Subject: Correct The Record Thursday July 24, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:22:43 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Thursday July 24, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

[Click Here to Watch conservative One America Network’s Segment on Correct
The Record and the Need to Defend Against the Onslaught of Rightwing
Attacks on Sec. Clinton]
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_TBjUBNr_M&feature=youtu.be>

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@Bstrider on role of CTR "We keep the
truth out there...if the record needs correcting we correct it"
http://correctrecord.org/the-conservative-one-america-network-features-ctr-showcases-need-and-success-against-onslaught-of-rightwing-attacks-against-sec-clinton/
…
<http://t.co/EGtg22Jy8T> [7/24/14, 1:08 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/492355704880398336>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: The conservative One America News
Network features CTR and @BStrider <https://twitter.com/BStrider> re:
defending@HillaryClinton <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>
http://correctrecord.org/the-conservative-one-america-network-features-ctr-showcases-need-and-success-against-onslaught-of-rightwing-attacks-against-sec-clinton/
…
<http://t.co/EGtg22Jy8T> [7/24/14, 11:46 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/492335080833290240>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@nytimesbooks review: #HardChoices is
a “sober and substantive” memoir of @HillaryClinton’s time at State Dept:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/books/review/editors-choice.html …
<http://t.co/pD9OZ4owgd>[7/24/14, 10:15 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/492312071590408192>]

*Headlines:*

*CNN: “Clinton polling well in key presidential battleground”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/24/clinton-polling-well-in-key-presidential-battleground/>*

“A Quinnipiac University survey of Florida voters indicates the former
secretary of state, who's seriously considering a second bid for the White
House, with leads from seven to 21 percentage points over potential GOP
presidential candidates in possible 2016 showdowns.”

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton tops all potential 2016 GOPers in Florida”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-tops-all-potential-2016-gopers-florida>*

“A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows the former secretary
of state easily beating all potential 2016 GOP opponents in the
battleground state of Florida – including the state’s former Gov. Jeb Bush
and current Sen. Marco Rubio – by a seven to 21 point margin.”

*Politico: “Latest front in Clinton wars: Virginia suburbs”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-bill-clinton-wars-barbara-comstock-virginia-suburbs-109313.html>*

“Brock is now leading Correct the Record, a group devoted to defending
Hillary Clinton.”

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton stands by 'Russian reset' in face of recent events”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/24/hillary-clinton-stands-by-russian-reset-in-face-of-recent-events/>*

“It worked. That is the argument former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
made during a Thursday interview about her much talked about 2009 reset of
U.S.-Russia relations.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton: I need to ‘work on’ press relations”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-media-relations-109332.html>*

“Hillary Clinton, who has long had a tempestuous relationship with the
media, on Thursday said she may need to ‘work on’ her ‘expectations’ of the
press.”

*The Economist: “Dreamy footsoldiers of the Left”
<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21608759-some-democrats-havent-noticed-next-election-year-not-2016-dreamy>*

“Over on the centre-ground, Ready for Hillary, a group working to rally a
volunteer army for Mrs Clinton’s use (should she choose to run in 2016),
will ‘amplify’ any 2014 endorsements made by their heroine, instantly
urging supporters to lend a hand to that campaign.”

*Slate blog: Weigel: “Where Have You Gone, Brian Schweitzer? A Nation Turns
Its Lonely Eyes to You.”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/24/where_have_you_gone_brian_schweitzer_a_nation_turns_its_lonely_eyes_to_you.html>*

“The only mention of Schweitzer on cable in the month of July came on Monday,
when pollster Pat Caddell suggested Schweitzer would be a good candidate
against Hillary Clinton.”

*CBS News: “Is there room for Joe Manchin among Democrats in 2016?”
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-there-room-for-joe-manchin-among-democrats-in-2016/>*

“On the spectrum of hypothetical 2016 presidential candidacies, the
@DraftJoeManchin Twitter movement, if you can call it that, is the elephant
in the room of dark horses.”

*McClatchy DC: “Bernie Sanders for president 2016? It could happen”
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/24/234335/bernie-sanders-for-president-2016.html>*

“The fiesty liberal independent senator from Vermont says it could happen.”

*RealClearPolitics: “Heitkamp: Addressing Abuse Issues Can Unite Lawmakers”
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/24/heitkamp_addressing_abuse_issues_can_unite_lawmakers_123445.html>*

“Rep. Donna Edwards and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp expressed a strong hope
Thursday that
the deeply divided U.S. Congress can come together to address the problem
of domestic violence... And would electing a woman to the presidency help
even more with passing legislation to protect vulnerable women? ‘No
question about it!’ declared an enthusiastic Edwards, who lavished praise
on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

*Articles:*

*CNN: “Clinton polling well in key presidential battleground”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/24/clinton-polling-well-in-key-presidential-battleground/>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 24, 2014, 10:19 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton is the clear 2016 frontrunner in the nation's largest
presidential battleground state, according to a new poll.

A Quinnipiac University survey of Florida voters indicates the former
secretary of state, who's seriously considering a second bid for the White
House, with leads from seven to 21 percentage points over potential GOP
presidential candidates in possible 2016 showdowns.

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be taking some criticism
recently in the news media and among some liberal Democratic precincts, but
nothing has changed among average voters in Florida where she remains queen
of the political prom," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the
Quinnipiac University poll.

According to the survey, which was released Thursday morning, Clinton also
has an overwhelming lead in the hunt for the Democratic nomination, with
former two-term Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and the state's junior U.S. senator,
Marco Rubio, leading the pack of potential GOP contenders.

Two-thirds of Sunshine State Democratic primary voters questioned in the
survey say they'd back Clinton for their party's nomination, followed by
Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts each at
eight percent. Biden is mulling another presidential bid while Warren has
said numerous times that she's not running in 2016. Other potential
candidates registered at one percent or less.

Twenty-one percent of Republicans say they'd back Bush in the primary,
followed by Rubio at 18%. Bush was at 27% and Rubio at 11% among Florida
Republicans in Quinnipiac's May poll.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is at 10% in the new poll, with Sen. Rand Paul of
Kentucky standing at 8%, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee – who ran for
the 2008 nomination – at 7%, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 6%. None
of the other possible contenders top 5%.

In hypothetical 2016 general election matchups, Sunshine State voters back
Clinton over Bush 49%-42%. The poll indicates Clinton leads Ryan by 13
points, Rubio by 14 points, Paul by 16 points and Christie by 21 points.

A Quinnipiac poll in Colorado released Wednesday in Colorado, another swing
state, indicated much closer 2016 general election showdowns between
Clinton and potential GOP candidates.

As for the current occupant in the White House, the survey indicates
President Barack Obama has a 44%-52% approval/disapproval rating among
Florida votes, compared to 46%-50% in May.

The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted July 17-21, with 1,251
registered voters in Florida questioned by telephone. The survey's overall
sampling error is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

*MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton tops all potential 2016 GOPers in Florida”
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-tops-all-potential-2016-gopers-florida>*

By Aliyah Frumin

July 24, 2014, 9:33 a.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects are looking bright in the Sunshine
State.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows the former secretary
of state easily beating all potential 2016 GOP opponents in the
battleground state of Florida – including the state’s former Gov. Jeb Bush
and current Sen. Marco Rubio – by a seven to 21 point margin.

Among Democratic presidential primary voters, Clinton is the clear
favorite, receiving 67% support compared to Vice President Joe Biden and
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who each received 8%.

Among Republican presidential primary voters in the state, Bush received
the most support with 21%, followed by Rubio with 18%, Sen. Ted Cruz of
Texas garnered 10% followed by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky with 8%, former
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with 7%, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
with 6%.

Even in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups, Clinton beats all the
potential Republican competitors. That includes Clinton over Bush by a 49%
to 42% margin and Clinton over Rubio by a 53% to 37% margin.

“Inside the Beltway they may be talking about Mrs. Clinton’s potential
weaknesses should she run in 2016. But at this point in Florida, the
nation’s largest presidential swing state, her assets overwhelm any
vulnerabilities,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac
University poll.

The former first lady is currently on a book tour for her memoir “Hard
Choices,” which was released in June. The publicity campaign is being seen
as part of a months-long rollout leading up to a decision on whether or not
she’ll run for president. She has previously said that she’ll decide by the
end of the year.

Former President Bill Clinton claimed this week he doesn’t know whether his
wife will make a bid for the nation’s highest office.

*Politico: “Latest front in Clinton wars: Virginia suburbs”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-bill-clinton-wars-barbara-comstock-virginia-suburbs-109313.html>*

By Alex Isenstadt

July 24, 2014, 5:04 a.m. EDT

Fifteen years later, the Clinton Wars are back.

The backdrop this time isn’t the White House or Hillary Clinton’s likely
presidential run. It’s the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., where a
onetime congressional staffer who made her name digging up dirt on the
Clintons, Barbara Comstock, is trying to win a seat in Congress herself.

Lining up behind Comstock are some of the Clintons’ chief ’90s-era
adversaries, including Ken Starr, Dan Burton and David Bossie. Determined
to stop her is a host of Clinton loyalists led by Terry McAuliffe — who was
once forced to testify before a congressional committee after Comstock
unearthed his bombshell “Lincoln Bedroom Memo” — from his new perch as
Virginia governor.

Comstock’s bid against Democratic Fairfax County Supervisor John Foust has
reopened the old wounds of Travelgate, Filegate, Monicagate and more. But
the stakes go way beyond settling old scores. Clinton allies worry that if
Comstock wins and Hillary Clinton returns to the White House as president,
she’ll reprise her role as Clinton investigator-in-chief.

“If she wins, she will no doubt practice the same politics of personal
destruction she and her ilk practiced in the Clinton days,” said Paul
Begala, a former political adviser to Bill Clinton who has assumed the role
of Comstock attack dog. The Republican, he said, has a “really almost sick,
sort of stalker-like obsession with President Clinton.”

Comstock — a 55-year-old, Georgetown-educated lawyer widely regarded as one
of the premier opposition researchers of her generation, with a
“wonderfully devious mind,” in the words of one reporter who witnessed her
at the peak of her sleuthing — declined to speak for this story. But she is
already hinting publicly that she’s itching to take on the Clintons again.

“We need to get to the bottom of the truth in Benghazi, and I will do that
because I’ve done that before as a chief investigator in Congress,” she
said at the Virginia state GOP convention recently, referring to the 2012
attacks that left four Americans dead and marred Clinton’s tenure as
secretary of state.

*The Barbarellas*

Comstock’s history with the Clintons dates back to 1993. At the time, she
was working as an aide to GOP Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia when some of his
constituents lost their jobs in the White House travel office. Wolf tasked
Comstock with finding out why the firings happened and whether the Clintons
were trying to make room in the office for their personal allies.

Republicans won the House majority in 1994, and Comstock became the chief
counsel on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Much of the
panel’s investigative work centered on Clinton’s fundraising practices and
determining whether he had accepted funds from non-U.S. citizens ahead of
the 1996 election.

Comstock’s legal training prepared her to burrow through mounds of
government documents, spotting patterns in discrete facts that eluded
others. She deposed countless high-level White House officials and allies,
including John Podesta and George Stephanopoulos. When Democratic
fundraiser Johnny Chung appeared before the committee in 1999, Comstock did
the grilling.

The other trait Comstock’s admirers and critics consistently point to: a
work ethic bordering on compulsive.

“Late night calls from Barbara Comstock were not unusual,” David Brock, the
onetime conservative opposition researcher and Comstock confidant, wrote in
his 2002 book, “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an
Ex-Conservative.” “She often telephoned with the latest tidbit she had dug
up in the thousands and thousands of pages of administration records she
pored through frantically, as if she were looking for a winning lottery
ticket she had somehow mislaid.” Brock is now leading Correct the Record, a
group devoted to defending Hillary Clinton.

The late Barbara Olson, Comstock’s co-investigator on the committee, wrote
in her own book that the two took extraordinary measures to prevent Clinton
backers from sabotaging their work.

“We changed our locks; not even the cleaning crews had access to our tiny
room,” Olson wrote in “Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham
Clinton,” published in 1999. “I generally arrived at 6:30 a.m. and tried to
leave for home before 8:00 p.m. My colleague Barbara Comstock continued the
vigil and wouldn’t leave until 4:00 a.m.”

On the campaign trail, Comstock hasn’t shied away from discussing her time
scrutinizing the Clintons. During a recent radio interview, she compared
the Benghazi investigation to what transpired during the 1990s.

“Previously, when I was on Capitol Hill in the ’90s, I served as chief
counsel on the House Government Reform Committee, and we had similar
investigations where we were just blocked at every turn, we had people take
the Fifth Amendment, we had the administration refuse to turn over
documents,” she said in a May 1 appearance on “The John Fredericks Show.”
“And you just have to really go at it. We wrote contempt reports, we
insisted on getting documents and then finally we were to break open these
cases.”

Comstock wasn’t a Clinton hater, people close to her insist. But she was,
they say, convinced the first couple was involved in wrongdoing. Her best
friend during those years was Olson, who became a high-profile Clinton
critic. In Republican circles, the two became known as “The Barbarellas,” a
reference to a racy 1968 Jane Fonda movie. In the White House, they were
referred to as “The Barbaras.”

Olson was a passenger on the American Airlines flight that struck the
Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

“They were, of course, partisan,” Ted Olson, the former U.S. solicitor
general who was married to Barbara Olson, said in an interview. “They
believed in the things they were doing.”

Had Barbara Olson been alive to watch her friend run for Congress, Ted
Olson said, “She would have been ecstatic, thrilled beyond words. … She
would have been cajoling, wheeling and dealing, twisting arms, whatever it
took to help Barbara.”

*From Middlebury to the RNC*

Comstock tread a surprising path to the oversight panel. She graduated from
Middlebury College, a prestigious liberal arts school in Vermont, in 1981
with a degree in political science. During her undergrad years, she
interned for Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. She would later say that while
working for Kennedy, she was given a copy of the National Review, and there
began her evolution to conservatism.

“I’d be at hearings and think, ‘I agree with [Sen.] Orrin Hatch [R-Utah],
not Ted Kennedy,” she told The Washington Post in 2001.

People who worked with Comstock during the 1990s say they never pegged her
as a future candidate. Unlike other Capitol Hill staffers at the time, she
didn’t discuss running for office and didn’t seem to be preoccupied with
doing so. Yet she took on an increasingly visible role. The Clinton
investigations dovetailed with the rise of 24-hour cable news, and Comstock
was a popular choice among TV bookers, who saw her as articulate and
presentable.

She was also skilled at delivering a sharp line.

“Unfortunately for the president, the facts and the law are his enemy,” she
said in one January 1999 CNN appearance.

Comstock’s investigations into the Clintons ultimately yielded little, but
her career in politics was just taking off. In 2000, she headed up
opposition research for the Republican National Committee and continued to
make mischief. During a Democratic primary debate, Bill Bradley attacked Al
Gore for allegedly flip-flopping on abortion. Bradley, the Post reported,
was relying on research assembled by Comstock and her team, which was
looking to weaken Gore heading into the general election.

Some believe that Comstock left a permanent imprint on how Republicans
conduct opposition research, bringing a new level of legal precision to the
work. Gary Maloney, a veteran GOP dirt-digger, said that the format the
party’s campaign committees use to document their research is a replica of
the style Comstock used in the 2000 race.

“Comstock essentially built her own model of what to do,” he said.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Comstock would become then-Attorney General
John Ashcroft’s spokeswoman. Later she took a job at a lobbying shop and
started a political consulting firm. In 2005, she spent time working on the
defense team of Scooter Libby, the former Dick Cheney adviser who was
convicted of leaking the identity of a CIA operative.

All the while, Comstock was building a powerful circle of friends who would
assist her in her next foray: a 2009 campaign for a seat in the state House
of Delegates. She received donations from the likes of Karl Rove, Newt
Gingrich and Haley Barbour. Comstock won narrowly, unseating a popular
Democrat in a swing district.

*A return to the warpath?*

As she traverses the 10th Congressional District, Comstock, like many
candidates this year, is pitching herself as a pragmatist who wants to
serve her constituents and help the local economy. Many of Comstock’s
friends believe her brass-knuckled political past is behind her. She’s more
interested in the legislative nuts and bolts of public service, they say.
Most political handicappers say she’s a slight favorite in a Northern
Virginia-based district that narrowly broke for Mitt Romney in 2012.

Clinton allies, however, are convinced that Comstock would quickly return
to the warpath if she makes it to Congress — and are bent on stopping her.

McAuliffe will soon host a fundraiser for Foust and “plans to do everything
he can” to help the Democrat, an aide said. His brush with Comstock came in
February 1997 when, working late one evening, she uncovered a McAuliffe
memo that seemed to suggest that the president have donors over for White
House sleepovers. The revelation sent the Clinton White House into damage
control mode.

Begala, meanwhile, has taken to Twitter to accuse Comstock of recently
lifting a line from Bill Clinton’s first inaugural speech. (Clinton: “There
is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with
America.” Comstock: “There is nothing that is wrong with the country today
that can’t be solved with what is right with America.”)

In an interview, Begala bitterly recalled one time during the ’90s when
Comstock approached him in the parking lot of the church they both attended
and asked, with a straight face, “Have I deposed you yet?”

Johanna Persing, a Comstock spokeswoman, declined to respond to Begala’s
plagiarism accusation but said that “Virginians have no interest in
divisive talking heads living in the past. This election is about the
future.”

Other Clinton White House figures are also making a move. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright has hosted a fundraiser for Foust and is slated
to hold another in August. Foust also recently received a $1,000 donation
from Jamie Gorelick, who as Clinton’s deputy attorney general worked in a
department that had a role in responding to many of the subpoenas that
Comstock’s committee served.

“She was the primary architect and energy behind Dan Burton’s
investigations of the Clintons,” said Gorelick. “When you meet Barbara
Comstock, she’s very personable and lovely. But the work of that committee
was highly divisive, and it was not a constructive way of running a
congressional committee.”

Foust, a mild-mannered 62-year-old Fairfax County supervisor, says he
doesn’t remember much about the Clinton wars; he was preoccupied starting a
law practice and raising his kids. “I was very disappointed in Bill’s
personal conduct,” he said in an interview at his campaign headquarters
here, “but I thought it was a political witch hunt.”

Foust said other Clinton allies would soon join his campaign. As for the
former president and former first lady, Foust added, “No one knows Barbara
Comstock better than the Clintons … and I’m confident they will step up and
help us.”

Comstock, for her part, has received checks and pledges of help from some
of the most prominent Clinton antagonists from the ’90s. Ken Starr and his
wife, Alice Starr, kicked in $1,000 to Comstock’s campaign. Burton, who
chaired the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and was
Comstock’s boss, has also sent $1,000.

“I’ll help any way I can,” he said in an interview.

She’s also received help from David Bossie, the Citizens United president
and high-profile Clinton critic who worked with her on the investigative
panel. The group has endorsed Comstock and given her campaign $10,000.

“Hillary Clinton,” Bossie said, “will have to stay on the straight and
narrow to stay out of [Comstock’s] sights.”

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton stands by 'Russian reset' in face of recent events”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/24/hillary-clinton-stands-by-russian-reset-in-face-of-recent-events/>*

By Dan Merica

July 24, 2014, 12:35 p.m. EDT

It worked.

That is the argument former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made during
a Thursday interview about her much talked about 2009 reset of U.S.-Russia
relations.

The statement comes as Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, has
distanced itself from the United States, and the country is widely seen by
U.S. and European analysts as linked to the downing of a passenger airliner
earlier this month in Ukraine.

"What I think I demonstrate in the book, is that the reset worked," Clinton
told guest host John Harwood on NPR's “On Point” on Thursday during a
conversation about her new memoir, "Hard Choices." "It was an effort to try
to obtain Russian cooperation on some key objectives while (Dmitry)
Medvedev was president."

Clinton later said the reset "succeeded" and was meant to be "a device to
try to refocus attention on the transactional efforts that we needed to get
done with the Russians."

The former secretary of state – and frontrunner for the Democratic
presidential nomination in 2016 – said the signing of the 2009 New START
treaty, the increased sanctions on Iran and the securing of supply lines to
American troops in Afghanistan were all successes that came from the reset.

But hindsight has not favored Clinton.

Russia has stepped up its aggressiveness on the world stage and the
country's relations with the United States have suffered. The front cover
of the latest issue of TIME Magazine even declares "Cold War II: The West
is losing Putin's dangerous game."

Putin now finds himself at the center of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17
investigation. U.S. officials believe the plane was shot down over an area
of eastern Ukraine that is now in control of Russian-backed separatists.
The crash killed all 298 people on board, causing U.S. and European
officials to step up rhetoric against Russia, with some blaming Putin
directly for the deaths.

Putin has not taken responsibility for the downing, but in a written
statement said, "no one should and no one has the right to use this tragedy
to pursue their own political goals. Rather than dividing us, tragedies of
this sort should bring people together."

The downing and the backing of separatists in Ukraine come after Russia
annexed Crimea from Ukraine earlier this year. The move riled the
international community and caused the United States and Europe to sanction
important economic sectors of the country.

Clinton argued during the interview that when Putin retook the Russian
presidency in 2012 she recognized the need to treat the country differently.

"When Putin announced in the fall of 2011 that he was coming back, I had no
illusions," Clinton said. "I wrote a memo to the President, in fact I wrote
two memos to the President, pointing out that we were going to have to
change our thinking and approach. We had gotten all we could get from the
reset."

Clinton's dealings with Russia have also turned political. Republicans have
seized on Clinton's reset in light of recent events and the Republican
National Committee has made the reset a hallmark of most of their sweeping
attacks on Clinton. The group has argued "as relations with Russia continue
to deteriorate, Clinton may need to reset her own Russian legacy."

During the interview with Harwood, Clinton acknowledged the number of
foreign policy crises around the world but appeared to distance herself
from decisions the Obama administration has made since she left in 2013.

"Every administration, every party in the White House has the
responsibility during the time it is there to do the best we can to lead
and manage the many problems we face," Clinton said when asked if the Obama
administration is to blame for a number of issues around the world. "And I
think we did in the first term."

On the topic of another international hotspot, Clinton strongly sided with
Israel in the country's conflict with Hamas and the Gaza Strip.

Clinton said that she has "no doubt" that the current conflict "was a
deliberate provocation" by Hamas to "engender more sympathy for their cause
and also to put Israel on the back heal."

"I think the responsibility falls on Hamas," Clinton said.

Clinton did say, however, that she supports Secretary of State John Kerry's
efforts to secure a ceasefire in the region and hopes the agreement will
bring an end to the fighting.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton: I need to ‘work on’ press relations”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-media-relations-109332.html>*

By Katie Glueck

July 24, 2014, 11:35 a.m .EDT

Hillary Clinton, who has long had a tempestuous relationship with the
media, on Thursday said she may need to “work on” her “expectations” of the
press.

Her comments, which came on NPR’s “On Point” program, follow criticism from
former New York Times editor Jill Abramson that Clinton expects loyalty
from journalists, especially female journalists.

“I think maybe one of the points Jill was making is that I do sometimes
expect perhaps more than I should,” the former secretary of state and
possible Democratic presidential frontrunner said. “And I’ll have to work
on my expectations, but I had an excellent relationship with the State
Department press that followed me for four years, and enjoyed working with
them and whatever I do in the future, I look forward to having the same
kind of opportunities.”

In a POLITICO magazine article last week by Gail Sheehy, Abramson was
quoted saying that Clinton is “incredibly unrealistic about journalists.
She expects you to be 100 percent in her corner, especially women
journalists.”

Asked whether Clinton feels “so scalded” by her history with the press that
it might be difficult to communicate in a possible presidential bid, she
said she didn’t think so.

*The Economist: “Dreamy footsoldiers of the Left”
<http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21608759-some-democrats-havent-noticed-next-election-year-not-2016-dreamy>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

July 26, 2014

[Subtitle:] Some Democrats haven’t noticed that the next election is this
year, not 2016

ELECTION fever grips the American Left. A mood of scrappy, let-us-at-’em
impatience unites such gatherings as Netroots Nation, an annual shindig
which this year drew thousands of activists, organisers, bloggers and
candidates to Detroit from July 17th-19th. Unfortunately for the broader
Democratic Party, the election that inspires the grassroots is the 2016
presidential race. The mid-term congressional elections, which will happen
much sooner (in November this year), provoke a more muted response, even
though there is a good chance that Republicans will seize the Senate and
cripple the rest of Barack Obama’s presidency.

The kind of people who attend Netroots Nation are passionately and
uncompromisingly left wing. Their champion is Senator Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts, a former professor who crusades against “big banks”,
“powerful corporations” and their enablers on the Right. “The game is
rigged,” thundered Ms Warren, whose demands include more generous Social
Security benefits (pensions) for the old (paid for with steep tax hikes),
cheaper student loans, a higher minimum wage and other forms of
redistribution. Not for her the business-friendly centrism of the Clinton
clan. Hillary Clinton did not attend Netroots Nation, instead giving a TV
interview in which she suggested that a bit of economic growth might make
it easier to curb inequality.

*Sweet dreams are made of this*

Ms Warren’s warm-up act was Gary Peters, a local congressman who, unlike Ms
Warren, is running for election this year. Mr Peters, a moderate ex-banker,
is trying to win a Senate seat that Democrats desperately need to win but
might not. He could use some grassroots support, but the crowd barely
noticed him. They were too happy chanting “Run Liz, Run!” or waving
“Elizabeth Warren for President” boater-style hats (“they’re fun, they’re
old-timey,” said a hipster handing them out). Ms Warren says she is not
running for the White House. No matter. Some 100 days from an election that
could condemn Mr Obama to near-impotence, some progressives prefer to
daydream about President Warren, “who won’t stand for all the Wall Street
bullshit”, to quote a new (endearingly terrible) folk song by her
supporters.

The Democrats’ footsoldiers can ill afford to daydream in 2014. Even as
digital technology transforms elections, recent research shows that
flesh-and-blood volunteers tend to trump paid advertising. Candidates need
supporters to sway their friends and neighbours. This “ground war” is most
crucial, for both sides, in the half-dozen swing states where Senate races
could go either way. The trouble is, these states are quite conservative.
So the Democrats running for office there often have views on guns, coal or
fracking that appal progressives, who are therefore reluctant to knock on
doors for them.

Like the Republicans with their Tea Party zealots, the Left must choose
between purity and pragmatism. MoveOn, a lefty campaign behemoth which
claims 8m members, has endorsed only nine Senate candidates so far in this
election cycle, conspicuously excluding centrists in tight races in
Georgia, Kentucky and Louisiana. The group will “sit out” some races; its
members have drawn a “bright line” against endorsing senators who voted
against increased background checks for gun-owners, for instance. In 2014
that rules out Mark Begich in Alaska and Mark Pryor in Arkansas.

Another group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), whose
members raised over $2.7m for 2012 candidates, calls itself “the Elizabeth
Warren wing of the Democratic Party”. Its leaders can sound Tea Party-ish,
declaring that “ideology” matters as much as finding candidates who can
win. The PCCC has invested in such hopeless causes as the Senate race in
South Dakota to demonstrate the power of “anti-corporate” messages
delivered by the Democratic candidate there. Several leftish groups think
the mid-terms are a chance to show that economic populism is the best way
to woo unhappy voters, nationwide.

Yet Tea Party parallels are imperfect. Flinty conservatives often scoff
that moderate Republicans are no better than Democrats. Progressives are
different: many think that Republicans are wicked. That pushes their
leaders, at least, towards pragmatism. “We may have to compromise on some
things [to beat the Republicans],” says a boss at Democracy For America
(DFA), a group founded by Howard Dean, a former Vermont governor and
presidential hopeful who claimed to represent “the Democratic wing of the
Democratic Party”. Take Alaska’s embattled senator. To DFA, Mr Begich has
been “terrible” on oil and gas and “not good” on guns. But he is
“fantastic” on inequality. In Louisiana local DFA members are holding their
noses and helping a pro-oil Democrat, Senator Mary Landrieu. Ultimately,
DFA vows to be “all over” any race that might decide the fate of the
Senate. Should Democrats lose in 2014, blame candidates “who didn’t run on
expanding Social Security or [raising] the minimum wage,” insists Charles
Chamberlain, DFA’s executive director.

Both DFA and the PCCC plan to use digital wizardry to help members place
campaign calls to districts across the country: a nifty trick in places
where members despise their own party’s local candidates. MoveOn tells
activists that saving the Senate is the “most important priority” of 2014,
reminding them that Mr Obama’s ability to nominate judges is in the
balance. Over on the centre-ground, Ready for Hillary, a group working to
rally a volunteer army for Mrs Clinton’s use (should she choose to run in
2016), will “amplify” any 2014 endorsements made by their heroine,
instantly urging supporters to lend a hand to that campaign.

On current showing, many will ignore such calls to arms in 2014. Despair
with Mr Obama and this Congress may be part of the explanation. Progressive
footsoldiers are waiting for the scrap that really interests them: a fight
to drag the Democratic Party leftwards to victory in 2016. Republicans, who
have plenty of problems of their own, cannot believe their luck.

*Slate blog: Weigel: “Where Have You Gone, Brian Schweitzer? A Nation Turns
Its Lonely Eyes to You.”
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/24/where_have_you_gone_brian_schweitzer_a_nation_turns_its_lonely_eyes_to_you.html>*

By David Weigel

July 24, 2014, 11:50 a.m. EDT

A full month has passed since Marin Cogan published the definitive 2014
profile of the much-interviewed Brian Schweitzer. Covering Schweitzer, who
governed Montana from 2005 to 2013, was irresistable -- he gave good quote,
he was openly speculating about a 2016 presidential bid, and if your news
organization had the ad revenue, he would usher you into the magical
landscape of his state. (When Schweitzer was expected to run for Senate,
one adviser told me to come up and ride a prop plane with the man himself.
Needless to say, this isn't something you're offered if you're profiling
Martin O'Malley.)

Cogan blew up the reporter gravy train. Actually, she got Schweitzer to put
down his own controlled demolition. In interviews for the piece, Schweitzer
basically said that Rep. Eric Cantor seemed gay ("men in the South, they
are a little effeminate") and that Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a slut for the
national security state ("standing under the streetlight with her dress
pulled all the way up over her knees").

This damaged Schweitzer in a way none of his other quotes had damaged him.
Ruby Cramer is the first reporter to survey the rubble, emptying her
notebook from the times Schweitzer gave her quotes that seemed newsy if
said by a 2016er and just sort of sad if said by a has-been. Cramer's the
first to point out just how bad Schweitzer's timing was. Days after his
gaffes...

“Hillary Clinton was quoted in a newspaper saying she and her husband are
not among the ‘truly well off,’ and the political world rushed to wonder
aloud how she could have ever said such a thing. Washington moved on.
Schweitzer was suddenly laughable to the people who propped him up most —
he had no place to show his skunk hide; no makeup artists to charm; no use,
not at the moment, for the HD uplink, cell tower-powered, Israel-innovated,
one-of-its-kind live-hit in-home studio at the end of his dirt road.”

Has Schweitzer been that invisible? Yep. On June 17, he appeared on MSNBC's
Ed Show, to talk about energy exploration and the Middle East. ("We keep
tying economic interest to these unpredictable conflicts on the Middle East
when we have all the power to do it here at home and we have all the people
behind it.") On June 19, Cogan's profile went online. Schweitzer has not
appeared on cable TV sense then. He's contracted to MSNBC, and the network
simply isn't using him. He has not slipped free of the contract to appear
on CNN or Fox News. Actually, the only mention of Schweitzer on cable in
the month of July came on Monday, when pollster Pat Caddell suggested
Schweitzer would be a good candidate against Hillary Clinton.

Caddell is, of course, a shameless hack who is booked because he will say
anything. He previously argued that Democrats needed to save their party by
dumping Obama for Clinton. But the "booked because he will say anything"
role belonged to Schweitzer just weeks ago. He's been silent as Clinton's
been battered over her post-State speaking fees, and as ISIS swept into
Iraq. Those are his issues!

I left Schweitzer a message, to figure this out and to, you know, give him
a chance to weigh in on policy like he used to. But I suddenly remembered
how there was literally zero buzz about Schweitzer at last weekend's
Netroots Nation conference. Schweitzer had spoken at NN in the past (in
2010) and had been touted for years by progressive bloggers.

*CBS News: “Is there room for Joe Manchin among Democrats in 2016?”
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-there-room-for-joe-manchin-among-democrats-in-2016/>*

By Jacqueline Alemany

July 24, 2014, 11:02 a.m. EDT

On the spectrum of hypothetical 2016 presidential candidacies, the
@DraftJoeManchin Twitter movement, if you can call it that, is the elephant
in the room of dark horses.

"Fiscally responsible and socially compassionate", as he so often describes
himself, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., is about as centrist as a senator can
get. A selling point in the 2016 general election, perhaps, but not exactly
a great message in a Democratic primary contest in which candidates usually
appeal to the passionate left wing of their party.

Vocally pro-coal, anti-abortion rights, pro-gun and anti-Obamacare, Manchin
hasn't exactly endeared himself to liberals during his political career.

 "My first response was to type in 'hahaha,'" Neil Sroka, the
communications director at the liberal group Democracy for America, said
when asked about the possibility of Manchin seeking the Democratic
nomination.

"Maybe in the early '90s he might have had a chance. Maybe, but you know,
right now the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party is ascendant. And it's one
where progressives are gathering more and more force. Manchin is no
Elizabeth Warren."

But at a time when Republicans and Democrats are more divided along
ideological lines than at any other point in the last two decades, could
there be room for a rifle-brandishing moderate in a Democratic primary?

The received wisdom in Washington is that Hillary Clinton, if she decides
to run, would clog the "moderate" lane -- and most lanes -- of the
Democratic nomination contest. But Mike Weber sees an opening.

"We've been deeply polarized as a nation," Weber, the New Mexico politico
behind @DraftJoeManchin, told CBS News. "We can only be unified long-term
as a nation again by a centrist president."

Weber started the Twitter account and its correlating 26 state-based draft
pages after listening to Clinton's NPR interview with Terry Gross, in which
the notoriously cautious former secretary of state bristled under tough
questioning about her evolving position on same-sex marriage. Weber called
the interview "obnoxious."

If Clinton takes a pass on 2016, however, Manchin might see that opening.
Still, his centrist positions would glaringly contrast those of Warren, the
liberal freshman senator from Massachusetts and the subject of her own
presidential draft movement.

Manchin's supporters, though, point to his ability to use his policy
differences as a means to facilitate conversation. It's earned him the
reputation for being a dealmaker and the Senate's closest thing to a
gridlock breaker. In fact, in 2013, Manchin reached across the aisle more
than any Senate Democrat: of the 168 bills he co-sponsored, 43.5 percent of
them were introduced by Republicans.

"Manchin would make a great president," said Mark McKinnon, the Republican
media strategist who co-founded No Labels, an organization devoted to
"problem solving and consensus building."

"He's the model of what we need in leadership today."

"Unfortunately, what makes him a great general election candidate would
likely make it very difficult for him to survive a primary. Which of course
is another problem in our politics today," McKinnon told CBS News.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a frequent guest on Manchin's bipartisan
evening cruises that he hosts on his boat, blames on the party primary
system as one reason why the Congress is on track to be the least
productive Congress in history; he paints the path of a centrist as a dead
end.

"The partisan primary system, which favors more ideologically pure
candidates, has contributed to the election of more extreme officeholders
and increased political polarization," Schumer wrote in a New York Times
op-ed Tuesday.

Recent Democratic presidential primary history isn't on Manchin's side:
since 1972, with the exception of Bill Clinton, Democrats have generally
shunned moderates when picking their nominees in a wide-open primary not
involving an incumbent president or vice president.

Candidates like Gary Hart, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are among the
high-profile candidates who failed against an eventual nominee that leaned
more to the left.

But even in states that aren't traditionally liberal, Dick Harpootlian, the
former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman, argued that a centrist
Democrat would have trouble.

"The primary voter here is probably more moderate than anywhere else in the
country," Harpootlian told CBS News. "We're not liberal down here, but I
still think he'd have a tough time explaining his positions."

"I think there are plenty of places that he would do well," Harpootlian
said. "But his position on coal and guns is not moderate. Both extreme."

So, with all the talk of a possible Manchin candidacy, what does Manchin
think about the prospect? Well, he seems to be straddling the fence.

"I feel like I'm in a unique position to help our country become a better
place for all Americans," Manchin said in a statement emailed to CBS News.
"We will have to see what the future holds."

He was, however, more blunt in an interview with Charleston, W.V., CBS
affiliate WOWK-TV last week.

"I'm not serious about running." Manchin said, adding that while he was
very flattered, "on a national ticket, it would be a pretty far reach
probably for me."

*McClatchy DC: “Bernie Sanders for president 2016? It could happen”
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/24/234335/bernie-sanders-for-president-2016.html>*

By William Douglas

July 24, 2014

Bernie Sanders for President 2016?

The fiesty liberal independent senator from Vermont says it could happen.
In an interview to air Thursday on Ora.tv’s ‘PoliticKing with Larry King,’
Sanders says he’s weighing his options. He said he’s made no decision yet.

‘For me to do well, to win a presidential election, would mean that we
would have to put together an unprecedented grassroots movement,’ he said
in the Ora.tv interview. ‘I mean, you would need many, many hundreds of
thousands of people knocking on doors, educating, organizing. That is not
an easy thing to do.’

When King noted that independently wealthy Ross Perot was able to wage a
somewhat impactful, though unsuccessful, presidential bid in 1992, Sanders
replied that ‘the difference between Ross and me – and I like Ross – Ross
has a few billion dollars in his bank account. I don’t, and that is a
significant difference.’

Sanders expressed some frustration with President Barack Obama for trying
to work with Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate
early in his presidency when it was clear that they had no intention of
cooperating with the Democratic-held White House.

‘I would say my main criticism of Barack Obama is that he seemed to think
when he came in, the ensuing years, that he could negotiate with right-wing
extremists who really had no intention of negotiating,’ Sanders told King.

Sanders said ‘negotiation is part of what politics is all about’ but you
cannot negotiate with people who refuse to negotiate, who really want to
destroy you.’

‘And I think it took him (Obama) a number of years to learn that lesson,’
Sanders added.

*RealClearPolitics: “Heitkamp: Addressing Abuse Issues Can Unite Lawmakers”
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/24/heitkamp_addressing_abuse_issues_can_unite_lawmakers_123445.html>*

By Adam O’Neal

July 24, 2014

Rep. Donna Edwards and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp expressed a strong hope
Thursday that
the deeply divided U.S. Congress can come together to address the problem
of domestic violence.

Speaking at a breakfast organized by RealClearPolitics and Allstate, the
Maryland congresswoman and the North Dakota senator discussed the state of
the Violence Against Women Act; the new frontiers in combating domestic
violence; and whether an issue as important as women’s safety can bridge
divides among polarized lawmakers.

Asked by RCP Washington Bureau Chief Carl Cannon whether it was possible to
get a bipartisan consensus on these issues, Heitkamp answered,
“Absolutely,” adding that Sens. John Cornyn, Richard Blumenthal, and Amy
Klobuchar see their work in the Senate as a continuation of progress they
made as attorneys general and prosecutors in their home states.

Heitkamp also noted that work on domestic violence legislation is a bright
spot in the otherwise contentious relationship between the House and
Senate. She predicted that the two chambers would be able to agree on a
domestic safe harbor bill, “which we’re excited about.”

Edwards noted that some impediments to significant reform lie in the
details of legislation: The fight over reauthorizing the Violence Against
Women Act had broken down “over really partisan lines because of who would
be covered under the new reauthorization. Were we going to cover people on
tribal lands? Were we going to cover fully the LGBT community? And these
tend to be really partisan kinds of fights.”

Edwards added that sequester spending cuts have hurt women, in particular.
She noted that funds for programs to protect women and children have not
yet been restored to pre-sequester levels.

“I think it’s really unfortunate,” she lamented, adding that investing in
protecting women and children in their homes could turn “into an economic
boon. It doesn’t really make sense to cut those programs.”

The two agreed that one of the best ways to better address the problem of
domestic violence and human trafficking is to elect more women to public
office. And would electing a woman to the presidency help even more with
passing legislation to protect vulnerable women?

“No question about it!” declared an enthusiastic Edwards, who lavished
praise on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Despite the hopeful signs both lawmakers cited, the problem of domestic
violence remains widespread and serious.

“We need to have a very strong law enforcement presence and we have to
prosecute people who exploit human beings, who sell human beings. That has
to be among the most heinous of all crimes in our country,” said Heitkamp.
“But we also have to understand the dynamics and how we’re going prevent
these crimes as we provide more empowerment on the front end.”

Heidtkamp’s and Edwards’ remarks were followed by a panel discussion
featuring leaders in the fight against domestic violence, including:
National Network to End Domestic Violence President and CEO Kim Gandy; YWCA
CEO Dara Richardson-Heron; Center for American Progress Crime and Firearms
Policy Director Chelsea Parsons; and Rutgers University social work
professor Judy L. Postmus.