Subject: Correct The Record Wednesday August 27, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:58:19 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Wednesday August 27, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Sec. Clinton said the US is "committed
to advancing opportunities for women as entrepreneurs and business leaders.”
http://correctrecord.org/breaking-glass-womens-economic-empowerment …
<http://t.co/EbjHeqTrXl> [8/26/14, 8:30 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/504425589835460608>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Pro-Clinton Group Touts Her Record on
Women" http://time.com/3182146/hillary-clinton-womens-equality-day/ …
<http://t.co/LPYrk3AFXm> via @JNSmall <https://twitter.com/JNSmall>
 [8/26/14,2:42 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/504338201398767617>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Breaking Glass: Women’s Economic
Empowerment"
http://correctrecord.org/breaking-glass-womens-economic-empowerment …
<http://t.co/KIDwC8QKsR>[8/26/14, 1:51 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/504325175299809282>]

*Headlines:*

*Politico: “A Clinton-Pelosi fundraiser in San Francisco”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>*

“Hillary Clinton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will headline ‘the
ultimate women’s power lunch’ on Oct. 20to raise money for the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, according to an invitation obtained by
POLITICO.”

*CNN: Hillary Clinton to court Democratic women in September
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>*

“The former secretary of state is addressing the Women's Leadership Forum
21st Annual National Issues Conference on September 19 in Washington, CNN
has learned. The fundraiser, to be hosted by the Democratic National
Committee, will feature President Barack Obama as the keynote speaker.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton and President Obama to headline event”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-womens-leadership-forum-110385.html>*

“Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are headlining a Democratic National
Committee fundraiser together in Washington next month, according to an
invitation obtained by POLITICO.”

*Associated Press: “Former President Clinton to campaign in Rhode Island
for treasurer hopeful Magaziner”
<http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6da274c27e44415ea542c4fcb8a369cf/RI--Clinton-Rhode-Island>*

“Former President Bill Clinton is making a campaign stop in Rhode Island
for Democratic candidate for treasurer Seth Magaziner.”

*CNN: “First-week sales of Paul Ryan's book slow”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/27/first-week-sales-of-paul-ryans-book-slow/>*

“Rep. Paul Ryan's first solo book sold 6,266 copies in its first week of
publication, according to Nielsen Bookscan data provided to CNN by a
publisher.”

*Breitbart: “Exclusive – Rand Paul: Hillary’s ‘War Hawk’ Policies Led to
Benghazi Attack, Rise of ISIS”
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-Hillary-Clinton-s-War-Hawk-Style-Policies-Destabilized-Libya-Syria-Leading-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS>*

“In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed
rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits,
are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential
nomination in 2016.”

*The Guardian opinion: Megan Carpentier, The Guardian’s deputy US opinion
editor: “Why Hillary Clinton should keep her mouth shut”
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/hillary-clinton-change-liberals-no-comment-policy>*

“Though she is ostensibly hawking just a (sleep-inducing) memoir of her
time in the foreign policy trenches this summer, and has limited her public
comments to foreign policy issues, somehow, Clinton still almost seems like
the change some Americans have been waiting for.”

*Huffington Post blog: Robert J. Elisberg, screenwriter and columnist: “And
the Rand Played On”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/and-the-rand-played-on_b_5715801.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

“Is Hillary Clinton more conservative when it comes to supporting military
involvement than some Democrats prefer? Yes, absolutely. And that is the
biggest nightmare for Republicans is she is nominated.”

*U.S. News & World Report opinion: Peter Roff, contributing editor at U.S.
News & World Report: “Hillary Has to Throw Obama Under the Bus”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/08/27/hillary-clinton-has-to-throw-obama-under-the-bus-to-win-in-2016?src=usn_tw>*

“It’s only going to get worse. Expect over the next few months to read news
exclusives in prominent left-of-center publications like The New York Times
and The Huffington Post – quoting ‘administration insiders’ and the like –
that Clinton was a private but vocal opponent inside the administration of
many of the Obama initiatives that went wrong.”

*Articles:*

*Politico: “A Clinton-Pelosi fundraiser in San Francisco”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>*

By Maggie Haberman

August 27, 2014, 12:47 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will headline “the
ultimate women’s power lunch” on Oct. 20 to raise money for the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, according to an invitation obtained by
POLITICO.

The high-dollar fundraiser will take place at the Fairmont Hotel in San
Francisco, starting at 11 a.m. Pelosi represents the San Francisco area.

Pelosi was not a Clinton booster during her 2008 presidential campaign
against then-Sen. Barack Obama. But she has since repeatedly said she
thinks Clinton would make a strong president.

*CNN: Hillary Clinton to court Democratic women in September
<http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>*

By Brianna Keilar

August 27, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- As Hillary Clinton eyes a potential 2016 presidential
run, she will speak to a key constituency next month: women.

The former secretary of state is addressing the Women's Leadership Forum
21st Annual National Issues Conference on September 19 in Washington, CNN
has learned.

The fundraiser, to be hosted by the Democratic National Committee, will
feature President Barack Obama as the keynote speaker.

He will address the forum shortly after Clinton is slated to speak.

First lady Michelle Obama will speak on September 18 at a welcome reception
for the two-day event.

The conference will also feature a number of other notable Democratic
women, including Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards, Stephanie Schriock
of Emily's List, Neera Tanden of Center for American Progress, New York
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, according
to an invitation obtained by CNN.

Feminist activist and icon Gloria Steinem will appear at the event's
concluding dinner.

"Turning out women voters is incredibly important to Democrats heading into
November, and the conference will be an important opportunity to highlight
the clear choice voters will face in November on the issues most important
to women and their families," a source with knowledge of the event told CNN.

Donors for the event are being asked to contribute between $25 -- which
buys students access to political training sessions -- and $32,400, the
maximum annual donation to the major political party committees.

Among other things, the maximum donation allows an individual to take part
in a welcome reception featuring Mrs. Obama, two photo receptions and the
concluding dinner.

The conference is one of many closely watched appearances that Clinton --
currently the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic 2016 presidential
nomination, if she runs -- will make this fall political season.

Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, are scheduled to
headline the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, just a few days before
the women's event. The steak fry is a rite of passage for Democratic
presidential contenders.

Hillary Clinton is also slated to appear at a number of other fundraisers
to benefit Democrats running in this midterm election year.

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton and President Obama to headline event”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-womens-leadership-forum-110385.html>*

By Maggie Haberman and Katie Glueck

August 27, 2014, 12:19 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are headlining a Democratic National
Committee fundraiser together in Washington next month, according to an
invitation obtained by POLITICO.

The president and his former secretary of state will both speak at the
DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum. The event is at the Marriott Marquis in
Washington on Sept. 18-19.

A welcome reception is set to be hosted by First Lady Michelle Obama and
Dr. Jill Biden, Vice President Joe Biden’s wife. Gloria Steinem is expected
at the Friday night dinner and conference speakers include high-profile
female Democrats like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Center for American Progress
President Neera Tanden and EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock, along
with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

*Associated Press: “Former President Clinton to campaign in Rhode Island
for treasurer hopeful Magaziner”
<http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6da274c27e44415ea542c4fcb8a369cf/RI--Clinton-Rhode-Island>*

[No Writer Mentioned]

August 27, 2014, 12:46 p.m. EDT

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island — Former President Bill Clinton is making a
campaign stop in Rhode Island for Democratic candidate for treasurer Seth
Magaziner.

Magaziner is the son of former Clinton administration policy adviser Ira
Magaziner. Clinton will headline a rally for Magaziner at the Rhode Island
Convention Center in Providence on Wednesday afternoon.

The political newcomer is running against former Treasurer Frank Caprio.
Caprio is the Democratic Party's endorsed candidate.

Clinton came to Rhode Island in 2010 to support Caprio in his campaign for
the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Caprio supported Hillary Rodham
Clinton in 2008.

The winner of the Sept. 9 primary faces former state Auditor General Ernie
Almonte in November. Almonte is running as an independent. No Republican
filed to run. The incumbent treasurer, Gina Raimondo, is seeking the
Democratic nomination for governor.

*CNN: “First-week sales of Paul Ryan's book slow”
<http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/27/first-week-sales-of-paul-ryans-book-slow/>*

By Dan Merica

August 27th, 2014 11:02 a.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) – Rep. Paul Ryan's first solo book sold 6,266 copies in
its first week of publication, according to Nielsen Bookscan data provided
to CNN by a publisher.

The number puts Ryan's "The Way Forward" behind two other books by
conservative authors, "America" by Dinesh D’Souza and "One Nation" by Ben
Carson, both of which have been out longer than "The Way Forward,"
according Jason Pinter, the founder and publisher of Polis Books.

The Nielsen data makes up roughly 85% of all retail book sales but does not
include e-book and preorders.

"Considering two years ago Ryan was the VP nominee and a rising star, first
week sales have to be considered fairly disappointing," said Pinter. "Ben
Carson’s book is doing huge business, not just having sold 245,885 since
publication in May, but it’s still selling over 11,000 copies a week and
has a good shot at the #1 spot on the New York Times bestseller list in its
14th week in release."

Ryan, who is considered a possible 2016 contender for the Republican
presidential nomination, wrote the book to "challenge conventional
thinking, renew the conservative vision for 2014 and beyond and show how it
is essential for the well-being of our communities and the future of our
nation," according to the publisher.

Ryan did not receive an advance from the book, per House rules, but the
eight-term congressman will receive royalties from sales.

Since kicking off a book tour earlier this month in Philadelphia, Ryan has
crisscrossed the country holding book events and speeches to tout "The Way
Forward."

In Chicago, he had his first public event with Mitt Romney, who chose Ryan
as his running mate in 2012.

Because Ryan is seen as a 2016 contender, his book will be seen as a gauge
of his popularity heading into the national contest.

When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton published her latest memoir,
"Hard Choices," earlier this year, a great deal of attention was focused on
how many books she sold.

Although Ryan outsold Clinton last week – 6,266 to 3,910 – the former first
lady has sold 231,254 copies overall, according to Nielsen.

Clinton's book landed atop the New York Times bestseller list when it was
released in June, but her sales were considered poor because of the sizable
advance she received, the attention around the book rollout and the fact
her publisher reportedly ordered 1 million first edition copies.

CNN reached out to a Ryan representative for comment but did not hear back.

*Breitbart: “Exclusive – Rand Paul: Hillary’s ‘War Hawk’ Policies Led to
Benghazi Attack, Rise of ISIS”
<http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-Hillary-Clinton-s-War-Hawk-Style-Policies-Destabilized-Libya-Syria-Leading-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS>*

By Matthew Boyle

August 27, 2014, 9:45 a.m. PDT

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet
the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and
stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President
Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the
U.S. military engagement in Libya.

The comments predictably caused heads in the GOP's foreign policy
establishment to explode. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called the
rhetorical gambit “ludicrous” and said Paul holds the same views as his
father, the libertarian former-Rep. Ron Paul. In an email to me, John Yoo,
the former top Justice Department official in the Bush administration, said
Paul is the Republicans' “own version of George McGovern.”

In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed
rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits,
are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential
nomination in 2016. Paul told Breitbart News:

“I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place
and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and
really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push
for this war. One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not
having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really
unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently
our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the
airport because of such a disaster in Libya. So I think it’s hard to argue
that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the
first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for
authority to go to war.”

While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam
Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad
actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place?

“Sometimes people are trying to say I don’t have enough concern for this.
Well, actually, I have a great deal of concern—and not thinking through the
consequences of intervention has caused Islamism and radical jihadist
groups to proliferate. So I think Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein were both
secular dictators who were awful, and did terrible things to their people,
but at the same time were also enemies of the jihadists. Assad is the same
way. What we’ve done in Libya, and now what we’re doing in Syria, is we
have armed groups that are commingled with jihadists.”

For instance, in Syria, Paul says, by arming the “rebels” against Assad,
America “degraded Assad’s capacity to wipe out the rebel groups in his
country.”

A year ago, Obama sought approval from Congress to engage militarily in
Syria, as Paul urges, but Congress balked. Facing stiff resistance from
lawmakers of both parties, the matter never even came up for a vote.

According to Paul, that's how the system is supposed to work.

“Think what would have happened had we seriously degraded Assad to the
point where he was overrun, think who would be in charge of Syria right
now?” Paul asked before answering his own rhetorical question: ”ISIS.” In
conclusion, Paul said:

“So we are very lucky that the American people are much wiser than Hillary
Clinton, and much wiser than the president. We got the president and
Hillary Clinton to slow down, but Hillary Clinton was widely reported to be
the chief person proposing that we get involved in Syria. But really the
only person directly involved in bombing ISIS’s bases right now is the
Syrian government—so for all their wrongs, we’re actually quite lucky we
didn’t have regime change, because I think it is a very realistic
prediction that, had we had that happen, that ISIS would be in charge of
Syria. Really, Syria, with Assad and all this war, is somewhat of a counter
to the power of ISIS.”

Paul's critics in the GOP are increasingly agitated by his stances,
especially what they see as him positioning himself to the left of Clinton
on foreign policy, even while the Middle East is becoming ever more
volatile.

“The last thing the Republican Party needs is its own version of George
McGovern,” Yoo told me. “More than 50 percent of the American people now
disapprove of Obama's isolationist foreign policy, whose disastrous effects
we now see in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Asia. Paul's views will have
the same bad consequences, both for the Republican Party, the United
States, and the world.”

On a panel on Meet The Press that followed Paul's interview, Michael
Gerson, the former Geroge W. Bush speechwriter and one of the architects of
“compassionate conservatism,” criticized Paul for opposing foreign aid.

“He’s called for the gradual elimination of all foreign aid,” Gerson said.
“I’ve seen its effect in sub-Saharan Africa and other places. This would
cause misery for millions of people on AIDS treatment. It would betray
hundreds of thousands of children receiving malaria treatment. These are
things you can’t ignore in a presidential candidate. This is a perfect case
of how a person can have good intentions, but how an ideology can cause
terrible misery. He will need to explain that.”

However, James Carafano, a generally hawkish foreign policy expert at the
Heritage Foundation, said Paul is tapping into real currents of discontent
with the American public.

Paul is “onto something,” in that “in a sense that people are looking for
something other than reflexively send in the bombs or reflexively do
nothing,” Carafano told this reporter.

“It’s not just Sen. Paul, but I’ve heard several of the people who might be
Republican candidates offer different versions of the same thing,” Carafano
said. “Rick Perry was here the other day and was a little more aggressive
on Iraq than Paul, but in their own way, what everybody is trying to say is
we need to be prudent as opposed to somebody who just says we’re going to
go do this.”

Paul describes himself as “a foreign policy realist like the first George
Bush, like Reagan, like Eisenhower.” He elaborates:

“They did intervene on occasion. It was not their first choice—but they did
intervene when there were American interests involved, and I think really
it’s not one extreme or the other. I often tell people in speeches one
extreme goes nowhere all the time and that’s isolationism. The other
extreme goes everywhere all the time. Many of the foreign policy sort of
establishment in Washington, they're so used to being everywhere all of the
time, that anyone who backs away from everywhere all of the time is
considered to be an isolationist.”

Paul said that in many cases, “there is no good alternative”—and that much
of the time, each foreign policy choice by a president has negative
consequences and positive ones. But the best decision, he said, is the one
that acts in the best interest of America and her allies like Israel—even
if that means a bad dictator remains in power.

“I think one of the biggest threats to our country is radical Islam and
these radical Islamist groups—they are a threat,” Paul said.

Paul is currently leading the GOP field in 2016 GOP primary polls a few
months out from the 2014 midterm elections. He said Americans are looking
for someone they can trust to do the right thing when a foreign policy
crisis arises. Paul went on:

“When people are looking at choosing someone to be commander-in-chief, I
think first and foremost they’re looking at whether that person has the
wisdom and judgment to defend the country and make those decisions—when
that 3 a.m.phone call came for Hillary, she didn’t bother to pick up the
phone. In Libya, they were calling—they needed reinforcements for six
months. It wasn’t just the night of the attack; for six months leading up
to the attack there were repeated calls for reinforcements, for security
teams, for a DC-3 to fly people on a plane to be able to leave the country.
So I think the compilation of mistakes leading up to Benghazi really do
preclude her from consideration to become commander-in-chief.”

Regarding ISIS, the Islamic State terrorist organization that has grown a
foothold in Syria and Iraq, Paul said he supports airstrikes. But if he
were the president in this situation, unlike Obama, he would have called
Congress back from recess to sell both chambers on action—and seek
authorization before using America’s armed forces there. Paul said of ISIS:

“We need to do what it takes to make sure they’re not strong enough to
attack us. That means sometimes perhaps continuing the alliance with the
new Iraqi government. Perhaps it means armaments, or perhaps it means air
support, but frankly if I were in President Obama’s shoes at this time, I
would have called Congress back, I would have had a joint session of
Congress, and I would have said ‘this is why ISIS is a threat to the United
States, to the stability of the region, to our embassy, to our diplomats,
and this is why I’m asking you today to authorize air attacks.’ I’m betting
if he would have done that to a joint session of Congress, he would have
gotten approval. When you don’t do it through Congress, and you do it
yourself, then you really have not galvanized the will of the nation. As a
true leader, what I think we need to do is galvanize the nation when we go
to war.”

But since Clinton and Obama have “a disregard for the rule of law,” which
generally requires congressional authorization for such military action
while giving the president considerable latitude for short-term action, the
administration did not seek congressional authorization for action in
Libya—and probably won’t for action against ISIS, if it’s taken. Paul
concluded:

“Americans do want strong leadership from the president. They do think that
President Obama is not being a strong leader. They do want a strong leader,
something more akin to the public persona of Reagan. But they also don’t
want somebody who is reckless in engaging in war; they don’t want somebody
to put troops back in the Middle East. That was my point with Hillary
Clinton—her eagerness to be involved in Libya and to be involved in Syria,
in Libya led to very bad, probably unintended consequences and in Syria
unintended consequences also. But I think you have less unintended
consequences if you come to the American people through Congress and have a
full-throated debate. It’s frankly difficult to convince Congress to do
things—and that way, if you do it that way, you’re unlikely to go to war
unless there is a consensus among the American people.”

*The Guardian opinion: Megan Carpentier, The Guardian’s deputy US opinion
editor: “Why Hillary Clinton should keep her mouth shut”
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/hillary-clinton-change-liberals-no-comment-policy>*

By Megan Carpentier

August 27, 2014, 7:30 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] She might not be the change liberals are looking for, but her
no-comment policy – on Ferguson and beyond – will keep her the frontrunner

Hillary Clinton is not going to save you.

She’s not your mother, your best friend or your confessor; a time machine
to the 90s, the solution to the nation’s increasing divisiveness, or the
correct variable in a complicated equation that equals 538; a reflection of
what you want to hear, or the embodiment of what you want a “leader” to
believe.

What she is: a politician with two successful Senate campaigns under her
belt – both in Democrat-friendly New York – and one ultimately unsuccessful
presidential campaign; the former US secretary of state; an author; the
former First Lady of both the United States and the state of Arkansas; a
lawyer; a soon-to-be grandmother; a flawed human being; and, despite the
fact that she hasn’t even said if she plans to run for office ever again,
the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 (if a
vote were held today, which it won’t be).

So why the relentless push from reporters and pundits for Clinton to
comment on the brutal killing of Michael Brown and the subsequent crackdown
by police in Ferguson? Why does anyone expect a private citizen to say
something public about the heartbreak of another family, about the need for
healing at this time, about letting the law run its course?

Because, you know, President Obama did say almost all of that two weeks ago.

It would be easy enough to dismiss the Hillary-soundbite fever as part of
the 24-hour cable-and-internet news cycle: we want recognizable people to
say moderately controversial things so that they can be written about and
aggregated, played and replayed, then analyzed, dissected, allowed to cool
and finally reheated for the increasingly small Sundaytalk show audience.

But pundits, reporters and Clinton supporters want her to comment on
everything and anything – especially domestic issues – because they want a
specific kind of comment: one they didn’t get from Obama.

In certain liberal quarters – not just the erstwhile Puma factions – there
is a palpable disaffection with the Obama presidency and, from the Brown
statement to his deportation policy to his drone program to the dearth of
bankers languishing behind bars, there have been plenty of reasons for
liberals to have lost that hopey-changey feel.

Into that expectation gap snuck the Ready For Hillary folks – who
reportedly aren’t coordinating with Clinton herself – as they hope to lay
groundwork for her comeback. The Hillary hopefuls want her to be, right
now, the one thing she most definitely is not: the current president of the
United States.

Though she is ostensibly hawking just a (sleep-inducing) memoir of her time
in the foreign policy trenches this summer, and has limited her public
comments to foreign policy issues, somehow, Clinton still almost seems like
the change some Americans have been waiting for.

But as others have noted, there is still virtually no political upside for
Clinton to issuing a public statement about much of anything going on in
this country – much less about Ferguson, given how deeply divided by race
the country remains and how much of that divided sentiment she’d have to
win over in both a Democratic primary and a general election, if she did
run and secure the nomination. There’s no political upside to Hillary
Clinton doing anything right now except to remain as non-controversial as
possible – which, even on book tour, she didn’t quite manage to achieve.
After all, she’s still outpolling her Democrat rivals by more than 50
points, and nationwide support for her is nearly 10 points higher than for
Obama – though down from her tenure as Secretary of State, during which
time she notably wasn’t running for office.

When it comes to her political career, Clinton is a consummate politician –
she is, in the parlance of the New York Times, “no angel”. So she isn’t
going to resurrect disenfranchised Obama supporters’ passion for politics,
and she’s not going to snap her fingers and undo Obama’s extrajudicial
killing policy, and she’s not going to go back in time and support same sex
marriage any faster or get single-payer pushed through. She’s not going to
make grand pronouncements that mend race relations – goodness knows her
supporters did their own damage to race relations in 2008 – and, even if
she does destroy the glass ceiling in 2016, gender inequality will continue
to exist.

She might be the first woman to be elected president one day – but 2016 is
a long way off. Being the front-runner is great but, to stay there, Clinton
knows as well as anyone that she’s better off to stay mum and let her
supporters make assumptions than to open her mouth and prove her critics
right.

*Huffington Post blog: Robert J. Elisberg, screenwriter and columnist: “And
the Rand Played On”
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/and-the-rand-played-on_b_5715801.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>*

By Robert J. Elisberg

August 26, 2014, 6:02 p.m. EDT

"I think that's what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general
election, were I to run, there's gonna be a lot of independents and even
some Democrats who say, 'You know what? We are tired of war. We're worried
that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war,
because she's so gung-ho." -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), on the possibility of
Hillary Clinton running for President.

Actually, what scares the Democrats the most is the concept that someone
like Rand Paul could become President of the United States. And so they
would do most anything to see that that didn't happen.

I don't tend to follow what Rand Paul generally says all that well. He so
often twists his positions around on themselves, and they regularly come
blowing out of unexpected orifices. But in the realm of Rand Paul comments,
incomprehensible as this thinking can be, this rates among his most
head-scratching. Which is saying a lot. I just don't know what on earth he
was thinking or trying to gain by saying this.

It's not that he was so wildly off-based in his description of Hillary
Clinton. While he's exaggerating her positions, the truth is that I do
think that she's more conservative than liberal when it comes to her
positions on national defense. And it's a reason some Democrats don't
support her for the nomination. But they know this about her already. And
have for a long time. And not supporting someone for the nomination is a
different kind of fish from support in the general election. So, again, I'm
just not quite sure what Rand Paul was possibly thinking or trying to gain
by saying this.

Mind you, what Mr. Paul leaves unsaid in his comment is that while a
Democrat who is more conservative on war could lose some Independent and
"even some" Democratic votes, such a candidate who is positioned as very
tough on national defense is also far more likely to pick up even far more
Independent votes and a lot of Republican ones. So, you'd think the very
last thing a Republican would want to do is paint any Democrat as playing
to the GOP's own strength.

After all, you know that Hillary Clinton will be strong on social issues
and on immigration, concerns that are so critical to Democrats, and a
candidate like Rand Paul is achingly weak there, him being on the record,
for instance, as not saying that he is not a strong supporter of the Voting
Rights Act. So, the one issue that Republicans can ever have the upper hand
on Democrats is by painting them (as they so often do) as lily-livered
appeasers on national defense. And yet here is Rand Paul handing Hillary
Clinton that on a silver platter.

In fact, going further, the biggest issue that Republicans (wrongly) think
they have on Ms. Clinton is relentlessly attacking her eternally over her
supposed-involvement in the failure in Benghazi. That's a near-impossible
case to make now when with the other other hand you're painting her as this
defender of American in war. So, Mr. Paul is pulling the rug from under the
one card Republicans believe they have.

And the only other remote issue that Republicans could have on Hillary
Clinton is her being a woman -- which for some means that she's too soft
and tender and touch-feely and weepy emotional. And here is Rand Paul
telling voters to be wary of Hillary Clinton because...she's too tough and
militaristic.

The only thing I can even possibly see that he thinks he's doing is trying
a bit of preventative offense, campaigning against Hillary Clinton early by
tarnishing her badly in the eyes of Democrats so that they won't nominate
her to run for President. Against him.

The problem with that is the one thing any Democrat could hope for is to be
criticized by Rand Paul. Or Ted Cruz. Or Mario Rubio. The front line
triumvirate of Republicans who most Democrats consider the leading heirs of
the Lunatic Fringe. The specifics of what Rand Paul is saying here are
empty words to Democrats -- the political equivalent of adults in the
Peanuts animated specials, with just the sound of a horn going
"whank-whank-whaaaaank." All that Democrats would hear is that Rand Paul
was criticizing one of their own Democrats trying to get their own
nomination. How dare he?!!

And all that Republicans and right-leaning Independents would hear is that
Hillary Clinton will "bring it on" and take it to those terrorists in the
Middle East.

And in the end, what he has mainly done is allow Hillary Clinton to explain
that the last thing she needs is Rand Paul whining about how much she'll
come to the defense of America. Because one thing you know she'll always do
is go to the defense of America. Which is what she did when she was in the
White House as First Lady. And when she was in the United States Senate.
And when she was secretary of state, while Rand Paul is fine leaving
America defenseless, she will always be on the front line defending our
nation, as she always has been. And yes, she has supported war when our
nation was attacked, and she has spent her career working diplomatically
for peace. And Rand Paul -- honestly, she doesn't know what Rand Paul has
ever stood for. Other than weakening our national defense.

Is Hillary Clinton more conservative when it comes to supporting military
involvement than some Democrats prefer? Yes, absolutely. And that is the
biggest nightmare for Republicans is she is nominated.

What scares Democrats the most is that Rand Paul will stop saying junk like
this.

*U.S. News & World Report opinion: Peter Roff, contributing editor at U.S.
News & World Report: “Hillary Has to Throw Obama Under the Bus”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/08/27/hillary-clinton-has-to-throw-obama-under-the-bus-to-win-in-2016?src=usn_tw>*

By Peter Roff

August 27, 2014, 8:00 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Clinton must turn on the Obama administration in order to run
in 2016.

The 2016 presidential contest is already being shaped by the events going
on around us.

From the ethnic cleansing in the Middle East to the riots in Ferguson,
Missouri, the things happening now are generating themes the candidates in
the next presidential contest will have to address, especially in the
national security area which, all evidence to the contrary aside, has been
relegated to the back bench in the last two presidential elections because
issues here at home took precedence with the American voter.

If you’re former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, this is a scenario
that plays to your strengths but also to your weaknesses. She can discuss
foreign policy in great detail, outlining a vision for America’s role in
the world that could be compelling and attractive, even to the
neo-isolationists in the mainstream of the Democratic Party and on the
fringe of the GOP.

At the same time she is going to have to answer, finally, tough questions
about Benghazi, about Egypt, about the war on terror and about other issues
that arose on her watch. In essence, she is going to have to be an
apologist for the Obama administration’s foreign policy, both the portion
she oversaw and for those things that happened after she left to sell her
book and to prepare for her second run for the White House.

This is not an advantageous position. President Barack Obama’s surprising
return in the face of criticism from his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard
suggests even private polls are showing that key voter blocs think the
president is too disengaged from his work. His foreign policy, which
started off with such promise, has turned into a giant lemon. Clinton has
to figure out how to take that and make lemonade.

It won’t be easy. There are ways to do it, but they involve turning on her
president, something her patron, mentor and chief adviser is no doubt eager
for her to do.

Former President Bill Clinton – who is likely to take a much more hands-on
approach to the management of his wife’s 2016 campaign than he did in 2008,
is the master of triangulation. He is no doubt already trying to figure out
ways to present his wife as the effective counter to both the incompetence
of the Obama administration on the left and the insanity of the tea party
Republicans on the right.

It’s been done before, most notably by former (and perhaps future) French
President Nicolas Sarkozy, who in 2007 managed successfully to separate
himself from scandal-tainted rightest incumbent President Jacques Chirac
while presenting a center-right agenda that was more appealing to French
voters than the policy prescriptions put forward by Socialist Ségolène
Royal. Sarkozy’s triangulation proved to be a winning combination at least
once.

That’s the game plan Hillary has to follow if she wants to get back into
the White House: She must demonstrate that she is smarter and more
competent than Obama with better ideas for getting America back to work
than her opponents the right. Her evidence for this? The eight years of
relative peace and prosperity America experienced during the years her
husband occupied the Oval Office. Remember their comments from 1992 about
“two for one”?

The first step down this road is to throw Obama under the bus. There’s
already been some of that – like former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s
public statements several weeks ago about how the current president had
been dishonest in the way he sold his signature health care reform proposal
to the American people.

It’s only going to get worse. Expect over the next few months to read news
exclusives in prominent left-of-center publications like The New York Times
and The Huffington Post – quoting “administration insiders” and the like –
that Clinton was a private but vocal opponent inside the administration of
many of the Obama initiatives that went wrong. That while Obama wanted to
get tough on Israel, Hillary counseled caution and doing nothing that would
jeopardize Israel’s territorial integrity and national security. And, above
all, that her hands are clean on Benghazi even though Team Obama tried to
make her the fall guy and throw her to the wolves.

Expect similar leaks on the domestic front on matters like health care,
education and the rights of women and children. It will soon start to come
out that, if the policy had a good outcome, she was a mover and shaker on
its behalf behind the scenes and, if it had a bad outcome, she argued
strongly against it to the president but was ultimately overruled.

All this will be possible because, as far as most Americans who vote are
concerned, the age of Obama is already over. The president never managed to
live up to the promise (and promises) of his 2008 run for the White House
and his excuses are getting tiresome. And, with the Senate likely to go to
the Republicans in the upcoming election, Obama has simply outlived his
usefulness to the Democratic Party. He is, in a word, expendable – if your
eye is on the long term and setting the stage for the ground game you’re
going to need next time.

If he shows he can still be helpful by painting Republicans as being out of
touch with the needs of middle-class Americans or by otherwise disparaging
the GOP’s future electoral prospects, then his party will still defend him.
But those will be short-term decisions in a long-term game, setting up the
triangulation Hillary will need to have in place to become the nation’s
first female president.