Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday July 30, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:36:41 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Wednesday July 30, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: "If you gaze too deeply at Correct the
Record, you start to wonder if you’ve been too critical of the Clintons."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.single.html
…
<http://t.co/rcE5RC9HHI> [7/30/14, 12:42 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/494523487227482112>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: "Journalism," conservative-style! Step
1: Cry foul. Step 2: Investigate. Step 3: Find nothing. Step 4: Cry foul.
http://correctrecord.org/shame-on-america-rising-judicial-watch-right-wing-groups-cry-foul-when-attacks-proven-empty/
…
<http://t.co/VLMs3dklkB> [7/30/14, 11:35 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/494506510815612928>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: Shame on @AmericaRising
<https://twitter.com/AmericaRising> and shame on @JudicialWatch
<https://twitter.com/JudicialWatch> for yelling "fire" when there isn’t
even smoke.
http://correctrecord.org/shame-on-america-rising-judicial-watch-right-wing-groups-cry-foul-when-attacks-proven-empty/
…
<http://t.co/VLMs3dklkB> [7/3014,11:10 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/494500178205085696>]

*Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton worked to promote
trade, investment, economic opportunities between US & Africa #HRC365
http://1.usa.gov/1jPbmCi  <http://t.co/oMLJwx4uFD>[7/29/14, 4:30 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/494218341486043138>]

*Headlines:*

*Media Matters for America: “Chris Cillizza's Fixation On Hillary Clinton's
Wealth”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/30/chris-cillizzas-fixation-on-hillary-clintons-we/200250>*

[Subtitle:] “The Fix Has Devoted At Least 13 Posts To Clinton Wealth In
Just 2 Months”

*The Daily Beast: “Elizabeth Warren’s Biggest Donors Warn Her Not to Run
for President”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/30/elizabeth-warren-s-biggest-donors-say-she-d-be-out-of-her-mind-to-run-for-president.html>*

[Subtitle:] “As speculation about the Massachusetts senator’s presidential
ambitions swells, her biggest donors have one thing to say: There’s no way
on earth they’re backing her over Hillary Clinton.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Jeb Bush isn’t the Hillary Clinton of the
2016 GOP field. Not even close.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/30/jeb-bush-isnt-the-hillary-clinton-of-the-2016-gop-field-not-even-close/>*

“Bush is on the wrong side of the party's base on two of the issues that
stoke the most passion: immigration and Common Core.”

*NPR: “'Hard Choices' Tour Put Spotlight On Clinton's Strengths,
Weaknesses”
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/07/30/336468262/hard-choices-tour-put-spotlight-on-clintons-strengths-weaknesses>*

“While there once was a spirited debate about whether she would or wouldn't
run, there's now a consensus, which the book tour only cemented — Hillary
Clinton is running for president.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “$5 million, $50 million or even more
– just how rich is Hillary Clinton? Here’s why we don’t know.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/30/5-million-50-million-or-even-more-just-how-rich-is-hillary-clinton-heres-why-we-dont-know/>*

“‘It's hard really to come up with much more specifics than what [the
documents] give,’ said Tim Miller, who as executive director of America
Rising PAC, a Republican opposition research group, is in charge of helping
to shape GOP attacks on Clinton.”

*Fox News politics: “Head of Benghazi probe says no witnesses off limits,
including Clinton”
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/29/head-benghazi-probe-says-no-witnesses-off-limits-including-clinton/>*

“Asked whether he wants Hillary Clinton to testify, Gowdy said, ‘I want
everyone who has access to relevant information, and it is, I think,
impossible to argue that the secretary of State at the time would not have
access to relevant information...’”

*CNBC: John Harwood: “She's gone from Foggy Bottom, but global chaos still
hurts Hillary” <http://www.cnbc.com/id/101878690#.>*

“The chaos enveloping international relations this year has taken its toll
on President Barack Obama's approval rating and midterm election prospects
for his party. But it also hurts Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

*Baltimore Sun opinion: Bush Ambassador William L. Jacobsen Jr.: “President
Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-president-hillary-20140730,0,6029443.story>*

“The first few days of this Clinton presidency promise another historic
photo opportunity as newly inaugurated head of state, an attractive blond
woman taking care of the nation's business at her desk in the Oval Office —
a radiant, self-confident smile on her face.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Ryan will wait until 2015 to decide
on presidential run”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/30/ryan-will-wait-until-2015-to-decide-on-presidential-run/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost>*

“Rep. Paul Ryan said Wednesday that he is currently ‘focusing on policy,’
rather than his own political ambitions, and that he will wait until next
year to decide whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination in
2016.”

*The Onion [Satire]: “Hillary Clinton Spends Busy Day Fueling Speculation,
Not Ruling Things Out”
<http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-spends-busy-day-fueling-speculatio,36577/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:1:Default&recirc=travel>*

“Capping off a packed week of weighing options and giving serious thought,
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent a busy day in Washington
fueling speculation and not ruling things out, her spokesman confirmed
today.”

*Articles:*

*Media Matters for America: “Chris Cillizza's Fixation On Hillary Clinton's
Wealth”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/30/chris-cillizzas-fixation-on-hillary-clintons-we/200250>*

By Alexandrea Boguhn & Jeremy Holden

July 30, 2014

[Subtitle:] The Fix Has Devoted At Least 13 Posts To Clinton Wealth In Just
2 Months

In the past two months, Washington Post political reporter Chris Cillizza
has used his platform at The Fix to obsess over the question of whether
Hillary Clinton has sufficiently explained her family's wealth, dismissing
Clinton's comments on income inequality while offering conflicting advice
on how she should answer the question in a way that satisfies Chris
Cillizza and The Washington Post.

Cillizza's latest post came in response to an interview Hillary Clinton
gave to Fusion TV host Jorge Ramos that aired July 29. "Hillary Clinton
still hasn't found a good answer to questions about her wealth," according
to the July 29 headline over at The Fix. After crediting GOP opposition
research firm American Rising with focusing his attention on Clinton's
wealth, Cillizza concluded: "Until she finds three sentences (or so) to
button up any/all questions about her wealth, those questions will keep
coming. And that's not the way Clinton wants to run-up to her now
all-but-certain presidential bid."

This is the third time in two months that Cillizza has posted a column
fixated on Clinton's wealth and his belief that she is struggling to
explain it -- and the third time since June 22 that The Fix has turned to
America Rising to help define Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, a June NBC
News/Wall Street Journal/Annenberg poll found that 55 percent of Americans
say that Clinton relates to and understands average Americans.

"The Clintons are not 'average' people," Cillizza warned just a week before
that poll came out. He concluded by advising Clinton to stop talking about
her wealth and move on: "Instead of spending her time litigating just how
wealthy she is, Clinton should acknowledge her wealth and then spend the
vast majority of her rhetorical time making the case that through the
policies she has advocated and pursued, she has never lost sight of the
middle class."

The reality is that Clinton has already done exactly what Cillizza advises;
he just largely chooses to dismiss it. When Clinton has been asked about
her wealth, she has consistently paired her personal finances with
discussing her lifelong advocacy and work on behalf of the poor and middle
class.

"I want to create a level playing field so that once again, you can look a
child in the eye and you can tell them the truth, whether they're born in a
wealthy suburb or an inner city or a poor country community, you can point
out the realistic possibility that they will have a better life," Clinton
told The Guardian in June.

Cillizza actually acknowledged that Clinton "effectively" addressed
questions about her family's wealth by discussing her desire to "create
more ladders of opportunities for more Americans" during the very interview
he's criticizing. He just immediately dismissed her response as
insufficient to quiet the questions he insists will continue to plague her.

In early June, Cillizza chided Clinton for what he called a "slip up" after
she said she and her husband were "dead broke" after leaving the White
House. Comparing it to a moment during the 2008 presidential campaign when
Sen. John McCain struggled to recall how many homes his family owned,
Cillizza observed: "unless she does it again, it will likely be forgotten
in a week."

Since that time, The Fix has published at least 13 posts obsessing over
Clinton's wealth and the perception that she's struggling to explain it.

The Fix's obsession over Clinton's wealth is in line with a larger pattern
at The Washington Post. Since pointing to Clinton's comments on her
family's wealth as evidence that Clinton's book tour was "off to a bumpy
start" in a June 11 article, the Post has worked to create a perception
that Clinton has struggled to explain the question it keeps asking.
"Clinton's rarefied life could be a liability in campaign" a June 23 Post
headline warned in an article detailing how many homes Bill and Hillary
Clinton have while letting a George W. Bush advisor claim that Hillary
Clinton sounds "completely inauthentic."

Less than a week later, in an 1,800-word page 1 news article documenting
how much money Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned in speaking fees, the
Post claimed that the Clinton wealth "is now seen as a potential political
liability if she runs for president in 2016."

"You have a money problem," Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
argued on June
27. Marcus claimed that Clinton's "money problem" was rooted both in how
she talks about it and the fact that she was "still frenetically collecting
it."

"It's doubtful that the public holds the Clinton's wealth against them,"
Post columnist Dan Balz offered a day later, "so why was she so defensive
when the topic was raised?"

A better question is, if the public isn't concerned with the Clinton
wealth, why is the Post obsessed with it?

*The Daily Beast: “Elizabeth Warren’s Biggest Donors Warn Her Not to Run
for President”
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/30/elizabeth-warren-s-biggest-donors-say-she-d-be-out-of-her-mind-to-run-for-president.html>*

By David Freedlander

July 30, 2014

[Subtitle:] As speculation about the Massachusetts senator’s presidential
ambitions swells, her biggest donors have one thing to say: There’s no way
on earth they’re backing her over Hillary Clinton.

She “lit up” a gathering of liberal activists earlier this month with a
barn-burner of a speech calling on Democrats to push back hard as thousands
of attendees waved signs and chanted “Run, Liz, Run!” Her every denial that
she will not run for president is parsed down to the verb tense for
evidence that the door is open even a crack. She embarked on the kind of
nationwide book tour that candidates-in-waiting always do as they drum up
interest for a potential bid, and a “Ready for Elizabeth” draft movement is
preparing to launch satellite chapters in states and cities around the
country.

But if Elizabeth Warren does in fact reverse her repeated denials of
interest and decides to run for president, she will have to do so virtually
alone. That’s because almost to a person, her earliest and most devoted
backers do not want her to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic
nomination.

“If Elizabeth called me up and said, ‘I am thinking of running for
president,’ I would say, ‘Elizabeth, are you out of your goddamn mind?’”
said one New York-based donor who has hosted Warren in his living room. “I
really like Elizabeth, but if Hillary is in the race it just makes no
sense.”

This conversation was echoed again and again in more than a dozen
interviews with big-ticket Democratic donors in Warren’s hometown of
Cambridge, Massachusetts, and in cities that operate as ATMs for the
Democratic money machine, like New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and San
Francisco. Over and over again, the message was the same: Stay in the
Senate, Liz, stay in the Senate.

There are many reasons why Warren would want to mount a campaign. The
primary animating force of her political career—that the economy is
unfairly tilted toward the rich, and that the Wall Street banks are rigging
the game—has struck a chord with the activist wing of her party. And that
same activist wing doesn’t believe that Hillary Clinton, with her
six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs and her ties to the triangulating
policies of her husband, can carry that banner for them. Warren has become
a top Democratic surrogate in red states like Kentucky and West Virginia,
and in races across the country, “The Warren Wing” appears to be on the
march.

“There is a rising economic populist tide in America, and Elizabeth Warren
is the personification of that tide,” said Adam Green, the co-founder of
the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has been organizing to
make sure every presidential candidate is asked whether they agree with
Warren. “In the Democratic Party there is a battle between the economic
populist wing that fights for the little guy against the corporate wing,
and she represents the populist wing.”

Were she to run, Warren would face enormous challenges, mainly in that
Hillary Clinton remains historically popular with Democrats. But the fact
that the network of Democratic insiders who helped Warren raise a record
$42 million for her 2012 Senate bid want her to stand down in deference to
Clinton should all but end speculation that she will be a candidate.

“I think she is outstanding. She is articulate. She is persuasive. She can
hit a piece of bullshit from a hundred yards away,” said Victor A. Kovner,
a Manhattan lawyer who hosted Warren for a fundraiser way back in 2011.
But, he added, “I will be supporting Hillary in 2016. No question about
that.”

Some Democrats who say they support Hillary still want Warren in the race,
under the theory that it will give a platform to Warren’s ideas on the
economy that she cannot achieve while serving as one of 100 senators.

But Kovner, echoing other members of the Democratic donor class, rejects
this view. “People should run to win,” he said. “They shouldn’t run to have
a voice. That is what Herman Cain did.”

To be clear, the world of Warren-backers isn’t entirely ready for Hillary,
and some are holding out hope that the Massachusetts senator joins the race.

“I think it would be very good if she were the nominee,” said Marc Weiss, a
tech entrepreneur who helped fund a nascent Warren for Senate campaign soon
after she announced. “She is closer to my views on almost every issue. I
would be very enthusiastic if she decided to run.”

Clinton, Weiss said, was a good senator and secretary of state, but “the
problem I have with her is as a potential president is that she is too
comfortable with many of the forces that are with Wall Street. It is hard
to see how she would really be a voice for the middle class.”

Erica Sagrans, the campaign manager at Ready for Warren, dismissed the
notion that Warren would struggle to raise money if her fundraising network
went with Clinton. “She has proven to be a pretty successful fundraiser for
herself and for other candidates. I don’t see that as being a huge
challenge for her should she run.”

There is an argument to be made that a Warren candidacy would benefit
Clinton, even if the former secretary of state prevailed at the end. It
would, for one thing, give the Democratic Party a primary worth watching,
at a time when much of the action appears to be on the Republican side—and
Democrats who remember 2008 can recall how galvanizing that campaign was
for the party. Democrats maintain a sizeable demographic advantage, and the
GOP appears as if it may be on the verge of making the same mistakes it
made in the clownish 2012 nominating process.

But few of Warren’s biggest supporters want to risk it.

“I am not sure what value it would bring to have her run,” said Wayne
Shields, CEO of the Association for Reproductive Health Professionals, who,
along with Warren’s husband, hosted Warren at his house earlier in her
Senate candidacy. “She would be such a target for conservatives, it may end
up having a paradoxical effect on Democrats.”

One Massachusetts Democrat, who helped lay the groundwork for Warren’s
Senate run back when Warren was a Harvard professor mostly known as a
thwarted nominee to the newly created Consumer Finance Protection Bureau,
agreed:

“If she ran, it would tear apart the Democratic base even worse than
Hillary and Obama did. Whoever is pushing this is not doing the Democratic
Party any favors, and I wish it would stop.”

That feeling, and it is one echoed in other conversations among the donor
class, is that a Warren run would expose divisions in the Democratic
Party—between, in Adam Green’s words, the populist and the corporate
wings—that have lain largely dormant on the national level as Democrats
fear a Tea Party-controlled executive branch.

“It would galvanize a part of the left, and then the question becomes, how
do you keep them motivated for a general election?” said one Warren donor.
“She is a fresh face. She would get a lot of attention, which could hurt
Hillary.”

If Hillary decided not to run,  even Warren’s most devoted supporters doubt
that she could win the presidency.

“If Hillary comes out tomorrow and says, ‘I’m not running,’ obviously, this
becomes a difference question, but I still think she shouldn’t run,” said
one New York-based financial supporter. “She has so many holes in her
resume. Even Obama had more experience than she does.”

Added another California-based donor who has given thousands of dollars to
Warren’s political action committee, PAC for a Level Playing Field, “I
don’t think she would be a very good president. Two years ago she was a
college professor, for goodness sakes. She has one issue and she is a great
advocate for that one issue. She doesn’t have the breadth of experience
necessary to be president.”

And even those who say they would be the first to line up behind a Warren
candidacy say that part of them hopes she doesn’t do it. “Of course I would
be with her,” said one Massachusetts Democrat who was one of Warren’s
earliest supporters. “But this is Ted Kennedy’s seat. We know what can be
accomplished in a long Senate career—it is almost as much as can be
accomplished in the White House.”

Most of the Democratic donors interviewed for this article were quick to
point out that at that moment this is largely an academic discussion.
Warren has said repeatedly—and in some cases to these donors
personally—that she is not running for president. Those who have spoken to
Warren recently say that she seems quite content in the Senate, and they
doubt that she is ready to give up her life to run for president.

“I hear the chatter, but I also hear what Elizabeth Warren is saying, and
she has been pretty firm in answer to that question,” said Dennis Mehiel, a
New York-based donor who hosted Warren early on in her Senate campaign.

And if the answer to that question ever changed?

“I love Elizabeth. But I go back a very long way with Hillary.”

*Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Jeb Bush isn’t the Hillary Clinton of the
2016 GOP field. Not even close.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/30/jeb-bush-isnt-the-hillary-clinton-of-the-2016-gop-field-not-even-close/>*

By Chris Cillizza

July 30, 2014, 9:00 a.m. EDT

There's a tendency in political circles to equate Hillary Clinton and Jeb
Bush when it comes to the 2016 presidential race.  The thinking goes like
this: Both are popular members of political dynasties with deep policy and
political chops. And, if they both run for president, each has the inside
track to be their party's nominee.

That is absolutely true for Clinton.  It is not true for Bush.

CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation asked some 2016 horse-race
questions in their latest poll, which was released Sunday.

Clinton led the Democratic field with 67 percent of the vote.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has said repeatedly that she isn't
running, took 10 percent.  Joe Biden, who, not for nothing, is the Vice
President of the United States, received 8 percent.

Compare Clinton's massive edge with Bush's standing relative to the rest of
the GOP presidential contenders in the CNN/ORC survey. New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie is at the front of the pack with 13 percent, followed by
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 12 percent and Texas Gov. Rick Perry and
Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan at 11 percent each. Bush is at 8 percent, tied
with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in fifth place.

The Bush number in the CNN poll is even more unimpressive when you consider
that 2016 horse-race polling at this point is mostly a measure of name
identification. (No regular people are following the campaign and the
candidates -- such as they exist -- at the moment.) Bush, whose brother and
father have both been presidents of the United States, has the single most
recognizable last name in the Republican Party at the moment. And he still
sits in the middle of the pack.

But, the problems with the Bush-as-clear-frontrunner idea go deeper than
just the horse race. Dig into the CNN/ORC poll and you see that, among
self-identified conservatives, Bush gets just 7 percent -- behind six other
candidates: Paul, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Ryan, Perry,
Christie and Cruz.

And, it's not just first impressions -- as measured by the CNN/ORC poll --
either. Bush is on the wrong side of the party's base on two of the issues
that stoke the most passion: immigration and Common Core.

On immigration, Bush has been publicly supportive of the bipartisan
comprehensive reform bill; he called the legislation a "good effort." And
he drew headlines around the country -- and fury in some parts of the
conservative base -- when he argued that many people who enter the U.S.
illegally do so out of an "act of love." Recently, Bush penned an editorial
in the Wall Street Journal urging Republicans not to use the crisis of
undocumented children entering the country as an "excuse" to not pass
immigration reform.

The base of the Republican Party -- as fellow Floridian and potential
2016er Marco Rubio learned when he spearheaded the Senate bill -- is
vehemently opposed to any legislation that offers a path to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants. Such efforts are widely described as "amnesty" by
the GOP base.

On Common Core, a series of standardized national testing standards, Bush
is again out of step with the GOP base. That group loathes Common Core as
an example of federal government overreach -- a.k.a. Washington telling the
states what to do. Bush, on the other hand, views it as a necessary step to
get American kids competitive with the rest of the world. As the Miami
Herald's Marc Caputo wrote in March:

“Bush has repeatedly explained the standards, implemented and controlled by
the states, are designed to make the United States more competitive with
the rest of the world. He said those who oppose the standards support the
‘status quo,’ oppose testing and are worried too much about children’s
self-esteem.”

Bush's stance on Common Core has already led to an effort in some
conservative circles to oppose his possible presidential bid. As the Wall
Street Journal's Beth Reinhard reported, protesters touting the hashtag
"#stopjebnow" parked themselves outside of a Bush fundraiser for the
Republican National Committee in Cincinnati last month.

As we learned in the 2012 presidential race, the Republican base
demands/expects purity on the issues it most cares about -- ("Self
deportation", anyone?) -- and punishes those who veer from party orthodoxy.
On not one but two of the major issues, Bush stands not only apart from the
party base but also from many of the people who he would likely face in the
GOP presidential race. You can be sure Bush's opponents would bring up his
stances on immigration and Common Core. A lot.

(Worth noting: Clinton is out of line with the Democratic base in term of
her general positioning on economic inequality but, No. 1, there is no one
willing to run who can really challenge her there and, No. 2, her numbers
among liberals suggest she is plenty beloved to weather that criticism.)

All of the above is not to say that Bush couldn't be the Republican nominee
for president. He could be. The establishment of the GOP -- major donors,
the consultant class, the D.C. crowd -- all see him as the party's
strongest candidate. That view would translate to successes in fundraising,
staff recruitment and overall buzz.

But the idea that Bush would either a) clear the field or b) emerge as the
un-questioned frontrunner -- ala Clinton -- simply isn't born out in the
polling or the policy positions.

Bush is a strong potential candidate for president, but he is nowhere close
to Clinton's status as a shoo-in if he runs.

*NPR: “'Hard Choices' Tour Put Spotlight On Clinton's Strengths,
Weaknesses”
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/07/30/336468262/hard-choices-tour-put-spotlight-on-clintons-strengths-weaknesses>*

By Mara Liasson

July 30, 2014, 4:59 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton's book tour is over. Although it wasn't a campaign rollout,
it did offer a peek at the strengths and weaknesses of a possible Clinton
candidacy.

One thing was clear: The former first lady, senator, presidential candidate
and secretary of state may be readier to be president than to run for
president.

She was surprisingly unprepared to talk about her wealth. Her "dead broke"
comment on ABC showed a real defensiveness about the debt-to-riches
trajectory of her family after she and Bill left the White House — not to
mention the $12 million she's made in six-figure speaking fees since she
left the State Department a year and a half ago. We weren't "truly well
off," she said. "It was not easy" to raise money for "mortgages for
houses." It's never a good thing when a politician talks about houses,
plural. Remember when John McCain couldn't remember how many houses he
owned?

It's not clear whether this will be a long-term problem. Clinton managed,
eventually, to pivot to talking about the good fortune she and Bill have
had compared to the lack of opportunity for ordinary people. But the "out
of touch" meme has been launched: The RNC started a website called
poorhillaryclinton.com.

Another lesson from the tour: Clinton will have to get used to the brave
new world of the relentless and instantaneous media cycle and a press corps
less deferential — and substantive — than the state department
correspondents.

She will be covered like no other candidate — certainly not in the same way
Republican hopefuls Marco Rubio, Rand Paul or even Jeb Bush will be
covered. Hillary Clinton is the most prominent female politician in America
and she's the prohibitive front runner for her party's nomination. And,
let's face it, she's a Clinton. So she won't have a chance to test out
sound bites or ideas in Des Moines or Manchester in front of small groups
of reporters: Everything she does and says will be covered and dissected as
if it's national news.

Now, her poll numbers did not drop, and her book is still in the top ten on
the New York Times best-seller list. The tour also put to rest questions
about her health and stamina — she showed no signs of the "traumatic brain
injury" Karl Rove suggested she's suffered. And the issue of Benghazi,
while not gone completely, seems to have receded a bit.

But she still hasn't come up with an answer to the most important question
for any campaign: Why her?

She's trying. She told Charlie Rose, "What you need if you're going to run
for president is to be absolutely clear about what you will do and to make
the case relentlessly about that."

There are the green shoots of a big idea. There's the title of the book
itself — Hard Choices — intended to frame her leadership style as tough,
ready and competent. (A subtle rebuke or contrast, perhaps, to the man she
hopes to succeed?)

And she said that she plans to run a "specific" campaign about economic
growth and inequality — a sign she intends to bridge the left- center
divide in her party on these issues.

After all of this, it's probably a good idea that Clinton is going on
vacation. She'll be back in public in the late fall when she campaigns for
Democratic Senate candidates. Then she'll have just a few months to make a
decision and put together the structure of a presidential campaign. While
there once was a spirited debate about whether she would or wouldn't run,
there's now a consensus, which the book tour only cemented — Hillary
Clinton is running for president.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “$5 million, $50 million or even more
– just how rich is Hillary Clinton? Here’s why we don’t know.”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/30/5-million-50-million-or-even-more-just-how-rich-is-hillary-clinton-heres-why-we-dont-know/>*

By Alexander Becker

July 30, 2014, 11:19 a.m. EDT

Ever since Hillary Clinton drew attention to her finances by claiming her
family was "dead broke" when they left the White House, speculation has
focused on a seemingly simple question: Exactly how rich are the Clintons?

The answer, at least for the time being, is that there's no way for the
public to know.

The couple's wealth since Bill Clinton's presidency ended in early 2001 has
been generated largely from paid speeches, lucrative book deals and
successful investments.

Some of that wealth has been detailed over the years in the financial
disclosure forms Hillary Clinton was required to file as a senator and as
secretary of state, as well as in tax returns she released as part of her
2008 presidential run. These forms record income from both Clintons jointly.

But loose federal disclosure rules, requiring that officials report the
value of their holdings using only wide ranges, leave much room for
interpretation. And while Hillary Clinton's past tax returns offer more
data points than exist for most other potential presidential candidates,
the information is incomplete - and out of date.

In 2010, then-Secretary Clinton's financial disclosures revealed a net
worth totaling between roughly $10 and $50 million. In 2012, the last year
for which she disclosed finances, Clinton's net worth was estimated to be
between $5 million and $25 million.

Clinton deflected a question about her net worth during an interview with
Fusion's Jorge Ramos that aired Tuesday night. Asked if she knew the
figure, Clinton replied, "Within a range, yeah. I mean, we have two very
nice houses, which we're very proud of and not selling anytime soon." When
Ramos asked if it was millions, she said, "Yes indeed."

A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests for comment or to
specific e-mail questions about her net worth.

Lawyers and government ethics officials say federal personal financial
disclosure rules are vague for a reason. The rules are designed to prevent
conflicts of interest between those in office and their investments, not to
provide values for specific holdings.

Assets such as mutual funds and stocks, and liabilities like credit card
debt must be disclosed by name if their worth exceeds a certain amount.

"These governmental personal financial disclosure forms are not intended to
represent either in general or specifically net worth," said Jan Baran, a
partner at law firm Wiley Rein with experience in government ethics law.

In 2010 for example, Clinton disclosed two JP Morgan accounts each worth
between $5 million and $25 million. Her 2011 and 2012 disclosures show only
one JP Morgan account worth between $5 million and $25 million. It's
unknown whether Clinton's net worth during this period actually decreased,
or if assets were simply consolidated into one account that remained within
the $5 million to $25 million range.

Also unclear is how the Clintons' income factored into their reported net
worth. The tax returns Hillary Clinton released during her 2008 campaign
show that the Clintons made $87.3 million in joint adjusted gross income
between 2001 and 2006. Full tax returns for years beyond 2006 have not been
made public, but a recent Washington Post report on Bill Clinton's paid
speeches shows $49.2 million in further earnings from appearances alone
between 2007 and 2012. Adding those figures together shows that the
Clintons' confirmed income between 2001 and 2012 was at least $136.5
million.

The result is that Americans knew relatively little about Clinton's total
wealth while in office - and probably know even less now, as there are no
publicly available documents showing income or net worth for the period
since she left the State Department.

That said, it's clear that both Clintons have been paid handsomely during
that time, from continued speeches and for Hillary Clinton's recently
released book.

Some have attempted to estimate the extent of the couple's recent financial
fortunes. Bloomberg News reported, for example, that Clinton "earned at
least $12 million in 16 months since leaving the State Department,” though
the report acknowledged that the information was based on incomplete
estimates.

The lack of specific information has led to uncertainty among Clinton's
rivals and backers, all of whom would like to know

to what degree her personal wealth might play a role in an election in
which populism and income inequality seem likely to be factors. After all,
Democrats were successful in using Mitt Romney's riches against him in
2012. Romney's net worth was reported to be as high as $250 million.

"It's hard really to come up with much more specifics than what [the
documents] give," said Tim Miller, who as executive director of America
Rising PAC, a Republican opposition research group, is in charge of helping
to shape GOP attacks on Clinton.

If Clinton decides to run for president, she would have to file another
financial disclosure form - and she would almost certainly be pressured to
release more up-to-date tax returns.

Only then will anyone know how rich she really is.

*Fox News politics: “Head of Benghazi probe says no witnesses off limits,
including Clinton”
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/29/head-benghazi-probe-says-no-witnesses-off-limits-including-clinton/>*

By Catherine Herridge

July 29, 2014

The Republican head of the Benghazi Select Committee warned Tuesday that no
witnesses would be off limits in its upcoming probe and that he would
consider going to court, if necessary, to compel testimony.

"I can't skip over a witness that I think we ought to talk to simply
because there is an assertion of either privilege or immunity," Chairman
Trey Gowdy of South Carolina told Fox News in an exclusive interview.

He said that while he has received good cooperation to date, and the issue
had not yet arisen, "if you mean to say that 'not only can they not talk,
they don't have to come,' you have to litigate that."

Gowdy said the investigation will be driven by facts, characterizing as
strongly bipartisan his work with the committee's ranking Democrat, Elijah
Cummings of Maryland, to review documents and identify witnesses.

He also said he anticipates the first public hearing will be held in
September and will focus on the State Department investigation into the
2012 attack and whether its recommendations have been implemented.

Asked whether he wants Hillary Clinton to testify, Gowdy said, "I want
everyone who has access to relevant information, and it is, I think,
impossible to argue that the secretary of State at the time would not have
access to relevant information..."

Gowdy said he was not trying to single out any particular witness. He
insisted he was just as interested in the former acting director of the
CIA, Michael Morell, who was accused of misleading Congress over the flawed
“talking points” that blamed a protest for the assault, as he was in the
unnamed CIA public information officer who made a significant edit of the
points.

"Either talk to all of them," Gowdy said, "Or concede you are not
interested in getting all the facts."

Gowdy also said he hoped former CIA Director David Petraeus, who remains
under FBI investigation nearly two years after he resigned, would
participate voluntarily.

"This is going to be serious, fact-centric. There are not going to be
leaks. There are not going to be selective releases,” he said. “Hopefully,
if the investigation is still ongoing, he (Petraeus) may conclude, he has
an absolute right to conclude, that he is still going to participate."

Asked if the scope would extend to other current and former government and
Congressional figures, including presidential adviser Ben Rhodes, former UN
ambassador Susan Rice, and D.C.consulting group Beacon Global Strategies,
Gowdy replied, "how can I run an investigation and at the end say that it
was thorough and complete and fact-centric and fair if I began to rule out
people that we're going to talk to?”

Beacon Global Strategies members include Clinton's principal gatekeeper,
Philippe Reines, her former adviser for political and military affairs at
State, Andrew Shapiro, the former chief of staff to Leon Panetta at CIA and
the defense department, Jeremy Bash, as well as Michael Allen, the former
staff director for the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee that
investigated Benghazi.

The online bios of its founders and managing directors suggest no group
knows more about the terrorist attack and the Obama administration’s
response as well as having a vested interested in the scandal’s impact on
Clinton’s presidential ambitions.

Gowdy said the fact-driven approach has derailed any attempts to minimize
the importance of the committee's work. "The initial efforts to marginalize
us as just a political exercise dedicated to drumming up the base, those
efforts were not successful...Democrats are not only cooperating. They are
suggesting, in some instances, other ideas for hearings. "

While the committee, which now stands at 13 staff but should reach its
target of 20 by September, is focused on a detailed timeline to identify
gaps in the facts, Gowdy said he believes closed or private depositions of
witnesses as opposed to open hearings would provide the most information.

"Five minutes has proven time and time again to be an inadequate amount of
time to get to the truth,"Gowdy explained. "I'm certainly not good enough
in five minutes to unlock all the mysteries in the world. I might not be
doing five hours but I would rather use whatever investigatory tool allows
me the most amount of time with a witness or potential witness and I think
that will be depositions as opposed to public hearings."

On Tuesday, the committee members met behind closed doors with the victims’
relatives including Pat Smith, the mother of foreign service officer Sean
Smith.

"It's the one thing that I wanted was this investigation to get the
answers,” Smith said. “And the people say that they're gonna do their best
so this is what I'm hoping for."

*CNBC: John Harwood: “She's gone from Foggy Bottom, but global chaos still
hurts Hillary” <http://www.cnbc.com/id/101878690#.>*

By John Harwood

July 30, 2014

The chaos enveloping international relations this year has taken its toll
on President Barack Obama's approval rating and midterm election prospects
for his party. But it also hurts Hillary Rodham Clinton.

By serving as Obama's secretary of state, the former first lady forged an
independent political identity that has made her the front-runner to
succeed him in 2016. At the same time, that tenure ties her political
standing to the condition of American foreign policy even after she has
departed Foggy Bottom.

I asked Clinton, in an interview last week for National Public Radio, how
much responsibility she bears for turmoil in Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq and Syria.
"It doesn't do us much good to point fingers at each other," she said. Her
2016 rivals are already pointing.

In particular, she can expect they'll point at what she told me about
relations with Vladimir Putin's Russia, which she and Obama famously tried
to "reset" when they took office after the presidency of George W. Bush.

"The reset worked," she said. Clinton pointed to Russia's cooperation on an
arms treaty, pressure on Iran, and the war in Afghanistan early in the
Obama administration. But that statement may sound jarring to voters
unsettled by Russian aggression now.

"Every party in the White House has the responsibility during the time it's
there to do the best we can, to lead and manage the many problems we face,
and I think we did that in the first term," she said. The distinction
between Obama's first and second terms is unlikely to be so clear in a 2016
campaign.

In the diplomatic memoir "Hard Choices" that she's currently promoting,
Clinton notes that a secretary of state must serve as CEO of a large
diplomatic apparatus. I asked whether any of the problems the
administration now faces abroad or at home—think Veterans Administration,
the IRS and the NSA—stem from a "management deficit." Governors often tout
the value of their executive experience as better preparation for the White
House than the legislative experience of members of Congress. The three
leading players of the Obama presidency so far are former senators Obama,
Biden and Clinton.

"Oh, you don't expect me to agree with that, do you?" she responded with a
chuckle. It may not be the last time she gets that question.

Clinton was upbeat during the interview, which hasn't always been the case
in her relations with the press. Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson
recently noted that the ex-secretary of state has unrealistically high
expectations for her portrayal in the media.

"I do sometimes expect more than perhaps I should," Clinton told me. As
robust as her political standing appears right now, she should expect a
difficult campaign if she decides to launch one.

*Baltimore Sun opinion: Bush Ambassador William L. Jacobsen Jr.: “President
Hillary Clinton”
<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-president-hillary-20140730,0,6029443.story>*

By William L. Jacobson Jr., ambassador to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau
from 1989 to 1992

July 30, 2014, 12:35 p.m. EDT

Hillary Rodham Clinton — imagine if she runs and wins!

In America, moms and dads of daughters will throw their arms around their
girls' shoulders and say, "OK honey, now that the highest and seemingly
most impervious glass ceiling is gone, in terms of your future, the sky's
the limit!" Grandpas and grandmas will do the same with their
granddaughters.

Expect wide approval from American women of any age and enthusiastic
response from women worldwide who will welcome the news that the
charismatic, eloquent and tireless campaigner for women's welfare, rights
and opportunities also is the new leader of the free world.

Governments of our north Atlantic partners will applaud the election's
outcome. Some might even add, "About time!" That same response might be
expected from those Latin American nations that have promoted women to
important leadership positions.

Despots and leaders of countries that treat females according to medieval
standards will shudder at the prospect that the new U.S. president's
admonishment about treatment of women carries even more authority than
before.

Within the U.S., suddenly having a woman as head of state, expect there to
be a surge in female confidence. More will seek election to office — at the
city, county and state levels as well as to Congress. If two fellows can
organize a startup business using their garage, why can't a couple of
enterprising women follow their dreams and establish a startup business
using the basement or spare bedroom, or even their own garage for that
matter? All it takes is some imagination, seed money and self-confidence.

At the university level, more women students may elect to study economics
and business courses to take advantage of widening opportunities for
females in finance and business (see the Federal Reserve; see General
Motors).

A female commander in chief is unlikely to tolerate the military's ho-hum
response to the outrageous record of rape and sexual assault perpetrated by
servicemen against their female service counterparts.

In short, election of our first woman as president will be to politics what
sports writers term a "game changer!" Events will begin to be judged by
"before HRC" and "after HRC."

While she sits in the Oval Office, President Clinton may expect to hear
from citizen groups pressing for issues concerning women such as what
compensation is paid men compared with what women receive for doing the
same job. Other interest groups will attempt to enlist her as an ally in
the campaign to provide more and better day care facilities to assist
working mothers.

Americans may recall the first few days of the John F. Kennedy presidency
when JFK was photographed in the Oval Office with his children playing
around the president's desk.

The first few days of this Clinton presidency promise another historic
photo opportunity as newly inaugurated head of state, an attractive blond
woman taking care of the nation's business at her desk in the Oval Office —
a radiant, self-confident smile on her face.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Ryan will wait until 2015 to decide
on presidential run”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/30/ryan-will-wait-until-2015-to-decide-on-presidential-run/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost>*

By Lori Montgomery

July 30, 2014, 10:08 a.m. EDT

Rep. Paul Ryan said Wednesday that he is currently "focusing on policy,"
rather than his own political ambitions, and that he will wait until next
year to decide whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination in
2016.

"There really aren't any deliberations" about a presidential run, Ryan
(R-Wisc.) said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
"I've been doing my job, focusing on the here and now, 2014. I've
consciously decided not to think about my personal ambitions or personal
career moves or how I can think about something after 2014."

Ryan, who ran on the 2012 presidential ticket with Mitt Romney, is angling
to chair the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in the next Congress.
He recently unveiled an ambitious plan to reform federal anti-poverty
programs.

Ryan said he will sit down with his wife in 2015 to decide whether to seek
national office once again.

*The Onion [Satire]: “Hillary Clinton Spends Busy Day Fueling Speculation,
Not Ruling Things Out”
<http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-spends-busy-day-fueling-speculatio,36577/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:1:Default&recirc=travel>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 30, 2014

WASHINGTON—Capping off a packed week of weighing options and giving serious
thought, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent a busy day in
Washington fueling speculation and not ruling things out, her spokesman
confirmed today.

“After dedicating a few hours in the morning to drawing a lot of focus,
laying groundwork, and calculating risks, Mrs. Clinton conducted a full
afternoon of taking stock of and thinking it through, as well as several
hours of careful considering,” Clinton press aide Nick Merrill said of the
66-year-old’s breakneck schedule of entertaining various possibilities and
seeing all sides.

“Between looking ahead and setting the stage, Mrs. Clinton has been putting
in 18-hour days of late. No sooner has she finished up an evening’s worth
of hinting at than she has to wake up the next morning at 6 a.m. and resume
being touted as.” At press time, sources reported that Clinton was trying
to squeeze in several more minutes of not rushing to decisions before
sparking rumors and generating buzz.