Subject: Correct The Record Friday August 1, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:37:32 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

**

*Correct The Record Friday August 1, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Tweets:*

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton> is in step with her party on core
issues, particularly income inequality
http://correctrecord.org/memo-themes-for-2016-emerge-as-summer-2014-winds-down/
…
<http://t.co/5lExJsO4m3> [8/1/14, 12:00 p.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/495237769082712065>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: American voters, not just Beltway
insiders and politicos, support @HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>
http://correctrecord.org/memo-themes-for-2016-emerge-as-summer-2014-winds-down/
…
<http://t.co/5lExJsO4m3> [8/1/14, 11:30 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/495230029597773825>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: HRC and supporters don't want a
coronation if she runs, they want to get to work building support.
http://correctrecord.org/memo-themes-for-2016-emerge-as-summer-2014-winds-down/
…
<http://t.co/5lExJsO4m3> [8/1/14, 10:45 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/495218785717350400>]

*Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Why the right wing feels the need to
double-down on their failed attacks on@HillaryClinton
<https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton>, even now
http://correctrecord.org/memo-themes-for-2016-emerge-as-summer-2014-winds-down/
…
<http://t.co/5lExJsO4m3> [8/1/14, 9:30 a.m. EDT
<https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/495199812623806465>]

*Headlines:*

*Associated Press: “Iowa Democrats Exploring Ways to Expand Caucus”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEMOCRATS_2016?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“Democrats in Iowa are devising ways to expand access to their state's
leadoff presidential caucuses, addressing concerns raised by Hillary Rodham
Clinton following her disappointing finish in 2008.”

*ABC News: “It’s Been 2,401 Days Since Hillary Clinton Visited Iowa”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2401-days-hillary-clinton-visited-iowa/story?id=24803379>*

“Hillary Clinton has not stepped foot in Iowa since she came in third in
the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 4, 2008 -- 2,401 days ago.”

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Former Va. senator James Webb to
headline Democratic event in Iowa”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/01/former-va-senator-james-webb-to-headline-democratic-event-in-iowa/>*

“To the long list of politicians dipping their toes into the presidential
waters of Iowa, add James Webb.”

*Boston Globe: “Want to hear Clinton? It’ll cost you. Warren? Not so much.”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/07/31/want-hear-hillary-clinton-cost-you-elizabeth-warren-not-much/tta4ICFssNC09rCUnNTS5K/story.html?hootPostID=433886c682fbf12c9c583d9a937e8ac9>*

“Owing to Senate ethics rules that bind Warren, and a powerful biography
that elevates Clinton, the differences in costs — for universities,
business associations, and others — to hear from each prominent politician
is stark.”

*Christian Science Monitor: “Are anti-Clinton books a good sign for
Hillary?”
<http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2014/0801/Are-anti-Clinton-books-a-good-sign-for-Hillary>*

[Subtitle:] “Books like 'Blood Feud' by Edward Klein and 'The Real Benghazi
Story' by Aaron Klein may actually demonstrate that Clinton has returned to
political power.”

*Washington Post blog: DC Sports Blog: “Clint Didier releases statement on
Hillary Clinton, the Redskins name and Benghazi”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/08/01/clint-didier-releases-statement-on-hillary-clinton-the-redskins-name-and-benghazi/>*

“Whatever your feelings on the Redskins name issue, I trust you agree with
me that we all knew it was inevitable that a former Redskins tight end
turned Congressional candidate would one day release a statement about
Hillary Clinton, the team’s name, Benghazi, and alfalfa.”

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Barney Frank: Ready for Warren 'a good
thing'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/214054-barney-frank-ready-for-warren-a-good-thing>*

“Frank is certainly not endorsing Warren at this point, and Warren insists
she is not even running. In April, Frank appeared at an event encouraging
Clinton to run.”

*Articles:*

*Associated Press: “Iowa Democrats Exploring Ways to Expand Caucus”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEMOCRATS_2016?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Ken Thomas

August 1, 2014, 12:06 p.m. EDT

Democrats in Iowa are devising ways to expand access to their state's
leadoff presidential caucuses, addressing concerns raised by Hillary Rodham
Clinton following her disappointing finish in 2008.

Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan offered a series of
recommendations Friday to members of the Democratic National Committee,
including legislation requiring employers to give non-essential workers
time off to attend the caucuses, allowing out-of-state Iowans serving in
the military to participate by teleconferencing and creating satellite
caucus sites for shift workers and elderly who can't easily attend.

"There is nothing that we take more serious politically than our role in
the presidential selection process," Brennan said. He told the committee's
Rules and Bylaws Committee that "if there is a way that we remove some of
these barriers ... then we should do it."

The former secretary of state's name was not mentioned during the morning
discussion but the changes appeared aimed at addressing some of Clinton's
chief concerns following the 2008 caucuses, when she finished in third
place behind Barack Obama and John Edwards. Clinton complained then that
the Iowa rules prevented people who work at night from attending.

Clinton is the leading Democratic presidential contender in 2016 if she
decides to run again. Democrats in Iowa hope that she campaigns actively in
the state and an outside group called Ready for Hillary has drummed up
support for her in the politically influential rural state.

The Democratic caucuses require participants to form groups of candidate
supporters and gather in schools, church basements and homes throughout
Iowa. Supporters of candidates who receive less than 15 percent support in
an individual precinct disperse, giving other supporters the chance to
argue for their support.

Critics have said the process is less accessible than primaries because the
meetings require Iowans to devote several hours to participate.

In 2008, nearly 240,000 Iowans participated in the precinct caucuses,
smashing previous records. But Brennan said the party wants to continue to
make the meetings accessible. One of his proposals includes hiring a party
official who is tasked with ensuring that counties make their meetings more
open - from offering baby-sitting services to ensuring that it's accessible
for people with disabilities.

The committee did not take action on the broad proposals Friday but Brennan
said the state party intended to include the proposals in its voting plan
early next spring.

*ABC News: “It’s Been 2,401 Days Since Hillary Clinton Visited Iowa”
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2401-days-hillary-clinton-visited-iowa/story?id=24803379>*

By Jonathan Karl

August 1, 2014, 8:34 a.m. EDT

At this point in the presidential cycle, virtually anybody even thinking
about running for President has racked up frequent flier miles going
back-and-forth to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have already made a combined 10 trips to
Iowa since the last election. Democrats too. Joe Biden’s been there. Martin
O’Malley and Amy Klobucher too. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders has made two trips
each to Iowa and New Hampshire.

But the most formidable candidate of all hasn’t been to either state in
ages. Hillary Clinton has not stepped foot in Iowa since she came in third
in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 4, 2008 -- 2,401 days ago.

And it appears Mrs. Clinton hasn't made a public appearance in New
Hampshire since she won the 2008 New Hampshire primary -- 2,397 days ago.

At least some in Iowa are starting to feel neglected. Last month, the Iowa
Gazette practically begged Mrs. Clinton to visit.

“We’ve watched as you have flexed your muscles on the international stage
and have been impressed with your ability to connect,” the Gazette
editorialized. “But as Iowans, we need to see that connection in action.
Our hope, if you are really considering a 2016 run, is that you have
learned from your experience and come to Iowa intent on having true
conversations about what matters to our state and the fine people in it.”

Mrs. Clinton’s “Hard Choices” book tour has brought her all over the
country, but has stayed clear of the early presidential primary states. No
book signings or speeches in Iowa or New Hampshire. None in South Carolina
either.

It’s a measure of just how different a candidate Hillary Clinton will be --
so formidable, such an overwhelming favorite, so thoroughly well-known --
that she apparently doesn’t need to worry about laying the groundwork for a
campaign in the early states.

But in urging Mrs. Clinton to visit the Hawkeye state, the Iowa Gazette
sought to remind Mrs. Clinton that she also kept clear of Iowa back when
she was the overwhelming front-runner early in the 2008 presidential cycle.

“Mistakes were made -- frankly, too many to list here — but chief above
them all was the steadfast refusal of the Clinton campaign to honor the
tradition of visiting the early states,” the Gazette editorialized, urging
her to start engaging Iowa voters. “We’d suggest sooner rather than later
this time.”

ABC News reached out to Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill to ask why
she has steered clear of the states that virtually every other potential
candidate has been flocking to and to see if she has any plans to visit
those states any time soon, but we did not get a response.

*Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Former Va. senator James Webb to
headline Democratic event in Iowa”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/01/former-va-senator-james-webb-to-headline-democratic-event-in-iowa/>*

By Philip Rucker

August 1, 2014, 12:14 p.m. EDT

To the long list of politicians dipping their toes into the presidential
waters of Iowa, add James Webb.

The former Democratic senator from Virginia will visit Iowa this month,
home to the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses. Webb is slated to
headline an evening event for the Linn Phoenix Club, a Democratic group in
Cedar Rapids, on Aug. 20, according to an invitation obtained by The
Washington Post.

Tickets for what's billed as "a very special" event, to be held at a local
union hall, are going for $50 for club members and $100 for non-members,
according to the invitation.

Webb, a Vietnam War veteran and former secretary of the Navy, made
headlines in May when he said in a radio interview on WAMU that he is
considering a presidential run in 2016.

"My wife and I are just thinking about what to do next," Webb said. "I care
a lot about where the country is, and we'll be sorting that out."

Webb, a prolific author, has been promoting his recently published memoir,
“I Heard My Country Calling."

*Boston Globe: “Want to hear Clinton? It’ll cost you. Warren? Not so much.”
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2014/07/31/want-hear-hillary-clinton-cost-you-elizabeth-warren-not-much/tta4ICFssNC09rCUnNTS5K/story.html?hootPostID=433886c682fbf12c9c583d9a937e8ac9>*

By Matt Viser

July 31, 2014

WASHINGTON — They are two of the most in-demand voices in Democratic
politics. One is likely to run for president, the other is being
aggressively encouraged to do so. Each inspires legions of adoring fans.

But for the time being, there is a huge disparity in what it costs to
attract either political superstar to your event.

Want to hear Hillary Rodham Clinton? That’ll be at least $250,000 per
speech, plus a list of other demands. Eager to book Elizabeth Warren? She
won’t — in most cases can’t — even ask you to reimburse her cab fare.

Owing to Senate ethics rules that bind Warren, and a powerful biography
that elevates Clinton, the differences in costs — for universities,
business associations, and others — to hear from each prominent politician
is stark.

Clinton has been under scrutiny for giving dozens of speeches, including
some at public colleges and universities, and charging at least $200,000
for each.

She has earned at least $12 million since leaving public office in February
2013, according to a Bloomberg News estimate. The speaking fees are so
exorbitant — and the wealth so great — that some Democrats have been
worried about Republican attacks on Clinton that would mirror those that
Democrats used to tag Mitt Romney as out of touch during the 2012
presidential campaign.

At the same time, fervor for a Warren candidacy has grown. And while any
comparison between her speaking fees and Clinton’s is an imperfect one, it
does provide clues to their differing styles and career paths.

As a US senator, Warren is prohibited from taking speaking fees. She is
allowed to ask for a $2,000 charitable donation, but she hasn’t reported
doing so.

She could also ask for groups to pay for her travel, but instead she uses
her campaign accounts. Since becoming senator in 2013, she has reported
spending nearly $40,000 for all of her travel.

That includes a $201 charge at a DoubleTree in Cleveland, $254 at the
Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel in Chicago, and two stays at the W Hotel in
New York, with a tab each time of about $430.

When Clinton was in the Senate, she listed dozens of paid speeches given by
her husband — though she, like Warren is now, was bound by rules
restricting what she could accept. But she frequently allowed groups to pay
for her travel, reporting nearly $80,000 from 40 trips.

Those trips ranged from Tufts University paying $880 for her to travel to
Boston for a lecture in 2004, to $10,687 for a trip to Germany to accept an
award and give a speech in 2005.

Before Warren became a US senator, she almost never took fees for the
speeches she gave, according to a review of the federal disclosure
statements she has filed since 2008. She occasionally submitted for
reimbursements, but rarely requested more than the cab ride to and from the
airport.

In 2008, when she met with the American Bankruptcy Institute, she was paid
$582.83 for meals, taxis, and roundtrip airfare to Champaign, Ill. When she
spoke before AARP a few months later, she was reimbursed $1,256.86 for
airfare, meals, and taxis. In 2008, when Warren gave a speech at Georgetown
University, she was reimbursed a grand sum of $128, for taxi rides in
Washington and Boston.

One of the only measures of excess was a limo service to a speech at the
University of Maryland. But the limo ride was from an Amtrak station. And
dinner and all other reimbursements totaled $225.94.

When Emory University flew her to Atlanta for an award dinner in 2009, it
cost the school $396. It cost the University of Iowa $745 — for air travel
and hotel expenses — to have her at their conference in Iowa City, and it
cost the American Constitution Society $701 to have her at theirs in
Washington.

Warren, increasingly sensitive about the comparisons with Clinton, declined
to comment. A Clinton spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

Warren was never first lady or secretary of state — and, in fact, didn’t
enter elected office until 2012. She has never been in a position to earn
the kinds of speaking fees Clinton is now accepting.

Warren also has not lived a pauper’s life. She has been criticized in the
past for her large Harvard salary, and for taking large payments for
outside legal work. She is still earning royalty payments for past books,
and reported a $525,000 advance for her book, “A Fighting Chance.”

Based on news accounts, speaking fees vary widely for politicians. Former
president George W. Bush has taken in as much as $150,000 per speech. Mitt
Romney earned $68,000 for a speech before the International Franchise
Association in 2011, while Scott Brown last year took in $20,000 for a
speech before the Royal Bank of Scotland in London.

So how much could Warren earn if she wasn’t bound by Senate rules?
According to several experts, the range would start at $50,000, and could
go much higher.

“She could easily make $100,000 to $150,000 per speech,” said Nick Morgan,
a communications coach who has helped prepare political and education
leaders for the speaking circuit. “There’s no question.”

*Christian Science Monitor: “Are anti-Clinton books a good sign for
Hillary?”
<http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2014/0801/Are-anti-Clinton-books-a-good-sign-for-Hillary>*

By Husna Haq

August 1, 2014

[Subtitle:] Books like 'Blood Feud' by Edward Klein and 'The Real Benghazi
Story' by Aaron Klein may actually demonstrate that Clinton has returned to
political power.

After decades of dormancy, a spate of anti-Clinton books is hitting the
market, and observers reading between the lines are calling it proof
positive of Hillary Clinton’s return to political power.

“There may be no clearer sign of Hillary Clinton’s political reemergence
than the flurry of new books critical of her,” Politico reported in a
recent article. “It’s all testing the depth of a market for anti-Clinton
fare that had gone mostly dormant – and triggering a fierce campaign by her
defenders to shame the mainstream media not to write about the books, lest
they lend them legitimacy.” Politico calls it “the summer of anti-Clinton
books."

In other words, Clinton’s comeback, including her recent book, “Hard
Choices,” as well as her possible run for office in 2016, has roused a
fervent anti-Clinton movement that appears prepared to battle the former
Secretary of State should she decide to seek political office. And for now,
at least, the leading front in that movement is books.

The lineup includes both published and forthcoming titles including,
“Clinton Inc,” by Weekly Standard writer Daniel Halper; “Blood Feud,” by
Edward Klein, which knocked Clinton’s bestseller “Hard Choices” from atop
the New York Times bestseller list this month; “The First Family Detail,”
by Ronald Kessler; and “The Real Benghazi Story,” by Aaron Klein.

So numerous are the books and so pointed their allegations that the
Clintons issued a strongly worded statement censuring the books and those
in the media who dare to cover them.

"We now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense
for a quick buck, at the expense of anything even remotely resembling the
truth," explained the statement. “It's an insult to readers [and] authors,
and should be reserved for the fiction bin, if not the trash.

“Their behavior should neither be allowed nor enabled, and legitimate media
outlets who know with every fiber of their being that this is complete crap
should know not to get down in the gutter with them and spread their lies,”
the statement added. “But if anyone isn't sure, let's strap all three to a
polygraph machine on live TV and let the needle tell the truth.”

One of the books’ authors, Klein, responded to the statement. "In typical
Clinton fashion, when people can’t handle or respond to the truth, they
attack the messenger,” he said, according to reports.

Here’s a closer look at the books:

“Clinton Inc.” offers a closer look at the “Clinton dynasty,” from Bill
Clinton’s near-impeachment in the late ‘90s to Hillary Clinton’s 2008
defeat to her present-day reincarnation. In it, author Halper alleges that
Clinton’s health scare in December 2012 was a stroke, not a concussion.

The publisher of “Blood Feud” says it goes inside the fraught relationships
between Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, with
recreated conversations between the first families. But many, including
conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, have questioned the material.

Secret Service writer Kessler’s “The First Family Detail” focuses on the
security situation of first families but also includes rumors of Bill
Clinton’s purported infidelities.

“The fact is that my book is entirely nonpartisan and presents startling
revelations about both Republicans — including some of the saints of the
GOP — and Democrats, as well as about Secret Service laxness and corner
cutting that threaten the life of the president,” Kessler told Politico.

Klein’s “The Real Benghazi Story” addresses the Benghazi attacks and speaks
to a large conservative audience convinced there was an administration
cover-up.

Both the credibility and the success of each of these books is uncertain.

Not surprisingly, they have been roundly dismissed by the Clinton camp, led
by David Brock, the Clinton’s chief public defender and head of media group
Media Matters. Klein’s book in particular, “The Real Benghazi Story,” has
come under scrutiny, even by some conservatives.

Perhaps the more important point, however – will the books sell?

While “Clinton Inc.,” has sold just under 3,500 copies, according to
Nielsen BookScan, “Blood Feud,” has done well, selling just over 100,000
copies so far and knocking Clinton’s own book from the NYT Bestseller list
for a month.

Clinton’s “Hard Choices” which came out in June, has sold just under
250,000 copies, according to Politico.

Roger Stone, the former Richard Nixon operative, predicted that the current
market for anti-Clinton books will prove robust, the political website
reported.

“The one segment of the book market that is thriving is conservatives,”
Stone told Politico. “They read. The tabloids also show there is also an
insatiable public interest in any gossip about the Clintons.”

And, he added, “it will only get bigger if she runs.”

*Washington Post blog: DC Sports Blog: “Clint Didier releases statement on
Hillary Clinton, the Redskins name and Benghazi”
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/08/01/clint-didier-releases-statement-on-hillary-clinton-the-redskins-name-and-benghazi/>*

By Dan Steinberg

August 1, 2014, 10:03 a.m. EDT

Whatever your feelings on the Redskins name issue, I trust you agree with
me that we all knew it was inevitable that a former Redskins tight end
turned Congressional candidate would one day release a statement about
Hillary Clinton, the team’s name, Benghazi, and alfalfa.

Sure enough, Clint Didier this week released a statement about Hillary
Clinton, the team’s name, Benghazi and alfalfa. This was in response to
Clinton’s brief remarks on the name during a recent interview with Fusion’s
Jorge Ramos, in which she said the team’s name is “insensitive,” but
admitted she hadn’t thought much about possible alternatives.

Well, Didier didn’t like that.

I’m going to reprint Didier’s statement here in full:

“I’m just flabbergasted that Hillary Clinton now thinks she’s the expert on
what’s insensitive. But if she has suddenly become the Miss Manners of
politics, then maybe now she’s willing to publicly apologize for HER OWN
insensitive remarks. Like saying ‘What difference does it make?’ when she
testified before Congress about the attacks in Benghazi.

“She says the Redskins owners need to think hard about the name. I just
have to wonder if she thinks long and hard about her own insensitive
remarks – like that she can relate to the problems of most Americans
because her family was ‘dead broke.’ Really?

“She does admit that she ‘hasn’t thought much about’ the Redskins, but
apparently still feels the need to spout an opinion about it anyway. Maybe
that’s why people don’t trust politicians – because they don’t THINK about
what they say.

“Well I have thought about it lot – for 7 years when I played with the
Redskins. And I knew it was a name meant to honor the Native Americans who
were part of the early history of the team. We all wore the name proudly on
our uniforms. Check out www.RedskinsFacts.com
<http://www.redskinsfacts.com/>.

“This whole ‘name-calling’ thing is so hypocritical. A reporter at the
liberal ‘Seattle Weekly’ recently took a jab at me the people of my
district, calling us ‘rednecks’ and me ‘Chief Redneck’’ – but no one called
him out about that. Can you say ‘hypocrisy?’ (FYI –No matter how he meant
it, I choose to take it as a compliment – that I’m a hard-working farmer
who gets his hands dirty every day.)

“But I won’t be sitting around holding my breath waiting for either Ms.
Clinton’s or his apologies. I have alfalfa to bale tonight.”

Now, you might be thinking “once a Congressional candidate has released a
statement on Hillary Clinton, the team’s name, Benghazi and alfalfa, there
probably isn’t a lot that hasn’t been said.”

But you’re probably wrong, because you probably haven’t seen this recent
issue of the “Broadneck Baloney,” a jokey advertising-type publication in
Anne Arundel County that published this ad from Annapolis’s Bella’s Liquor.
Reader John was kind enough to send along an image.

*The Hill blog: Briefing Room: “Barney Frank: Ready for Warren 'a good
thing'”
<http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/214054-barney-frank-ready-for-warren-a-good-thing>*

By Peter Sullivan

August 1, 2014, 10:47 a.m. EDT

Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said the group urging Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president is "a good thing."

"I think it's a good thing," Frank said of Ready for Warren, the group
urging her to run, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "It'll help
keep liberal activity going and keep some pressure on people. But I think
what's also very clear -- if Hillary Clinton decides to run for president,
she'll be the nominee."

Frank is certainly not endorsing Warren at this point, and Warren insists
she is not even running. In April, Frank appeared at an event encouraging
Clinton to run.

Frank has his name on the 2010 financial reform law, Dodd-Frank, which many
liberals view as not going far enough. Warren has praised the law but also
warned that it fails to solve the "too big to fail" problem for banks.

Frank played down the differences. Warren has proposed a new Glass-Steagall
law, which would prevent banks from doing both commercial and investment
banking, but Frank emphasized agreement on the Volcker Rule, which limits
banks' ability to trade with their own money to seek a profit.

"I think it's a matter of tone and culture," Frank said of the differences.
"Even in Financial Services. Elizabeth's for Glass-Steagall; she also
acknowledges that had Glass-Steagall still been in effect, it would not
have stopped the crisis. There is this argument, 'Oh, banks are too big.'
But there's overwhelming agreement on the reforms and on the regulation and
on the Volcker rule. I don't see them as operational."

The outspoken Frank, who returned to Capitol Hill this month to defend his
namesake law in a hearing, also had some advice for Clinton.

He said she would need "to explain why she voted for the war in Iraq and to
reassure people that no, she's not ... for more of this or for staying in
Afghanistan."

Clinton wrote in her new book, Hard Choices, that on the Iraq vote she "got
it wrong."

"There was a period when people, Democrats, were told, 'You better vote for
a war if you want to run for president,'" Frank said. "And fortunately,
that has moved away."