Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday July 23, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:09:05 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Wednesday July 23, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*The Hill: “Clinton message taking shape”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/213062-clinton-message-is-taking-shape>*

“‘Hillary Clinton has made it clear that should she run for president, her
forward-thinking agenda will be reflective of her life’s work — leveling
the playing field and giving everyone a chance to succeed,’ said Adrienne
Watson, a spokeswoman for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton super-PAC. ‘She
said very clearly, just this month, that the current disparity must be
fixed so that hard work is rewarded and our system works for everyone.’”

*Huffington Post opinion: Allida Black: “Blazing a Trail: Hillary Clinton,
Advocate for Children and the Indigent”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allida-black/blazing-a-trail-hillary-clinton_b_5610884.html>*

“If we are going to have a discussion about Hillary Clinton's legal career,
then let's be sure the whole story is told - one that explains both her
commitment and her pioneering advocacy for abused children and the indigent
in need of counsel.”

*KPCC-FM (C.A.): “Hillary Clinton on Gaza, ‘Hard Choices’ and being called
a '20th century candidate'”
<http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2014/07/22/38484/hillary-clinton-on-ukraine-gaza-and-the-hard-choic/>*

Sec. Clinton: “Elections are about differences, as we know, but every
election is about the future and certainly anyone who wishes to run for
president has to make it clear how the experience that you've had in the
past and what you believe and how you have acted on those beliefs will
translate into positive results for the American people.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Hillary Clinton responds to Rubio:
‘Every election is about the future’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/22/hillary-clinton-responds-to-rubio-every-election-is-about-the-future/>*

“Clinton sounded like a presidential candidate, vowing to take on issues
like student loan debt, immigration and improving the lives of middle class
Americans. But she reiterated that has not decided whether she will run in
2016.”

*Associated Press: “Seeking The Limelight, Biden Courts Key Dem Groups”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIDEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Caught in Hillary Rodham Clinton's perpetual shadow, Joe Biden is working
to boost his political profile among key Democratic voting blocs, a move
that could help the vice president fashion himself as a more liberal
alternative in the 2016 presidential race.”

*Associated Press: “Pat Schroeder: Clinton Would Face ‘Subdued Sexism’”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TV_CRITICS_WATCH_PAT_SCHROEDER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Former House Democrat Pat Schroeder predicts that Hillary Clinton would
face "a lot of sexism" if she decides to run for president in 2016.”

*Real Clear Politics: “Bachmann Says She Might Seek Presidency in 2016”
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/22/bachmann_says_she_might_seek_presidency_in_2016_123419.html>*

“The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate
told RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White
House run.”

*Politico Magazine: Daniel Halper: “My Battle With the Clintons”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html?ml=m_po#.U8-V5vldV8E>*

“In short, the Clinton team has been true to form so far. And I’m surprised
by little of it.”

*Washington Free Beacon: Daniel Halper: “Chasing Hillary”
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/chasing-hillary/>*

"But the real question being asked in Washington is not whether Hillary can
be beaten as such, as it is whether any prominent Democrat has the guts to
try to stop her."

*Articles:*

*The Hill: “Clinton message taking shape”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/213062-clinton-message-is-taking-shape>*

By Alexandra Jaffe and Amie Parnes

July 23, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton is sharpening her message months ahead of a likely bid for
the White House.

After a rocky first few months back in the spotlight where she struggled to
offer crisp sound bites, Clinton is now test-driving various campaign
themes.

The former New York senator is signaling that this time around — unlike in
2008 — she will offer a concise and cohesive vision for the country.

On Monday, she said during a Facebook question-and-answer session, “The
next president should work to grow the economy, increase upward mobility,
and decrease inequality.”

That statement taps into key Democratic rallying points that appeal to
independents as well as the liberal base pining for a potential Elizabeth
Warren candidacy. She hasn’t offered much policy details, but there’s
plenty of time for that.

“We’ve reached a point in our life when we think you really shouldn’t run
for office if you don’t have a clear idea of what you can do and a unique
contribution you can make and you can outline that,” former President Bill
Clinton told CNN this week. “Now that the book [tour] is done, she wants
time to think about that and work through it. I think so much of politics
is background noise, and we don’t need the background noise anymore.”

But as necessary as it is for the former first lady to come up with a
simple message — the lack of which, Clinton allies say, was perhaps a fatal
flaw of her 2008 campaign — it’s also a difficult task. In essence, Clinton
needs her own “hope and change” theme.

Clinton allies say one is emerging.

“Hillary Clinton has made it clear that should she run for president, her
forward-thinking agenda will be reflective of her life’s work — leveling
the playing field and giving everyone a chance to succeed,” said Adrienne
Watson, a spokeswoman for Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton super-PAC. “She
said very clearly, just this month, that the current disparity must be
fixed so that hard work is rewarded and our system works for everyone.”

The current themes are emerging after Clinton and her inner circle pieced
together the missteps of the 2008 bid. A Democratic strategist said one of
the biggest reasons Clinton lost to President Obama is because she didn’t
demonstrate that she had a clear path for moving the country forward.
Clinton, the operative said, acted as though she was the inevitable nominee.

“At every campaign stop you heard Obama say, ‘I want to see the country do
x, y and z and that’s why I’m running for president of the United States of
America.’ She failed to do that. She relied too much on the sentiment that
she was the best person for the job without really explaining why.”

In her book, Hard Choices, the former secretary of State wrote that
potential presidential candidates should consider it their responsibility
to “renew the American Dream.”

“Having lost in 2008, I know that nothing is guaranteed, nothing can be
taken for granted. I also know that the most important questions anyone
considering running must answer are not ‘Do you want to be President?’ or
‘Can you win?’” she wrote. “They are, ‘What’s your vision for America?’ And
‘Can you lead us there?’”

Clinton announced her 2008 campaign by proclaiming, “I’m in, and I’m in to
win.”

It’s a challenge for Clinton to craft a fresh vision because her campaign
will operate in the shadow of her husband’s presidency. She will be asked
to answer what went well and what went wrong over those eight years.

Speaking to talk show host Charlie Rose on PBS last week, Clinton offered
the outlines of a potential campaign rationale.

“You have to run a very specific campaign that talks about the changes you
want to make in order to tackle growth, which is the hand maiden of
inequality,” she said.

She offered her husband’s economic policies as an example of what would
work to reduce inequality, and implicitly knocked Republican economic
theories, a hint at where her own platform would end up.

“We still have people in positions of political leadership who argue that
trickle-down economics, supply side economics work. There is no convincing
evidence of that,” she said. “So what you need if you’re going to run for
president or run for any important position is to be absolutely clear about
what you will do and to make the case relentlessly about that.”

A former senior aide to Clinton on her 2008 campaign dismissed concerns
that she would be weighed down by her husband’s record, arguing she can
easily distance herself from other policies by simply saying, “We live in a
different world.”

The ex-staffer said Clinton’s vision will also look “completely different”
from 2008 because “we’re not in the same place.”

“We were at war and voter polling indicated that people were still
legitimately concerned with terrorism. That’s reality one. And reality two
is that we won’t have someone like Mark Penn who came in and messed
everything up with bad messaging,” the aide added. Penn was a senior
strategist for Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

Skepticism from the progressive base is a 2008 issue that Clinton will have
to address head on. Calls from the left for Warren (D) to run in 2016 have
grown ever louder as the freshman senator from Massachusetts has been
hitting the trail for Democratic candidates this cycle and revving up the
base with fiery, populist rhetoric.

Clinton faces the challenge, said Mike Lux, a former Clinton White House
aide, of deciding “strategically, politically, policy wise, how much
distance to try to create between her and Wall Street,” which has
traditionally been a strong backer of the Clintons.

“I think good politicians — and I think Hillary is a good politician — are
good at threading needles, and I think there’s probably a way to do it. But
the danger when you’re trying to thread a needle is that you poke both
sides, because you try to play it both ways,” Lux said.

Lux added she might ultimately have to apologize for supporting some
policies, such as the deregulation of the banks that contributed to the
financial crisis, that have given progressives pause.

But a former Hillary Clinton aide said if she runs, she would make a
credible case on reducing inequality.

“The totality of her record is very much about equality and fairness,” the
ex-staffer said.

A former Obama 2008 campaign aide said Clinton would pummel Warren, who has
repeatedly said she’s not running.

“Hillary has more than redeemed herself with many through her services as
secretary of State,” the former Obama campaign aide said. “Her leadership
skills as an executive are hardly in dispute now.”

The ex-Obama staffer added, “Clinton has done so much more to co-opt the
base groups in the past eight years. Yes, Warren will be the left-of-center
darling, but I think she’s going to be outgunned by every metric.

“I also think that the left-wing base have grown up a little,” the former
Obama aide continued. “They realize that the shiny new object can only do
so much in a polarized, gridlocked capital.”

*Huffington Post opinion: Allida Black: “Blazing a Trail: Hillary Clinton,
Advocate for Children and the Indigent”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allida-black/blazing-a-trail-hillary-clinton_b_5610884.html>*

By Allida Black

July 22, 2014, 7:08 p.m. EDT

If we are going to have a discussion about Hillary Clinton's legal career,
then let's be sure the whole story is told - one that explains both her
commitment and her pioneering advocacy for abused children and the indigent
in need of counsel.

To tell this story, you need to return to the mid-1970s, when the nation
had no common legal standard for abused and neglected children, the poor
had little access to legal counsel, rape was concealed rather than
prosecuted, and the nation, especially the South, offered few services to
those survived the horror of rape.

Hillary Rodham started law school in the fall of 1969. Child abuse was seen
as family matter and was swept under the rug; and children had few
protections under the law. A few bold lawyers tackled this and Hillary, the
law student, stood with them.

Soon Hillary was at the forefront of legal campaigns to protect children
and represent those too poor to pay a lawyer. She helped shape legal aid
clinics, researched child abuse and neglect, and represented those who had
been assaulted or abused. As she wrote in Living History, her work on
behalf of abuse victims "went hand-in-hand with my assignments at the New
Haven Legal Services office," as both stemmed from her realization "that
what I wanted to do with the law was to give a voice to [those] who were
not being heard."

The legal aid system was haphazard and undefined. Even though the 6th
Amendment granted criminal defendants in federal cases the right "to have
the assistance of counsel," it took until the 1930s for indigent defendants
in federal cases to secure counsel, and another 30 years for the Supreme
Court to apply that right to indigents charged in state felony cases. Even
then the Court left many key questions about legal aid unanswered. The
demand for legal aid lawyers swamped existing legal pools.

Hillary spent her years after law school tackling both these challenges. In
1973, she went to work at the newly formed Children's Defense Fund, the
country's leading child advocacy organization. After moving to
Fayetteville, Arkansas, in 1974, she taught criminal procedure at the law
school and ran its legal aid clinic.

In early 1975, Hillary was appointed by a judge to represent an indigent
man charged with rape. Hillary wrestled with the assignment, especially
since a young child was involved. She asked to be removed from the case,
but the court denied her request.

I can only speculate on the gut-wrenching torment this must have given
Hillary.

She found herself torn between the two legal values she cherished. But in
the end, she could not discount that her values and professional ethics
mandated that all indigent defendants, not just those accused of nonviolent
crimes, receive adequate counsel.

But the record is clear how Hillary responded as soon as the trial ended.
She helped launch the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas and strove to
give women the medical, legal, and social support they needed. This was a
bold act. Rape Crisis Centers and hotlines were rare. Indeed, crisis
centers in Washington, D.C. and Boston had only opened their doors in 1972
and 1973. In the South, only Memphis and Athens, Georgia followed suit.

It wasn't long after that I first learned about Hillary. In 1975, I helped
start the first rape crisis center in Atlanta. I was trying to navigate the
legal issues related to child assault victims, but the law was so new, I
was lost, so I asked for help. Everywhere I called, the experts would say,
"Do you know Hillary Rodham? She's who you need to talk to."

Less than four years after graduation, Hillary had already established
herself as one of the country's leading advocates for abused and neglected
children. Her groundbreaking articles in the Harvard Educational Review and
Yale Law Review spurred urgently-needed legal reforms. While at home, her
leadership of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families gave voice to
abused and neglected children.

The same can be said for Hillary's cutting edge work to expand legal aid.
As manager of the Fayetteville legal aid clinic, she saw how the legal
standard used to determine whether a defendant qualified for aid was "an
impossible standard to meet" and she "wanted to change the law."

And indeed she did. In 1977, President Carter appointed Hillary to the
Legal Services Corporation, a federal program charged with expanding access
to legal aid. Hillary was the first woman to chair the corporation, and
under her leadership, funding more than tripled from $90 million to $300
million.

Hillary's early leadership in these two fundamental civic values is often
overshadowed by her other political and diplomatic successes. It should not
be. It shows us who she is, why she took the actions she did, and how she
will continue to lead.

*KPCC-FM (C.A.): “Hillary Clinton on Gaza, ‘Hard Choices’ and being called
a '20th century candidate'”
<http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2014/07/22/38484/hillary-clinton-on-ukraine-gaza-and-the-hard-choic/>*

By AirTalk

July 22, 2014, 10:38 a.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded on Tuesday to charges
from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that she is a "20th century candidate" by
defending the Obama administration's first term and saying that "every
election is about the future."

On Morning Edition Tuesday, Rubio said:

"I think she's extremely vulnerable on her record. The truth of the matter
is she was the Secretary of State during an administration that has had
virtually no major successes on foreign policy. In fact, their failures on
foreign policy are stark, and we'll remind them of them every single day,
and she'll have to answer for that. And the other is I think she's just a
20th century candidate."

Clinton is currently touring the U.S. promoting her new memoir "Hard
Choices," in which she writes about the four years she served as the
nation's top diplomat under President Barack Obama. We were lucky enough to
snag some time with her to discuss a number of issues, including Rubio's
comments on her potential candidacy.

On Rubio's '20th century candidate' remark:

"I wrote a whole book called 'Hard Choices' that details a lot of the
important successes of the first term of President Obama (and maybe I
should send a copy of it to my Republican friends). Secondly, elections are
about differences, as we know, but every election is about the future and
certainly anyone who wishes to run for president has to make it clear how
the experience that you've had in the past and what you believe and how you
have acted on those beliefs will translate into positive results for the
American people.

"I will be standing up and speaking out in favor of the changes that I
think we need to make to improve life for middle-class Americans, to give
every kid a chance to go to college without being bankrupted and disabled
by student debt, to try and resolve our immigration challenges in a way
that is keeping with our values, and so much else. I know that elections
are about the future and I look forward in engaging in that kind of debate."

On whether she'll run for president:

"We have an election this November, which is a pretty consequential one,
because it'll determine the control of the Senate, and obviously I strongly
am committed to doing what I can to keep the Senate in Democratic hands.
And so I think we all should be focused on that election and not look ahead
to 2016. But by the end of the year, or early next year, people will start
making decisions, and of course, I will be among them...

"You certainly have to make the decision, when and how you go pubic with
it, that's up to each individual, but from my perspective, I think it's
incredibly important that we stay focused on these midterm elections — that
historically have a lower turnout than presidential elections — because so
much is at stake. After we've done everything we can for the 2014
elections, the Democratic Party, the country, we can turn our attention to
the upcoming presidential race."

On medical marijuana and federal enforcement:

"Honestly, I don't think we've done enough research yet to say what the
effects are and what they could be on different people with different
physical or psychological issues, different ages — yes, medical first and
foremost, we ought to be doing more to make sure that we know how marijuana
would interact with other prescription drugs and the like. But we also have
to know how even medical marijuana impacts our kids and our communities.

But the states are the laboratories of democracy, and we're seeing states
pass laws that enable their citizens to have access to medical marijuana
under certain conditions, so we have the opportunity to try to study those.
And then Colorado and Washington have proceeded to permit recreational use.
And at the same time, we're seeing the beginnings of important criminal
justice reforms.

So I'm a big believer in acquiring evidence, and I think we should see what
kind of results we get, both from medical marijuana and from recreational
marijuana before we make any far-reaching conclusions... I think the feds
should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and
how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in
states, so there can't be a total absence of law enforcement, but what I
want to see, and I think we should be much more focused on this, is really
doing good research so we know what it is we're approving."

On teacher tenure and the Vergara decision:

"I haven't read the Vergara decision, so I don't know the details, but I
would make just a few points. First, I think everybody should agree that
good teachers are at the heart of high-quality learning, and we need more
cooperative partnerships between innovative unions, especially at the local
level, and with local school districts, with parents, with teachers, and
not the adversarial approach that I think has not worked to the benefit of
our kids. And we have to get back to what really does work for kids,
because these education debates are really toxic.

...

Anything that stands truly in the way based on reliable evidence to the
well-being and educational attainment of our most disadvantaged kids we
should tackle systematically. But I think it's probably unwise to be making
education decisions by judicial decision."

On the conflict in Israel and Gaza:

We obviously want to help bring an end to the conflict in Gaza, we also
want to support Israel’s right to self-defense. And we want to ensure that
lethal rockets don’t continue to make their way to Gaza under the control
of Hamas. You may have heard that American airlines have just been ordered
by the FAA not to fly into Ben Gurion Airport because a rocket just landed
very close to Ben Gurion Airport.  So that certainly is an issue that we
have to be paying attention to.

Similarly, with Ukraine, when an unarmed civilian commercial airplane is
shot down by insurgents who have been armed and equipped by Russia, that
raises a lot of issues for anybody in America who is flying these days, so
you have to look at all of this in a thoughtful way, and you have to meet
high bars to do anything that might lead to anything with military support.

...I’ve been on the phone many times with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I have
a whole chapter in my book about negotiating the November 2012 cease fire
that prevented a ground invasion by the Israelis into Gaza, because at that
time Hamas was firing rockets into Israel…I would certainly be urging that
he try to accomplish the military objectives — which I have to say Larry,
are legitimate ones: To destroy the tunnels that are providing pathways
into Israel by armed Hamas fighters and destroy the stockpiles of rockets
that are getting more accurate and raining down now on the entire territory
of Israel — and I would say, 'Mr. Prime Minister, please move as carefully
and expeditiously as is possible to finish the military objectives, because
although you do have a right to protect your country, we want to do
everything we can to limit, if not eliminate, civilian casualties... I
would urge the prime minister to accept any additional offers of cease
fire, because Israel should demonstrate its willingness to end the military
conflict, but of course, Hamas should be required to do the same."

On the embassy attack in Benghazi:

"I took general responsibility immediately, because I was responsible for
the State Department and the people there, but as I write in a very
thorough chapter in my book, I am not a security expert. I would not
pretend to be one… Obviously it was a tragic event, and I immediately put
together an independent review board and they found that there were
problems in the assessment of security requests in the department…

I think it’s important for Americans to realize that our facilities around
the world are often attacked. We had a terrible attack with Ronald Reagan
was president — 258 Americans killed in Beirut. There were attacks when my
husband was president. We lost 12 Americans and many Africans in attacks on
our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania… It’s a dangerous world out there and
we do the best we can, but we don’t retreat. We don’t say, 'OK, it’s a
dangerous world, therefore we can’t be out there, and we can’t be picking
up information, and we can’t representing the United States.'"

Guests:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, author of the new memoir, Hard Choices (Simon &
Schuster, 2014). She served as the United States Secretary of State from
2009 to 2013 and is former senator from New York from 2001 to 2009

Jonathan Wilcox, Republican Strategist; former speechwriter for Governor
Pete Wilson

Matt Rodriguez, Democratic strategist, Rodriguez Strategies; former senior
Obama advisor in 2008

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Hillary Clinton responds to Rubio:
‘Every election is about the future’”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/22/hillary-clinton-responds-to-rubio-every-election-is-about-the-future/>*

By Sean Sullivan

July 22, 2014, 4:46 p.m. EDT

Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton responded Tuesday to Sen.
Marco Rubio's charge that she is a "20th century candidate," suggesting
that all elections are about what's next.

"I know that elections are about the future, and I would look forward in
engaging in that kind of debate," Clinton said in an interview with
"Airtalk" on Southern California public radio station KPCC.

Clinton said that voters need to evaluate a candidate's record to determine
how the candidate will behave in the future.

"Every election is about the future. And certainly anyone who wishes to run
for president has to make it clear how the experience that you've had in
the past and what you believe and how you have acted on those beliefs will
translate into positive results for the American people," Clinton said.
"And I will be standing up and speaking out in favor of the changes that I
think we need to make."

Clinton sounded like a presidential candidate, vowing to take on issues
like student loan debt, immigration and improving the lives of middle class
Americans. But she reiterated that has not decided whether she will run in
2016.

Rubio (R-Fla.), who is also a potential candidate, suggested in an
interview broadcast earlier in the day that Clinton does not offer a
forward-looking platform.

"I just think she's a 20th century candidate," Rubio told NPR in an
interview published Tuesday. "I think she does not offer an agenda for
moving America forward in the 21st century -- at least not up to now."

Rubio also criticized President Obama's foreign policy, insisting that
Clinton has an "extremely vulnerable" record on that front.

Clinton responded by pointing to the accomplishment she details in her
book, "Hard Choices."

"Maybe I should send a copy of it to my Republican friend," she quipped.

*Associated Press: “Seeking The Limelight, Biden Courts Key Dem Groups”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIDEN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 22, 2014, 6:17 p.m. EDT

Caught in Hillary Rodham Clinton's perpetual shadow, Joe Biden is working
to boost his political profile among key Democratic voting blocs, a move
that could help the vice president fashion himself as a more liberal
alternative in the 2016 presidential race.

Major speeches this week to the NAACP and the Urban League will give Biden
prime opportunities to court African-American voters who twice helped
deliver the White House to President Barack Obama. He'll do his part to
help Democrats in the battleground state of Nevada at a campaign rally
Wednesday. And last week, Biden wooed liberals at a pair of grassroots
summits, basking in the adoration of activists who chanted "We love Joe."

Biden knows he's not the first name that comes to mind as the Democratic
Party's likeliest next presidential candidate. That distinction belongs to
Clinton, who dominates in early primary polls and has well-funded political
groups trying to draft her to run.

But in recent days, Biden has emerged as a frequent headliner for
left-leaning groups, keeping his name high on the list of Democrats who
could challenge Clinton or pursue the nomination if she doesn't run. He's
joined on that list by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Maryland
Gov. Martin O'Malley, who are pitching populist themes that appeal to those
in the party's liberal wing who insist Clinton doesn't have a lock on the
nomination.

"I don't take a back seat to anyone when it comes to fighting some of the
toughest progressive battles the country has seen," Biden said last week in
an energetic speech in Detroit to Netroots Nation.

A day earlier, Biden was at Generation Progress in Washington, where he
said he'd been on the "front lines" promoting liberal priorities such as
income equality and climate change. He reminded listeners of his early
backing for gay marriage, noting how he'd come out in support ahead of
Obama. Left unsaid: He also beat Clinton to the cause.

Biden hasn't announced whether he'll run in 2016, but he maintains close
ties to early voting states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina,
and is fundraising aggressively for Democrats this year. He's also
differentiated himself from Clinton by stressing his lack of personal
wealth just as Clinton was getting flak for raking in massive speaking
fees, declaring recently that he was once "the poorest man in Congress."

Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist, said if Biden is considering
another run, putting himself in front of the Democratic base is exactly the
right strategy.

"Until somebody announces, this is anyone's game," Cardona said. "If the
vice president knows that he's interested in this, it would be politically
stupid for him not to be doing what he's doing."

Biden's string of speeches comes as advocacy groups across the country are
convening for their annual conventions, and it's not unusual for vice
presidents to appear at such events. The vice president's office said Biden
doesn't have any other speaking engagements scheduled for the foreseeable
future.

Biden's remarks Wednesday in Las Vegas to the NAACP, the nation's oldest
civil rights organization, precede a Thursday speech at the National Urban
League Conference in Ohio, another key presidential state. In between,
Biden will rally for House candidate Erin Bilbray, who is running to unseat
Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev. Although Heck is outpacing Bilbray in fundraising,
the race has attracted national attention from Democrats.

*Associated Press: “Pat Schroeder: Clinton Would Face ‘Subdued Sexism’”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TV_CRITICS_WATCH_PAT_SCHROEDER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 22, 2014, 9:02 p.m. EDT

Former House Democrat Pat Schroeder predicts that Hillary Clinton would
face "a lot of sexism" if she decides to run for president in 2016.

Schroeder served in the House from 1973 to 1997 as the first woman elected
to Congress from Colorado. Now 73, she appears in "Makers: Women in
Politics," a film airing this fall on PBS.

She was asked about Clinton on Tuesday at a summer TV critics' meeting.

"She's still going to have a lot of sexism," Schroeder said. "I can't
believe there's people saying can she still be a grandmother and be a
president. There are people making snide comments about her age. It's a
little more subdued sexism, but it's very much there."

Clinton, 66, has yet to announce whether she intends to run in 2016. The
former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state will become a
grandmother this year when her daughter Chelsea gives birth.

Schroeder said she believes Clinton would bring a different approach to
working with critics than President Obama.

"She understands how mean they are and she understands she's got to come
back at them with more force," Schroeder said. "Obama thought he could
bring everyone together. That just isn't working in Washington right now."

Schroeder ran for president but withdrew from contention in September 1987.
While in Congress, she was the first woman to serve on the House Armed
Services Committee.

She balanced congressional work with motherhood early in her tenure and was
known for her focus on work-family issues.

*Real Clear Politics: “Bachmann Says She Might Seek Presidency in 2016”
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/22/bachmann_says_she_might_seek_presidency_in_2016_123419.html>*

By Scott Conroy

July 22, 2014

Though set to retire from the U.S. House after her term expires at the end
of this year, Michele Bachmann may not be done with electoral politics.

The Minnesota congresswoman and 2012 Republican presidential candidate told
RealClearPolitics on Tuesday that she is considering a second White House
run.

Bachmann made the revelation during an interview, in which she was asked
for her view on whether any Republican women might seek the Oval Office in
2016.

“The only thing that the media has speculated on is that it’s going to be
various men that are running,” she replied. “They haven’t speculated, for
instance, that I’m going to run. What if I decide to run? And there’s a
chance I could run.”

Bachmann entered the last presidential race in June 2011 as a long-shot
contender but was able to use her sway with elements of the Tea Party and
an effective media campaign to rise temporarily toward the front of the
Republican pack in a deeply fluid race.

The high point of her candidacy came in August 2011 when she won the Ames
Straw Poll in Iowa.

But Bachmann’s campaign soon withered amid a string of gaffes and
controversial claims, staff defections, and a rise in the fortunes of other
candidates in the race.

She ended up finishing in sixth place in the Iowa caucuses less than five
months after her Ames triumph, earning just 5 percent of the vote and
dropping out the next day.

The four-term congresswoman that she would “certainly” reap the benefits of
having run once before, if she were to launch a second White House bid.

“Like with anything else, practice makes perfect,” she said. “And I think
if a person has gone through the process -- for instance, I had gone
through 15 presidential debates -- it’s easy to see a person’s improvement
going through that.”

In November 2012, Bachmann barely managed to hold onto her 6th District
seat, defeating hotel executive Jim Graves by 4,298 votes. Last May, she
announced that she would not seek a fifth term in the House.

Bachmann told RCP that if she decides to run for president again, she will
make sure that she has a strong campaign infrastructure in place.

“I haven’t made a decision one way or another if I’m going to run again,
but I think the organization is probably the key,” she said. “To have an
organization and people who surround you who are loyal, who are highly
competent, who know how to be able to run the ball down the field in state
after state -- because now I think the primary process will be very
different this time. It will tighten up; it will be a much shorter run than
it was before.”

Bachmann said that she is looking at “a lot of different options” for her
post-congressional life and that another presidential campaign is just one
of them.

If she were to run again, Bachmann could struggle to be seen as a credible
candidate in what is expected to be a far stronger Republican field in 2016
than the one that she competed in four years earlier.

But in the interview, Bachmann alluded to her fundraising prowess as a
reason she should be taken seriously, calling herself “one of the top -- if
not the top -- fundraisers in the history of the United States Congress.”

“And it’s because people saw that I had an authentic voice, and I was
fighting for them,” she said. “I wasn’t speaking to them like a politician.
I was speaking like a real person who was fighting for what they believed
in.”

Asked to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton’s
potential candidacy, Bachmann said that the presumed 2016 Democratic
frontrunner has “fatal problems” related to her tenure as secretary of
state that should “disqualify her” from the nation’s highest office.

Bachmann suggested that she would zero in on making her own 2016 decision
soon after she wraps up her tenure in the House.

“I think it’s important to have sufficient time to lay the necessary
groundwork to have a really solid campaign and a campaign team put
together,” she said. “And I think probably I would think about that
decision earlier than I did last time.”

*Wall Street Journal opinion: William A. Galston, Brookings Institution:
“The Big 2016 Foreign Policy Debates”
<http://online.wsj.com/articles/william-a-galston-the-big-2016-foreign-policy-debates-1406071181>*

By William A. Galston

July 22, 2014, 7:19 p.m. EDT

These are tough times for internationalists, liberal and conservative
alike. George W. Bush's overreach in Iraq undermined public support for the
use of American power overseas, and Barack Obama has done nothing to
rebuild it. Large majorities of Americans believe that our involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan was a mistake. A July 21 Politico survey of likely
voters in battleground states found that only 39% think that we have a
responsibility to do something about the mess we left behind in Mesopotamia.

The survey also found that by a margin of 3 to 1, Americans reject the
sweeping vision Mr. Bush enunciated in his second inaugural address and
would instead confine the use of American military power to direct threats
to our national security. In the same poll, completed before the downing of
the Malaysia Airlines 3786.KU -2.17% passenger plane, only 17% thought we
should get more involved in the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine.

The desire for some nation-building here at home is palpable and
understandable. Nevertheless, the forthcoming presidential campaign is
likely to feature an unusually spirited debate—within as well as between
the parties—about America's role in the world.

The outline of this debate among Republicans is easy to foresee. Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul has articulated a coherent message of government restraint
abroad as well as at home and has proved adept at making a
libertarian-leaning agenda more broadly acceptable to conservatives. The
young adults who flocked to his father's rallies seem especially receptive
to his critique of military intervention and NSA surveillance. Texas Gov.
Rick Perry, whose political instincts seem to have improved since 2012, has
publicly challenged Mr. Paul for his alleged isolationism, and Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio has positioned himself as his generation's torchbearer for a
muscular internationalism based on American leadership.

Most Republican contenders are likely to side with their party's
national-defense orthodoxy of recent decades. Still, Mr. Paul's
self-confidence and political skills could carry him far in a divided field
and might even gain him the nomination. That would be an earthquake within
the Republican Party and present a tough choice for staunch hawks like John
McCain and Lindsey Graham. Mr. McCain has publicly said as much.

Although it may not occur, the Democrats are poised for a similar debate.
The only significant difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in
2008 was her vote for the Iraq war, which probably cost her the
presidential nomination. Little has changed. During her tenure as secretary
of state, Mrs. Clinton was among the administration's toughest voices
during internal debates. She supported the use of American air power in
Libya, and the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden. (Both Vice
President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed it.)

Strong legal support from Mrs. Clinton's State Department for President
Obama's expansive use of drones surprised many observers. She was an
advocate for the 2009 surge of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and favored
maintaining a residual American force in Iraq after the end of our combat
missions. While not opposed to nuclear negotiations with Iran, she has
expressed mistrust about Iranian intentions and has opposed a policy of
"containing" a nuclear-armed Tehran if diplomacy fails. As president, it
seems reasonable to conclude, Mrs. Clinton would make decisions about using
American power based on prudential considerations, not instinctive aversion.

For the record: Even though I opposed the Iraq war from the start, I
believe that Hillary Clinton's judgment on defense and foreign policy
issues has been right far more often than it was wrong and that she would
serve our country well as commander in chief.

But rank-and-file Democrats are no less dovish today than they were in
2008. Although attention has focused recently on the clash between
"populist" and "Wall Street" Democrats, the potential for an intraparty
debate on foreign policy seems just as real. While Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren has consistently denied her intention to run if Mrs.
Clinton enters the race, Vice President Biden has made no such pledge.
Estes Kefauver, the 1956 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, once
remarked that the only known cure for persistent presidential ambition was
"embalming fluid."

Mr. Biden is well-positioned to wage a left-leaning campaign on foreign
policy as well as economic issues. Although he voted for the Iraq-war
authorization in 2002, he argued vehemently against the Bush
administration's surge in 2007, proposing instead the quasi-partition of
Iraq into autonomous Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite zones. As vice president, he
argued just as hard against Gen. David Petraeus's proposal (backed by
then-Secretary of State Clinton) for a massive military surge and
nation-building policy in Afghanistan. And he has taken U.S. military
action against Iran off the table, declaring that "war with Iran is not
just a bad option. It would be a disaster."

These issues matter, not just for the U.S., but for the world. During the
Cold War, American retreat usually meant Soviet advance. Now it most often
means anarchy. The question is whether the American people can be persuaded
that they should care.

*Politico Magazine: Daniel Halper: “My Battle With the Clintons”
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/battle-with-the-clintons-109254.html?ml=m_po#.U8-V5vldV8E>*

By Daniel Halper

July 22, 2014

When I started to write Clinton, Inc: The Audacious Rebuilding of a
Political Machine, I knew the reaction to expect. I was well aware that the
former (and perhaps future) first family and its massive retinue of loyalty
enforcers, professional defamers and assorted gadflies would rue my intent
to examine the real Clintons—especially in my search for the real Chelsea
Clinton, who until now has been a media-protected nonperson despite her
aggressive public activities on her family’s behalf and despite raking in
hundreds of thousands of dollars from her role as former first daughter.

MSNBC’s David Shuster learned this the hard way when he was suspended from
the network for saying, “But doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being
pimped out in some weird sort of way?” in a live TV hit on how the former
first daughter was being used by her mother’s 2008 campaign. The Clintons
hit the roof over the single relatively banal comment, as I report in my
book, and lobbied the head of parent company GE to get Shuster off the air.

I also had a feeling that some of the sources I spoke to, for and not-for
attribution, including alleged Clinton mistresses who’ve stayed out of the
press and remain loyal to Bill, would alert the Clintons to what I was
doing and help them prepare a counterattack.

But even if I hadn’t known it, many, many people in Washington, on the left
and right, popped up to warn me of what to expect from the Clinton PR team.
Other authors—legitimate ones with serious pedigrees—who’d written about
the Clintons said they were threatened and verbally attacked. Of course,
nearly everyone in Washington has seen the much-vaunted Clinton PR machine
in action. It’s very predictable. Here’s how it works:

1) Media intimidation tactics: Following their usual method of operation,
the first thing Team Clinton would do is attempt a media blackout. A
producer with CNN said I’d never be able to get any airtime on her show
because the Clintons punish networks that give space to their perceived
enemies. So far, even claims in my book that were well sourced with
on-the-record quotes—such as Bill Clinton offering counsel to John McCain
in how to defeat Barack Obama in 2008—have been all but ignored by the
mainstream media.

2) Defame and attack: There would be repeated efforts to turn me into a
kook or right-wing hit man. Though they haven’t yet gone so far to label me
a “crazed stalker” like they did with Monica Lewinsky, the reliable Clinton
aide Nick Merrill has repeatedly deployed a classic Clinton spin line on my
work—before it was even on sale, mind you, and presumably he hadn’t yet
read it. “It’s sad to see Daniel Halper join the discredited and disgraced
ranks” of other authors supposedly out to get them at all costs, he emailed
the Huffington Post. Sadly, I received no credit from the Clintons or from
Merrill for the praise of both Bill (that he’s a “political genius) and
Hillary (that she’s “intensely likable”) in various parts of the book.
Merrill also claimed I was just out “to make a buck.” Which I take it means
that Bill and Hillary Clinton donated all the proceeds of their millions in
book deals to charity?

3) The “old news” trick: A favorite gambit is to make any allegation
unfavorable to the Clintons as old news. One of the best examples of this
came from Clinton media minder Philippe Reines about a book by Jeff Gerth:
“Is it possible to be quoted yawning?”Yawn. No biggie. You reporters are
fools for even covering it.

Daniel Halper is author of Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a
Political Machine and online editor of The Weekly Standard.

4) The dark arts: Some prominent media personalities with experience
covering the Clintons in the 1990s told me that their team would have no
problem with, say, copying every page of someone’s manuscript, sending it
out to reporters ahead of publication, and then depicting it as a
right-wing smear job. Funny thing, that exact thing happened with my book,
as POLITICO noted.

At first, I resisted the temptation to conclude the Clintons were behind
this, but now certain events have led me to believe the Clinton team has
had copies of this book for some time. Why might they leak the book early?
The best explanation is so that the book’s contents could come out well
before publication and the Clintons can then rely on another standard mode
of operation—denouncing any unfavorable allegations as “old news.”

***

In short, the Clinton team has been true to form so far. And I’m surprised
by little of it.

What has surprised me, however, is what the Clintonistas are already doing
to their own. In the introduction to my book, I describe what I was told
about the Clinton operation. As I put it there, “Nearly everyone in
Washington has a Clinton story, or two, or two hundred, but many are afraid
to air them publicly or on the record, out of fear of retribution or attack
from ruthless Clinton aides and their media allies. … Thus it is pretty
clear why less powerful figures inside Clinton, Inc. insist on anonymity.
The panic among Clintonites, past and present, is palpable.”

It’s one thing to hear about it in the abstract. It’s quite another to see
it in action. To wit:

While I was still reporting on my book, James Carville’s office called,
seemingly out of the blue, to grill me on whom I’d already spoken to. I
obviously refused to indulge the questioner.

Someone from Bill Clinton’s publisher went to mine, HarperCollins, asking
questions about my book and what I might be planning.

I write in my book that “Clintonites are known to scour through magazine
articles and books to try to decipher blind quotes and tie them to a
suspect.” I believed that was true. But now I know it is. This is in fact
happening with my book as I write this, I’ve learned, and has been
happening for days, if not weeks. Some are throwing other people to the
wolves.

Other Clintonites named in the book are heading for the hills. Some
preposterously denied that they ever talked to me. Perhaps it’s buyer’s
remorse—but more likely they know the Clinton code of omerta.

I’ve found the task of covering the Clintons fascinating. They’re not
exactly the people we see on television. Although many believe Hillary is
the cold, calculating and cunning Clinton and Bill is the emotive and
gregarious, the exact opposite seems to be a more accurate portrayal of who
they really are. As for Chelsea? It would appear from tip to toe she’s
daddy’s little girl—and the wizard behind the curtain.

It’s been a wild ride, and I’ve really been intrigued by my encounters with
some of the (many) kooky characters in Clinton, Inc.

Maybe I’ll have to do a sequel.

*Washington Free Beacon: Daniel Halper: “Chasing Hillary”
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/chasing-hillary/>*

By Daniel Halper

July 23, 2014, 5:00 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Book: Biden, O’Malley, Schweitzer, Klobuchar, Emanuel, Cuomo,
and Warren preparing to run if Hillary Clinton bows out

Among Democrats who hope Hillary Clinton doesn’t run—and their number is
larger than one might think—the complaints are familiar. Age and stamina
are the obvious considerations. “Look at Obama’s hair color, just like
George Bush’s,” says a prominent Washington insider. “Somebody who’s
seventy shouldn’t be president. And I think that’s going to be an
interesting issue against her, but who in the Democratic Party is going to
have the guts to take on that machine?” A former Clinton campaign adviser
is equally blunt. “This is gonna sound superficial”—which is an
understatement—“but men do age better than women,” he says. “At seventy
she’s not gonna be—it’s not gonna be great.”

Democrats fear she is too radioactive. One of many prominent D.C. Democrats
who will only comment on background out of fear of inciting Clintonian
wrath complains that “she will lose the general because her negatives are
so high.” Then there is the not-so-secret fact that she is not a very good
candidate. Hillary is often compared to the kind of politician always
better in concept than as an actual flesh-and-blood candidate. Many compare
her unfavorably to Al Gore or John Kerry or even Mitt Romney, stiff policy
wonks with difficulty making personal connections.

Some will chalk this up to sexism—or at least the difference between men
and women politicians. It is not that Hillary is not a good politician,
they will say, but that American politics is not used to female candidates.
“We are only now growing used to the style of women in politics. You know,
they’re not backslappers, even if they are natural politicians,” says
political adviser Bob Shrum, who helped lead Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s
presidential campaigns. Hillary, he insists, has grown into a natural
politician.

But the real question being asked in Washington is not whether Hillary can
be beaten as such, as it is whether any prominent Democrat has the guts to
try to stop her.

The most obvious primary challenger, of course, is the one most often
discounted. Vice President Joe Biden will turn seventy-four in late 2016.
Gaffe-prone and perennially underestimated, Biden is expected to quietly
step aside for the Clintons, with whom he’s had a long and friendly
relationship. Unless, of course, you ask Joe Biden.

Maybe Obama has forgotten all the trash talk Hillary leveled against Obama
back then—but Biden hasn’t. “You decide which makes more sense—entrust our
country to someone who is ready on Day One . . . or to put America in the
hands of someone with little national or international experience, who
started running for president the day he arrived in the United States
Senate,” Hillary Clinton told a reporter in 2007. “He was a part-time state
senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately
started running for president,”1 she said in early 2007. And that was just
the stuff she said on the record.

After Hillary left the secretary of state’s office, the world went on, and
so did the administration. If anything, it was hard to notice she was gone.
Except for personnel: Obama was free to shift over his traveling campaign
press secretary, Jen Psaki, the dashing redhead who had been so harsh to
Hillary on the campaign trail in 2008 that she was not allowed near the
State Department until Hillary was out of Foggy Bottom. And most of the
Clinton loyalists who had come to the State Department four years earlier
left to cool their heels in various positions out of government while
Hillary cooled hers.

On policy, John Kerry, some thought, did more for the administration in his
first year than she did in her four years. He was able to carry out a key
goal of President Obama’s, by beginning to work out the structure of what
could be a landmark deal with Iran. And with respect to Syria, Kerry gained
plaudits from pundits—and the dovish Obama—for his ability to wage
hard-nosed diplomacy by publicly signaling that a deal brokered with the
Russians could avert an American strike in the Middle East country. Hillary
didn’t accomplish any of that. Instead, she claimed credit for the miles
she flew, as if that mattered.

A former high-ranking official in the Clinton administration recently spoke
to his friend Biden about Hillary’s 2016 maneuvering.

“You going to step aside for her?” he asked. “No,” the vice president
replied confidently. “Fuck no.”  Traditionally Biden’s stance might pose
problems for Hillary. After all, vice presidents tend to win the
nominations of their parties. But Biden has a major drawback. He lacks the
support, even the quiet support, of the president he serves.

None of this has stopped the vice president from making plans, however.
Biden has run for president twice before—in 1988, when he was forced to
drop out over plagiarism charges, and again in 2008, when he was barely an
asterisk against Obama and Clinton. And he still has the bug, fiercely
jealous of the tendency in the press to write him off in favor of endless
stories about Hillary’s maneuverings.

“And let me not forget Joe Biden, because he will call me this after- noon
and remind me,” Democrat Donna Brazile once half joked during a Sunday talk
show appearance where she discussed the Clinton campaign in waiting.

She isn’t the only one. The vice president or his senior aides at his
behest will call reporters, pundits, anyone he feels is not giving his
candidacy the credibility it deserves. He wants respect.

Though stranger things have happened in politics—like a one-term senator
defeating the Clintons in 2008—few give Biden much chance of a surprise
victory. One former Senate colleague says Biden could never be president.
“He makes people like him, but lack of discipline is his weakness,” the
senator says. “She’s far more disciplined and calculating.”

“If you take a look at every important thing that’s come out of the White
House, Biden’s had his finger on it,” says a Clinton aide. “So, people
underestimate Biden, and part of being a VP is being derided to a certain
extent.” Still, he adds, “He can’t beat Hillary in ’16 because she starts
with eighteen million votes. Everyone that voted for her in ’08 wants her
to run again.”

Shrum agrees. “I think [Biden] will recognize that reality,” he says.

Allies of the vice president of course disagree with this assessment. Biden
also knows there is a chance that the Clintons are bluffing. Signaling that
she’s running for president to get attention, speaking fees, book deals,
but not really ready to hop in. Biden, too, is gambling on her health.

So are some Republicans. “I must admit I’m completely befuddled,” admits
Bush strategist Karl Rove. “My brain says yes, she’s the front- runner. My
gut tells me we don’t know everything about the health issue.”

But if Hillary is bluffing, she’s doing an excellent job. Leaving nothing
to chance, the undeclared candidate has gone out of her way to take swipes
at Biden—something she wouldn’t likely do if her 2016 effort is just a
feint. At a private event in Georgia in 2013, for example, she was asked a
question about the bin Laden raid. “She took 25 minutes to answer,” a
Republican state legislator present at the gathering told the Atlanta
newspaper. “Time and time again . . . Clinton mentioned the vice
president’s opposition to the raid, while characterizing herself and Leon
Panetta, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as the action’s
most fierce advocates, the paper reported.”

Dr. Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, is said to be actively “counting
down the days” until she can return to “normal” life. Some close to the
Bidens speculate that she would “kill him if he decided to run for
president.” Especially a race she doesn’t think he can win. That appears to
be the only thing holding back a potential Biden 2016 run.

Among those not so secretly preparing the ground in case of a Hillary
demurral: Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota; Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel;
and New York governor Andrew Cuomo. But they seem to believe, as one
Democratic strategist put it, that “Hillary gets the first right of
refusal.”

Observers believe the more potent threat is the little-known but aggressive
governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley. O’Malley would be fifty-four years
old on Inauguration Day 2017—fifteen years younger than Hillary Clinton. He
is a handsome man with impeccable liberal credentials, and “a fucking
political animal,” according to Maryland politicos who know him.

Political consultants in Maryland say O’Malley is someone who could do
serious damage to Hillary Clinton in the primary. One listed his assets in
a race against the frontrunner: “He is mean. He has a long history of
negative campaigning. He’s a good fundraiser.” In other words he’s a
younger Bill Clinton.

“He’s very Bill Clinton-esque,” another consultant says. “He’s very good
shaking hands and politicking.” He’s even rumored to have women issues like
the former president, though none have ever been proven.

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who might have been expected to
support O’Malley in a primary challenge, especially considering his
implicit criticisms of the Clintons when Dean ran for president himself in
2004, has fallen under the Clinton sway. The once-maverick liberal
firebrand has become increasingly establishment—in fact, he chaired the
Democratic National Committee during the Obama-Hillary race. “I will
support her against any other foreseeable Democratic candidate,” Dean told
me. But he held open at least a little wiggle room. “I like Martin O’Malley
a lot.”

Disclosing that he had a recent conversation with O’Malley—“I’m not going
to tell you what the conversation was,” he snapped—he adds, “I think
O’Malley is very serious” about running for president in 2016.

By setting himself up as Obama’s true heir, O’Malley is poised to run to
Hillary’s left. He’s been an enthusiastic backer of Obamacare and vowed to
lead the nation in sign-ups for the controversial program. Major Democrats
know that he’s going to be a problem for her. So they’re trying to find a
way to give him something to do. He’s tested the New Hampshire waters,
according to CNN, where he played a video summary of his career starting as
mayor of Baltimore, which said, “Martin O’Malley formulated an assault on
hopelessness.” And it claimed that he transformed Baltimore while curbing
crime and took his good governance to the Maryland State House in
Annapolis. It was a three-and-a-half-minute-long campaign “video befitting
a national political convention-style rollout,” said CNN. And of course it
was released in New Hampshire, traditionally the first state in the nation
to hold a primary. As a Maryland Republican says, “He’s running, unless
they buy him off.”

The most obvious payoff, of course, would be the vice presidency. A former
Clinton aide envisions a scenario in which Hillary offers him the job to
keep him out of the race, or to have him run as a “puppet” opposition
candidate. “He’s good looking, Irish Catholic, and young,” the aide
reasons. “She’s gonna need some youth, so Martin is the logical pick.”

Brian Schweitzer, a former Democratic governor from Montana, is another
wild card. He’s positioning himself as an anti-corporatist, gun- toting
populist who’s not shy about bringing up Hillary’s support for both the war
in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. He’s already done that in Iowa, the
state to hold the first caucus in the nation—and one where Hillary got
tripped up in 2008 when she lost the contest there to Obama.

Antiwar rhetoric is a political weapon that’s previously proven to be
lethal on the political left—after all, it’s not at all dissimilar from the
public positions that Barack Obama was able to use to undercut the
candidacy of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Schweitzer might not be known yet, but that doesn’t mean he can’t level the
primary field just by appearing in many debates (and performing well)
before a nationally broadcast audience.

The same is true for Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Her very
candidacy would undercut Hillary’s bid to be the first female president and
her liberal credentials are superb. Before being a U.S. senator she was the
brains in the Obama administration behind the establishment of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau. She is no pragmatist. She is purely an
ideologue—which can be very helpful for riling up the base in a party
primary.

Then of course there is the possibility of California Gov. Jerry Brown, who
ran a stronger than expected primary campaign against Bill Clinton in 1992.
Brown, a popular and well-known figure on the political left, has refused
to rule out a run. But at seventy-six, and with a personal life that long
has been the subject of a whispering campaign, Brown is an unlikely threat.
He most likely seems to be basking in the attention that comes from having
his name mentioned.

*Calendar:*

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

·  ~ July 23-27 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Ameriprise
Financial Conference (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/george-w-bush-hillary-clinton-substitute-speaker-109010.html>
)

·  July 23 – Oakland, CA: Sec. Clinton helps launch new Too Small To Fail
effort in Oakland (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/491357078083371008>)

·  July 29 – Saratoga Springs, NY: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book
tour stop at Northshire Bookstore (Glens Falls Post-Star
<http://poststar.com/news/local/clinton-to-sign-books-in-spa-city/article_a89caca2-0b57-11e4-95a6-0019bb2963f4.html>
)

·  August 9 – Water Mill, NY: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the Clinton
Foundation at the home of George and Joan Hornig (WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/17/for-50000-best-dinner-seats-with-the-clintons-in-the-hamptons/>
)

·  August 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes Nexenta’s OpenSDx
Summit (BusinessWire
<http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140702005709/en/Secretary-State-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Deliver-Keynote#.U7QoafldV8E>
)

·  September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean
Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today
<http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html>
)

·  October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network
Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network
<http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>)

·  October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation
Annual Dinner (UNLV
<http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>)

·  ~ October 13-16 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes
salesforce.com Dreamforce
conference (salesforce.com
<http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/keynotes.jsp>)