Subject: ​Correct The Record Thursday October 23, 2014 Afternoon Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:50:53 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Thursday October 23, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*Capital New York: Hillary Clinton to stump for Sean Patrick Maloney
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/10/8555194/hillary-clinton-stump-sean-patrick-maloney?top-featured-1>*

“Hillary Clinton will headline a women's-themed event for Rep. Sean Patrick
Maloney in Westchester County on Monday.”

*Associated Press: Hillary Clinton Supports Cuomo for NY Governor
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hillary-clinton-supports-cuomo-ny-governor-26402563>*

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is backing New York Gov.
Andrew Cuomo in his bid for a second term.”

*The Hill: Warren: Nothing has changed
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/221622-warren-nothing-has-changed>*

“Nothing has changed for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) when it comes to a
2016 run for the White House.”

*Huffington Post: Chuck Todd Hopes The Media Has 'Grown Up' On Sexist
Hillary Clinton Coverage
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/chuck-todd-sexist-hilary-clinton-coverage_n_6035252.html?utm_hp_ref=media>*

“’Meet the Press’ host Chuck Todd offered the media some words of advice
for covering Hillary Clinton's potential presidential run this time around:
Grow up.”

*The National Memo: Ready For 2016? Too Bad
<http://www.nationalmemo.com/ready-2016-bad/>*

“Basically, the author has performed a simple trick: putting leftward spin
on GOP talking points from the 1990s. Because everybody’s either forgotten
the details or never knew them, it’s possible to make long discredited
charges of corruption against both Clintons sound plausible again.”

*TIME: An Intimate Portrait of Hillary Clinton in Photographs
<http://lightbox.time.com/2014/10/23/hillary-clinton-diana-walker/#1>*

“Starting in 1993 within the White House’s walls, Walker documented Hillary
as she moved from her roles as First Lady, Senator, Presidential Candidate
and, later, Secretary of State.”

*SILive: Rep. Michael Grimm says Hillary, rightward pull of primaries make
2016 tough for GOP (commentary)
<http://www.silive.com/opinion/strictly-political/2014/10/rep_michael_grimm_says_hillary.html>*

“The election is still two years away, and a lot can change in that time,
but GOP Rep. Michael Grimm said he already knows who the most formidable
Democratic candidate will be: Hillary Clinton.”

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters: Chuck Todd On Media Sexism
And "Disease" Of Fatigue Toward Hillary Clinton
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/23/chuck-todd-on-media-sexism-and-disease-of-fatig/201276>*

"In the final installment of Media Matters' three-part interview series
with Todd, the new Meet the Press host discusses the challenges facing
media outlets covering a possible Clinton White House bid."

*Associated Press, via North County Public Radio: Bill Clinton to rally for
Rep. Maffei in Syracuse
<http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/26413/20141023/bill-clinton-to-rally-for-rep-maffei-in-syracuse>*

“Bill Clinton's barnstorming tour is coming to Syracuse with a
get-out-the-vote rally for Rep. Dan Maffei.”

*Ralston Reports: Bubba to the rescue
<http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bubba-rescue>*

“I'm told the one-man Democratic turnout machine will be in Southern Nevada
next week to try to juice Democratic turnout that so far has been abysmal.
Clinton could help all Democrats, but my guess is this is especially
targted at Rep.Steven Horsford, who needs minority voters to get energized
in a district once thought safe.”

*Washington Post: Warren on Hillary Clinton relationship: ‘We have talked.
It’s not much more than that.’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/23/warren-on-hillary-clinton-relationship-we-have-talked-its-not-much-more-than-that/>*

"Warren has repeatedly said she does not plan to run for president in
2016..."

*Articles:*

*Capital New York: Hillary Clinton to stump for Sean Patrick Maloney
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/10/8555194/hillary-clinton-stump-sean-patrick-maloney?top-featured-1>*

By Reid Pillifant

October 23, 2014 12:12 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton will headline a women's-themed event for Rep. Sean Patrick
Maloney in Westchester County on Monday.

The free Women for Maloney event will be held in Somers, according to a
release from the campaign.

Clinton has been active this cycle on behalf of House and Senate candidates
and the respective party committees, but this will be her first appearance
for an individual congressional candidate in New York, a spokeswoman for
Maloney's campaign told Capital.

Maloney is facing a re-match against Republican former congresswoman Nan
Hayworth, who won the Hudson Valley swing district in 2010, but lost to
Maloney in 2012.

A Siena survey released last week showed the race tightening, with Hayworth
leading among voters re-contacted by Siena from a September poll in which
Maloney led by eight points. (Siena pollsters cautioned the re-survey was
not as scientific as a typical poll.)

Maloney served as an aide in the White House under Bill Clinton, who
endorsed him in 2012 and also appeared at a pre-election rally in Somers.
(Bill Clinton was on Long Island yesterday with Rep. Tim Bishop, who is
also facing a tough re-election race.)

Hillary Clinton is appearing this morning with Governor Andrew Cuomo for a
Women's Equality Party event in Manhattan.

*Associated Press: Hillary Clinton Supports Cuomo for NY Governor
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hillary-clinton-supports-cuomo-ny-governor-26402563>*

By Jonathan Lemire

October 23, 2014 12:36 p.m. EDT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is backing New York Gov.
Andrew Cuomo in his bid for a second term.

Clinton appeared Thursday at a Manhattan rally with the Democratic
incumbent and his pick for lieutenant governor, Kathy Hochul (HOH'-kuhl).

Clinton says Cuomo is the "right leader at the right time."

The rally was run by the Woman's Equality Party, a political organization
founded by Cuomo.

Clinton is considered the presumptive front-runner for the 2016 Democratic
presidential nomination if she decides to run. She lives in a New York City
suburb.

Cuomo has also been touted as a potential presidential candidate but is
unlikely to mount a bid if Clinton runs.

Cuomo faces Republican Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino in the
Nov. 4 general election.

*The Hill: Warren: Nothing has changed
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/221622-warren-nothing-has-changed>*

By Kevin Cirilli

October 23, 2014 9:00 a.m. EDT

Nothing has changed for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) when it comes to a
2016 run for the White House.

Warren in an interview with People magazine talked about how “amazing
doors” can open and you can’t be sure “what lies ahead” when she was asked
about a White House run. She also said that she was focused on the Senate
“for now.”

But a spokeswoman for Warren said that’s not meant to signal something new.

"Nothing has changed," Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose said in a statement to
The Hill.

Warren’s travel plans, along with the People magazine comments, have fueled
speculation about her plans.

Earlier this week, she campaigned for Democratic senatorial candidate Bruce
Braley in Iowa, an important early caucus state for the 2016 presidential
cycle.

The comments to People also seemed softer than comments she made earlier
this year, when Warren told ABC News: "I'm not running for president."

The next day, she reiterated the statement to CBS's Charlie Rose: "You can
ask this a whole lot of different ways, but the key is, I’m not running for
president."

*Huffington Post: Chuck Todd Hopes The Media Has 'Grown Up' On Sexist
Hillary Clinton Coverage
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/chuck-todd-sexist-hilary-clinton-coverage_n_6035252.html?utm_hp_ref=media>*

By Jackson Connor

October 23, 2014 11:41 a.m. EDT

"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd offered the media some words of advice for
covering Hillary Clinton's potential presidential run this time around:
Grow up.

In an interview with Media Matters, Todd told reporter Joe Strupp that he
hopes the media will finally enter the 21st century and leave the sexism
behind.

"I'd like to think that there isn't going to be sexist coverage," he said.
"Like, good grief, we live in the 21st -- I can't even imagine it being
treated differently anymore. I really think that -- I'd like to think the
media's grown up about that."

For Todd -- who replaced David Gregory as host of "Meet the Press" last
month and has himself been trying to update the Sunday morning talk show --
covering a female presidential candidate with respect and fairness is of
the utmost importance.

"Maybe I'm wrong," he continued. "Now, that doesn't mean it may not get
used as a political tactic one way or the other, just because that's
politics sometimes? Identity politics can sometimes bring out the worst in
people on the left and right."

*The National Memo: Ready For 2016? Too Bad
<http://www.nationalmemo.com/ready-2016-bad/>*

By Gene Lyons

October 22, 2014 12:00 a.m.  EDT

By hard pundit law, nonstop media coverage of the 2016 presidential
campaign begins on the morning after the 2014 congressional elections —
approximately 18 months before normal Americans want to hear about it.

However, like the “countdown” to major sporting events, it’s also a cable
TV ratings booster. With politicians and pundits eager to score TV face
time, it’s also cheap and easy to produce.

So ready or not, here comes Campaign 2016.

For a monthly magazine like Harper’s to jump the gun by two weeks requires
considerable enterprise. “STOP HILLARY,” the magazine’s November 2014 cover
insists. “Vote No to a Clinton Dynasty.”

First, a quibble about terminology. A dynasty, properly speaking, is a
multi-generational, inherited thing. In an American context, it’s
legitimate to speak of the Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes as dynastic
families parlaying inherited wealth into political power.

As author Doug Henwood sniffishly points out, however, Bill and Hillary
Clinton are what French aristocrats call “arrivistes”—nobodies from nowhere
who climbed the power ladder through what he calls the “neoliberal”
strategy of “nonstop self-promotion.”

That this cavil would apply to virtually all American politicians seems not
to have occurred to Henwood, whose loathing of the couple transcends such
mundane considerations. To him, the whole case for Hillary Clinton’s
candidacy “boils down to this: She has experience, she’s a woman, and it’s
her turn. It’s hard to find any substantive political argument in her
favor.”

Maybe so, maybe not. But then Henwood, writing from the left, seems not to
have looked very hard. His essay begins and ends with the appraisals of
Dick Morris, perhaps America’s least credible political prognosticator.
Indeed, the author acknowledges in a footnote that Morris’s “pronouncements
on both Bill and Hillary should be taken with a substantial grain of salt.”

Even Fox News let Morris go after his forecast of a Mitt Romney landslide
went awry. So why feature the man at all?

For that matter, why am I bothering with Henwood ?

Two reasons. First, personal disappointment that such slipshod work could
appear in Harper’s. Twenty years ago, the magazine stuck its journalistic
neck out to publish my article and book Fools for Scandal: How the Media
Invented Whitewater.

Second, because Henwood’s piece signals the inevitable return of what I
call the “Clinton Rules.” Particularly when it comes to the couple’s
background in darkest Arkansas, no allegation of wrongdoing, regardless of
how conclusively disproved, has ever disappeared from the national news
media.

That such shoddy standards have become well-nigh universal in American
political journalism is no excuse. Because everybody involved back in 1996
understood that calling out The New York Times — which originated and
sustained the Whitewater hoax — was a serious business, Harper’s actually
dispatched a fact checker to Little Rock, where we spent several days
bulletproofing the manuscript.

Clearly, no such effort went into Henwood’s essay.

Basically, the author has performed a simple trick: putting leftward spin
on GOP talking points from the 1990s. Because everybody’s either forgotten
the details or never knew them, it’s possible to make long discredited
charges of corruption against both Clintons sound plausible again.

Whitewater, Henwood assures readers, definitely “was not nothing.”

What it may have been, however, he appears to have no clue. The most basic
facts elude him. No, the late Jim McDougal’s doomed Madison Guaranty
savings and loan did not finance the Clintons’ real estate investment. They
were never “investors in McDougal’s [other] schemes.”

Maybe Henwood would better understand the Clintons’ surprising “escape from
the Whitewater morass” if he grasped that they were basically the victims,
not the perps.

Here’s how Kenneth Starr’s prosecutor Ray Jahn put it in his closing
argument at poor, mentally ill Jim McDougal’s trial:

“Why isn’t the President of the United States on trial?…Because he didn’t
set up any phony corporations to get employees to sign for loans that were
basically worthless…The president didn’t backdate any leases. He didn’t
backdate any documents. He didn’t come up with any phony reasons not to
repay the property. He didn’t lie to any examiners. He didn’t lie to any
investors.”

As for Susan McDougal, yes, it’s true she served 18 months for civil
contempt after refusing to testify to a Whitewater grand jury in what she
saw as a partisan perjury trap. However, it’s also true — if seemingly
unknown to Henwood — that after Starr’s prosecutors charged her with
criminal contempt, she testified for several days in open court, and was
acquitted.

Ancient history, yes. But history. The Ray Jahn quote, for example, comes
directly from Joe Conason’s and my book The Hunting of the President.

Regarding Henwood’s pronouncement that it’s “ideologically dubious” of
Hillary Clinton to “make friends with her Republican colleagues,” readers
can judge for themselves.

However, a journalist who chooses to question a presidential candidate’s
character by dragging up 20-year-old controversies owes it to readers to
know two or three things about them.

*TIME: An Intimate Portrait of Hillary Clinton in Photographs
<http://lightbox.time.com/2014/10/23/hillary-clinton-diana-walker/#1>*

October 23, 2014

By Paul Moakley

Diana Walker’s skill documenting life behind the scenes in Washington D.C.
stems directly from her dedication to subjects and her often subtle
approach to photography.

“I was trying to be as discreet as possible,” she tells TIME, speaking
about stepping into the White House to work on her latest book Hillary: The
Photographs of Diana Walker, which saw her turn her lens towards Hillary
Clinton.

“I hardly ever spoke unless spoken to — I was not there for myself and I
wanted them to ignore me,” she adds. “I used to rewind the film looking
down and away from them so that I wouldn’t catch their eye or make them
think they had to speak to me.”

Walker worked as TIME’s White House photographer for 20 years, capturing
five presidencies. In that time, she also documented luminaries such as
Steve Jobs with the same intimacy she often portrayed in the oval office.

Starting in 1993 within the White House’s walls, Walker documented Hillary
as she moved from her roles as First Lady, Senator, Presidential Candidate
and, later, Secretary of State.

 “To have the opportunity to photograph somebody for 20 years is such a
gift to a photographer,” Walker says, “Hillary Clinton, it seems to me,
means a lot to women today. I think that she represents the opportunities
for women in our country.”

Walker photographed Clinton for TIME up until October 2011, when she
captured the now-iconic photograph of the Secretary of State putting on her
shades to check her phone in the belly of a military C41 aircraft. The
photograph later inspired the meme Texts from Hillary.

Is she responsible for Hillary becoming an online icon of cool? “I would
love to have that reputation, ” Walker says, laughing. “I think we would
all like to be cool at some stage in our lives.”

*SILive: Rep. Michael Grimm says Hillary, rightward pull of primaries make
2016 tough for GOP (commentary)
<http://www.silive.com/opinion/strictly-political/2014/10/rep_michael_grimm_says_hillary.html>*

By Tom Wrobleski

October 23, 2014 9:00 a.m. EDT

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – The election is still two years away, and a lot can
change in that time, but GOP Rep. Michael Grimm said he already knows who
the most formidable Democratic candidate will be: Hillary Clinton.

"I think it's going to be very difficult for the Republicans to beat
Hillary Clinton," Grimm (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) told the Advance
Editorial Board, where he appeared with Democratic challenger Domenic M.
Recchia Jr. "So I think that a lot of work has got to go into it."

But Hillary is only one obstacle for the Republicans, Grimm said. The other
problem is within the party itself, with presidential primaries pulling
candidates further and further rightward.

"If we continue to have primaries that push the Republican Party so far to
the right, then we'll never win the presidency again," Grimm said. "We
can't do that. We cannot be so far to the right that we're not inclusive,
and we're losing out on the 70 percent of Americans that are either
center-right or center-left, who are somewhat independent."

Said Grimm, "That's the biggest issue I see for the Republican Party."

Recchia is already four-square behind Hillary for president, even though
the former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator from New York and First Lady
has yet to declare her candidacy for 2016.

"I support Hillary," he said. "Let's see her be the first woman president.
I think it would be great."

But Grimm said Hillary also faces a big challenge on the road to the White
House: "The debacle and absolute atrocity of Benghazi."

"I think the cover-up of Benghazi is going to be a big issue," Grimm said,
referring to the attack on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission there. "And just a
lot of the failures that have happened as Secretary of State, it's going to
be a big issue for Hillary Clinton."

But even with that being said, Grimm added, "The Republicans still have to
come up with someone that's electable. And getting through that primary
process, I think, is the biggest challenge to the Republican Party."

"I think Hillary's electable," Recchia said. "I think she'll be able to
overcome those issues."

*FROM MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA: Media Matters: Chuck Todd On Media Sexism
And "Disease" Of Fatigue Toward Hillary Clinton
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/23/chuck-todd-on-media-sexism-and-disease-of-fatig/201276>*

By Joe Strupp

October 23, 2014 10:12 a.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Part Three Of A Three-Part Interview Series

Chuck Todd hopes the media has "grown up" and will avoid sexist coverage of
Hillary Clinton's potential 2016 presidential run.

In the final installment of Media Matters' three-part interview series with
Todd, the new Meet the Press host discusses the challenges facing media
outlets covering a possible Clinton White House bid.

During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton faced near-constant sexism from
the press. Asked whether things might be different if Clinton chooses to
run in 2016, Todd explained he'd "like to think the media's grown up about
that." Nonetheless, he cautioned, "Identity politics can sometimes bring
out the worst in people on the left and right."

According to Todd, the Clintons' decades-long presence in the public eye
presents challenges for both her potential campaign and for reporters that
might eventually cover it.

In a September interview with PBS host Charlie Rose, Todd said that the
press often misrepresents the idea that there is a "Clinton fatigue
problem," explaining that the "fatigue" actually rests with the press and
not people in the Democratic Party, with whom the former secretary of state
is very popular. Todd expanded on those comments to Media Matters, saying
that media outlets need to avoid "'been there, done that' disease."

Todd said that outlets need to utilize their long history of covering
Clinton while being wary of "preconceived notions" and employing a "fresh
set of eyes."

Clinton herself recently lamented the tendency of the press to focus on
"the best angle, quickest hit, the biggest embarrassment" at the expense of
more substantive news. Todd agreed with Clinton, saying that "what gets the
attention and what gets clicks" for political reporters is "the gotcha
moment." But he added that "the media isn't doing it on their own."
Pointing to the proliferation of opposition research on both sides, Todd
said that while it used to be utilized by the press merely to highlight
hypocrisy, it's turned into "where's every negative thing I can find."

"So it doesn't matter how responsible 70 percent of the journalism
community is," Todd said. "There's always a 30 percent chunk that is
willing to just take whatever's handed them." He added, "it doesn't matter
if the mainstream media is responsible when you have the 10,000 other
outlets to get below-the-belt stuff out, right?"

The first part of the interview series covered Todd's thoughts on the
media's handling of scandals and crises. Part two focused on Todd's goals
for Meet the Press.

Relevant transcript from Todd's Media Matters interview has been published
with each part.

Answers covered in part three are below:

MEDIA MATTERS: Now, you talk about 2016. Hillary Clinton criticized the
press just recently for making it harder for qualified candidates who want
to serve in office and run. She said that rather than giving people
information so they can make decision -- so they can be decision-makers,
the press is overly focused on, quote, "the best angle, quickest hit, the
biggest embarrassment."

TODD: Right.

MEDIA MATTERS: Do you think the press focuses too much on that kind of
politics of destruction and not enough on policies?

TODD: Well, I definitely think it --

MEDIA MATTERS: And how does that affect --

TODD: Well, here's the thing. I think that there's an array of press out
there that does everything. I think that what gets the attention and what
gets clicks, is what? Right? Is sort of the gotcha moment, right? But what
I'm curious about -- every candidate that complains about this, are they
going to not have opposition researchers feeding the press? I mean, I'm not
saying -- look, the press should be grown up enough to say, "Well, what am
I doing?" But this is a two-way street. We're destroying the process
together here. The media isn't doing it on their own.

MEDIA MATTERS: No. And you're obviously -- you have a whole hour to get
more in-depth on things --

TODD: That's right, so I don't have this issue that --

MEDIA MATTERS: But it is something that's out there --

TODD: But my feeling is --

MEDIA MATTERS: No?

TODD: Opposition research -- look, here's what's happened. Right? The world
of opposition research used to be an attempt to find out what in somebody's
background can we make the case that they're sort of, they're hypocritical
on Issue X. You know, that they haven't practiced what they've been
preaching. Right? Which is, on one hand -- that's essentially what it was
about. But it's now turned into basically, where's every negative thing I
can find? And there's always an outlet to get it out there.

So it doesn't matter how responsible 70 percent of the journalism community
is. There's always a 30 percent chunk that is willing to just take
whatever's handed them. And just to take viral video and post it as fact,
or just to take tracker video and just put it out there. So, I agree with
her statement. I think that the entire process -- and I start with the
oligarchs, the billionaires that are like, we're spending -- those guys are
spending more money collectively in these races than the campaigns
themselves, OK? I think it starts there.

So, you're an average public -- you're somebody that would like to get
involved in public service. Here's the system you may be climbing into. You
have issues you care about, but a super PAC may decide what issues you get
to debate. You don't.

MEDIA MATTERS: Sure.

TODD: That's number one. Number two, let's say you've been successful in
your community -- whatever you've been doing. Working in the public space,
working in the private space, whatever it is. Your personal reputation is
going to get scrubbed, shall we say. Let me be kind about this. Everybody's
past has something that may look bad in a moment, even if it wasn't that
bad at the time. And all of that gets drug out. So you have the very real
possibility that your personal reputation could be in tatters by the end of
the campaign. And if you lose, you've got to go back to your old job. And
can you effectively do it?  It becomes almost like, it's very risky now for
your personal reputation, just because of the way opposition research works
now, the way the press has less and less sort of, filter, in basically --
and again, it doesn't matter if the mainstream media is responsible when
you have the 10,000 other outlets to get below-the-belt stuff out, right?

So, now you're this candidate, so you have to weigh that. Oh, and then
let's say you get to the Senate and Congress, and you find out unless
you're in leadership, you have no say. You have no ability to actually get
legislation passed anymore, the way the system is worked. And then you end
up finding out that whoever you hire, they're going to be with you for two
years, and then they're going to flip, go across the street, and become a
lobbyist and make 10 times your salary. OK?

That's the definition of a system on the brink of breaking. Because what
you then do is, you then end up with candidates -- you have a harder time
-- the smartest, most successful people suddenly think public service is
too much of a risk, and there's too little reward.

MEDIA MATTERS: Oh yeah, and so a lot of people are staying out --

TODD: So they pass -- correct. So, that's when I say I agree with her. But
to lay the blame just at the feet of the press? We've got a whole lot of
other players.

MEDIA MATTERS: Now, another thing about Clinton that you mentioned, you
said about "Clinton fatigue" that it's a press corps problem and that it
really --

TODD: The press have it. Press fatigue, not the public, yeah.

MEDIA MATTERS: How do you think reporters --

TODD: Well, I think it's a huge issue.

MEDIA MATTERS: How do you think reporters who are already bored, maybe,
with fatigue, could affect news coverage? And can she --

TODD: It can happen.

MEDIA MATTERS: -- get a fair shake?

TODD: Look, this is a constant question, so I have a little test I do with
myself. And I try to self-check, and I try to get people who work for me to
self-check. Which is what I call, don't get "been there, done that"
disease. OK? It happens a lot in politics. And when you have "been there,
done that" disease, then you just assume that an African-American can't win
Southern states, or you just assume -- you know what I mean? You make
assumptions that were true until they're not. Right? The beauty of a
democracy is that eventually, everything that you think you know changes.
And then there is a new "everything you need to know," and then it changes,
right? I mean, you can just sometimes look at it just on -- do you know
almost every state in the union has been a swing state at one point in
time? Right? And it just -- because things change. Everything changes. It's
constantly changes. Now, it happens incrementally, and then all of a
sudden, a decade later, you look back and went, "Oh my god. New Jersey's no
longer a swing state. It's solid blue." Well, that isn't the way it started
in 1992. Anyway, but that's just doing, you know, -- so --

MEDIA MATTERS: How does this affect Hillary [unintelligible] --

TODD: How this affects Hillary is, I think there's going to be --

MEDIA MATTERS: -- with this approach by the press?

TODD: -- a lot of a reporters who feel like they've been covering the
Clintons -- and look, some of us have, in some form or another -- for 24
years.

MEDIA MATTERS: Sure.

TODD: Right? You have a built-up history. That's -- a good thing to have is
history. At the same time, it can also lead to preconceived notions about
somebody. And so I think that every news organization should say to
themselves, "You need a" -- on somebody -- you need -- I think you need
that history -- that matters -- and you need a fresh set of eyes. Right?
You need a little bit of both. Now -- and this is then a challenge then for
the Clinton campaign, is they also have preconceived notions about the
media.

MEDIA MATTERS: Yes.

TODD: And then what happens is that can then quickly make all the old
complaints, say, that an experienced reporter might have had with the old
Clinton team seem relevant, and seem, "Oh, well, they were on to something,
boy, I'm getting the same treatment" type of thing. So, I think it's a
challenge for her and her team, and at the same time, they have to figure
out how to -- look, one of their great misjudgments, if you want to call it
that, is I think that they didn't -- they were slower on the importance of
the sped-up media news cycle.

MEDIA MATTERS: You mean the last time she ran?

TODD: Yes.

MEDIA MATTERS: Yeah.

TODD: You know what I mean? If you were to say what was the one -- here was
the most polished -- think about Bill Clinton, right? Here was the most
polished politician who understood 20th century media as well as anybody --

MEDIA MATTERS: Sure.

TODD: -- cable, all this stuff, who totally seemed out of sorts when
suddenly dealing with embeds and dealing with the --  you know, you're
traveling -- a different set of travelling press corps and every print
reporter carrying a camera, you know what I mean?

MEDIA MATTERS: Yeah.

TODD: That was a new experience --

MEDIA MATTERS: It's a lot different than when he ran.

TODD: Totally.

MEDIA MATTERS: And it'll be even different this time than when she first
began.

TODD: Well, and that's going to be her challenge.

MEDIA MATTERS: Now, one of the things you also brought -- you were
criticized for comments about Hillary Clinton as a front-runner, saying if
she were running to be the second woman president, she wouldn't even be
considered a front-runner.

TODD: Correct. I was just saying --

MEDIA MATTERS: I mean, is that fair?

TODD: Well, what I was saying is that this was a part of, does she match
with where the Democratic Party is today, ideologically? Right? That was
about where I think the Democratic Party is certainly to the left of where
she was in '07. Now, you can argue that she has been sort of on political
hiatus domestically, right? That she has been -- when you are serving as
secretary of state, you actually are not allowed to be in the political
realm, right?

MEDIA MATTERS: Right.

TODD: You are not allowed to be in campaigns, things like that. So I think
that was the statement I made. I know some of the critics -- it's always
funny to me sometimes when people want to get mad at a reporter for
something, they do the same thing that they get mad at reporters for doing,
which is, they don't look for context. They just want to criticize the
sound bite, rather than saying, "Well, what was the full context of what
they were talking about?" And of course the second, third, and fourth
sentences were about, where is ideologically the Democratic Party today? Is
it closer to Elizabeth Warren or is it closer to Hillary Clinton?

MEDIA MATTERS: So it wasn't so much that she was a woman, the first woman,
it was more about --

TODD: Well, right. But the point is, she is able to overcome what I think
are some potentially stark ideological differences --

MEDIA MATTERS: Because she would be the first woman?

TODD: I'm sorry, I think somebody's on -- the ability to elect the first
woman president. And the enthusiasm that's truly there in the rank-and-file
inside the Democratic Party I think can overcome the ideological
differences that are inside of the party, that she could have. And that's
why I said if she were running, if it weren't the phenomenon of, "OK, let's
break this glass ceiling," there'd be more focus and attention and more
concern perhaps in the progressive community about her ideological
instincts. I think she's instinctually probably not necessarily where the
progressive movement wants to go.

MEDIA MATTERS: How about -- let me ask you this, and I know we're probably
running out of time --

TODD: And that's where -- that's the common -- that's the point I was
trying to make.

MEDIA MATTERS: I want to get as many questions in as I can, because I
appreciate your time.

TODD: Yeah, I have about three minutes. [inaudible]

MEDIA MATTERS: How about the sexist claims of coverage about her in 2008?
Do you think there'll be more of that or will that kind of tone down?

TODD: Look, I don't know.  I think that's always an -- if -- I don't have a
good answer on that. You have to put yourself -- I have not walked in the
shoes of somebody who's had treatment like that, right? So, I feel like I'm
not an expert on deciding what's sexist and not sexist. I'd like to think
that there isn't going to be sexist coverage. You know what I mean? Like,
good grief, we live in the 21st -- I can't even imagine it being treated
differently anymore. I really think that -- I'd like to think the media's
grown up about that.

MEDIA MATTERS: We shall hope.

TODD: Maybe I'm wrong. Now, that doesn't mean it may not get used as a
political tactic one way or the other, just because that's politics
sometimes? Identity politics can sometimes bring out the worst in people on
the left and right. But I think for the most part -- I would like to think
that in the mainstream media, you're not going to see -

MEDIA MATTERS: How about Benghazi? That's been a big issue that they've
tried to nail to her, and there's been a lot of -- Fox has got a lot of
inaccuracies out there and piled on. 60 Minutesobviously had a big mistake
last year --

TODD: I can only defend what we've reported and what we've done.

*Associated Press, via North County Public Radio: Bill Clinton to rally for
Rep. Maffei in Syracuse
<http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/26413/20141023/bill-clinton-to-rally-for-rep-maffei-in-syracuse>*

[No author mentioned]

October 23, 2014

SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) Bill Clinton's barnstorming tour is coming to Syracuse
with a get-out-the-vote rally for Rep. Dan Maffei.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have blanketed the political map this fall,
attending fundraisers and rallies for a long list of Democratic candidates.
On Thursday, Bill Clinton is slated to attend a New Jersey fundraiser for
congressional candidate Bonnie Watson Coleman and Hillary Clinton is set to
rally at a Manhattan event with Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Friday afternoon, Bill Clinton will headline a "Strengthening the Middle
Class" rally in support of Maffei at the Syracuse Landmark Aviation Hangar
#113.

*Ralston Reports: Bubba to the rescue
<http://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/bubba-rescue>*

By Jon Ralston

October 23, 2014 10:06 a.m.

If you're down on your turnout and you need a helping hand (is that James
Taylor I hear), who do you call if you need a friend?

Not Barack Obama this year.

Bill Clinton.

And I'm told the one-man Democratic turnout machine will be in Southern
Nevada next week to try to juice Democratic turnout that so far has been
abysmal. Clinton could help all Democrats, but my guess is this is
especially targted at Rep.Steven Horsford, who needs minority voters to get
energized in a district once thought safe.

#wematter

*Washington Post: Warren on Hillary Clinton relationship: ‘We have talked.
It’s not much more than that.’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/23/warren-on-hillary-clinton-relationship-we-have-talked-its-not-much-more-than-that/>*

By Sean Sullivan

October 23 at 11:50 a.m. EDT

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is making one thing clear: she and Hillary
Clinton aren't all that close.

"We have talked. It's not much more than that. Not much more," Warren told
People of her relationship with Clinton.

Her response was, surprisingly, slightly less clear on another front: her
presidential campaign plans.

Warren has repeatedly said she does not plan to run for president in 2016,
a possibility Clinton is closely considering. But when asked again whether
she wants to run, she told People "I don't think so."

Previously, Warren has sounded far more definitive about not running. Her
office told National Journal that despite her latest comments, "nothing has
changed" about her presidential plans.

Warren's midterm campaign travel to early presidential nominating states
has reignited speculation she might be mulling a run after all. She was
recently in Iowa to campaign for Rep. Bruce Braley's Senate campaign. And
she plans to campaign for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) this weekend.

It's worth noting that Warren, along with every female Democratic senator,
signed a 2013 letter to Clinton encouraging her to run for president.