Subject: Correct The Record Thursday July 3, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:39:19 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Thursday July 3, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: .@DavidCatanese on #HardChoices:
@HillaryClinton is "still the front-runner" compared to her @GOP
challengers:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/07/03/hillary-clintons-book-stats
…
<http://t.co/dnpv7jKXFi> [7/3/14, 12:09 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/484730614130954240>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: Pro-Clinton Group Will Distribute
Daily Talking Points
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/for-unified-message-pro-clinton-group-will-distribute-daily
…
<http://t.co/Cb9N631qql> via @rubycramer Sign Up Here
http://correctrecord.org/the-daily-point/ … <http://t.co/6JycJhLSdQ>
 [7/3/14, 10:05 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/484699400552595456>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: #HardChoices
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/HardChoices?src=hash> is #1 on the NY Times
Best Seller list again. That’s three weeks, if you’re counting.
http://correctrecord.org/hard-choices-a-success/ … <http://t.co/xAV5zbdaz0>
 [7/2/14, 7:00 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/484471796037869568>]

*Headlines:*

*U.S. News & World Report: “Hillary Clinton's Book Stats”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/07/03/hillary-clintons-book-stats?src=usn_tw>*

“In the third week of sale alone, ‘Hard Choices,’ sold more copies than
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former
Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s book ever sold, according to Correct The
Record, a pro-Clinton interest group.”

*Slate blog: Weigel: “Hillaryworld Wants You to Know Her Book is Selling
Just Fine”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/03/hillaryworld_wants_you_to_know_her_book_is_selling_just_fine.html>*

“Seems silly, but this has burbled up from enough sources to warrant an
official response from Correct the Record, a project of David Brock's
progressive messaging network (Media Matters, American Bridge) that is
fairly explicitly out to defend Clinton.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Who had the worst week in Washington?
Hillary Clinton.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-had-the-worst-week-in-washington-hillary-clinton/2014/07/03/0047473c-024d-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html>*

“Seeking to squash the book-isn’t-selling story, Correct the Record, a
pro-Clinton outside group, released a memoWednesday night noting that the
book was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for the third straight
week and blaming the ‘right wing’ for pushing out false information.”

*New Republic: “Hillary Has a Plan to Attack Inequality—Without Attacking
Her Corporate Donors”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118540/hillary-clintons-inequality-strategy>*

“The working-folks stagnation issue is certainly real and emotional enough
that Democratic voters are quite concerned about it, too.”

*USA Today: “Book Buzz: Hillary Clinton vs. Edward Klein”
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/07/03/hard-choices-by-hillary-rodham-clinton/11900507/>*

“As Hillary Clinton's latest memoir, Hard Choices, drops to No. 22 on USA
TODAY's Best-Selling Books list, a title sharply critical of Clinton, Blood
Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,lands at No. 17.”

*National Journal: “5 Democrats Who Should Run Against Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/5-democrats-who-should-run-against-hillary-clinton-20140702>*

[Subtitle:] “The former secretary of State could be vulnerable in a
Democratic primary, but only if qualified candidates decide to challenge
her.”

*Daily Caller: “Mark Halperin Makes BOLD Prediction About Who Could
Challenge Hillary In 2016 [VIDEO]”
<http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/03/mark-halperin-makes-bold-prediction-about-who-could-challenge-hillary-in-2016-video/>*

“Mark Halperin, the senior political analyst for ‘Time’ magazine, appeared
on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ Thursday and boldly reiterated his Wednesday Twitter
assertion that Al Gore — the same Al Gore who served as Bill Clinton’s vice
president — poses the greatest threat to Hillary Clinton’s White House
aspirations.”

*WGRZ (N.Y.): “UB Won't Release Info. on Fee for Clinton Speech”
<http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/education/2014/07/03/university-buffalo-hillary-clinton-speech/12123991/>*

“UB has not disclosed the amount Clinton was paid for her speech, saying in
a statement, ‘Agreements with speakers are maintained by the University at
Buffalo Foundation, a private non-profit organization. These agreements,
including information about speaking fees, are not public information.’”

*Weekly Standard: “Hillary Gaffes in London: Gets UK Political Parties
Wrong”
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-gaffes-london-gets-uk-political-parties-wrong_796033.html>*

“In an interview with the BBC, when answering a question about how
specialness of the special relationship between the U.S. and UK, the
nation's former top diplomat gets the names of the political parties in the
UK wrong.”

*Articles:*

*U.S. News & World Report: “Hillary Clinton's Book Stats”
<http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2014/07/03/hillary-clintons-book-stats?src=usn_tw>*

By David Catanese

July 3, 2014

[Subtitle] In the 2016er book sale race, there's no real competition.

Hillary Clinton’s book tour may have drawn mixed reviews, but it’s clear
that in the 2016 book sale race, she stands far above the competition.

Nearly almost every potential 2016 presidential aspirant has written a
tome. And political books can be a tough sell – especially when the premise
is foreign policy. Let’s be clear, “Hard Choices” wasn’t a runaway smash
hit. As The Washington Post has noted, Hillary’s second book has sold about
160,000 total hardcover copies – just a little less than the population of
Salem, Oregon.

But when stacked up against her potential Republican challengers – and even
some rival Democrats – she’s still the front-runner.

As Clinton’s tour winds down, here are some quick numbers to assess how
“Hard Choices” stacks up against the competition.

In the third week of sale alone, “Hard Choices,” sold more copies than
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former
Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s book ever sold, according to Correct The
Record, a pro-Clinton interest group.

In its first week, “Hard Choices” outsold the combined total sale of books
by five potential GOP candidates – including Texas Gov. Rick Perry
(27,260), Walker (16,156), Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin (14,727), Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul (10,261) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (4,599). Clinton
sold about 85,000 copies in the first week.

“Hard Choices” has sold more than double the copies of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren’s “A Fighting Chance,” which was released in May.

Vice President Joe Biden’s “Promises To Keep” sold just 30,000 copies in
2008 when he ran for president, even less than Warren’s 62,000.

Mitt Romney’s “No Apology”, released in the spring of 2010 before his
second White House run, ended up right around the 100,000 mark.

Compared to her first book, “Living History,” well, there’s no comparison.
“Living History” became the fourth best-selling political book of the past
decade, with over 1.1 million copies sold. it seems unlikely Clinton will
hit the 1 million marker this time. A publishing executive told The New
York Times the declining sales means Simon & Schuster will probably not
sell enough books to make up for Clinton’s advance payment.

Unless, of course, she makes up for it as she heads across the pond.

*Slate blog: Weigel: “Hillaryworld Wants You to Know Her Book is Selling
Just Fine”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/03/hillaryworld_wants_you_to_know_her_book_is_selling_just_fine.html>*

By David Weigel

July 3, 2014, 10:55 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton's first memoir featured revelations about how she learned
about one of the sex scandals of the century. Her second memoir, Hard
Choices, does not. Washington's press corps is salivating over the result
of this -- the first run of Hard Choices, a million copies, is not going to
be sold out soon. In the Huffington Post, Howard Fineman* reports that
sales have been falling by 50 percent each week, down to 26,190 in the
latest week, and that this might challenge the idea of Clinton's 2016
inevitability.

Seems silly, but this has burbled up from enough sources to warrant an
official response from Correct the Record, a project of David Brock's
progressive messaging network (Media Matters, American Bridge) that is
fairly explicitly out to defend Clinton. They sent this around yesterday:

“ATTACK: The right wing launched an attack that Hillary Clinton’s memoir,
“Hard Choices,” has not been successful so far.

FACTS:

•  “Hard Choices” is #1 on the New York Times’ Best Sellers list for the
third week in a row.

•  “Hard Choices” has sold more copies than books by a number of leading
Republicans including Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Jeb
Bush, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and
Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy.

•  “Hard Choices” sold more in its third week than Rand Paul and Jeb Bush’s
books did total, combined!

•  In the third week for sale, “Hard Choices,” sold more copies than Scott
Walker’s, Rick Santorum’s and Bobby Jindal’s book ever sold.

•  “Hard Choices” is among the year’s most popular nonfiction books,
selling approximately 160,000 copies so far, according to the Associated
Press and press reports.

•   The book’s sales saw less of a drop-off in the percentage of sales in
its second week of publication than her 2003 memoir, “Living History,”
which went on to sell 1.1 million copies.

•   “Hard Choices” debuted on the New York Times’ Best Sellers list as the
No. 1 “Nonfiction Print Hardcover,” No. 1 “Nonfiction E-Book,” and No. 1
“Nonfiction Combined Print & E-Book.”

It goes on like that.

It goes on like that.

*Fineman's story originally described the sales decline this way:

[ORIGINAL IMAGE]

It now describes it this way:

[MODIFIED IMAGE]

There is no disclaimer on the page about why the sentence was altered.

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Who had the worst week in Washington?
Hillary Clinton.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-had-the-worst-week-in-washington-hillary-clinton/2014/07/03/0047473c-024d-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html>*

By Chris Cillizza

July 3, 2014, 12:01 p.m. EDT

When “Hard Choices,” Hillary Rodham Clinton’s memoir of her time at the
State Department, came out in early June, the book — and subsequent book
tour — were touted as the first steps in the inevitable 2016 presidential
bid by the nation’s former top diplomat. If that’s what they are, Clinton
may be in for some tough times.

The past few days tell the story. Even as Clinton was prepping for the
European leg of her book tour, she was dogged by two recurring and
not-so-good headlines.

The first involves the large speaking fees she has accepted from
universities since she left the State Department. On Wednesday, The
Washington Post reported that Clinton had received hundreds of thousands of
dollars in the past year from eight universities — four of which are public
— for speeches. That includes a $225,000 address she will give at the
University of Las Vegas at Nevada this fall. Leaders in the university’s
student government have asked Clinton not to accept the money.

Then there is the question of just how well Clinton’s book is actually
selling. According to Nielsen BookScan, sales of “Hard Choices” this past
week dropped by 46 percent from the week prior, which was down 44 percent
from the week before that. Seeking to squash the book-isn’t-selling story,
Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton outside group, released a memo
Wednesday night
noting that the book was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for
the third straight week and blaming the “right wing” for pushing out false
information.

Actually, maybe the book tour is a perfect encapsulation of what a Clinton
campaign might look like. And for that, Hillary Clinton, you had the worst
week in Washington. Congrats, or something.

*New Republic: “Hillary Has a Plan to Attack Inequality—Without Attacking
Her Corporate Donors”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118540/hillary-clintons-inequality-strategy>*

By Noam Scheiber

July 2, 2014

Even if Hillary Clinton never draws a credible challenger for the 2016
nomination, she’s clearly going to face a lot of questions about the issue
that’s at the front of Democrats’ minds: inequality.

One possible response is for Clinton to rail against greedy corporate
executives, particularly financial executives (banks being especially
unpopular), as she prepares to run for president. But, of course, this
poses something of a problem for a candidate who, together with her
husband, has helped raise over $1 billion from the corporate sector since
the early 1990s, as The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
(According to the Journal, 12 percent of that money came from financial
firms, compared with 13 percent of the money Mitt Romney raised and six
percent for Barack Obama.)

So what’s a presidential candidate to do? As it happens, we’re beginning to
see the contours of a strategy, which was on display Monday during
Clinton’s appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Asked about inequality
during a Q&A, Clinton spent the bulk of her four-minute response addressing
the plight of workers who’ve been squeezed over the last several years.
“Americans … feel like they’re falling behind, that at best maybe they’re
running in place,” she said. “They don’t feel like the economy has
recovered in a way that has helped them or their families.”

What’s going on here, I think, is that Clinton is savvy enough to recognize
that “inequality” encompasses two separate but related issues. The first is
the economic stagnation afflicting people in the middle and bottom part of
the income scale. The second is the rapidly improving fortunes of the
ultra-rich, who are leaving all the rest of us, even the kinda rich and
merely affluent, very far behind.

When Democrats use the term inequality these days, they typically mean the
latter phenomenon. A Pew poll at the height of the Occupy Wall Street
movement found that 91 percent of Democrats thought there was “too much
power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” It’s
really about plutocracy, in other words, and it makes sense that this would
be central to our current understanding of inequality. The financial crisis
and recession crystallized the economic and political power of financial
elites, after all. And, over the last few years, more and more data has
come to light illustrating how a tiny fraction of Americans is amassing an
escalating share of income and wealth.

But the working-folks stagnation issue is certainly real and emotional
enough that Democratic voters are quite concerned about it, too. (Even if
it's not new enough to merit an entirely new political term of art--we've
been talking about it for decades.) And so Clinton is able to deliver a
mostly compelling response to questions about inequality by focusing on
this question, and mostly leaving the uncomfortable-sounding plutocracy
stuff unmentioned.

Now, in fairness, I suspect Clinton, like most left-of-center politicians,
has simply spent a lot more time thinking about how you boost the fortunes
of struggling workers than reining in the power of the very rich, since we
just weren’t aware of the extent of the plutocracy problem until pretty
recently. She may well have more to say about the latter as she grapples
with it further. A handful of Clinton aides suggested as much while I was
working on my recent story about her invincibility within the party.

Still, I have a hard time believing there isn’t some serious calibration
going on here—a bit of needle-threading designed to address the topic that
most exercises Democratic voters without alienating the people she’ll need
to fund her presidential campaign. Back in May, when Clinton made her first
foray into the inequality conversation by way of a speech at the New
American Foundation, she employed a similar strategy of mostly talking
about the bottom part of the inequality problem rather than the top part.
But back then she did at least mention the plutocracy issue, citing data
about the increasing “share of income and wealth going to those at the very
top—not just the top 1 percent, but the top .1 percent or the .01 percent
of the population.” Although she proposed no solutions, she did say this
raised concerns about a new Gilded Age.

But that was in front of an audience of wonks and policy nerds. Before the
much better-heeled crowd in Aspen, Clinton was even less expansive and far
less explicit. The closest she came to plutocracy was the suggestion that
inequality “affects our democracy,” a comment that different people could
interpret in a variety of ways. It’s a shrewd rhetorical strategy—one
that’s likely to work out for her politically, for the reasons I laid out
in my piece. It would just be nice if the most prominent figure in the
post-Obama Democratic Party actually addressed the issue Democrats care
most about.

*USA Today: “Book Buzz: Hillary Clinton vs. Edward Klein”
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2014/07/03/hard-choices-by-hillary-rodham-clinton/11900507/>*

By Bob Minzesheimer

July 3, 2014, 6:01 a.m. EDT

As Hillary Clinton's latest memoir, Hard Choices, drops to No. 22 on USA
TODAY's Best-Selling Books list, a title sharply critical of Clinton, Blood
Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,lands at No. 17.

Blood Feud is by Edward Klein, a former editor at Newsweek and The New York
Times Magazine who's written several gossipy political best sellers
critical of liberals.

Relying on unnamed sources, Blood Feud reports that Michelle Obama secretly
calls Hillary Clinton "Hildebeest," and that Bill Clinton advised his wife
that should he die before the 2016 president race, she could "make a
positive thing out of it."

According to Klein's account, the former president told his wife: "Wear
your widow's weeds, so people will feel sympathy for you. Wear black for a
decent mourning period and make my death an asset. The images on television
of the funeral and the grieving widow in black will be priceless."

The book reports that Hillary objected, but Bill replied, "It should be
worth a couple of million votes."

The Washington Post warns readers that the defining characteristic of
Klein's biographies, "besides their popularity with people who despise the
subjects unpacked within, is that the salacious details revealed often have
a tenuous relationship with reality — as commentators of all ideological
stripes have pointed out time and time again."

Klein also has written best sellers about the Kennedys — All Too Human
(1996),Just Jackie (1998) and The Kennedy Curse (2003) — and about Hillary
Clinton, The Truth About Hillary (2005), and President Obama, The Amateur
(2013).

Clinton's first memoir, Living History (2003), which was more about her
personal life, sold better than Hard Choices, which focuses on foreign
policy and her four years as secretary of State under President Obama.

Living History landed on USA TODAY's list at No. 1 and spent six weeks in
the top 10. It dropped to No. 21 in its eighth week on the list.

Hard Choices landed at No. 3 two weeks ago, dropped to No. 6 and now to No.
22.

Clinton's publisher, Simon and Schuster, has not released sales figures but
has noted Hard Choices is an international best seller.

Clinton, who's not yet said if she's running for president, continues to
draw large crowds on her book tour. Last Sunday, she drew more than 1,000
people at a book signing at the public library in her hometown, Chappaqua,
N.Y.

*National Journal: “5 Democrats Who Should Run Against Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/5-democrats-who-should-run-against-hillary-clinton-20140702>*

By Josh Kraushaar

July 2, 2014

[Subtitle:] The former secretary of State could be vulnerable in a
Democratic primary, but only if qualified candidates decide to challenge
her.

It's been remarkable to see how quickly the Democratic Party has coalesced
around Hillary Clinton as its expected 2016 nominee, despite clear
vulnerabilities she's telegraphed during her book tour. Clinton brings
undeniable assets to the table—she'd be the first female president, the
Clinton brand is still strong, her fundraising is unmatched—but her recent
exposure on the book tour has demonstrated her political limitations as
well.

I've outlined some of them in past columns: She's not a particularly good
campaigner; she's skilled at staying on message but tone-deaf to the way
comments about her wealth could backfire among an economically anxious
public. With the threat of terrorism rising and increased turbulence in
Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq, Clinton could find that her record as secretary
of State is a major vulnerability in an election where foreign policy is
looming as a major issue. Most important, she tied herself to President
Obama by accepting his offer to run State, assuming that his coattails
would be awfully valuable down the road. Now, with Obama's approval ratings
tanking, scandals abounding, and a new Quinnipiac poll showing a plurality
of voters consider him the "worst president" since World War II, Clinton
knows she needs to keep some distance from Obama while maintaining the
excitement of his base. That's not a great place to be.

Her biggest asset is the fact that the entire Democratic Party
infrastructure is behind her, seemingly resigned to her vulnerabilities but
hopeful about her potential. Even progressives who are nervous about her
Wall Street connections are merely hoping to nudge her leftward, and not
aggressively challenge her with an actual candidate. With a lackluster
Democratic bench, it's hard to find many alternatives even willing to throw
their names out there. And let's be clear: Former Montana Gov. Brian
Schweitzer, whose loose lips would sink a campaign before it launched, and
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, throwing in his name as a protest
candidate, don't qualify.

That doesn't mean there aren't credible candidates who, on paper, could
mount a serious challenge. With anti-Washington sentiment running high,
this is a promising opportunity for an outsider to run and surprise. True,
they don't seem to want to run, whether from fear of the Clinton machine, a
desire to avoid challenging someone who might make history, or simply an
assumption that 2016 isn't a great year for Democrats.

But the candidates exist. Here are some prospects who would normally be
touted for higher office but have acquiesced to Hillary Clinton in the
run-up to the 2016 election.

1. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia

Kaine was one of the first Democratic officials to jump on the Obama
bandwagon, and he has a resume that normally would be the envy of his
fellow pols: swing-state governor; Democratic National Committee chairman;
senator elected on Obama's coattails against a former GOP presidential
prospect, George Allen. Kaine was on the very short list of potential Obama
running mates. If this were the resume of a Republican candidate, it would
vault him to the top of the list of 2016 front-runners.

But instead, Kaine took the unusual step in May of endorsing Clinton before
she even announced her candidacy, perhaps angling for a Cabinet post over
pursuing any possible national ambitions. Maybe being a white man in the
Democratic Party is now a vulnerability in the Obama era, but Kaine
certainly could score chits as an early Obama supporter who helped swing
his state the president's way. And his Midwestern roots, authentic
personality (in sharp contrast to Clinton), and executive experience would
all be strong selling points to a national audience.

2. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

One of the obvious, yet underappreciated, factors in Obama's upset of
Clinton was how powerful a role race played in the 2008 presidential
primaries. Clinton had close ties to the African-American community from
her days in the White House, but once it became clear that Obama was a
serious challenger, he overwhelmingly carried the black vote in nearly
every primary state where it mattered.

Why couldn't that dynamic repeat itself in 2016? Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick is leaving office, and he is a close ally of Obama's. (Obama even
touted him as a prospective candidate.) Unlike the 2008 version of Obama,
Patrick boasts executive experience as a two-term governor who had to deal
with one of the biggest crises during the Obama presidency—the Boston
Marathon bombings. Unlike Mitt Romney before launching his first
presidential campaign, Patrick scored solid approval ratings in his last
year in office (53 percent in a January 2014 MassINC poll).

Patrick recently said he worries about how Clinton is being viewed as the
inevitable nominee, but he hasn't made any moves of his own to suggest he's
running. But if he could put a credible team together, he'd be a much more
threatening challenger than, say, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.

3. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri

In a normal year, a female media-savvy, red-state prosecutor who defied the
odds to win a second term in the Senate would be at the top of many
Democratic wish lists. But like Kaine, this early Obama supporter was one
of the first elected officials to sign up with Clinton's nascent campaign,
taking herself out of the conversation. Part of her motive was to
ingratiate herself with Team Clinton, who placed McCaaskill on Hillary's
"enemies list" after she said she didn't want her daughter near the former
president in a Meet the Press interview (as an Obama surrogate).

Instead of sucking up to the Clintons, why not challenge Hillary?
Representing a populist state, McCaskill would be well positioned to
challenge Clinton on her wealth, ties to corporations, and perceived
disconnect from the middle class. Plus, McCaskill's long-term prospects in
the Senate aren't great, assuming she doesn't face Todd Akin again in 2018.

4. Former Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin

Where have you gone, Russ Feingold? The former Wisconsin senator and
campaign finance reform scold has virtually disappeared from the political
arena. Like Clinton, he's now serving in the State Department—as the
special envoy for the African Great Lakes region and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.

Like Elizabeth Warren, Feingold would be able to rally progressives around
his campaign but he could potentially have more appeal to male voters, a
demographic where the party has gotten crushed in the Obama era. Unlike
Clinton (and Warren), Feingold took a lone stand for same-sex marriage in
2006, when most elected Democrats opposed such legislation. He's been a
longtime critic of outside groups' campaign spending, which has been a
rallying cry for liberal Democrats in the age of the super PAC.

Feingold has always marched to the beat of his own drum, and it would be
hard to see him prevailing over the better-organized Clinton. But he could
persuasively assert he was ahead of the curve on the issues animating
today's Democratic Party, a powerful argument for the grassroots base.
Indeed, he'd be in a situation similar to that of another reform-minded
former Democratic senator, Bill Bradley, who challenged a sitting vice
president and nearly won the New Hampshire primary.

5. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon

Winning two terms in an increasingly Republican red state—he ran 9 points
ahead of Obama in 2008 and 11 points ahead in 2012—Nixon is one of the most
accomplished Democratic governors in the country. The Kansas City Star's
Steve Kraske dubbed Nixon the "Teddy Roosevelt of Missouri—vigorous, a
champion of the outdoors, constantly touring all corners of the state more
than any chief executive in state history." He worked with Republicans to
pass comprehensive jobs legislation, cut spending, and passed
ahead-of-the-curve legislation incentivizing college graduates to
specialize in high-demand health care fields. Nixon won high praise for his
handling of the aftermath of the tornadoes that devastated Joplin. And he's
won over some social conservatives by allowing restrictions on late-term
abortions and reducing the age for residents to purchase a
concealed-weapons permit. But he's also expanded Medicaid and focused on
boosting spending for education.

In short, his positions on social issues would probably be untenable in
today's Democratic Party, where moderates are becoming as extinct as their
counterparts in the Republican Party. And Nixon has shown no interest in
national office, knowing the near-insurmountable challenges he'd face in a
primary.

In 1992, when Democrats nominated a centrist Southern governor as their
presidential nominee, it was a move born out of weakness, with party
leaders desperately seeking to moderate their image and initially holding
little hope they could oust the sitting president. At the onset of the
primary, the field was wide open, with the party's biggest-name contenders
(Mario Cuomo, Al Gore) opting not to run. The situation could well be
reversed in 2016: Democrats acting like they're in a stronger position than
the reality, opting for a coronation instead of a contested primary, and
ignoring the political logic of nominating an electable moderate outsider
who can expand the party's coalition. In 1992's more ideologically diverse
Democratic Party, Nixon would be at the top of many Democratic wish lists.
But we're still stuck in Clintonworld.

*Daily Caller: “Mark Halperin Makes BOLD Prediction About Who Could
Challenge Hillary In 2016 [VIDEO]”
<http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/03/mark-halperin-makes-bold-prediction-about-who-could-challenge-hillary-in-2016-video/>*

By Hayley Hoefer

July 3, 2014, 10:28 a.m. EDT

Mark Halperin, the senior political analyst for “Time” magazine, appeared
on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Thursday and boldly reiterated his Wednesday Twitter
assertion that Al Gore — the same Al Gore who served as Bill Clinton’s vice
president — poses the greatest threat to Hillary Clinton’s White House
aspirations. Still, he stopped short of saying Gore would run in the
Democratic primary.

“I don’t know that Al Gore will run against her, but I do know that of all
the other people who’ve talked about running against her, I don’t think
anybody has his strengths. And I think Al Gore would like to be president.
And I think that if he decided to do it, it would be a matchup worth
running,” Halperin explained.

“I think he’s got a better chance of beating her in a primary, today, than
any Republican does in the general election,” Halperin continued.

When asked if he was merely stirring the plot with his political musings,
Halperin replied, “No one is telling me he is looking at it.”

However, he did not retract his prediction of a Gore victory over Hillary
in the Democratic primary.

“There is a vacuum. Gore is more of a populist than she is. He is more
liberal than she is on a lot of issues important to the party,” Halperin
stated, before reiterating that he thinks Republicans lack a real
challenger to Hillary.

*WGRZ (N.Y.): “UB Won't Release Info. on Fee for Clinton Speech”
<http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/education/2014/07/03/university-buffalo-hillary-clinton-speech/12123991/>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 3, 2014, 12:11 a.m. EDT

BUFFALO, NY- University at Buffalo was one of several schools where Hillary
Clinton gave a speech over the past year.

The likely six-figure speaking fee each of these schools paid isn't sitting
well with students facing rising tuition fees, according to a report in the
Washington Post.

Two of the schools Clinton spoke at, the University of Connecticut and the
University of California Los Angeles, paid approximately $250,000 and
$300,000 for her speech respectively. Clinton is also set to make $225,000
for a speech in October at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

UB has not disclosed the amount Clinton was paid for her speech, saying in
a statement, "Agreements with speakers are maintained by the University at
Buffalo Foundation, a private non-profit organization. These agreements,
including information about speaking fees, are not public information."

There are limited public documents regarding the UB Foundation. Those that
exist however suggest that the UB Foundation has more than half a billion
dollars in assets.

The UB Foundation is not required by law to disclose the amount paid for
speaking engagements.

*Weekly Standard: “Hillary Gaffes in London: Gets UK Political Parties
Wrong”
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-gaffes-london-gets-uk-political-parties-wrong_796033.html>*

By Daniel Halper

July 3, 2014, 8:02 a.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has taken her book tour abroad.
But in an interview with the BBC, when answering a question about how
specialness of the special relationship between the U.S. and UK, the
nation's former top diplomat gets the names of the political parties in the
UK wrong.

The BBC host asked, "So how special is the special relationship?"

"It is so special to me, personally, and I think it is very special between
our countries," Clinton said. "There's just a -- not just a common language
-- but a common set of values that we can fall back on. It doesn't matter
in our country whether it's a Republican or Democrat, or frankly in your
country whether it's a Conservative or a Tory. There is a level of trust
and understanding. It doesn't mean we always agree because of course we
don't."

It would seem Hillary Clinton meant to refer to the Conservative and Labour
parties.