Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday August 13, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:08:51 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Wednesday August 13, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama: Let's hug it out”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-atlantic-interview-109956.html>*

“Hillary Clinton called President Barack Obama on Tuesday to ‘make sure he
knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him’ when she recently
discussed her views on foreign policy in an interview with The Atlantic,
according to a statement from a Clinton spokesman.”

*Associated Press: “Clinton and Obama to Party and Maybe Even Hug”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Clinton called the president at his vacation home Tuesday to tell him she
wasn't trying to attack him. And her spokesman says she plans on ‘hugging
it out’ with Obama when both are scheduled to attend an island party
Wednesday night for Ann Jordan, wife of Democratic adviser Vernon Jordan.”

*CNN: “'Hugging it out’: Hillary Clinton calls Obama to calm tensions”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/12/hugging-it-out-hillary-clinton-calls-obama-to-calm-tensions/>*

“Hillary Clinton reached out to President Barack Obama on Tuesday to tell
him that headline-grabbing comments she made about his foreign policy were
not meant as a political attack.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton to ‘Hug It
Out’ With Obama Amid Foreign-Policy Flap”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/12/hillary-clinton-to-hug-it-out-with-obama-amid-foreign-policy-flap/?utm_content=buffer37b41&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

“The back and forth represented one of the early cracks in the relationship
between an unpopular president and a former Cabinet member positioning
herself for a likely campaign to succeed him.”

*National Journal: “Hillary Clinton Looks Forward to 'Hugging It Out' With
President Obama”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/hillary-clinton-looks-forward-to-hugging-it-out-with-president-obama-20140812>*

“Now, the Clinton camp is fighting back against coverage that suggests
she's trying to distance herself from the president she served under as
secretary of State.”

*Politico: “Obama and Clinton: The rivalry returns”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/the-obama-clinton-detente-how-long-will-it-last-109970.html>*

“A split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was inevitable. Now that
they’ve made peace, keeping it will be the challenge.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton promises to ‘hug it out’ with Obama”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-hug-it-out>*

“As Hillary Clinton works to repair relations with President Obama
following an interview in which she criticized his foreign policy, the
progressive anti-war left that helped sink her 2008 presidential ambitions
are threatening a return to barricades.”

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Vernon Jordan to Host
Obama-Clinton Rendezvous Wednesday”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/12/vernon-jordan-to-host-obama-clinton-rendezvous-wednesday/>*

“The president and Mrs. Clinton will cross paths on Martha’s Vineyard,
where both plan to attend a party at the home of Vernon Jordan, who served
as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton.”

*The Atlantic: “Two Ways of Looking at the Hillary Clinton Interview”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/two-ways-of-looking-at-the-hillary-clinton-interview/375906/?single_page=true>*

“If the former interpretation is right, Hillary Clinton is rustier at
dealing with the press than we assumed. Rustier in taking care with what
she says, rustier in taking several days before countering a (presumably)
undesired interpretation. I hope she's just rusty. Because if she intended
this, my heart sinks.”

*Politico: “Cocktail chatter with Barack and Hillary”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/cocktail-chatter-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-109967.html?hp=t1>*

“In that huggable spirit, here are some subjects that might be safe for
Obama and his former presidential rival and secretary of state.”

*Mother Jones blog: Kevin Drum: “How is Robin Williams Like Hillary
Clinton?”
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/08/how-robin-williams-hillary-clinton>*

“That's, um, quite a segue. I wonder if there's anything left in the world
that doesn't remind Dowd of Hillary Clinton?”

*New Yorker: “The Hillary Doctrine: ‘Smart Power’ or ‘Back to the
Crusades’?”
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-doctrine-one>*

“What really stands from the [Atlantic] interviews is the strident tone
that Clinton adopted in her comments on Gaza and radical Islam.”

*Bloomberg View: Jonathan Bernstein: “Hillary Clinton Wouldn't Have Stopped
the Tea Party”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-12/hillary-clinton-wouldn-t-have-stopped-the-tea-party>*

“I think it’s wrong because, as Kevin Drum described it awhile ago, the Tea
Party response is pretty much what happens every time a liberal Democrat is
elected, from Roosevelt to Kennedy to Clinton to Obama.”

*The Weekly Standard: “Cheney: Not Sure Hillary Will Be Democratic Nominee”
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cheney-not-sure-hillary-will-be-democratic-nominee_802884.html>*

“Vice President Dick Cheney tells radio host Hugh Hewitt that Hillary
Clinton might not be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.”

*U.S. News & World Report: “Perry: Clinton Close to Right on Syria”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/08/12/rick-perry-hillary-clinton-close-to-right-on-syria>*

“Rick Perry agrees with Hillary Clinton. Or at least, pretty close to it.”

*The Hill: “Benghazi hearing set for September”
<http://thehill.com/policy/international/214949-benghazi-committee-will-hold-first-public-hearing-in-september>*

“Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Tuesday laughed off the idea that the House
select committee investigating the events surrounding the 2012 Benghazi,
Libya, attack would finish its work before the midterm elections.”

*Articles:*

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama: Let's hug it out”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-atlantic-interview-109956.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

August 12, 2014, 2:56 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton called President Barack Obama on Tuesday to “make sure he
knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him” when she recently
discussed her views on foreign policy in an interview with The Atlantic,
according to a statement from a Clinton spokesman.

The statement comes amid tension between the Clinton and Obama camps in the
wake of the interview. It also comes as Obama and Clinton, his former
secretary of state, are due to cross paths at a social gathering Wednesday
night in Martha’s Vineyard.

In the interview, Clinton dismissed the Obama administration’s
self-described foreign policy principle of “Don’t do stupid stuff.” And
while she also praised Obama several times, Clinton nonetheless called his
decision not to assist Syrian rebels early on a “failure.”

Earlier Tuesday, longtime top Obama aide David Axelrod took a swipe at
Clinton on Twitter, writing: “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’
means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically
bad decision.”

The statement from Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill noted that although Obama
and Clinton have had disagreements, she has discussed these differences
publicly before, including in her memoir, “Hard Choices.”

“Secretary Clinton was proud to serve with President Obama, she was proud
to be his partner in the project of restoring American leadership and
advancing America’s interests and values in a fast changing world,” said
the statement, shared with POLITICO. “She continues to share his deep
commitment to a smart and principled foreign policy that uses all the tools
at our disposal to achieve our goals. Earlier today, the secretary called
President Obama to make sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt
to attack him, his policies, or his leadership.

It continued: “Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the
significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have
been part of as his secretary of state. While they’ve had honest
differences on some issues, including aspects of the wicked challenge Syria
presents, she has explained those differences in her book and at many
points since then. Some are now choosing to hype those differences but they
do not eclipse their broad agreement on most issues. Like any two friends
who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out
when ... they see each other tomorrow night.”

Clinton has always been more of a hawk than Obama; her vote in favor of
authorizing the use of force in Iraq haunted her on in the Democratic
primary against Obama when they were running for president in 2008, and she
only recently, in her book, has said she was wrong to vote that way.

Now pondering a 2016 White House run, she spoke at length on a variety of
foreign policy issues with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, a preeminent
establishment foreign policy writer who frequently writes about Israel.

She talked extensively about the situation in Gaza, aligning herself
tightly with Israel, and spoke in tough tones about Iran’s nuclear program.
When asked about Syria’s civil war, she reiterated her past position that
the U.S. should have assisted the Syrian rebels sooner, the efficacy of
which Obama has rejected as a “fantasy.” And as far as the “Don’t do stupid
stuff” mantra, she said it was not “an organizing principle” — something
that “great nations” need.

Despite her pains to praise Obama in the interview — and the fact that her
positions on the issues were already publicly known — her comments were
widely interpreted through a political prism that casts her as a
calculating figure, and that therefore this must have been part of an
intentional calibration away from the increasingly unpopular Obama.

Several Clinton supporters have stressed that she is entitled to her own
views, and that she is in a bind — either criticized as overly calculating
if she stays silent or faulted for being candid about what she thinks.

One of the criticisms about her interview relates to its timing: It comes
as Obama is attempting to get his arms around a number of overseas crises,
from Ukraine to Gaza to Syria.

*Associated Press: “Clinton and Obama to Party and Maybe Even Hug”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Nedra Pickler

August 13, 2014, 3:25 a.m. EDT

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. (AP) -- Hillary Rodham Clinton is making her presence
felt on President Barack Obama's summer vacation - in more ways than one.

The potential 2016 presidential candidate happens to be holding a signing
of her memoir from her time as Obama's secretary of state Wednesday on
Martha's Vineyard, where her former boss is on a two-week getaway from
Washington.

And while the commander in chief has been trying to balance leisure time
while engaging in global crises, Clinton weighed in with a magazine
interview that distanced herself from some of his handling of foreign
policy.

Clinton called the president at his vacation home Tuesday to tell him she
wasn't trying to attack him. And her spokesman says she plans on "hugging
it out" with Obama when both are scheduled to attend an island party
Wednesday night for Ann Jordan, wife of Democratic adviser Vernon Jordan.

The White House initially said Obama didn't plan to see Clinton while she
was on the island. But after Clinton's critical interview was published,
the White House said Obama decided to go to the party.

Clinton, who carried out Obama's diplomacy in his first term, described a
different approach she would take in places like Syria and the Mideast and
rebuked Obama's cautious approach to global crises.

"Great nations need organizing principles, and `don't do stupid stuff' is
not an organizing principle," she told The Atlantic, referring to a version
of the phrase Obama and his advisers have used privately to describe his
approach to foreign policy.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said Clinton has frequently touted Obama's
achievements and was honored to be part of his team, despite some
differences.

"Some are now choosing to hype those differences but they do not eclipse
their broad agreement on most issues," Merrill said in a written statement
Tuesday. "Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she
looks forward to hugging it out when they see each other tomorrow night."

Clinton's signing of "Hard Choices" is scheduled at the Bunch of Grapes
bookstore, an independent shop that Obama often visits to pick up some
vacation reading.

*CNN: “'Hugging it out’: Hillary Clinton calls Obama to calm tensions”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/12/hugging-it-out-hillary-clinton-calls-obama-to-calm-tensions/>*

By Dan Merica

August 12, 2014, 4:37 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) – Hillary Clinton reached out to President Barack Obama on
Tuesday to tell him that headline-grabbing comments she made about his
foreign policy were not meant as a political attack.

The potential presidential candidate called Obama to “make sure he knows
that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his
leadership," Nick Merrill, a spokesman for the former secretary of state,
said.

In an interview with the Atlantic published Sunday, Clinton dramatically
distanced herself from Obama’s approach to foreign policy.

In it, she trashed his self-coined mantra for a cautious foreign policy:
"Don't do stupid stuff."

"Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is
not an organizing principle," Clinton said.

She later labeled Obama's decision not to arm Syrian rebels, something she
disagreed with, a "failure."

According Merrill, though, Clinton "was proud to serve” with Obama.

"While they've had honest differences on some issues, including aspects of
the wicked challenge Syria presents, she has explained those differences in
her book and at many points since then," Merrill said. "Some are now
choosing to hype those differences but they do not eclipse their broad
agreement on most issues."

David Axelrod, Obama's former top adviser who now acts as his biggest
defender outside the White House, rebuffed Clinton with a tweet that
knocked her for her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq War.

Clinton said in the interview that “don't do stupid stuff" did not really
reflect Obama’s big-picture thinking.

“I think that that’s a political message. It’s not his worldview,” Clinton
said. “I’ve sat in too many rooms with the President. He’s thoughtful, he’s
incredibly smart, and able to analyze a lot of different factors that are
all moving at the same time. I think he is cautious because he knows what
he inherited.”

Clinton’s comments put into sharper focus an effort to put more space
between herself and Obama, something she’s been doing slowly in speeches
and interviews since releasing her book, “Hard Choices,” in June.

Obama's poll numbers are slipping and Clinton, who is widely considered the
frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, needs to
separate herself from the negative numbers.

In her book, Clinton outlines how she and Obama disagreed on arming Syrian
rebels. And during the book’s promotional tour, she has drawn small
divisions with him over second-term leadership and partnering with Iran to
combat extremism in Iraq.

But the reaction to Clinton's comments, which inflamed the left, show how
careful she has to be when trying to separate herself from her fellow
Democrat while he’s still in office. It’s a task made even more complex by
the fact that she served as America’s top diplomat under him for four years.

MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy and organizing group, also warned Clinton
about taking too hawkish a tone, something it accused her of doing when she
ran for president in 2008.

Clinton’s call to Obama care a day before they were expected to attend the
same party at the Martha's Vineyard home of Vernon Jordan, a former close
adviser and golfing buddy of her husband.

"Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks
forward to hugging it out when they see each other tomorrow night," Merrill
said.

A White House official declined to comment, saying they will leave it to
Clinton's aides to handle this for now.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton to ‘Hug It
Out’ With Obama Amid Foreign-Policy Flap”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/12/hillary-clinton-to-hug-it-out-with-obama-amid-foreign-policy-flap/?utm_content=buffer37b41&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>*

By Beth Reinhard

August 12, 2014, 3:44 p.m. EDT

Q: What can generate nearly as much buzz as a quote from former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton taking a swipe at President Obama’s foreign-policy
record?

A:  A tweet from a former adviser to Mr. Obama, David Axelrod, appearing to
take a swipe at Mrs. Clinton’s foreign-policy record.

The back and forth represented one of the early cracks in the relationship
between an unpopular president and a former Cabinet member positioning
herself for a likely campaign to succeed him.

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton called President Obama “to make sure he knows that
nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his
leadership,” according to a spokesman, Nick Merrill.

“Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant
achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of
as his Secretary of State,” Mr. Merrill added in a written statement.
“While they’ve had honest differences on some issues, including aspects of
the wicked challenge Syria presents, she has explained those differences in
her book and at many points since then. Some are now choosing to hype those
differences but they do not eclipse their broad agreement on most issues. ”

Mrs. Clinton “looks forward to hugging it out when they see each other
tomorrow night,” he said, “like any two friends who have to deal with the
public eye.”

Mr. Obama and and Mrs. Clinton are expected to  cross paths Wednesday at a
party at the home of Vernon Jordan, who served as an adviser to former
President Bill Clinton.

The dustup started Sunday with an interview in which Mrs. Clinton suggested
Mr. Obama should have intervened earlier to prevent the violent takeover of
parts of Iraq and Syria by Islamic militants. “The failure to help build up
a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the
protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there
was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum,
which the jihadists have now filled,” Mrs. Clinton said in an interview
with the Atlantic magazine.

Mrs. Clinton was also asked about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy mantra, “Don’t
do stupid s___.” She replied: “Great nations need organizing principles,
and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

Her comments didn’t sit well with close allies of Mr. Obama, including Mr.
Axelrod. He posted Tuesday on Twitter:  “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t do stupid
stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a
tragically bad decision.”

The remark was a sharp reminder of Mrs. Clinton’s 2002 vote as a U.S.
senator in favor of the war in Iraq, a stance that cost her during the 2008
primary against Mr. Obama. More broadly, Mr. Axelrod’s online grenade toss
served as a warning shot to Mrs. Clinton as she promotes her new memoir and
weighs a presidential bid.

“If the purpose of her book was to embrace and own a piece of the
president’s foreign policy, to go out in her book tour and draw a strong
line of demarcation was a bit bizarre,” said one top campaign adviser to
Mr. Obama. “It’s not clear if this was an interview gone wrong because it
seems at odds with the book itself,  which embraced most of the president’s
policy in lockstep. Her interview deserved a response, though a certain
level of distancing during a presidential campaign from the predecessor is
inevitable.”

Mr. Axelrod didn’t respond to requests for clarification about what he said
on Twitter, leaving his 140-or-fewer-characters up for grabs for the
opposition party to use to advance its own agenda. The chairman of the
Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, said on Twitter: “Looks like
David Axelrod is on @hillaryclinton push-back duty/legacy protection
patrol.” Tim Miller, a spokesman for the America Rising super-PAC, added,
“About time somebody brushed her back.”

At a time when polls show approval of his foreign policy at a record low,
Republicans are eager to yoke the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination
in 2016 to the current administration. A “memo” to reporters covering Mrs.
Clinton from the RNC on Tuesday stated, “According to the State Department
website, state.gov, “The Secretary of State, appointed by the President
with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign
affairs adviser.”

*National Journal: “Hillary Clinton Looks Forward to 'Hugging It Out' With
President Obama”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/hillary-clinton-looks-forward-to-hugging-it-out-with-president-obama-20140812>*

By Emma Roller

August 12, 2014

[Subtitle:] "Don't do stupid stuff" can pertain to PR blunders, too.

Over the weekend, The Atlantic published a wide-ranging interview between
Jeffrey Goldberg and Hillary Clinton about U.S. foreign policy. The nugget
that gained the most attention was when Clinton appeared to deride
President Obama's foreign policy mantra, "Don't do stupid stuff."

"Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is
not an organizing principle," Clinton told Goldberg.

David Axelrod, a former White House senior adviser, snapped back at
Clinton's comment on Tuesday. "Just to clarify: 'Don't do stupid stuff'
means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically
bad decision," Axelrod tweeted, in an allusion to Clinton's vote to
authorize force in Iraq in 2002.

Now, the Clinton camp is fighting back against coverage that suggests she's
trying to distance herself from the president she served under as secretary
of State.

"Earlier today, the secretary called President Obama to make sure he knows
that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his
leadership," a Clinton spokesman told Politico's Maggie Haberman. "Like any
two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to
hugging it out when she they [sic] see each other tomorrow night."

The "frenemies" narrative between Obama and the Clintons is well-trodden
territory. Most recently, Ed Klein has made hay of it with his
salacious-yet-shoddily-sourced book, Blood Feud. But despite the Clinton
camp's best efforts to "hug it out," we can look forward to a lot more of
this narrative as speculation about her 2016 bid ramps up. A Clinton Burn
Book may be in order.

*Politico: “Obama and Clinton: The rivalry returns”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/the-obama-clinton-detente-how-long-will-it-last-109970.html>*

By Maggie Haberman and Carrie Budoff Brown

August 12, 2014, 11:18 p.m. EDT

A split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was inevitable. Now that
they’ve made peace, keeping it will be the challenge.

The Obama and Clinton camps tried to mend their differences Tuesday, but
certain dynamics won’t be as easy to overcome in the months ahead as
Clinton mulls a White House bid: Some advisers around both politicians have
a hard time letting bygones be bygones. The press is determined to continue
to dissect the relationship. And Obama and Clinton have genuinely different
interests and instincts on some big questions facing the country.

The tiff began when, in an interview with The Atlantic, Clinton dissed the
president’s foreign policy philosophy and called his early approach to
Syria a “failure.”

White House aides then groused anonymously to The New York Times that
Clinton was far more muted on areas of disagreement when she was actually
serving in Obama’s Cabinet. And hours later, longtime Obama adviser David
Axelrod escalated the situation, swiping at Clinton on Twitter for her Iraq
war vote years ago.

By Tuesday afternoon, Clinton had called Obama as part of a very public
attempt to kill the ugly headlines.

Obama aides and some Clinton allies downplayed the 72-hour episode with
dismissive complaints about a voracious media that have been looking for
fissures between the two camps since the 2008 Democratic primary, and both
sides made it clear they wanted to move on.

“To me, this story is a classic August self-licking ice cream cone,” said
Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide who assisted Clinton with the rollout of
her recent memoir, “Hard Choices.”

But the maneuvering nonetheless demonstrated how the Obama-Clinton
alliance, long viewed as mutually beneficial, will be tested repeatedly.

Obama has a record and a legacy to solidify in the public’s mind before
leaving the White House. The shot by Axelrod underscored that the
president’s allies aren’t going to take the criticism without some kind of
fight.

Clinton, who served as secretary of state under Obama, faces the challenge
of having to separate herself from an unpopular president but not so much
that she looks inauthentic or opportunistic. Obama may have middling job
approval numbers, but he still maintains a deep reservoir of support among
constituencies that Clinton won’t want to alienate.

And while Clinton wants to shed the long-held public view of her as overly
cautious and poll-tested, being candid also comes with a price. At the same
time, her comments to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg underscore that
Clinton has never been a natural politician, remains far more gaffe-prone
than many believe and has a rail-thin political operation with no master
strategist.

The relationship between Obama and Clinton is so sensitive that few
Democrats wanted to touch the issue Tuesday, particularly after Axelrod’s
tweet. Many White House aides and allies declined to comment or ignored
requests to talk about it.

Longtime Clinton ally James Carville, normally a chatty political observer,
dodged by cheerfully saying, “There’s a town in Texas called El Paso. And
I’m gonna El Paso” on this one.

Others tried to downplay the episode.

Ben Rhodes, a White House deputy national security adviser, told CNN late
Tuesday afternoon that the Obama-Clinton relationship is “very resilient.”
“They have been through so much together,” Rhodes said. “They agree about
far more than they disagree about.”

Vietor, meanwhile, dismissed the notion of a growing rift. “The president
and Secretary Clinton are extremely close,” Vietor said in an email. “So
are their staffs.”

Clinton has spent months creeping away around the margins from the
president, while primarily highlighting the areas where they agree.

In “Hard Choices,” which she was promoting in the interview with Goldberg,
Clinton devoted a chapter to the mess in Syria, a topic that was one of her
key policy differences with Obama. Shortly before she left the State
Department, she and then-CIA head David Petraeus advocated a plan to arm
Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar Assad’s regime — a plan Obama nixed.

In the Goldberg interview, however, she used more pointed language than in
the past, describing Obama’s decision against aiding the rebels as a
“failure.” But her toughest words were about Obama’s overall approach on
foreign policy, which some of the president’s advisers have described as
“Don’t do stupid sh—,” or “Don’t do stupid stuff.”

“Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is
not an organizing principle,” she said.

It was that remark that ricocheted in the hours after the interview was
posted Saturday night, dominating news coverage by Monday morning.

Some Clinton allies were thrilled that she was so upfront. “I loved it,”
emailed one Clinton supporter.

Another described it as a “a trial balloon for the authentic Hillary. And
if the Democrats won’t accept that then fine — maybe she won’t run.”

Through it all, Clinton’s aides stayed mum when asked to clarify the
comments, or to explain the backstory of the interview, saying only that it
was part of her book tour and that Goldberg had been a long-planned target.

But Clinton’s decision to call Obama on Tuesday underscored that her
comments in the interview were not a planned attack — though at no point
did the statement mentioning her outreach to the president suggest she was
backing away from the substance of her remarks.

Clinton allies also pointed out that she praised Obama throughout the
interview, threading her more pointed critiques with defenses of his
approach. But the rule of politics is that the negatives will always get
more attention.

Even as some White House aides faulted the media for the coverage, Clinton
aides were clearly well aware of the time bomb the interview represented —
they warned the White House after it took place, and before it ran.

With 2016 looming, White House aides have acknowledged that there would
need to be a high tolerance for delineating differences with the president.

They want the Democratic nominee to win, no matter who it is, and if that
means creating distance, that’s fine. But they didn’t expect that to happen
for a while because they assumed Clinton would want to show that she was
part of a successful presidency, and undercutting Obama wouldn’t help.

Several sources described Obama aides as angered by Clinton’s critiques,
particularly because they came as the president is grappling with a string
of global crises, from Ukraine to Iraq to Gaza. “I don’t think [they]
expected her to say it while he’s in the middle of trying to resolve it,”
said one of the Clinton backers.

The low-grade grumbling blew into the open when Axelrod aired his grievance
on Twitter. “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like
occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision,”
read the tweet from Axelrod. The tweet was an apparent swipe at Clinton’s
vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq back when she was a senator, a
vote she has described as the wrong choice in her memoir.

Axelrod declined repeated requests to explain his tweet. Meanwhile, sources
said that Clinton’s call to Obama on Tuesday was in the works before
Axelrod took to Twitter.

If anything, the overall flap has illustrated Clinton’s challenge in being
viewed as authentic. The broad assumption among political elites was that,
in making the comments to The Atlantic, Clinton, whose calculated approach
to politics bedeviled her in 2008, was making a deliberate, quick pivot
away from a president whose poll numbers are sinking.

But Clinton has never been a natural performer — her muscle memory for
politics is weak, and throughout her campaigns, she’s had a window of
re-engaging before working out the kinks. What’s more, she has a skeleton
political staff right now and has had difficulty switching toward a
discussion of domestic policies. Because her memoir is about her time at
the State Department, her views on foreign policy have been getting more
attention.

Considering the chaos in the Middle East now, including with the rise of
the Islamic State terrorist group in Iraq, Clinton appeared to be having a
moment of vindication for her more hawkish views, which some derided as too
bellicose in her 2008 primary against Obama. And many of her supporters
forcefully noted that she was merely articulating long-held, and publicly
known, differences of opinion with Obama.

The publicity over the tensions between the two camps seemed headed for
overdrive in the lead-up to a cocktail party Wednesday night in Martha’s
Vineyard that both Obama and Clinton are expected to attend. The president
is vacationing on the Massachusetts summer retreat, and Clinton will be
signing books at a local store. Both are friendly with Vernon Jordan, the
host and Democratic Party fixture.

In the statement revealing that Clinton had reached out to the president to
assure him her comments to Goldberg were not meant as an “attack,” her
spokesman emphasized how well Clinton regards Obama.

“Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye,” spokesman Nick
Merrill said, “she looks forward to hugging it out when she they see each
other tomorrow night.”

But while the call to the president may have effectively de-escalated this
particular confrontation, it’s not likely to be the last.

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton promises to ‘hug it out’ with Obama”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-hug-it-out>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

August 12, 2014, 5:42 p.m. EDT

As Hillary Clinton works to repair relations with President Obama following
an interview in which she criticized his foreign policy, the progressive
anti-war left that helped sink her 2008 presidential ambitions are
threatening a return to barricades.

The interview with The Atlantic magazine sparked tensions between the
otherwise friendly Obama and Clinton camps, which spilled into public
Tuesday morning when Obama confidante David Axelrod took a thinly veiled
shot at Clinton on Twitter. Both sides have worked hard since Clinton’s
loss in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary to present the politicians
as close allies and like-minded policy thinkers.

Clinton’s team moved to try to smooth things over Tuesday, even after
saying previously they would not comment on the fracas. The president and
potential future 2016 candidate will both be on Martha’s Vineyard this
week, where “she looks forward to hugging it out” with Obama Wednesday,
according to a statement from a Clinton spokesperson first reported by
Politico. Clinton called Obama Tuesday to “make sure he knows that nothing
she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his leadership,”
spokesperson Nick Merrill added.

But progressives, which have been quietly eyeing Clinton’s re-emergence
onto the political stage, may not be as quick to make up. After a long
period of relative detente between the left and Clinton, the honeymoon
appears to be over as numerous groups opened fire on Clinton. The response
was slow in coming, with conversations happening behind the scenes Monday
before gaining traction Tuesday afternoon.

Democracy for America, the grassroots organizing group founded by former
presidential candidate Howard Dean, told msnbc in a statement that Clinton
needs to decide which side of the party she represents, both on foreign
policy and economic issues.

“The entire progressive movement is trying to figure out how Hillary
Clinton has changed from the last election,” said Neil Sroka, the group’s
communications director. “If she hasn’t changed her stance on the foreign
policy issues which she was disastrously wrong on in 2008, how are we to
believe she’s evolved on the issue that will define the 2016 election,
income inequality?”

Obama’s victory over Clinton in 2008 is widely credited to his vote against
the Iraq War.

Stephen Miles of the Win Without War coalition told msnbc that Clinton’s
comments “confirmed suspicions” long held by the left. “It’s not a surprise
that once again we’re finding out that she’s more hawkish than the base of
the party is. And it’s going to give people a lot of deja vu and a lot of
angst remembering some of the uncomfortable feelings they had back then,”
he said.

Miles added that the constant in Clinton’s international posture is that it
reflects the foreign policy consensus in Washington, but is “disconnected
with the worldview of people outside the Beltway.”

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org, which was founded to defend the Clintons in the late
1990s and then became a key figure opposing the Iraq War in the Bush era,
fired a shot over Clinton’s bow in a statement Tuesday. She needs to “think
long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing
war hawks that got America into Iraq,” said Ilya Sheyman, the executive
director of the group’s political arm.

Murshed Zaheed, the deputy political director of the liberal grassroots
group CREDO Action and a former staffer to Harry Reid said on Twitter that
“Hillary Clinton’s Republican-lite neocon comments on foreign policy
already making me nostalgic re. Obama presidency.” On the social media
site, it’s easy to find rank-and-file liberals dismissing Clinton as a
dreaded “neoconservative.”

Gerry Condon, the vice president of the board of Veterans for Peace told
msnbc that “as veterans who have experienced the horror and futility of
war, we are quite concerned that Hillary Clinton seems to be promising an
ever more aggressive foreign policy.”

Indeed, Robert Kagan, the veteran Washington scholar of interventionist
foreign policy, approved of Clinton’s foreign policy in a recent
interview.’ “It’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly
her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it
something else” he told The New York Times.

Polls show liberal Democrats overwhelming support Clinton. And as she
considers a presidential bid, the standard line from progressive activists
is that they would be happy to support her as long as she comes down the
right way on a few key issues. So they’ve been mostly happy give her a pass
when they could have attacked, such as when she skipped Netroots Nation in
July, to wait and see what she does.

The question is whether this week is an aberration or marks the beginning
of more open conflict from the left, and if she will offer the progressive
base anything like hug she plans to give Obama.

*Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Vernon Jordan to Host
Obama-Clinton Rendezvous Wednesday”
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/08/12/vernon-jordan-to-host-obama-clinton-rendezvous-wednesday/>*

By Colleen McCain Nelson

August 12, 2014, 6:04 p.m. EDT

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. — Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
critique of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy had many speculating
that the two Democrats might want to keep their distance. But a scheduling
quirk will bring them face to face Wednesday evening.

The president and Mrs. Clinton will cross paths on Martha’s Vineyard, where
both plan to attend a party at the home of Vernon Jordan, who served as an
adviser to former President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Obama is vacationing on the well-heeled island off the coast of Cape
Cod, and his former secretary of state plans to do a book signing here
before Wednesday night’s social engagement.

The encounter comes just days after Mrs. Clinton suggested in an interview
with the Atlantic magazine that the Obama administration contributed to the
rise of militants such as the Islamic State by declining to do more to aid
Syrian rebels as the uprising took hold. Mrs. Clinton also jabbed at the
phrase the administration has used to describe its approach to foreign
policy, saying, that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t
do stupid stuff’ isn’t an organizing principle.”

Her pointed remarks seemed to portend potentially awkward cocktail-party
conversation. But on Tuesday, both camps released statements predicting a
pleasant evening.

“The president and first lady are very much looking forward to the occasion
and seeing former Secretary Clinton,” a White House official said.

 Nick Merrill, a spokesman, for Mrs. Clinton confirmed Tuesday in a
statement that the former secretary of state had called the president to
underscore that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies
or his leadership. He said that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have disagreed
on some topics such as Syria but that those differences don’t eclipse their
broad agreement on most issues.

“Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks
forward to hugging it out when she they see each other tomorrow night,” Mr.
Merrill said.

*The Atlantic: “Two Ways of Looking at the Hillary Clinton Interview”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/two-ways-of-looking-at-the-hillary-clinton-interview/375906/?single_page=true>*

By James Fallows

August 12, 2014, 5:46 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Whichever way you look, the presumptive Democrat nominee has
shown us something significant.

On return from a long spell away from the Internet, I was going to
recommend that you read Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Hillary Clinton,
and not just the setup but the transcript as a whole. But such a
recommendation is hardly necessary, since for several days the interview
has been making news worldwide.

There are two ways to think about the political and policy implications of
Hillary Clinton’s deciding to say what she did, during this strange limbo
period when she is clearly preparing to run for president but has more to
lose than gain by officially saying so.

• One approach would be to think that we’re primarily witnessing a media
event—journalists doing what journalists do. It's in our nature as
reporters, even when representing an institution as august as a
157-year-old magazine, to highlight what has changed rather than what’s
constant, what is controversial rather than what’s agreed on, the one
juicy, taken-in-isolation sentence that will make people stop and say, Did
you see that? And it is in nature of the political commentariat to seize on
any sign of rancor or big-shot melodrama.

Therefore if our Atlantic site runs a headline suggesting that Hillary
Clinton is all but blaming Barack Obama for the ISIS/ISIL  menace (“Hillary
Clinton: 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS”), or if
we emphasize the few places where she departed from his policy rather than
the many more where she supported it, maybe we’re just revealing the way we
journalists think. When politicians start complaining that some comment was
“taken out of context,” this is the point they’re trying to make. And in
fairness, anyone who reads the whole transcript will find that the tabloid
version of her comments—weakling Obama lost Syria!—is cushioned in
qualifiers and complexities.

If this is the way the Clinton camp feels about our presentation of the
interview, they are perfectly well versed in all the the formal and
informal ways of getting that message across. Indeed, just this afternoon,
a little while after I started typing this item (but several days after the
interview ran), the first such indication appeared, in a "no criticism
intended" story via Politico.

•  The other approach is to think that Hillary Clinton, as experienced a
figure as we now have on the national scene, knew exactly what she was
saying, and conveyed to an interviewer as experienced as Goldberg exactly
the impression she intended to—including letting the impression sink in
through several days' worth of op-ed and talk-show news cycles before
beginning to offset it with an "out of context" claim.

That impression is a faux-respectful but pointed dismissal of Obama's
achievements and underlying thought-patterns. It's a picture of the
president approximating that of a Maureen Dowd column. It also introduces
into Democratic party discourse the “Who (re)-lost Iraq?” “Who lost Syria?”
“Who lost Iran?” and “Who is losing the world?” queries that the
Republicans are perpetually ready to serve up. All this is presumably in
preparation for Sec. Clinton's distancing herself from a "weak" Obama when
she starts running in earnest to succeed him.

If the former interpretation is right, Hillary Clinton is rustier at
dealing with the press than we assumed. Rustier in taking care with what
she says, rustier in taking several days before countering a (presumably)
undesired interpretation.

I hope she's just rusty. Because if she intended this, my heart sinks.

It sinks for her, that she thought this would make her sound tough or wise;
it sinks for the Democratic party, that this is the future foreign policy
choice it’s getting; and it sinks for the country, if this is the way we’re
going to be talked-to about our options in dealings with the world.

The easiest and least useful stance when it comes to foreign policy is:
Situation X is terrible, we have to do something. Or its cousin: Situation
X is terrible, you should have done something. Pointing out terribleness
around the world is not even half of the necessary thought-work in foreign
policy. The harder and more important part—what constitutes actual
statesmanship—is considering exactly which “something” you would do; and
why that exact something would make conditions better rather than worse;
and what Pandora’s box you might be opening; and how the results of your
something will look a year from now, or a decade, when the terribleness of
this moment has passed.

Eg: Yeah, we should have “done something” in Syria to prevent the rise of
ISIS. But the U.S. did a hell of a lot of somethings in Iraq over the past
decade, with a lot more leverage that it could possibly have had in Syria.
And the result of the somethings in Iraq was … ? A long story in the NYT
tells us that the current leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph
himself, drew his political formation from America’s own efforts to “do
something” in Iraq:

“He was a street thug when we picked him up in 2004,” said a Pentagon
official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence
matters. “It’s hard to imagine we could have had a crystal ball then that
would tell us he’d become head of ISIS.”

At every turn, Mr. Baghdadi’s rise has been shaped by the United States’
involvement in Iraq — most of the political changes that fueled his fight,
or led to his promotion, were born directly from some American action. And
now he has forced a new chapter of that intervention, after ISIS’ military
successes and brutal massacres of minorities in its advance prompted
President Obama to order airstrikes in Iraq.

Of course everyone including Hillary Clinton “knows” that you should only
do something when it’s smart and not when it’s stupid. In her books and
speeches, she is most impressive when showing commanding knowledge of the
complexities and contradictions of negotiating with the Russians and
Chinese, and why you can’t just “be tough” in dealings with them. In those
specifics, she can sound like the description I just came across, in
Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers, about some pre-World War I Balkan
leaders: “It is a characteristic of the most skillful politicians that they
are capable of reasoning simultaneously at different levels of
conditionality. [One Serbian figure] wanted peace, but he also believed —
he never concealed it — that the final historical phase of Serbian
expansion would in all probability not be achieved without war.”

But in this interview — assuming it's not "out of context" — she is often
making the broad, lazy "do something" points and avoiding the harder ones.
She appears to disdain the president for exactly the kind of slogan—"don't
do stupid shit"—that her husband would have been proud of for its apparent
simplicity but potential breadth and depth. (Remember "It's the economy,
stupid"?) Meanwhile she offers her own radically simplified view of the
Middle East—Netanyahu right, others wrong—that is at odds with what she did
in the State Department and what she would likely have to do in the White
House. David Brooks was heartened by this possible preview of a Hillary
Clinton administration's policy. I agree with Kevin Drum and John Cassidy,
who were not. Also see Paul Waldman.

But really, go read the interview. Either way, the presumptive nominee has
under Jeffrey Goldberg's questioning shown us something significant.

*Politico: “Cocktail chatter with Barack and Hillary”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/cocktail-chatter-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-109967.html?hp=t1>*

By Katie Glueck and Nicholas P. Fandos

August 13, 2014, 5:00 a.m. EDT

Ann Dibble Jordan’s birthday party just got a lot more interesting.

Two of the guests — President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — have
hardly been seeing eye-to-eye on foreign policy of late. So the big
question is whether they can employ their expert political skills to
diminish any awkward moments. In fact, Clinton’s team says the two will be
”hugging it out” Wednesday evening.

In that huggable spirit, here are some subjects that might be safe for
Obama and his former presidential rival and secretary of state:

*“Hey, we’ve been through worse, right?”*

In any event, at least they aren’t meeting as challengers, as they did
during the 2008 presidential primary — or worse, as the vanquisher versus
the vanquished.

While on tour to promote her memoir of her time at the State Department,
“Hard Choices,” Clinton has laughingly described a meeting with Obama after
she dropped out of the contest in 2008 as akin to “an awkward first date.”
Now, they know each other well after serving together for Obama’s first
term. The president has even said that he and Clinton are now “buddies.”

Sure, the meeting comes just days after Clinton dinged elements of Obama’s
foreign policy in an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg,
complete with dissing as a “failure” the early decision not to assist some
Syrian rebels. And yes, her comments were seen by some as an attempt to
create space from an unpopular White House. But she’s already called Obama
to assure him that her remarks weren’t meant as an attack.

“[T]hey’re friends and human beings first,” said Tommy Vietor, formerly a
veteran aide to Obama who also worked on Clinton’s book tour.

“There’s less than meets the eye,” said former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.).
“This is not going to be a difficult meeting between the two of them.”

With the benefit of hindsight, maybe they’ll be able to laugh it off.

*“Ready to be a grandma?”*

Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, is pregnant — and Clinton has said repeatedly
that she wants to try out being a grandmother before making any decisions
regarding 2016. Luckily, Obama loves babies.

“One of the best perks about being president is almost anyone will hand you
their baby,” Obama said earlier this summer as he reminisced about taking
care of his own daughters. “… I get this baby fix, like, two or three times
a week.”

And if Clinton needs a break from the president, plenty of other attendees
will want to talk grandkids.

“I would not be surprised at all if she spent time talking to grandmothers
about what it’s like to be a grandmother,” said William Galston, a former
aide to President Bill Clinton.

*“Stanford or Berkeley?”*

Chelsea Clinton grew up in the White House and attended the prestigious
Sidwell Friends School, just as Obama daughters Sasha and Malia do now, so
that always offers a conversation out. Reports indicate that Malia also
toured Stanford — Chelsea’s alma mater — and Berkeley, but according to a
report in the San Francisco Chronicle, preferred the latter.

If that’s the case, a West Coast-centered, good-natured rivalry could take
the focus off the appearance of policy differences.

*“How’s John?”*

Clinton’s interview in The Atlantic included a hefty section on Israel, one
area in which she was perceived as using more hawkish language than her
successor at Foggy Bottom, John Kerry. The interview also posted amid a
slew of international crises embroiling places from Iraq to Gaza to Ukraine.

Amid all that, she could check in on how the current secretary of state is
holding up, although some observers expressed doubt that the pair would
wade into a big foreign-policy discussion. Vietor passed along a
semi-serious list of nine hypothetical discussion topics, from the kids and
spouses, to “beloved pets” and “hilarious movies,” with foreign policy and
politics clocking in last.

And Galston said he would be “astounded if it became anything like a
foreign policy seminar, let alone an argument.”

*“And Joe?”*

Vice President Joe Biden has not ruled out a presidential bid of his own,
and Obama has been careful to toe a fine line in discussing both Biden and
Clinton — the former secretary of state could use the party as a time to
gauge whether Obama is still maintaining that balancing act.

“I don’t know what she’s going to decide to do, but I know that if she were
to run for president, I think she would be very effective at that,” Obama
said in a television interview in May. “I’ve been blessed to have some
people around me like her, and Vice President Biden, and my chief of staff
who are just great, hardworking, effective people, and I love them to
death.”

*“Know any good Realtors?”*

The Clintons live in Chappaqua, N.Y., not far from New York City, from
which they run their family foundation. Obama has indicated interest in
both a similar kind of foundation and in moving to the Big Apple, once his
presidency wraps up.

Both the Clintons and the Obamas could be spending some time in Brooklyn in
2016 — some prominent Democrats are making a big push for the borough to
host the Democratic National Convention.

*“Great party Vernon’s throwing”*

The main event at the Farm Neck Golf Club is the 80th birthday party of Ann
Dibble Jordan, who, along with her husband, former Bill Clinton adviser
Vernon Jordan, is considered a friend of both Obama and Clinton.

“They will talk about Vernon and Ann, who are mutual friends,” said
longtime Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. “I don’t think there will be
heavy political conversation at all.”

*“Come here often?”*

Obama is on vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, while Clinton and her husband
are out in the Hamptons — though the Clintons have also spent summers on
the Vineyard.

“They are both frequent visitors to the island, so I imagine they would
have a lot to talk about, comparing places, as islanders usually do,” said
Molly Coogan, store manager of Bunch of Grapes bookstore, where Clinton is
slated to do a book signing on Wednesday, ahead of the birthday party.

*“How about that weather?”*

“Maybe the president will look at Hillary Clinton and say, ‘Nice weather
we’re having, huh?’” Shrum said. “That’s what you talk about when you don’t
want to talk about other stuff.”

Wednesday’s forecast doesn’t look so good. Showers, with thunderstorms
possible after 2 p.m., according to the National Weather Service on
Tuesday. Wind gusts possible up to 33 mph. “Chance of precipitation is 100
percent.”

*Mother Jones blog: Kevin Drum: “How is Robin Williams Like Hillary
Clinton?”
<http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/08/how-robin-williams-hillary-clinton>*

By Kevin Drum

August 13, 2014, 12:39 a.m. EDT

Tonight's Maureen Dowd column begins with an anecdote about an interview
she once did with Robin Williams:

“As our interview ended, I was telling him about my friend Michael Kelly’s
idea for a 1-900 number, not one to call Asian beauties or Swedish babes,
but where you’d have an amorous chat with a repressed Irish woman. Williams
delightedly riffed on the caricature, playing the role of an older Irish
woman answering the sex line in a brusque brogue, ordering a horny caller
to go to the devil with his impure thoughts and disgusting desire.

“I couldn’t wait to play the tape for Kelly, who doubled over in laughter.

“So when I think of Williams, I think of Kelly. And when I think of Kelly,
I think of Hillary, because Michael was the first American reporter to die
in the Iraq invasion, and Hillary Clinton was one of the 29 Democratic
senators who voted to authorize that baloney war.”

That's, um, quite a segue. I wonder if there's anything left in the world
that doesn't remind Dowd of Hillary Clinton?

*New Yorker: “The Hillary Doctrine: ‘Smart Power’ or ‘Back to the
Crusades’?”
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-doctrine-one>*

By John Cassidy

August 11, 2014

This past weekend, Tom Friedman, of the Times, sat down with President
Obama, and Jeffrey Goldberg, of the Atlantic, posted online a long
interview with Hillary Clinton. With the grim events in Iraq, Gaza, and
Ukraine dominating the news, it’s fascinating to compare and contrast what
the two former colleagues (and 2008 election rivals) had to say.

Goldberg, in a post introducing the interview, highlighted Clinton’s claim
that the Obama Administration’s “failure” to build up a credible opposition
in Syria created a vacuum that was filled by Islamic State in Iraq and
al-Sham (ISIS), the Al Qaeda offshoot that U.S. warplanes are now bombing
in northern Iraq. Other stories focussed on Clinton’s apparent dismissal of
a phrase Obama has reportedly used to describe his approach to foreign
policy: “Don’t do stupid stuff.” A Bloomberg headline blared, “HILLARY
CLINTON FAULTS OBAMA FOR ‘STUPID STUFF’ POLICY.” Politico’s Maggie Haberman
wrote, “Hillary Clinton has taken her furthest, most public step away yet
from President Barack Obama, rejecting the core of his self-described
foreign policy doctrine.”

By Monday, speculation had turned to Clinton’s motives. Does this mean that
she’s definitely running? (That was Goldberg’s interpretation.) Was it a
cynical effort to distance herself from an unpopular President? Is she
already looking beyond the Democratic primaries to appeal to independents
and to moderate Republicans?

For folks inside the Washington politics-and-media bubble, these are
endlessly fascinating questions. But what really stands from the interviews
is the strident tone that Clinton adopted in her comments on Gaza and
radical Islam. In defending the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
deadly response to Hamas’s rocket attacks, she sounded almost like a
spokesperson for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In talking
about the threat of militant Islam more generally, her words echoed those
of Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, who has called for a
generation-long campaign against Islamic extremism—a proposal that one of
his former cabinet ministers dubbed “back to the Crusades.”

Let’s take Gaza first. When Clinton noted that Israel has a right to defend
itself from Hamas attacks, Clinton was merely restating what President
Obama has said numerous times. But, when she passed on the opportunity to
condemn the Israeli strikes on U.N.-operated shelters, which killed dozens
of people, she was conspicuously failing to follow the example of her
former colleagues in the State Department, who described one of the attacks
as “disgraceful.” Clinton did acknowledge that the deaths of hundreds of
children in the four-week-long military campaign was “absolutely dreadful.”
But, rather than put even a bit of the blame on the Israel Defense Forces
for its aggressive tactics, she pointed the finger at Hamas, saying,
“There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict and wanted
to do so in order to leverage its position…. So the ultimate responsibility
has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made.”

Another area where Clinton entered the realm of AIPAC talking points was in
accusing Hamas of “stage-managing” the conflict and criticizing the media
for going along with it:

“What you see is largely what Hamas invites and permits Western journalists
to report on from Gaza. It’s the old PR problem that Israel has. Yes, there
are substantive, deep levels of antagonism or anti-Semitism towards Israel,
because it’s a powerful state, a really effective military. And Hamas
paints itself as the defender of the rights of the Palestinians to have
their own state. So the PR battle is one that is historically tilted
against Israel.”

These statements will have delighted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister
of Israel, whom Clinton defended several times in the interview. She even
endorsed Netanyahu’s recent suggestion that Israel would never give up
security control of the West Bank, a statement that some analysts have
seized upon as the death knell for the two-state solution. “If I were the
prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control
over security,” Clinton said of the West Bank, citing the need to “protect
Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border attacks from anywhere else.”

Even for a former New York politician, these were contentious statements.
But what is their ultimate import?

The cynical view is that Clinton is simply trying up shore up her
reputation as a staunch ally of Israel. Earlier in Clinton’s career,
pro-Israeli groups accused her of getting too close to the Palestinian
cause. In 1999, a picture of her kissing Suha Arafat on the cheek ended up
on the front page of the New York Post, under the headline “SHAME ON
HILLARY.” After moving to New York in 2001 and running for senator, she
adopted the default stance of most elected officials from the Empire State:
unstinting support for Israel. As Secretary of State, in 2009-2010, she
took part in efforts to restart the peace process, which, partly as a
result of Israel continuing to expand its settlements, didn’t go anywhere.
Unlike President Obama, however, Clinton maintained a reasonably cordial
relationship with Netanyahu, and that was reflected in her supportive
remarks to Goldberg.

If Clinton is courting the pro-Israel lobby, it wouldn’t be exactly
surprising. With the Republican Party busy trying to make inroads among
wealthy Jewish campaign donors, it hardly behooves her to adopt a more
critical approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict shortly before announcing a
run for President.

If you study Clinton’s words, though, there seem to be more to them than
pandering. For one, she clearly believes that the best way to exert
pressure on Israeli politicians, such as Netanyahu, is to win their
confidence. Implicit in her comments is the suggestion that President
Obama, by not making much of an effort to hide his dislike of the Israeli
Prime Minister, or to win over the Israeli public, made another error.
Referring to the failed negotiations at the end of her husband’s
Presidency, the last occasion on which the Israelis and Palestinians came
close to making peace, the former Secretary of State said, “Bill Clinton is
adored in Israel, as you know. He got Netanyahu to give up territory, which
Netanyahu believes lost him the prime ministership”—in his first term—“but
he moved in that direction, as hard as it was.” A bit later in the
interview, Clinton emphasized the point: “Dealing with Bibi is not easy, so
people get frustrated and they lose sight of what we’re trying to achieve
here.”

In this instance, the difference between Clinton and Obama is a tactical
one on how to achieve a goal that they share. There is a bigger issue,
however, which rises to the level of foreign-policy ideology. Ever since
taking office, Obama has conspicuously tried to avoid making
generalizations about Islamic extremism, or lapsing into loose talk about a
clash of civilizations. In his interview with Friedman, he described the
turmoil in the Middle East in terms of history and economics rather than
religion. “I do believe that what we’re seeing in the Middle East and parts
of North Africa is an order that dates back to World War I starting to
buckle,” the President said. More specifically, he pointed to the rise of a
disaffected Sunni population, stretching from Baghdad to Damascus, that was
politically alienated and economically isolated: “Unless we can give them a
formula that speaks to the aspirations of that population, we are
inevitably going to have problems.”

Clinton, by contrast, placed the threat of radical Islam front and center,
and she didn’t shy away from describing it. “One of the reasons why I worry
about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the
breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the
United States,” she said. “Jihadist groups are governing territory. They
will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison
d’être is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the
fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories.”

The key issue, Clinton went on, is how to contain the jihadi threat, and
the appropriate analogy, in her view, is the long battle against
Marxism-Leninism. “You know, we did a good job in containing the Soviet
Union,” she said. “We made a lot of mistakes, we supported really nasty
guys, we did some things that we are not particularly proud of, from Latin
America to Southeast Asia. But we did have a kind of overarching framework
about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet
Union and the collapse of Communism. That was our objective. We achieved
it.”

Rather than explicitly calling for a new Cold War focussed on radical Islam
rather than on Communism, Clinton talked about exercising “smart power” and
about engaging an American public that is now instinctively hostile toward
foreign entanglements. But, reading the interview as a whole, that appears
to be what she is advocating—a sustained global campaign targeting radical
Islam (some, doubtless, will call it a “crusade”) that encompasses all of
the options at the disposal of the United States and its allies: military,
diplomatic, economic, political, and rhetorical.

As I said, the similarity to Blair’s recent call to arms is striking. If
Clinton continues with this line of argument, she will inevitably be
compared to Henry (Scoop) Jackson, the anti-Communist Democratic senator
from the state of Washington who became a hero to the neocons. She will
also be compared to modern-day Republican interventionists, such as John
McCain. Judging by what she said to Goldberg, Clinton won’t necessarily
mind the comparisons: “Great nations need organizing principles,” she said.
“And ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

*Bloomberg View: Jonathan Bernstein: “Hillary Clinton Wouldn't Have Stopped
the Tea Party”
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-12/hillary-clinton-wouldn-t-have-stopped-the-tea-party>*

By Jonathan Bernstein

August 12, 2014, 5:19 p.m. EDT

My Bloomberg View colleague Megan McArdle floats a counterfactual history
of the last few years: If Hillary Clinton had defeated Barack Obama, the
Affordable Care Act would have died, with all sorts of positive
consequences:

“I think that Hillary Clinton would have pulled back when Rahm Emanuel (or
his counterfactual Clinton administration counterpart) told her that this
was a political loser and she should drop it. … I doubt she would have had
the debt ceiling debacle or the deep gridlock of the last four years,
because it was Obamacare that elected a fresh new class of deeply
ideological Republicans who thought they were having their own
transformative political movement, and they were willing to do massive
damage to their party, their own political fortunes and, in my opinion, to
the country in order to take a stand against ‘business as usual’ --
business that included legislating or paying our bills.”

I think this logic (Obamacare and thus Tea Party) is mostly wrong, for a
number of reasons. First of all, the Tea Party preceded the ACA; the
original Tea Party mobilization was a response to the economic stimulus
package in spring 2009, a few months before health-care reform became the
crucial issue (Steve M. has the timeline).

But more broadly, I think it’s wrong because, as Kevin Drum described it
awhile ago, the Tea Party response is pretty much what happens every time a
liberal Democrat is elected, from Roosevelt to Kennedy to Clinton to Obama.
Basically, the 2010 Republican landslide was a function of a depressed
economy (which hurt Democrats) and a liberal Democratic president (which
brought out a particular type of Republicans). There is some evidence that
health-care reform in particular cost Democrats some seats, turning a
landslide in the House into a debacle (although I still am very skeptical
of that finding), but there’s very little chance that avoiding health care
would have produced dramatic change. It’s worth noting, too, that quite a
few House radicals (Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann, Steve King) were in
place before 2010. A radical-infested Republican Party simply wasn’t new in
2010.

As for the other half of McArdle’s alternate history, I think it’s highly
unlikely that Clinton, who ran on health-care reform just as much as Obama
did, would have abandoned the No. 1 long-term priority of the Democratic
Party after an election in which Democrats won a huge landslide. The odds
are strong that she would have rolled out almost exactly the same plan that
Obama tried, and that the initial reaction would have been practically
identical: strong support from mainstream liberals, cautious but real
support from moderate Democrats, and blanket opposition from Republicans.

The thing is that once the train was moving, there never really was any
good place for the president to get off. Yes, Obama’s chief of staff
apparently advised cutting a deal, but Obama never had anyone to deal with
or a logical deal to cut. McArdle suggests that perhaps Clinton would have
settled for only Medicaid expansion, but it's unlikely that she could have
found Republican votes for it (given that it would have to have been
bundled with a pay-for such as the actual ACA Medicare cuts or increased
taxes which Republicans were eager to run against), and it would have been
easy to exploit as “distribute the wealth” program that had nothing for
middle class voters.

No, once the president and congressional Democrats moved to the ACA, the
least-bad option was always to pass it as long as that was possible, and as
it moved through Congress passage always seemed, and in fact was, possible.
That was particularly the case after the Scott Brown's Massachusetts
victory in January 2010. By then every Senate Democrat and most House
Democrats had already voted for reform; at that point, as they eventually
realized after the shock wore off, they already had taken the plunge, and
retreat would leave them equally vulnerable without at least salvaging the
enthusiasm of partisan Democrats. Is it certain that Clinton would have
accepted that logic? I suppose not, but it sure seemed obvious to me at the
time.

What’s a lot harder to know is whether small changes around the margins
might have made a difference. With Clinton in office instead of Obama,
would Arlen Specter have defected? Would Clinton have made any difference
in the pace of the bill through Congress? Would she have been able to
prevent Brown's victory? My general feeling is that Obama performed better
than par on Specter, right at par on the pace of the bill, and worse than
par on replacing Ted Kennedy. Any of those, and presumably several other
small things, might have either made passage somewhat easier or impossible,
and perhaps presidential skills really did matter.

But on the big point? No, the 2010 election results and the post-2010
Republican Party were probably cooked in regardless of which president the
Democrats nominated in 2008. As long as it wasn’t John Edwards, at least.

*The Weekly Standard: “Cheney: Not Sure Hillary Will Be Democratic Nominee”
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cheney-not-sure-hillary-will-be-democratic-nominee_802884.html>*

By Daniel Halper

August 12, 2014, 7:29 p.m. EDT

Vice President Dick Cheney tells radio host Hugh Hewitt that Hillary
Clinton might not be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.

"Can Hillary Clinton be beaten?" Hewitt asked the former vice president.
"And if so, how?"

"Well, I think she can. I’m not at all pessimistic about our prospects
there. I think she’s got a lot of things she’ll have to answer for, a lot
of baggage. She’s got to explain why serving as Barack Obama’s Secretary of
State, she shouldn’t be held accountable for being the one who implemented
those policies such as they are. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk for her by
any means. I’m not even sure that it’s guaranteed she’ll get the Democratic
nomination. I think there’s a lot to answer for – Benghazi and many other
points that I think will be arguments against her," Cheney responded,
according to a transcript sent out by Hewitt's show.

HH: But she has always eluded tough questions. Will the
D.C.-Beltway-Manhattan elite ever ask her the tough questions?

DC: I don’t, boy, I wouldn’t want to make a wild guess there. Obviously,
she’s been very successful politically, as has her husband, but I think her
performance in the last few months hasn’t been all that sterling. You know,
the book tour got her in a fair amount of trouble. She hasn’t been as
smooth an item as one might expect. And you know, she’s, I think there are
a lot of wannabes over on the Democratic side who are holding back, because
she’s still sort of occupying the space as the expected preferred option,
but I’m not at all sure that’ll be sure two years from now.

Elsewhere in the interview, Cheney had this to say about Hillary:

HH: Is it credible for Hillary Clinton to be attacking Barack Obama, Mr.
Cheney?

DC: I don’t know. She’s lived with Bill for a long time. Maybe some of that
rubbed off, too. You know, I’m sure she’s as interested in putting distance
between herself and Obama as are an awful lot of the Democratic candidates
running for office this year. You know, they don’t want to be associated
with the abject failure that he apparently is turning out to be.

*U.S. News & World Report: “Perry: Clinton Close to Right on Syria”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/08/12/rick-perry-hillary-clinton-close-to-right-on-syria>*

By David Catanese

August 12, 2014, 4:07 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] He’s with her on earlier intervention and its impact on Iraq.

DES MOINES, Iowa – Rick Perry agrees with Hillary Clinton.

Or at least, pretty close to it.

Asked Tuesday at the Iowa State Fair whether he agreed with the former
secretary of state’s assessment that a lack of prior U.S. intervention in
Syria emboldened jihadists to penetrate Iraq, the GOP governor of Texas
found some daylight with the potential future presidential rival.

“I think on that issue she was closer to being right than she has been on
some other ones,” he replied.

In an interview with The Atlantic published over the weekend, Clinton said
the failure of the U.S. to assist the rebels in Syria “left a big vacuum,
which the jihadists have now filled.”

Perry, on the final day of a four-day Iowa swing, recalled that he
supported a no-fly zone in Syria back in the fall of 2011, when he was
running for president. He maintained Tuesday that would have been a step in
the right direction.

“If you allow [the Islamic State group] to continue to gobble up and take
over areas – in this case, Kurdistan, northern Iraq – it’s going to cost us
more. Early intervention in these areas, from my perspective, would’ve been
wiser for us, would’ve been less costly and it would’ve gone substantially
farther to pacify that part of the world,” he said.

Perry stopped short of calling for boots on the ground to curb Islamic
State aggression, without entirely ruling it out, either.

He told reporters he began his day with a briefing on the situation in Iraq
from a team of national security advisers. Aides declined to name who the
advisers were.

*The Hill: “Benghazi hearing set for September”
<http://thehill.com/policy/international/214949-benghazi-committee-will-hold-first-public-hearing-in-september>*

By Mario Trujillo

August 12, 2014, 1:50 p.m. EDT

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Tuesday laughed off the idea that the House
select committee investigating the events surrounding the 2012 Benghazi,
Libya, attack would finish its work before the midterm elections.

"No. Heavens no," said Gowdy, who is chairman of the committee, in an
interview with ABC News. "I have decided that I would rather be right than
first. So we are going to do it methodically, professionally."

Gowdy said the committee would hold its first public hearing in September,
after members return from the August recess.

It will touch on the State Department's Accountability Review Board
recommendations, and how well they have been implemented in the wake of the
attack that killed three Americans, including Ambassador Christopher
Stevens.

Gowdy said there will be other public hearings, but the committee would do
most of its work in private.

"I can get more information in a five-hour deposition than I can [in] five
minutes of listening to a colleague asking questions in a committee
hearing," he said.

He added: "My view of public hearings — if there is a factual discrepancy,
then the jury or our fellow citizens need to hear both sides, and they can
determine where the greater weight or credibility is. But if there is a
consensus on a point, there really is not any reason to litigate that in
public."

Democrats considered boycotting the process after the committee was created
in May. They perceived it to be politically motivated to damage former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and motivate their GOP base ahead of the
elections.

However, the issue has fallen largely outside public view lately, as the
committee works behind closed doors.

In June, a poll found only about two in 10 people were closely watching the
committee.

"You want to get on the news, go rob a bank," Gowdy said.

*Calendar:*

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

·  August 13 – Martha’s Vinyard, MA: Sec. Clinton signs books at Bunch of
Grapes (HillaryClintonMemoir.com
<http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/martha_s_vineyard_book_signing>)

·  August 13 – Martha’s Vinyard, MA: Sec. Clinton attends Ann Dibble
Jordan’s 80th birthday party (Politico Playbook)

·  August 16 – East Hampton, New York: Sec. Clinton signs books at
Bookhampton East Hampton (HillaryClintonMemoir.com
<http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/long_island_book_signing2>)

·  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>)

 ·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)