes. That
night, at a dinner hosted by Goldman Sachs in honor of its program to
empower female entrepreneurs, his wife, an all-but-certain Democratic
presidential candidate in 2016, joked about “all my banking friends.”

The next morning, Hillary Clinton ceded the main stage to Goldman CEO Lloyd
Blankfein, giving him more than 10 minutes on a coveted platform to promote
the bank’s charitable work. “This isn’t the first time we’ve all met,”
Blankfein joked in a moment that quickly became fodder for the Republican
National Committee.

“This summer has solidified the fact that Hillary Clinton is out of touch
with Americans between spending all of her time with millionaires,” RNC
spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski told msnbc.

It’s a complaint echoed almost exactly by the RNC’s ideological opposites.
Neil Sroka, the communications director for Democracy for America, founded
by Howard Dean, told msnbc that Bill Clinton’s comments on corporate
inversions were “wildly out of step with both the American people and the
Democratic Party.”

“It showed a real disconnection and showed just how captured President
Clinton is by the CEOs and the organizations around him,” Sroka added.

Let’s make a deal: Bill Clinton often says the Constitution should be
subtitled, “Let’s make a deal,” and he has praised the admittedly “ugly”
deal-making in Steven Spielberg’s film “Lincoln.”

CGI may be the best place to see Clintonian pragmatism in practice, both
its benefits and unseemly side. Take Hillary Clinton’s work with the CEO of
Goldman. The “optics” are terrible, but he was there to announce that his
company was expanding tenfold its commitment to help female entrepreneurs
in the developing world. Does the end justify the means?

“You’ve got to start with the end in mind,” Bill Clinton said on a panel
with Cisco CEO John Chambers, a major Republican donor who has become a key
supporter of CGI and a friend of the Clintons. “If you can put a price on
it, and make it transparent, you can get people that you wouldn’t expect to
support you.”

Chambers recently interviewed Hillary Clinton in front of thousands of his
company’s employees. “Afterwards, I had a bunch of Republicans come up and
say, John, ‘I’m not sure we can’t beat her,’” he said.

In a dark mood, it’s easy to look at CGI and see what the critics of the
non-profit industry call “conscience laundering.” But if Bill Clinton sells
his wealthy patrons a clean conscious, he gets in return a check or a
commitment that can improve the life of someone somewhere.

The media problem: Hillary Clinton and the press have a famously
dysfunctional relationship, but the cameras keep coming. CGI attracted
about 1,100 members of press, according to organizers (many, if not most,
were foreign).

Reporters were kept in the basement and discouraged from interacting with
attendees or panelists, escorted everywhere – including, at least on the
first day, to the bathroom – by college-aged volunteers.

When The New York Times’ Amy Chozick asked a spokesperson about the
practice, he replied dismissively with a link to a Clinton initiative to
promote sanitation in Africa – “Since you are so interested in bathrooms
and C.G.I.”

It’s just as telling that the political press corps, from the editor of The
Washington Post on down, immediately seized on the bathroom story, since it
confirmed everything they think to be true about the Clintons’ view of the
Fourth Estate. (It’s not the first time Clinton handlers have put reporters
in a bathroom.)

Foreign policy: At a time when foreign policy is back at the forefront of
the national conversation, liberals might also pause at a reminder of the
Clintons’ long friendship with John McCain, the Senate’s preeminent war
hawk, and his wife, Cindy, an adviser to a Clinton Foundation project who
appeared on a panel with Hillary Clinton on Wednesday afternoon. Earlier
this year, John McCain invited Hillary Clinton to his own ideas forum in
Arizona.

Palace intrigue: The personal relationships among the Clinton family
members have long captivated Americans, for better or worse, and will no
doubt continue if Hillary Clinton decides to run for president again.

Right now the impending birth of Chelsea Clinton’s baby seemed to be all
anyone wanted to talk about. “On my book tour over the summer, I must have
shaken 70,000 hands and over half of them mentioned something about being a
grandparent,” Hillary Clinton noted at one point.

Women: In a stark contrast from 2008, when Clinton largely avoided
discussing her gender, the issue is likely to emerge as a central theme of
a new presidential campaign. After two other women-centered speeches last
week, she heavily emphasized the theme at CGI.

It’s a deeply personal issue for Clinton, but it’s also a
politically-beneficial one for a party that relies on expanding the
partisan gender gap.

The Clinton magic: In its final moments, the entire project snapped into
focus as Bill Clinton closed the summit. Pacing with his glasses off, he
held a room of hundreds of the world’s most powerful people absolutely
rapt. It was part pep talk and part sales pitch, but these titans of
industry and commanders in chief hung on his every word.

“Every day, we all make a decision, and some days we don’t feel like making
it. Every day, we wake up and there’s like this scale inside, and some days
its weighted towards hope, and some days its weighted towards the reverse,”
he says. “This thing is here after ten CGIs, look at all the good that’s
been done, because you made a decision about what to do.”

Here was the difference between the Bill and Hillary Clinton – she talks
obsessively about data and evidence, he appeals to the gut.

The people in this room could have been on a golf course or a private
island, but instead they chose to spend three days in a Sheraton in Times
Square listening to seminars about diarrhea because the Clintons inspired
them to come.

On their way out, they will thank the Clintons profusely for the
opportunity to write a check.

*U.S. News & World Report opinion: Lara M. Brown, George Washington
University associate professor: “Watch Out What You Wish For”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/lara-brown/2014/09/25/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-progressives-watch-what-you-wish-for>*

By Lara M. Brown, Ph.D., an associate professor and the program director of
the Political Management Program in the Graduate School of Political
Management at The George Washington University

September 25, 2014, 12:00 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] A history lesson for progressives yearning for Elizabeth Warren
to trump Hillary Clinton in 2016

In 1896, Rep. William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska won the Democratic
presidential nomination by forcefully arguing against the gold standard at
the national convention.

Division and dissatisfaction are what led to the Democrats’ surprise
presidential pick. Struggling to make ends meet in the weak economy that
had not yet recovered from the 1893 depression, many were displeased with
Democratic President Grover Cleveland’s response to the crisis.

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center adeptly explains the politics
this way:

“Cleveland's most forceful response to the depression was to blame the
Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, passed during the [Republican]
Harrison administration, for the nation's economic troubles. … In
successfully calling for repeal of the Purchase Act, Cleveland split the
Democratic Party down the middle. He lost the support of western and
southern Democrats, who thereafter looked upon Cleveland as more Republican
than the Republicans. ... Between 1894 and 1896, Cleveland authorized four
new government bonds to raise enough gold to prevent the government from
defaulting on its international obligations. He was forced to turn to
investment banker J. P. Morgan to support the bonds. In relying on Morgan,
Cleveland was derided for allying with powerful Wall Street interests
instead of helping the average American. The President, however, felt that
he had no choice but to replenish the country's gold reserves.”

The question now is would progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a
Massachusetts Democrat, be able to do something similar to Bryan in 2016?
Could she win the Democratic nomination, besting the New York money
interests who have close ties to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

One of the members of the liberal “Gamechanger Salon” suggested such a
result would be desirable: “The establishment Dems need to be punished, and
the best way for that to happen is for Warren to beat Hillary in the
primary on a populist message.”

It’s no surprise that this wrestling is going on inside the party. As the
recent Pew study reveals, both parties have factions that want to move in
opposite directions on policy.

Beyond that, Warren has long been popular among those who distrust Wall
Street and are frustrated that the recovery has not benefited most of the
nation. And with her vote last week against President Barack Obama's
request to arm Syrian rebels, she is even more likely to gain “credibility
as the standard bearer of the party’s liberal wing,” as the Washington
Post's Greg Sargent put it.

Looking ahead to 2016, it seems likely that Obama’s low job approval will
continue to be a drag on Democrats, akin to what Republicans experienced in
2008 at the end of President George W. Bush’s tenure. Even though it may be
difficult for Clinton to separate herself enough from Obama to buoy her
prospects among those Americans who are disappointed and disillusioned by
this Democratic administration (again, recall the tactics that Republican
presidential nominee John McCain deployed to show that he really was a
“maverick”), Democrats should not fool themselves into thinking that a
fiery rhetorician and far-left candidate would help them attract more
general election voters. William Jennings Bryan lost the general election
to former Ohio Governor William McKinley “by a margin of approximately
600,000 votes, the greatest electoral sweep in twenty-five years.”

While Hillary Clinton’s “don’t stop thinking about ... Bill Clinton’s
presidency” message may prove tiresome and insufficient for victory if the
voters again opt for “change,” it should not go unnoticed that the last
three presidential nominees from Massachusetts have all lost. Democrats in
1896 may not have kept the presidency, but they surely would have had a
better chance against McKinley had they chosen Sen. David Hill of New York
as their nominee over Bryan. In short, the lesson for Democrats is to be
careful what you wish for.

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Bill Clinton to speak at Human Rights
Campaign dinner”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/218887-bill-clinton-to-speak-at-human-rights-campaign-dinner>*

By Peter Sullivan

September 25, 2014, 11:49 a.m. EDT

Former President Bill Clinton will deliver the keynote address next month
at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner, the group announcedon Thursday
.

As Hillary Clinton prepares for a likely presidential run, the Clintons
complicated evolution on gay marriage has come under scrutiny.

As president, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which
defined marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, a
provision that was then struck down by the Supreme Court last year.

The press release from the HRC, a leading gay rights group, makes no
mention of that.

“President Bill Clinton is a transformational leader for our nation and the
world,” HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement. “His ability to
build partnerships around the globe and harness the power of human
potential is truly remarkable, and we are thrilled he will be returning as
our keynote speaker for our national dinner.”

Clinton later admitted he was wrong to sign the law, telling CNN's Anderson
Cooper in 2009: “I grew up in a different time. And I was hung up about the
word. And I had all these gay friends. I had all these gay couple friends.
And I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong.”

The dinner will be held Oct. 25 in D.C. at the Walter E. Washington
Convention Center. The HRC says the event is sold out and over 3,000 people
are attending.

Hillary Clinton has had her own challenges dealing with her past views on
gay marriage, having a tense back and forth in an interview with NPR's
Terry Gross in June.

Gross tried to pin down whether Clinton had always believed in gay marriage
and just previously kept her views private, or whether she had changed her
mind over time.

"I think I’m an American, I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been
one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of,"
Clinton said.

Gross kept pressing.

"I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in
favor and I did it for political reasons," Clinton replied. "And that’s
just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are
implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great
commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress
we're making.”

*New York Times blog: The Upshot: “Romney in 2016? Never Say Never”
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/upshot/romney-in-2016-never-say-never.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0>*

By Justin Wolvers

September 25, 2014

Could the third time be the charm?

The question is whether Mitt Romney, who sought the Republican presidential
nomination in 2008, then won it in 2012 only to lose in the general
election, will throw his hat into the ring again in 2016. Normally, I would
dismiss talk of “Romney 2016” as reflecting the fevered imaginations of
Beltway pundits facing a slow news day.

But a quick look at the political prediction markets gave me pause. For
sure, the Republican field is wide open, with no candidate considered to
have a better than one-in-six chance of winning. It’s a clear contrast with
the Democratic field, in which Hillary Rodham Clinton is currently given a
two-in-three chance of winning the nomination.

But look closely at the Republican race, and you’ll see that punters give
Mr. Romney a chance. He’s just behind the leading pack of Marco Rubio, Jeb
Bush, Rand Paul and Chris Christie, and right now, the odds suggest that he
has a 7 percent chance of winning the nomination.

Bookies are also giving similar odds. There’s not been a lot bet on this —
the trading site BetFair.com records only around $20,000 so far — but it
does at least say that someone is willing to put their money where their
mouth is.

​Prediction markets have shown an uncanny ability to accurately forecast an
election. We certainly saw it this month when they did better than
pollsters in predicting the outcome of the vote for Scottish independence.
Whether the political culture is hostile to losing candidates running again
is another question. Losing nominees used to run again with some frequency:
Adlai Stevenson, Richard Nixon and William Jennings Bryan, to name but a
few. But in the modern media age, when nominees become overexposed, it
hasn’t happened in decades. John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael
Dukakis, Bob Dole, and Walter Mondale never ran again. Mr. Romney would
break a long streak if he ran again.

While there’s not a specific betting market linked to whether Mr. Romney
will actually run, based on the fact that he’s judged a 7 percent chance to
win the nomination, it seems reasonable to guess that he’s maybe a
one-in-five chance to run. The odds that he’s thinking about running again
are surely even higher.

It’s still unlikely that we’ll see “Romney 2016” bumper stickers, but based
on what markets are telling us, it would be foolish to discount the
possibility entirely.