Subject: ​Correct The Record Tuesday October 28, 2014 Morning Roundup
From: Burns Strider <[email-masked]>
To: CTRFriendsFamily <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:17:17 -0400
List-Id: <CTRFriendsFamily.americanbridge.org>

*​**Correct The Record Tuesday October 28, 2014 Morning Roundup:*

*Headlines:*

*National Memo opinion: Joe Conason: “Stop Hillary? Not With These Mistakes
(Or The Wisdom Of Dick Morris)”
<http://www.nationalmemo.com/stop-hillary-mistakes-wisdom-dick-morris/>*

“Assuming that Hillary Clinton indeed runs for president, I expect to write
and say more as the 2016 campaign unfolds.  For now, however, my friend and
co-author Gene Lyons and I believe it is worth correcting the flagrant
errors and misrepresentations set down by Doug Henwood, author of the
Harper’s article.”

*New Republic: “The GOP's Obsession With Hillary Clinton's Latest ‘Gaffe’
Is Great News for Hillary”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120004/hillary-clinton-job-creation-gaffe-reveals-deep-republican-weakness>*

“They [Republicans] haven’t considered the possibility that voters will
instead hear Clinton’s 15 words [‘Don't let anybody tell you that, you
know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs…’] and think she
makes a decent point.”

*U.S. News & World Report opinion: Matthew Dickinson: “She Didn't Fumble
That”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2014/10/27/why-hillary-clintons-jobs-comment-wasnt-a-gaffe-and-might-help-her>*

[Subtitle:] “Hillary Clinton's comment about corporations and jobs isn't a
gaffe and might help her.”

*BuzzFeed: “Hillary Clinton Corrects Fumbled ‘Jobs’ Line”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-corrects-fumbled-jobs-line>*

“At the Maloney event in a club in Westchester County, Clinton cleaned up
the stumble toward the middle of her 20-minute speech for Maloney, praising
businesses that are ‘showing what it means to be responsible corporate
citizens.’”

*Media Matters For America: “Right-Wing Media Praise Failed Theory Of
Trickle-Down Economics Myth To Condemn Hillary Clinton”
<http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/27/right-wing-media-praise-failed-theory-of-trickl/201330>*

“Conservative media praised the failed theory of trickle-down economics in
response to Hillary Clinton's remark that the middle class, not tax cuts
for corporations, spurs economic growth, a position backed by economists.”

*Media Matters For America: “Media Forget Context In Effort To Scandalize
Hillary Clinton's Assessment Of Trickle-Down Economics”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/26/media-forget-context-in-effort-to-scandalize-hi/201316>*

“Mainstream media figures, following in the footsteps of conservative
media, are trying to manufacture a scandal out of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's recent argument against trickle-down economics by
stripping her comments of context to falsely cast them as a controversial
gaffe or a flip-flop on previous statements about trade.”

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton tries to clarify jobs comment”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-jobs-comment-112225.html>*

“Hillary Clinton on Monday mopped up her botched statement from a rally in
Massachusetts last week, making it clear she’d misspoken and hadn’t
intended to deliver a fresh economic policy message.”

*Bloomberg: “Clinton: 'Trickle-Down Economics Has Failed'”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-27/clinton-trickledone-economics-has-failed>*

[Subtitle:] “Her remarks boil down to one message: She's for the little
guy.”

*New York Times blog: DealBook: “Hillary Clinton’s Comment About
Corporations and Job Creation Raises Wall St.’s Eyebrows”
<http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/hillary-clintons-comment-about-corporations-and-job-creation-raises-wall-st-s-eyebrows/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0>*

"'Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying
jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build
from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for
corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas,' she
said."

*Defense News opinion: retired Adm. Stuart Platt: “Climate Change Increases
Instability for All”
<http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141027/DEFFEAT05/310270016/Commentary-Climate-Change-Increases-Instability-All>*

“And so when Clinton says climate change is ‘the most consequential,
urgent, sweeping collection of challenges’ facing us today, she does so
with the knowledge that it feeds into other serious global issues.”

*Associated Press: “Bill Clinton Stumps for Colorado Democrats”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLORADO_DEMOCRATS_BILL_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

“[Pres.] Clinton talked about the improving economy and said conservatives
see the midterm elections as a change to revive ‘trickle-down economics.’”

*BuzzFeed: “Back To The ’90s: Hillary Clinton Campaigns With ‘Clinton
Democrat’”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/back-to-the-90s-hillary-clinton-campaigns-with-clinton-democ>*

“This month on the campaign trail, where she has tweaked and honed a stump
speech at rallies across about a dozen states, Clinton has found a window
into the debate over economic inequality through issues like equal pay for
women and a minimum-wage increase.”

*Politico: “Reince Priebus: Hillary Clinton ‘not really good at politics’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/reince-priebus-hillary-clinton-not-really-good-at-politics-112235.html?hp=l2>*

“Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says Hillary Clinton
is ‘becoming sort of a caricature’ and that ‘she’s not really good at
politics.’”

*National Journal: “Republican 2016 Contenders Have Taken Positions on NSA
Reform. Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand?”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-2016-contenders-have-taken-positions-on-nsa-reform-where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-20141027>*

“If Hillary Clinton has a position on the government's domestic spying,
she's doing a good job of hiding it.”

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton's 7 favorite midterm campaign lines”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/politics/clinton-midterm-lines/>*

“Like most politicians have some formula of commonly used phrases and lines
of attack, the former secretary of state has started to shape a stump
speech with similar expressions.”

*New York Daily News column: Richard Cohen: “The old hands vs. the shaky
newbies”
<http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/richard-cohen-old-hands-shaky-newbies-article-1.1989263>*

“For the Democrats, there’s no one more mainstream than Hillary Clinton,
practically an incumbent. Warren is virtually Clinton’s opposite: a
neophyte who has been in the Senate only since 2013 and has never run a
company or state. We have learned — have we not? — that the presidency
requires some executive experience.”

*The Hill: “Warren vs. Clinton: Dems say 'Why not?'”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/222016-warren-vs-clinton-dems-say-why-not>*

“The Democratic field in 2016 has more than enough room for two women
competing to be the nation’s first female president, according to liberal
activists.”

*Mediaite: “Chris Matthews: Clinton-Warren 2016 Ticket Not ‘Smart’”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-clinton-warren-2016-ticket-not-smart/>*

“Liberal Democrats looking to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to keep hope alive
that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) could still in some way be involved
with the 2016 presidential election had it all squashed Monday.”

*The Atlantic: “The Jeb Bush Effect”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/jeb-bush-presidential-election-2016/381982/>*

[Subtitle:] “A presidential bid by the former Florida governor would
complicate the party's case against Hillary Clinton.”

*Salon: “Hillary Clinton’s populism problem: What her awkward campaign
trail comments reveal about her biggest weakness”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/10/27/hillary_clintons_populism_problem_what_her_awkward_campaign_trail_comments_reveal_about_her_biggest_weakness/>*

[Subtitle:] “As the former secretary of state eyes a 2016 bid, she's
struggling to come to terms with the new Democratic Party”

*Articles:*

*National Memo opinion: Joe Conason: “Stop Hillary? Not With These Mistakes
(Or The Wisdom Of Dick Morris)”
<http://www.nationalmemo.com/stop-hillary-mistakes-wisdom-dick-morris/>*

By Joe Conason

October 27, 2014, 11:15 a.m. EDT

Expectations that Hillary Rodham Clinton will run for president in 2016
have, predictably enough, revived a variety of attacks promoted by her
political adversaries over the past two decades – in particular, the story
of the $50 million prosecutorial fiasco known as “Whitewater.” America
Rising, the Republican opposition research SuperPAC, has announced already
that it plans to inform voters about the “Clinton scandals” of the 1990s,
just as the right-wing propaganda machine did then. And they’re already
enjoying assistance from certain thinkers on the left who consider the
former Secretary of State too moderate politically, notably in a current
Harper’s magazine cover essay headlined “STOP HILLARY!”

Assuming that Hillary Clinton indeed runs for president, I expect to write
and say more as the 2016 campaign unfolds.  For now, however, my friend and
co-author Gene Lyons and I believe it is worth correcting the flagrant
errors and misrepresentations set down by Doug Henwood, author of the
Harper’s article. (Clinton’s supporters have posted a painstaking rebuttal
of Henwood’s dismissive assessment of her career in the U.S. Senate and the
State Department.)

While conceding that Whitewater was never quite the “diabolical conspiracy”
imagined by Republicans, Henwood insists “it was not nothing” (his
emphasis). Yet he never says precisely what he thinks it was, except to
imply that it demonstrates Hillary’s bad character and personal dishonesty.
With that mindset, the actual history of the ill-fated real-estate
investment eludes him again and again.

Henwood grudgingly acknowledges that the Whitewater investment undertaken
by the Clintons with James McDougal — who later acquired a small
savings-and-loan institution called Madison Guaranty — “seems to have” lost
money for them. But while admitting that they were “never convicted of any
criminal behavior,” he neglects to mention that they were never even
indicted, and that the Resolution Trust Corporation’s three-volume report
on Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan – written by a Republican lawyer who had
previously been fired as United States Attorney by Bill Clinton — fully
exonerated them both on all aspects of the probe.

Instead, he complains that McDougal hired the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary
Clinton was a partner, to represent Madison Guaranty, which he says
represented a “farcical round robin” of conflicts of interest, because she
was the governor’s wife and the state government regulated the S&L
industry. He also suggests that Madison Guaranty—not acquired by McDougal
until five years after the Whitewater investment was made—financed the
deal. But that’s simply wrong; the Clintons’ investment cost the bank
nothing.

To heighten the alleged ethical conflict, Henwood adds that “the Clintons,
of course, were also investors in McDougal’s schemes.”  This too is
categorically false. The Clintons had no other business ties with Jim
McDougal whatsoever. The RTC report states unequivocally that “there is no
basis to charge the Clintons with any kind of primary liability for fraud
or intentional misconduct.”

Moreover, neither Hillary Clinton nor the state banking department did
anything to protect Madison from regulatory authorities. Far from
protecting McDougal, the RTC report found that “if anything, Arkansas
regulators took a more aggressive position toward Madison Guaranty than the
FHLBB [Federal Home Loan Bank Board].” The report also noted that in
December 1987, Arkansas securities commissioner Beverly Bassett Schaffer (a
Clinton appointee) had written the FSLIC (Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Corporation) urging that it declare Madison Guaranty insolvent
and shut the bank down at once. The Feds waited until 1989 to comply.

For all of Henwood’s dark imaginings, his research left him insufficiently
aware of well-documented facts. Like many a conspiracy theorist before him,
he makes much of the lost-and-found Rose Law Firm billing records, an old
red herring.

Ominously, he writes that Hillary “claimed the Rose billing records for the
Madison case, which were under multiple subpoenas, had disappeared. Then
they suddenly reappeared, discovered by a personal assistant in a room in
the residential quarters of the White House. When asked about this
mysterious turn of events, Hillary responded as if she, too, were an
injured party: ‘I, like everyone else, would like to know the answer about
how those documents showed up after all these years.’ The records showed
that far from having a trivial role in representing Madison, she had
actually billed for sixty hours of work.”

What Henwood seems not to grasp is that the billing records found in the
White House on January 5, 1996, were merely photocopies of computer
printouts from the Rose Law Firm’s data system. Independent counsel Kenneth
Starr and the congressional committees that subpoenaed those records
already had all of the same information. The independent counsel’s hope
seemed to be that Hillary Clinton’s own printouts would somehow show
alterations or inculpatory handwritten marginalia, but those suspicions
proved unfounded.

The idea that she would hide those photocopies, only to “find” them at the
beginning of her husband’s re-election campaign, makes no sense at all —
particularly in view of the fact that the documents vindicated her previous
testimony in great detail.

Elsewhere Henwood makes a glancing reference to the Southern Development
Bancorp, as if the Rose Law Firm’s representation of that bank was another
sinister fact that Hillary Clinton sought to conceal. What he doesn’t
mention is that Southern Bancorp began as a development initiative founded
by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and the state government under Bill
Clinton. Hillary Clinton sat on its board, without compensation. Far from
raking in illicit profits, the bank provides much-needed credit and
financing for hundreds of worthwhile projects, from low-income housing,
home repairs, farms, and small businesses to Boys & Girls clubs in
neglected rural Arkansas.  Its first CEO was the late Tom McRae, Bill
Clinton’s idealistic rival for the 1990 Arkansas Democratic gubernatorial
nomination.

Finally, in a footnote, Henwood hints at guilt by association when he
writes that the Clintons somehow “escaped” the “Whitewater morass,” while
others went to prison, notably James and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker,
who succeeded Bill Clinton as governor. But again he gets the facts and
timeline wrong.

Tucker was not, as Henwood writes, convicted of “Whitewater-related”
charges. A longtime political rival, Tucker had no business ties to the
Clintons whatsoever. Kenneth Starr prosecuted him on totally unrelated
fraud charges, in the apparent hope that Tucker could provide damning
testimony against the Clintons. But he could not and did not. With this
kind of error, Henwood not only reveals his own ignorance but parrots the
misinformation about Whitewater usually offered by Starr and his far-right
defenders.

Jim McDougal went to prison for swindling the Clintons, among others, as
the prosecutor who convicted the mentally ill banker pointed out in his
closing argument. For her part, Susan McDougal was jailed for 18 months for
refusing to provide false grand jury testimony against Bill Clinton at
Starr’s behest. In a subsequent criminal contempt trial, she testified in
open court for several days, and was acquitted. Bill Clinton awarded her a
presidential pardon a couple of years after the fact. (Clinton did not
pardon Tucker, which many Arkansas observers thought small of him.)

In short, Henwood simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about (and his
reliance on former Fox News personality Dick Morris for guidance is
mindboggling). What’s most disappointing is that a magazine of Harper’s’
reputation – which first exposed Whitewater as a political hoax – would
provide a platform for his baseless speculations.

*New Republic: “The GOP's Obsession With Hillary Clinton's Latest ‘Gaffe’
Is Great News for Hillary”
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120004/hillary-clinton-job-creation-gaffe-reveals-deep-republican-weakness>*

By Brian Beutler

October 27, 2014

High on the long list of things Republicans decided not to change after the
2012 election—below opposition to immigration reform, but above the belief
that Democrats buy elections by showering the poor with generous welfare
benefits—is an abiding faith that the fundamental unit of politics is the
decontextualized “gaffe.”

As a demonstration of that faith, Republicans are leaning heavily into 15
words Hillary Clinton uttered late last week while stumping for Martha
Coakley in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race.

“Don't let anybody tell you that, you know, it's corporations and
businesses that create jobs.” Throw in the context and it’s clear that
Clinton was reciting a standard Democratic denunciation of the view that
liberating the wealthy from taxes and regulations is the key to economic
growth. "You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics,” she added.
“That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather
spectacularly.”

But shear off the surrounding language and you’re left with a game-changing
soundbite that will propel a Republican into the White House two years from
now.

Right?

I think the opposite is true. Republicans are no less obsessed with gaffes
today than they were in October 2012. Just last week, Republicans were
riding high on President Obama’s gaffetastic observation that Democrats in
the Senate vote with him most of the time, and before that, his admission
that the policies he supports are on the ballot in November. But what makes
their obsession with this gaffe particularly revealing is that it’s
substantively identical to a gaffe they seized upon two years ago, weeks
before they went on to lose the election—to their great astonishment—by a
pretty wide margin.

In 2012, Republicans made “you didn’t build that”—a decontextualized
comment Obama made about the fact that the wealthy depend on and must
contribute to the public space—the unifying theme of their party convention
in Tampa, Florida. They were certain that it would cause, or at least
contribute, to Obama’s demise. But in hindsight, many conservatives
acknowledged that the GOP’s obsession with that gaffe revealed more
damaging truths about the Republican Party than the gaffe itself said about
Obama.

“One after another, [Republican businessowners] talked about the business
they had built. But not a single—not a single—factory worker went out
there,” Rick Santorum told activists at the Faith & Freedom Coalition
conference last year. “Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked
in that company! We didn’t care about them. You know what? They built that
company too! And we should have had them on that stage.”

After the election, conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru lamented that “the
Republican story about how societies prosper—not just the Romney
story—dwelt on the heroic entrepreneur stifled by taxes and regulations: an
important story with which most people do not identify. The ordinary person
does not see himself as a great innovator." Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell aped this analysis when he admitted in a speech at the American
Enterprise Institute that Republicans "have often lost sight of the fact
that our average voter is not John Galt."

None of the Republicans pushing the “corporations and businesses” line
actually thinks Hillary Clinton meant to say that investment isn’t a
component of economic growth, just as they know from their perches in
congressional offices and at donor-dependent non-profits that the
entrepreneur isn’t the solitary engine of job creation.

But it’s clear they all still believe that riling up business elites by
selectively quoting Democrats is a key to political success. The fixation
on this gaffe foreshadows another Republican presidential campaign centered
on the preeminence of the entrepreneur, to the exclusion of the wage worker
and the trade unionist and the unemployed. It suggests an unwavering faith
that a majority of voters will support the other guy when they hear “don’t
let anybody tell you that … it’s corporations and businesses that create
jobs.” They haven’t considered the possibility that voters will instead
hear Clinton’s 15 words and think she makes a decent point.

*U.S. News & World Report opinion: Matthew Dickinson: “She Didn't Fumble
That”
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/opinion-blog/2014/10/27/why-hillary-clintons-jobs-comment-wasnt-a-gaffe-and-might-help-her>*

By Matthew Dickinson

October 27, 2014, 4:20 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton's comment about corporations and jobs isn't a
gaffe and might help her.

With the midterms elections less than nine days away, it is easy to forget
that there’s another national contest underway: the race for the presidency
in 2016. While no politician has formally announced their presidential
candidacy, a number of them are actively running in what political
scientists call “the invisible primary” – the period before the nominating
process formally begins, when potential candidates start to measure their
likely support among party activists, including potential campaign donors.
Candidates-to-be are particularly interested in gauging their potential
support in those states like Iowa and New Hampshire that hold early
nominating contests.

It is also a period when the media begin vetting the potential candidates.
Because of their interest in creating the perception of a horse race, their
initial coverage tends to be more critical of potential frontrunners. Not
surprising, Hillary Clinton – who polls show outpacing her potential
Democratic rivals by a large margin – has received unwanted attention for a
series of media-labeled “wealth gaffes” she has made in recent months that
purportedly show that because of her wealth she cannot related to “average”
people. If initial media reports are to be believed, Clinton has just
committed another wealth-related gaffe, this time as she was stumping for
Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, who is in
a tough race in that state against Republican Charles Baker. According to
news reports, in her speech on Coakley’s behalf Clinton – while criticizing
Republicans who support “trickle down” economics based on not raising the
minimum wage, cutting taxes and reducing business regulations – added:
“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that
create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has
been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the
things my husband says when people say, ‘What did you bring to Washington?’
He says, ‘I brought arithmetic.’”

Critics, initially primarily those writing on right-leaning blogs and
columns, immediately pounced on Clinton’s remarks, likening it to Barack
Obama’s widely publicized “you didn’t build that” comment in July 2012 that
was immediately incorporated into attack ads on behalf of Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Conservative columnist S.E. Cupp
tweeted, “Hillary's ‘businesses don't create jobs’ quote is honestly
inexplicable. Like, cannot be explained.” A Forbes columnist chimed in:
“[T]his attitude shocked many people in the trenches, those pulling the
economic wagon, those looking for work. The condescension in the way
Clinton articulated it was noteworthy also…” As is often the case, the
tempest on social media spilled over into the mainstream media. USA Today’s
Paul Singer predicted that “If the former secretary of State runs for
president in 2016, as she is widely expected to do, there is no doubt
Republicans will make hay out of this comment.”

These pundits are undoubtedly correct. Clinton’s Republican opponents will
almost certainly use these and other “gaffes” by her as part of a broader
attempt to paint Clinton as a wealthy elitist who doesn’t understand how
the economy provides opportunity for the middle class. However, political
scientists have found little evidence that candidate gaffes by themselves –
even widely publicized ones such as Obama’s “you didn’t build that” or
Romney’s equally infamous “47 percent” comment – have a lasting impact on
campaign dynamics or that they influence the eventual presidential vote.
This is both because the gaffes tend to have a short-half life in public
consciousness – if the public hears of them at all – and because their
impact is dissipated in the ongoing give-and-take of a presidential
campaign in which both sides are engaged in a continual effort to “win the
issue moment.” This makes it hard for any single gaffe to move public
opinion as much as pundits covering these stories would have one believe.
And, if gaffes in the heat of a campaign don’t seem to matter, it is hard
to believe that a misstatement from 2014 is going to have much staying
power two years later.

But there is a more fundamental reason to doubt that Clinton’s latest
“misstatement” will have much lasting impact – it probably wasn’t a gaffe
in the first place. Instead, it is likely she knew exactly what she was
saying, and how to say it. If so, her remarks provide an early clue to how
Clinton might seek to frame her presidential candidacy in 2016. In her book
"The Message Matters", political scientist Lynn Vavreck shows that
presidential candidates generally run one of two types of campaign, which
Vavreck labels “clarifying” and “insurgent." Clarifying campaigns typically
focus on the economy, and do so in a way that advantages one’s own
candidacy while hurting their opponents’. That means incumbents take
ownership of strong economic performances, while opponents will attack an
incumbent’s weak economic record. In 2012 both Obama and Romney ran
versions of clarifying campaigns, with Obama asking for more time to
continue healing the economic mess he inherited, while Romney argued that
the president hadn’t done nearly enough to mend the economy and should be
replaced. Insurgent candidates, in contrast, try to shift the campaign
dialogue to another issue that differentiates the candidates and on which
the insurgent can count on favorable public support.

In Clinton’s case, because she will run as the incumbent party’s flag
bearer, she will likely have to run a clarifying campaign that defends her
party’s economic record over the previous eight years. While she can’t be
sure of her opponent as yet, she does know that Democrats are generally
viewed as stronger advocates for policies promoting economic “fairness” and
government-based protection of the most economically vulnerable. It makes
sense, then, as Clinton did in her speech, to try to link opposition to
raising the minimum wage with “trickle down” economics. This is exactly the
clarifying strategy pursued by Barack Obama in 2012, when he sought to
portray Romney as a plutocrat whose free-market oriented economic policies
would disadvantage the less wealthy in favor of the “one percent.”
Moreover, by staking out this more economically populist ideological
ground, Clinton also presumably hopes to protect herself from a possible
challenge within her own party on her left from someone like Massachusetts
Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who
caucuses with Democrats and is considering running for the party's
nomination.

It is understandable that pundits, particularly those on the right, would
paint Clinton’s recent remarks as the latest in a series of wealth-related
misstatements she has made. But Clinton’s strategy is to make sure the last
gaffe is on them.

*BuzzFeed: “Hillary Clinton Corrects Fumbled ‘Jobs’ Line”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-corrects-fumbled-jobs-line>*

By Ruby Cramer

October 27, 2014, 3:08 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] “I short-handed this point the other day.”

SOMERS, N.Y. — When Hillary Clinton fumbled a line at a rally last Friday —
“Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs” —
the comment caused a minor outrage among political observers. Republicans
said she’d been pandering to liberals. Democrats wondered if she’d been
trying too hard to channel Elizabeth Warren, the populist senator who also
spoke at the event.

On Monday, Clinton went out of her way to correct the comment at a rally
for Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the Democrat up for reelection in this
Hudson Valley district.

Clinton said in her speech that corporations that outsource jobs or move
profits overseas should not be granted tax breaks. The clarification made
clear that the remark was a botched line — not new messaging from Clinton,
who has honed a new stump speech during a series of rallies ahead the
election next month.

“The Republican alternative is a discredited economic theory that will hurt
middle class families,” Clinton said. “So-called trickle-down economics has
failed.”

“I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear
about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades.”

“Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying
jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from
the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for
corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Clinton voted a number of times for tax cuts for businesses when she was a
U.S. senator from New York. But a Clinton aide said on Monday afternoon
that she has not supported the tax breaks when they benefit top earners.

At the event with Warren on Friday, a rally for Martha Coakley, the
Democrat running for governor in Massachusetts, Clinton made her initial
remark in the lead-up to her case against “trickle-down economics” — an
argument she’s long made.

Her original line — that “corporations and businesses” don’t “create jobs”
— doesn’t make much sense as a concept. An aide initially said on Friday
that she’d meant to refer to “tax cuts” for corporations.

Clinton in particular has also more often been accused of being too
friendly to corporations. But she didn’t clarify the remark in speeches at
her next two public events: a rally for Mike Michaud, the Democrat running
for governor in Maine, and one for Kay Hagan, the U.S. senator in North
Carolina up for reelection.

At the Maloney event in a club in Westchester County, Clinton cleaned up
the stumble toward the middle of her 20-minute speech for Maloney, praising
businesses that are “showing what it means to be responsible corporate
citizens.”

“They’re paying workers a living wage instead of a poverty wage. They are
investing in communities instead of hollowing them out. They are empowering
workers instead of preventing them from organizing and joining unions to
represent them.”

“But we still don’t have enough who are doing all of that,” Clinton said.

Asked about the “jobs” comment after the event, Clinton glanced at her
press secretary, Nick Merrill, and said, “You can talk to Nick about that.”

*Media Matters For America: “Right-Wing Media Praise Failed Theory Of
Trickle-Down Economics Myth To Condemn Hillary Clinton”
<http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/10/27/right-wing-media-praise-failed-theory-of-trickl/201330>*

By Craig Harrington & Olivia Marshall

October 27, 2014, 5:59 p.m. EDT

Conservative media praised the failed theory of trickle-down economics in
response to Hillary Clinton's remark that the middle class, not tax cuts
for corporations, spurs economic growth, a position backed by economists.

*Hillary Clinton Warns Against Myth That Trickle-Down Economics Creates
Jobs*

*Hillary Clinton Criticized Failed Theory Of Trickle-Down Economics At
Martha Coakley Campaign Event.* Hillary Clinton appeared at a campaign
event for Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley
on October 24, where she pushed for a minimum wage increase and warned
against the myth that businesses create jobs through trickle-down
economics (emphasis added):

CLINTON: Don't let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill
jobs. They always say that. I've been through this. My husband gave working
families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess
what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were
more secure. That's what we want to see here, and that's what we want to
see across the country.

*And don't let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and
businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down
economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather
spectacularly.*

One of the things my husband says, when people say, what did you bring to
Washington? He says, well I brought arithmetic. And part of it was he
demonstrated why trickle down should be consigned to the trash bin of
history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs over
seas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn't
add up. Now that kind of thinking might win you an award for outsourcing
excellence, but Massachusetts can do better than that. Martha understands
it. She knows you have to create jobs from everyone working together and
taking the advantages of this great state and putting them to
work. [Associated Press, *10/24/14*
<http://www.whdh.com/story/26884762/hillary-clinton-campaigns-for-coakley-in-boston>
]

*Right-Wing Media Hail Trickle-Down Economics, Lash Out At Clinton For
"Stupid" Remarks*

*Washington Free Beacon: Clinton Will Likely Be Attacked "As Another Big
Government Democrat" For Criticism Of Trickle-Down Economics. *In an
October 24 blog post, the Washington Free Beacon claimed that Clinton's
criticism of trickle-down economic theory "will likely be used to attack
her as another big government Democrat," writing that the soundbite could
follow her into a "widely assumed presidential bid." [Washington Free
Beacon,* 10/24/14*
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-corporations-and-businesses-dont-create-jobs/>
]

*Rush Limbaugh: Belief That Trickle-Down Economics Doesn't Work Is* *"Genuinely
Stupid."* On the October 27 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh
declared that despite Clinton's remarks, trickle-down economics "works,"
and "if it weren't for trickle-down, [Bill Clinton] would not have had a
roaring economy in the 1990s." Later in the show, Limbaugh claimed Clinton
is part of a "marauding band aiming at every private sector business they
can get their hands on." [Premiere Radio Networks, *The Rush Limbaugh Show*
, *10/27/14*
<http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2014/10/27/37382/prn-limbaugh-20141027-trickledown>
,*10/27/14* <http://mediamatters.org/video/201324>]

*Fox* *Business'* *Bartiromo: Trickle-Down Economics Works, "Business And
Corporations Do In Fact Create Jobs."* On the October 27 edition of Fox
News' *Fox & Friends*, Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo claimed that
trickle-down economic principles work because "business and corporations
do, in fact, create jobs. That is where the job creation comes from."
Bartiromo argued that Clinton was merely making a divisive "political
statement." [Fox News,* Fox & Friends*,* 10/27/14*
<http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/10/27/foxs-bartiromo-defends-trickle-down-economics-t/201318>
]

*Fox* *Business Host: Clinton's "Outrageous" Criticism Of Trickle-Down
Theory "Sound[s] Like The Mafia."* On the October 27 edition of Fox
News' *America's
Newsroom*, Fox Business host Melissa Francis alleged that Clinton's
criticism of the conservative economic theory sounded "like the mafia"
before claiming that the remarks were "outrageous." [Fox News,* America's
Newsroom*,* 10/27/14*
<http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2014/10/27/37383/fnc-an-20141027-hillaryclinton_trickledown_jobcreators>
]

*Outnumbered* *Hosts* *Deemed* *Clinton's Criticism Of* *Trickle-Down*
*"Factually
Incorrect" And "Stupid, Idiotic." *The hosts of the October 27 edition of
*Outnumbered* mocked and attacked Clinton for her condemnation of
trickle-down economics. Co-host Sandra Smith said Clinton's comments were
"barely worth a response," and "factually incorrect," while guest co-host
Bo Dietl called Clinton a "disgrace." Co-host Jedediah Bila blasted
Clinton's remark as a "dumb, stupid, idiotic statement." [Fox News,
*Outnumbered*, *10/27/14*
<http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2014/10/27/37384/fnc-outnumbered-20141027-trickledown>
]

*Economists Back Clinton: Job Growth Tied To Economic Security Of Middle
Class, Not Trickle-Down Economics*

*Nobel Prize Winning Economist: Middle Class Consumers Are The "True Job
Creators."* In *The* *New York Times*, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph
Stiglitz explained how middle class consumer spending has "historically
driven our economic growth":

There are four major reasons inequality is squelching our recovery. The
most immediate is that our middle class is too weak to support the consumer
spending that has historically driven our economic growth. While the top 1
percent of income earners took home 93 percent of the growth in incomes in
2010, the households in the middle -- who are most likely to spend their
incomes rather than save them and who are, in a sense, the true job
creators -- have lower household incomes, adjusted for inflation, than they
did in 1996. The growth in the decade before the crisis was unsustainable
-- it was reliant on the bottom 80 percent consuming about 110 percent of
their income. [*The* *New York Times,* *1/19/13*
<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/inequality-is-holding-back-the-recovery/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0>
]

*Economist Heather Boushey:* *Consumer* *Demand Drives Economic Growth.* In
testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, economist Heather Boushey pointed out that, "It is demand for
goods and services, backed up by an ability to pay for them, which drives
economic growth." Boushey noted that, "The hollowing out of our middle
class limits our nation's capacity to grow unless firms can find new
customers." [Center for American Progress, *5/12/11*
<http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/report/2011/05/12/9582/the-endangered-middle-class-is-the-american-dream-slipping-out-of-reach-for-american-families/>
]

*UC Berkeley Economist Robert Reich: "Businesses Don't Need More Financial
Incentives." *Robert Reich, professor at UC Berkeley and former Secretary
of Labor, wrote that economically "the problem isn't on the supply side.
It's on the demand side":

Can we get real for a moment? Businesses don't need more financial
incentives. They're already sitting on a vast cash horde estimated to be
upwards of $1.6 trillion. Besides, large and middle-sized companies are
having no difficulty getting loans at bargain-basement rates, courtesy of
the Fed.

In consequence, businesses are already spending as much as they can justify
economically. Almost two-thirds of the measly growth in the economy so far
this year has come from businesses rebuilding their inventories. But
without more consumer spending, there's they won't spend more. A robust
economy can't be built on inventory replacements.

The problem isn't on the supply side. It's on the demand side. Businesses
are reluctant to spend more and create more jobs because there aren't
enough consumers out there able and willing to buy what businesses have to
sell.

The reason consumers aren't buying is because consumers' paychecks are
dropping, adjusted for inflation. [Huffington Post, *6/9/11*
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-the-president-must-co_b_873973.html>
]

*Media Matters For America: “Media Forget Context In Effort To Scandalize
Hillary Clinton's Assessment Of Trickle-Down Economics”
<http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/26/media-forget-context-in-effort-to-scandalize-hi/201316>*

By Ellie Sandmeyer

October 26, 2014, 3:41 p.m. EDT

Mainstream media figures, following in the footsteps of conservative media,
are trying to manufacture a scandal out of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's recent argument against trickle-down economics by
stripping her comments of context to falsely cast them as a controversial
gaffe or a flip-flop on previous statements about trade.

Conservative media outlets rushed to vilify Clinton's stance after she
pushed for a minimum wage increase and warned against the myth that
businesses create jobs through trickle-down economics at an October 24
campaign event for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley
(D). Breitbart.com complained, "Clinton told the crowd ... not to listen to
anybody who says that 'businesses create jobs,'" conservative radio host
Howie Carr said the comments showed Clinton's "true moonbat colors," while
FoxNews.com promoted the Washington Free Beacon's accusation that she said
"businesses and corporations are not the job creators of America."

Mainstream media soon jumped on the bandwagon.

CNN host John King presented Clinton's comments as a fumble "a little
reminiscent there of Mitt Romney saying corporations are people, too," and
USA Today called the comments "An odd moment from Hillary Clinton on the
campaign trail Friday - and one she may regret." In an article egregiously
headlined, "Hillary Clinton No Longer Believes That Companies Create Jobs,"
Bloomberg's Jonathan Allen stripped away any context from Clinton's words
in order to accuse her of having "flip-flopped on whether companies create
jobs," because she has previously discussed the need to keep American
companies competitive abroad.

Taken in context, Clinton's comments are almost entirely unremarkable --
and certainly don't conflict with the philosophy that trade can contribute
to job growth, as Allen suggests. The full transcript of her remarks shows
she was making the established observation that minimum wage increases can
boost a sluggish economy by generating demand, and that tax breaks for the
rich don't necessarily move companies to create jobs:

CLINTON: “Don't let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will
kill jobs. They always say that. I've been through this. My husband gave
working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage
and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more
families were more secure. That's what we want to see here, and that's what
we want to see across the country.

“And don't let anybody tell you, that, you know, it's corporations and
businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down
economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather
spectacularly.

“One of the things my husband says, when people say, what did you bring to
Washington? He says, well I brought arithmetic. And part of it was he
demonstrated why trickle down should be consigned to the trash bin of
history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs over
seas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn't
add up. Now that kind of thinking might win you an award for outsourcing
excellence, but Massachusetts can do better than that. Martha understands
it. She knows you have to create jobs from everyone working together and
taking the advantages of this great state and putting them to work.”

Economic experts agree that job growth is tied to the economic security of
the middle class.

U.S. economic growth has historically relied on consumer spending, and
middle class consumers are "the true job creators," Nobel Prize winning
economist Joseph Stiglitz points out. Right now, the U.S. economy is
"demand-starved," as Economic Policy Institute's (EPI) Joshua Smith puts
it. Steiglitz says that, of all the problems facing the U.S. economy, "The
most immediate is that our middle class is too weak to support the consumer
spending that has historically driven our economic growth."

In a testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, Economist Heather Boushey noted that "It is demand for goods and
services, backed up by an ability to pay for them, which drives economic
growth" and "The hollowing out of our middle class limits our nation's
capacity to grow unless firms can find new customers."

UC Berkeley economist Robert Reich agrees that the problem in the U.S.
economy is demand. "Businesses are reluctant to spend more and create more
jobs because there aren't enough consumers out there able and willing to
buy what businesses have to sell," he writes, and places the blame on low
paychecks and growing inequality: "The reason consumers aren't buying is
because consumers' paychecks are dropping... Consumers can't and won't buy
more." He says the key to job growth is "reigniting demand" by "putting
more money in consumers' pockets." From The Huffington Post:

“Can we get real for a moment? Businesses don't need more financial
incentives. They're already sitting on a vast cash horde estimated to be
upwards of $1.6 trillion. Besides, large and middle-sized companies are
having no difficulty getting loans at bargain-basement rates, courtesy of
the Fed.

“In consequence, businesses are already spending as much as they can
justify economically. Almost two-thirds of the measly growth in the economy
so far this year has come from businesses rebuilding their inventories. But
without more consumer spending, there's they won't spend more. A robust
economy can't be built on inventory replacements.

“The problem isn't on the supply side. It's on the demand side. Businesses
are reluctant to spend more and create more jobs because there aren't
enough consumers out there able and willing to buy what businesses have to
sell.

“The reason consumers aren't buying is because consumers' paychecks are
dropping, adjusted for inflation.”

Clinton's emphasis on the minimum wage is supported by economic experts as
well. Reich says that raising the minimum wage is an effective way to
generate the consumer demand that would spur job growth. It "would put
money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it --
thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and
creating jobs." He also rejected critics' claims that giving low
income-earners a raise hurts job growth: "When I was Labor Secretary in
1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job
losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any
comparable period in American history."

EPI called the minimum wage a "critically important issue" that "would
provide a modest stimulus to the entire economy, as increased wages would
lead to increased consumer spending, which would contribute to GDP growth
and modest employment gains" (emphasis added):

“The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted
earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far
exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics'
claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. In fact,
throughout the nation, a minimum-wage increase under current labor market
conditions would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax
breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts
more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most,
thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize
that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend
any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or
services.

“Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would give
an additional $51.5 billion over the phase-in period to directly and
indirectly affected workers, who would, in turn, spend those extra
earnings. Indirectly affected workers--those earning close to, but still
above, the proposed new minimum wage--would likely receive a boost in
earnings due to the "spillover" effect (Shierholz 2009), giving them more
to spend on necessities.

“This projected rise in consumer spending is critical to any recovery,
especially when weak consumer demand is one of the most significant factors
holding back new hiring (Izzo 2011). Though the stimulus from a
minimum-wage increase is smaller than the boost created by, for example,
unemployment insurance benefits, it has the crucial advantage of not
imposing costs on the public sector.”

The economic benefits of a minimum wage increase are widely accepted. Over
600 economists signed a recent letter supporting an increase, arguing,
"Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small
stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their
additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help
on the jobs front."

*Politico: “Hillary Clinton tries to clarify jobs comment”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-jobs-comment-112225.html>*

By Maggie Haberman

October 27, 2014, 1:15 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton on Monday mopped up her botched statement from a rally in
Massachusetts last week, making it clear she’d misspoken and hadn’t
intended to deliver a fresh economic policy message.

Clinton’s clean-up came as she campaigned with Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney in
Somers, about 90 minutes north of New York City, after two days in which
Republicans bandied the likely White House candidate’s Friday comment on
social media and it began gaining broader attention.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs,”
Clinton had said at the rally in Boston, where she appeared on behalf of
gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley along with Democratic Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, a populist, anti-Big Banks crusader who has become the wished-for
candidate from some progressives for 2016.

A Clinton aide later said the former secretary of state had meant to talk
about tax breaks in that sentence, which led into a line about how
trickle-down economics had “failed spectacularly” – a sentiment she has
long held. The overall context was clear that she had left words out of a
sentence; the comment made little sense without it.

But some Democrats who back Clinton said privately she appeared to be
trying too hard to capture the Warren rhetoric and adjust to the modern
economic progressive language – much in the way President Barack Obama did
during a campaign rally in 2012, when, discussing businesses relationships
to the infrastructure of cities, he said, “You didn’t build that.”

In Somers on Monday, Clinton called for a raise in the minimum wage and
said, “Look, I know the Republicans will tell you raising wages kill jobs
except for wages at the very top, so trickle-down can create jobs.”

But she noted that when her husband was president the minimum wage was
raised, and that she voted for its increase when she served as a senator
from New York.

“We are supposed to be about upward mobility,” she said.

Nan Hayworth, Maloney’s rival, represents “a discredited economic theory
that will hurt middle class families,” Clinton said. “I shorthanded this
point the other day so let me be absolutely clear on what [I’ve been saying
for decades].

“Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying
jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from
the bottom up. … Not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that
outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Maloney, who talked extensively about getting his start in national
politics by working on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, is one of the
only House candidates Hillary Clinton is individually helping with a public
rally.

The event, at Heritage Hills, a housing complex, was attended primarily by
senior citizens.

In addition to the mop-up, Clinton tried out a few new lines, describing
Maloney as part of the ongoing bridge to the 21st Century.

He’s part of “a new political mission to make our government work again for
the people of the country that we love,” said Clinton – another sentence
that could end up as part of her own stump speech.

*Bloomberg: “Clinton: 'Trickle-Down Economics Has Failed'”
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-10-27/clinton-trickledone-economics-has-failed>*

By Jonathan Allen

October 27, 2014, 3:49 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Her remarks boil down to one message: She's for the little guy.

Days after Republicans feasted on her claim that corporations don't create
jobs, Hillary Clinton tried Monday to "be absolutely clear about what I've
been saying for a couple of decades."

"So-called trickle-down economics has failed," Clinton said as she stumped
for Representative Sean Patrick Maloney in New York. "Our economy grows
when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in an
America where workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom
up and the middle out–not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that
outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas."

While campaigning Friday for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha
Coakley, Clinton created a stir–and drew criticism from Republicans–by
saying, "Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses
that create jobs."

She followed that with a line about President Ronald Reagan's pet economic
concept: “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been
tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly."

The cleaned-up message, though, hits at the same theme: Clinton's for the
little guy.

She has been sounding more populist notes of late as a campaign-trail
advocate for Democratic candidates who are on the ballot next week. That's
an important turn as she contemplates a run for president in 2016 because
Clinton's biggest weakness among Democrats, and some Republicans, is the
perception that she's too close to Wall Street and corporate America. One
Clinton confidant told Bloomberg Politics he'd rather have her make
mistakes like Friday's than say she's for Wall Street banks.

And the more anti-corporate tone is pleasing to the ears of liberals who
have pined for  Senator Elizabeth Warren, a scourge of Wall Street banks,
to challenge Clinton for the Democratic nomination. And, they say, it's a
message Clinton can use against Republicans because many in the GOP have
turned wary of Wall Street and big corporations since the 2008 financial
crash.

"Warren's economic populist agenda offers a pathway to success for
Democrats in 2014 and 2016 –if they choose to take it," said Adam Green,
co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Hillary Clinton
may be realizing that Elizabeth Warren's economic populist positions are
the path to electoral success in 2016–both in the primary and general
election."

In the 2008 campaign, Clinton rolled out a $7 billion plan to create
incentives, including tax breaks for corporations, to create jobs in the
U.S. As a senator from New York, she supported targeted tax cuts or credits
for a variety of industries and businesses.

*New York Times blog: DealBook: “Hillary Clinton’s Comment About
Corporations and Job Creation Raises Wall St.’s Eyebrows”
<http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/hillary-clintons-comment-about-corporations-and-job-creation-raises-wall-st-s-eyebrows/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0>*

By Andrew Ross Sorkin

October 27, 2014, 9:33 p.m. EDT

“Hillary said what?”

That was the question whispered among some of Wall Street’s most prominent
Democratic supporters over the weekend after Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke
on the campaign trail for Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate for
governor of Massachusetts.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that
create jobs,” Mrs. Clinton said on Friday in Boston. “You know that old
theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It
has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when
people say, ‘What did you bring to Washington?’ He says, ‘I brought
arithmetic.’ ”

It was the first part of the quotation that some on Wall Street focused on,
comparing it to a phrase uttered by President Obama in 2012 — “If you’ve
got a business, you didn’t build that” — that, similarly stripped of its
context, provided Republicans with fodder to rally their base.

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton seemed to backpedal on her earlier comment, perhaps
after some of her Wall Street supporters had telephoned.

She made her initial remarks at a rally on Friday, where Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts appeared as well. She also declared at the time, “I
love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve to get it.”

Mrs. Clinton didn’t explicitly say who deserved to get it, but she appeared
to be directing her ire at Ms. Warren’s favorite target, Wall Street banks.
Within the world of finance, Mrs. Clinton has long been seen as a friend of
Wall Street — or at least not an enemy. She has rarely engaged in the kind
of vitriol that has made Senator Warren a hero of the progressive left. She
has accepted $200,000 fees for speeches and has spoken at firms like
Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. In some cases she has praised and
defended firms like these.

Ms. Warren has criticized Mrs. Clinton in the past for being too cozy with
Wall Street.

So Mrs. Clinton’s harsh words about the business world had tongues wagging,
especially among some of her supporters who seemed nervous that someone
perceived as a friend might be moving away from them.

Some on Wall Street had already noticed that Mrs. Clinton, while
campaigning for Senator Al Franken of Minnesota last week, had singled out
the financial industry. “Al has pushed for more and better oversight of the
big banks and risky financial activity, and there’s more work for him to
do,” she said. “There’s a lot of unfinished business to make sure we don’t
end up once again with big banks taking big risks and leaving taxpayers
holding the bag.”

The main question was whether Mrs. Clinton’s words were more about
political maneuvering than reshaping her beliefs.

One senior banker, who has long supported Mrs. Clinton, said: “The reality
is that she might have to tack left a little for the party. What I don’t
know is whether she will stay there or double back.”

Another banker said of her comment: “I doubt she meant that.”

Ari Fleischer, a press secretary for President George W. Bush, took to
Twitter: “Sometimes you have to wonder if Hillary really believes in
anything, except appealing to whatever is current. Iraq war? Yes. Business?
No.”

While Mrs. Clinton has yet to declare that she is running for president in
2016, she is widely seen as the presumptive Democratic nominee, and an army
of Wall Street bankers has been angling for roles in her campaign in hopes
of clinching spots in her administration. (Another set of bankers is
cozying up to Jeb Bush in hopes that he runs on the Republican ticket.)

A series of right-leaning blogs trumpeted Mrs. Clinton’s comments over the
weekend, seemingly as a way of highlighting the inconsistency in some of
her positions.

What Mrs. Clinton’s supporters within the business world want to know is
whether she plans to govern the way her husband did as a moderate,
center-left president or whether she will be pressed to take more so-called
progressive stances — code for anti-business within the business world — as
the Democratic Party, in the wake of the financial crisis, appears to have
shifted leftward since Mr. Clinton left office.

Mr. Clinton, whose Clinton Global Initiative and other ties to business
have made him appear friendlier to the financial world, found himself
offending some of the Democratic base when he appeared to sympathize with
corporations seeking to reincorporate overseas to lower their tax rates in
so-called inversion deals. “Like it or not, this inversion, this is their
money,” he said.

On Monday at a campaign rally in New York, Mrs. Clinton said she had
misspoken.

“I shorthanded this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear
about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying
jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build
from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for
corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas,” she said.

Still, whatever position Mrs. Clinton takes on Wall Street, she will most
likely face a continuing struggle to win over the most progressive members
of her party: “The neo-liberal capture of the Democratic Party narrowed the
range of policy alternatives available to American voters, and what excites
voters about Warren is that she represents a break from that sordid
history,” Luke Brinker, deputy politics editor at Salon, wrote. “And
Clinton’s inextricable link with that history — not some clumsy campaign
stump gaffe — is the real problem,” he added.

That view takes for granted that it is not a good idea for a Democrat to be
a friend of Wall Street. But certainly there is a place for a candidate at
the crossroads of Wall Street and Main Street.

*Defense News opinion: retired Adm. Stuart Platt: “Climate Change Increases
Instability for All”
<http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141027/DEFFEAT05/310270016/Commentary-Climate-Change-Increases-Instability-All>*

By retired Adm. Stuart Platt

October 27, 2014 1:24 p.m. EDT

Recently, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at Sen. Harry
Reid’s Clean Energy Summit in Nevada, where she announced that climate
change is “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of
challenges” facing us today. She is right on point. It was a strong
statement, in line with her past actions. But what many people might not
know is that climate change isn’t just an issue for environmentalists. It
is also an important one for the armed forces and national security
communities.

In March, the Pentagon published the latest quadrennial defense review, a
standard-bearing report for military strategy, security threats and defense
spending. It reads in part:

“The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition
while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance
institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that
will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation,
political instability, and social tensions — conditions that can enable
terrorist activity and other forms of violence.”

In other words, climate change exacerbates global unrest and worsens
conditions in already unstable countries. Specifically:

■ When droughts and severe storms damage crops, it puts stress on the
global food supply in regions where there is already too little to go
around.

■ When unexpected severe storms sweep through countries and destroy
infrastructure, governments struggle to provide social services for their
people.

■ When people have too few resources, they migrate across borders, leading
to land disputes and ethnic or religious confrontations

■ When crops are the backbone of your economy, crop failures lead to trade
disputes and economic struggles

Like many other complicated ills, climate change knows no barriers. The US
is not immune, especially to potential flooding problems. A large portion
of the American population lives in coastal areas.

In Virginia, for example, the mission readiness of Naval Base Norfolk could
be threatened if major investments are not made to adapt to already rising
sea levels. The Department of Defense has begun work on this, but if
serious actions aren’t taken to curb CO2 emissions and mitigate the effects
of climate change, we will be fighting a losing battle.

Some regions of the world are at higher risk for conflict than others.
Syria is an unfortunate example. The country suffered an extreme and
unusually long drought between 2006 and 2011. Three-fourths of farmers
suffered total crop losses, and President Bashar al-Assad mismanaged water
resources, ultimately displacing 1.5 million Syrians. Many believe that
these circumstances, understood by scientists to be partially the result of
climate change, contributed to the country’s civil war.

Military experts also are greatly concerned about the impending national
security challenges beginning to present themselves as Arctic ice melts
(not to mention how it’s contributing to sea level rise). The melting ice
is opening up the polar region, creating new and uncharted operating areas
for all the world’s navies and commercial vessels — not just for the US.

As shipping routes through the Arctic waters increase, we must be prepared
to defend our interests. Greater access to the Arctic will require more US
naval engagement in the region.

And no matter where a conflict occurs, we are often called upon to bring
prompt relief to at-risk populations, because America is a global leader.
It is a responsibility in which our brave men and women in uniform take
pride.

In short, fighting climate change is about much more than warmer
temperatures. It’s about famine, borders, the economy and yes, terrorism.
Fighting climate change is one of many critical components to stabilizing
the rest of the world. Instability breeds conflicts.

This is why Clinton prioritized addressing climate change at the State
Department. As secretary of state, she appointed a special envoy for
climate change to serve as an adviser on international climate change
policy. She also established the Bureau of Energy Resources, which
addresses the threat of climate change posed by the world’s energy
consumption. These are both important steps for a healthier environment,
but they’re also steps towards a safer world.

And so when Clinton says climate change is “the most consequential, urgent,
sweeping collection of challenges” facing us today, she does so with the
knowledge that it feeds into other serious global issues. The military
understands that it’s not just about warmer temperatures. It’s about
America’s basic national security.

*Associated Press: “Bill Clinton Stumps for Colorado Democrats”
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLORADO_DEMOCRATS_BILL_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>*

By Kristen Wyatt

October 27, 2014, 10:53 p.m. EDT

AURORA, Colo. (AP) -- Former President Bill Clinton urged Democrats to
ignore polls showing their party is unlikely to retain control of the U.S.
Senate, telling a suburban Denver crowd Monday to resist cynicism and
redouble their efforts to get out the vote.

Clinton said midterm elections in a president's second term are dominated
by appeals to vent frustration at the president by voting out others in his
party. He accused Republicans of trying to get people to "just vote your
fears and your anger."

Clinton talked up Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, who is locked in a tough
re-election contest against Republican Rep. Cory Gardner.

Clinton said Republican Senate hopefuls are asking voters to give them a
six-year job as a way of showing dislike for a president who will be gone
in two. Gardner, who has a narrow lead on Udall in many recent polls,
frequently criticizes Udall for how often he sides with President Barack
Obama.

"It's a pretty slick deal," Clinton joked. "He wants to take Mark Udall off
the ballot and put the president on the ballot."

Democrats have sent their biggest names in recent weeks to rally support
for Udall. Just last week, former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, and first lady Michelle Obama traveled to Colorado to campaign for
Udall.

Colorado's race could decide whether Republicans or Democrats control the
Senate.

"Control of the U.S. Senate hangs in the balance when it comes to this race
right here," Udall told the crowd. "This race is going to be close right
through Nov. 4."

Clinton also talked up Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, locked in a tough
re-election battle of his own against Republican Bob Beauprez, and
congressional hopeful Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff is trying to unseat
three-term incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Coffman, who represents Aurora,
just east of Denver.

Clinton talked about the improving economy and said conservatives see the
midterm elections as a change to revive "trickle-down economics."

"I don't care what they tell you, that is what's going to be on the
ballot," Clinton said.

*BuzzFeed: “Back To The ’90s: Hillary Clinton Campaigns With ‘Clinton
Democrat’”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/back-to-the-90s-hillary-clinton-campaigns-with-clinton-democ>*

By Ruby Cramer

October 27, 2014, 10:55 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Campaigning for a former employee on Monday, Clinton smoothly
folded ’90s themes into her fast-developing stump speech. A more
comfortable atmosphere.

SOMERS, N.Y. — When Sean Patrick Maloney took the stage on Monday at a
Westchester County rally with his old boss, Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop,”
the theme song for Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, filled the
banquet hall.

Don’t stop, thinking about tomorrow.

Don’t stop, it’ll soon be here.

When the crowd greeted him in Heritage Hills, a complex of condos in this
mid-sized New York town, they raised signs that read, “Clinton Democrat for
Congress.”

And when Maloney, running for a second term in Congress, wrapped up his
speech here, he invoked a string of legendary lines from that 1992 race. “I
believe in a place called Hope,” Maloney said. “I believe in walking across
that bridge to the 21st century. And we won’t stop thinking about tomorrow.”

By the time Maloney introduced his headliner, Hillary Clinton, he’d made
the point clear enough: “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I’m a
Clinton Democrat.”

Maloney, a former Clinton campaign staffer and senior White House aide,
rallied the crowd in Somers with repeated references to the former first
family and the distinct political brand they brought to the Democratic
Party in the early ’90s.

The speech was a bit of a time-warp. But it also proved that the ideas
behind the 1992 campaign, which Maloney outlined in his speech, could still
translate more than two decades years later on the stump for him and
Clinton both. Even as the former secretary and New York senator has moved
toward embracing a more explicitly progressive message than the mix of
centrism and populism that defined her husband’s first White House bid, she
knitted together the speech she’s been using on the trail this month with a
handful of themes from that first campaign.

Maloney, for example, closed his speech with language Bill Clinton took
national in 1991 — the troika of “basic, enduring” values: “opportunity for
all, responsibility from all, in a community of all.”

When she took the stage, Clinton came back to the line. “I loved what you
said at the end,” she said during the 20-minute speech.

“When we crisscrossed our country in 1992, that’s exactly the message that
Bill Clinton took forth: opportunity, responsibility, community. And just
like Sean, I was blessed to have parents who worked hard and gave me the
opportunities and expected the responsibilities in the community that I
grew up in.”

Clinton added that she wanted to make sure her “precious granddaughter,
Charlotte,” who was born late last month, would enjoy those same rights,
too.

During his speech, Maloney recalled his move to Arkansas in early 1992 to
work for Hillary Clinton on the campaign. He packed everything he owned
into his pick-up truck — “Everything,” he stressed. “I didn’t have any
future” — and drove the 1,300 miles to Little Rock, where he set up his
mattress on the floor of another aide, Susan Thomases. “I was part of what
they called Hillaryland.”

The Clintons, Maloney said, “spoke about a dream of a prosperous America
where the middle class would do well, where the middle class would thrive.”

“And folks, they made that dream a reality.”

Clinton said she remembered meeting Maloney in New Hampshire one night in
1992. He joined the campaign, she said, because he believed, “as Bill and I
did, that we needed changes in America and we needed to be putting people
first.”

“I’m proud of how hard Sean has worked since then — in the White House, in
other important positions, now in the Congress — to continuing that idea.”

This month on the campaign trail, where she has tweaked and honed a stump
speech at rallies across about a dozen states, Clinton has found a window
into the debate over economic inequality through issues like equal pay for
women and a minimum-wage increase. And she has more consciously embraced
some of the populist language associated with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a
progressive figurehead.

That appeared to go awry last Friday when Clinton fumbled a line saying
that “corporations and businesses” don’t create jobs. She clarified during
her speech in Somers that she had “short-handed” the point. Corporations
that “outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas” shouldn’t be handed
tax breaks, she said.

On Monday, Clinton’s economic arguments seemed much more natural, framed
through the lens of middle-class families. She also returned to a familiar
line about “trickle-down economics,” a theory she and her husband have long
denounced. He first campaigned against the idea in 1992.

“The Republican alternative is a discredited economic theory that will hurt
middle-class families.” Maloney, Clinton added, “stands for equality,
equality of opportunity.”

“We are supposed to be about upward mobility. If you work hard and do your
part, you and your family are supposed to be able to have a better life.”

Maloney, one of the few openly gay members of Congress, is in a competitive
race against Nan Hayworth, the Republican he beat two years ago to win his
seat in New York’s 18th district.

About 150 people, many elderly residents of the housing complex, packed the
event at the restaurant hall in Heritage Hills. (Attendees couldn’t leave
until Clinton had vacated the venue, and two people passed out waiting for
her departure, according to a security officer staffing the event.)

Clinton is scheduled to continue her tour on behalf of Democrats on
Wednesday, with two campaign events for Rep. Bruce Braley, the U.S. senate
candidate in Iowa. On Thursday, she heads to Maryland for Lt. Gov. Anthony
Brown, the gubernatorial nominee there. And on Saturday, she will return to
Kentucky to stump at two events with Alison Lundergan Grimes, another
longtime friend of the Clintons.

Maloney is the only individual candidate in the House of Representatives
that Clinton has campaigned for this fall.

Asked later by reporters to define “Clinton Democrat,” Maloney said,
“Fighting for the middle class, reaching across the aisle, and getting
bipartisan results.”

Grimes, running against Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, has also called
herself a “Clinton Democrat.” Her family has been close to the Clintons for
years.

Maloney and his old bosses have remained close. The Clintons were invited
to his wedding. And Bill Clinton campaigned for Maloney two years ago.

The congressman’s campaign said on Monday that they planned to roll out a
new television ad featuring tape of that event with the 42nd president.

Before closing his speech on Monday, Maloney said that when people ask him
why he wants to work in government, he often replies, “Because I’ve seen it
work.”

“I’ve seen the Clintons work.”

*Politico: “Reince Priebus: Hillary Clinton ‘not really good at politics’”
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/reince-priebus-hillary-clinton-not-really-good-at-politics-112235.html?hp=l2>*

By Lucy McCalmont

October 27, 2014, 7:09 p.m. EDT

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says Hillary Clinton
is “becoming sort of a caricature” and that “she’s not really good at
politics.”

“I think she’s trying too hard and she’s not really good at this stuff,”
Priebus told NewsmaxTV in a interview posted Monday.

Priebus’ comments follow a Clinton remark about businesses and jobs that
drew GOP taunts on social media.

During an appearance last week at a Boston rally for Democrat Martha
Coakley’s gubernatorial bid. Clinton said, “Don’t let anybody tell you that
corporations and businesses create jobs.” Her aides and Clinton herself
have since sought to clarify that statement, saying that the likely White
House candidate simply misspoke and that she was referring to tax breaks
for corporations and businesses.

In his interview, Priebus said Clinton was trying to be like Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) who also was present at the Boston rally and who some
liberals hope will challenge Clinton from the left for the party’s
presidential nomination.

“I don’t know if she was a little off-script on that particular moment, but
it clearly wasn’t natural and it was certainly awkward,” the RNC chairman
said. “And if it was serious, then obviously she doesn’t understand
capitalism and democracy in a way that business and jobs operate.”

However, the Priebus added that Clinton “is bordering on becoming sort of a
caricature,” adding for the GOP, there’s nobody better to run against in
2016.

“There’d be no one you would want more to run against than Hillary Clinton,
and on top of it, she’s not really good at politics,” Priebus said,
pointing to her recent book tour, which he called a “disaster.”

“She talks off the cuff; it doesn’t work,” he said. “She makes one mistake
after the next.”

*National Journal: “Republican 2016 Contenders Have Taken Positions on NSA
Reform. Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand?”
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-2016-contenders-have-taken-positions-on-nsa-reform-where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-20141027>*

By Dustin Volz

October 27, 2014

If Hillary Clinton has a position on the government's domestic spying,
she's doing a good job of hiding it.

More than a year after Edward Snowden's leaks, the former secretary of
State has yet to offer a meaningful assessment of the National Security
Agency's mass-surveillance programs. She's had plenty of chances, but in
interviews, speeches, and even her new book, Clinton has repeatedly ducked
the issue with vagaries and clichés.

The possible 2016 candidate rarely discusses NSA spying unprompted. And
when she does, her remarks are often couched in opaque platitudes about the
need to balance privacy and national security concerns.

Last week, for example, Clinton heaped praise on Sen. Mark Udall for
"leading the Senate in asking the hard questions about intelligence and the
trade-off between liberty and security." Her remarks came during a campaign
rally for the Colorado Democrat, who is locked in a fierce reelection
battle with GOP challenger Rep. Cory Gardner.

Udall has been among the Democrats leading a push for tighter reins on the
NSA, but Clinton hasn't endorsed any of his proposals to pull back the
agency. At times, she has appeared to fall on the other end of the spectrum.

The push for surveillance reform largely stems from NSA secrets spilled by
Snowden, the former agency contractor who now lives under asylum in Russia.
Yet during his globe-trotting quest for asylum last summer, Clinton
condemned Snowden's leaks as "outrageous behavior" and said that Hong
Kong's decision to let him flee would "unquestionably [have] a negative
impact on the U.S.-China relationship." In April of this year, Clinton went
further, suggesting Snowden's leaks helped terrorists.

But Clinton has said that "some changes" must be made.

In June, Fox News journalist Greta Van Susteren tried asking Clinton three
consecutive times whether she thought warrantless spying on Americans
violated the Constitution. Clinton largely demurred. "The Congress is
trying to square Americans' constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment
and the necessity for information that can be connected to terrorist
activity here at home or abroad. It's a really difficult balancing act,"
Clinton said in the interview. "But you are 100 percent right, that we have
to make some changes in order to secure that privacy, that constitutional
right to privacy that Americans are due."

And what changes are those? Clinton hasn't elaborated.

Ready for Hillary, a pro-Clinton PAC, did not reply to a request for
comment on Clinton's NSA views, and a pair of former Clinton advisers could
not be reached.

The best clues to Clinton's NSA views come from her Senate voting record,
but her history reveals no clear pattern.

Clinton voted in favor of the post-9/11 Patriot Act, which greatly expanded
the intelligence community's surveillance authority and is the legal
underpinning for the NSA's bulk collection of nearly all American phone
records. But that was a vote taken at a time when a shell-shocked American
public was much more sympathetic to surveillance than it is in 2014.
Ninety-six other senators also voted for the Patriot Act, but a significant
portion have since walked back their support for broad spying powers. The
legislation's author in the House—Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of
Wisconsin—is now crusading to pull back surveillance programs ushered in
under the bill.

Perhaps more instructive is when Clinton, just a month after dropping out
of her protracted presidential primary battle with then-Sen. Barack Obama,
joined 27 Democrats in voting against an amended version of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The measure was fiercely opposed by civil-liberties groups, which assailed
a controversial provision granting immunity to telecom companies that
complied with President George W. Bush's warrantless-wiretapping program.
It also secretly provided the authority for the NSA's PRISM program, which
was exposed by Snowden and allows the government to collect Internet
communications from U.S. companies, including Google and Facebook.
Clinton's opposition was especially notable given that Obama voted for the
bill, a decision that enraged many of his most ardent supporters.

"Any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of
Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and
accountability over this administration," Clinton said in a statement at
the time. "While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the
administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many
respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short."

*Quiet Clinton, Loud Republicans*

Clinton's relative quiet on NSA reform stands in contrast to Republicans'
2016 field, whose likely members have taken public—and opposing—stands on
the issue.

Assuming that Sen. Rand Paul officially declares his intention to run for
president, a central plank of his platform will be dismantling the
government's mass-surveillance programs. The Kentucky Republican has been
among the loudest critics of the NSA, going as far as to file a
class-action lawsuit accusing the agency of violating the Fourth Amendment
with its bulk collection of American phone records.

And when Sen. Ted Cruz joins the 2016 fray, it's clear he also would
campaign on reigning in the intelligence community's snooping. The
tea-party Texan has attached his name to Senate legislation that would
curtail several key parts of NSA spying.

Marco Rubio? Florida's defense-hawk senator has flown a different course,
cautioning that limits to the NSA could hamper our fight against the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, meanwhile,
has also defended government spying, instructing its critics to reevaulate
their stance by sitting down with the families of victims lost in the Sept.
11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Clinton's relative quiet on the issue compared with Republicans likely
stems from the fact that—unlike Paul, Rubio, Cruz, and Christie—she
currently doesn't hold elected office, leaving her free from making any
decisions on the issue. But if she does run for president, ducking the
question will become near impossible.

Sooner or later, Clinton will need to articulate a firm stance on
government snooping if she wants to return to the White House, said Neema
Guliani, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Candidates are going to have to answer questions about specific programs,
and they won't be able to hide from issues the way they could six, seven
years ago," Guliani said. "People are going to keep asking. There is no
hiding from this question."

*CNN: “Hillary Clinton's 7 favorite midterm campaign lines”
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/politics/clinton-midterm-lines/>*

By Dan Merica

October 28, 2014, 6:45 a.m. EDT

By Election Day in November, Hillary Clinton will have stumped for
candidates in over 15 states, with sometimes multiple events at each
destination.

What does this mean: Lots of speeches.

Like most politicians have some formula of commonly used phrases and lines
of attack, the former secretary of state has started to shape a stump
speech with similar expressions.

The lines are more than just cliches, however. They shed light on the type
of campaign Clinton would have if she decided to run for president in 2016,
and highlight what she will focus on and how she has learned from many of
the mistakes that caused her to lose to Barack Obama in 2008.

Here are Hillary Clinton's seven most used lines on the 2014 stump:

1.) [Insert candidate's name] is the "right leader at the right time with
the right plan"

This is Clinton's go-to endorsement line and she's used it regularly this
fall.

"There is no doubt the governor is the right leader at the right time with
the right plan," Clinton said during an event with Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New
York last week.

Clinton used the same line -- almost exactly -- for Democratic candidate
Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania and Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado this month.

"You are convinced as I am convinced that Tom Wolf is the right leader and
the right time for Pennsylvania hard working people," Clinton said of Wolf.

2.) "It's as though the other side wants to cast an air of amnesia"

Clinton, who spent four years separated from politics as America's top
diplomat, has stepped up her Republican attack lines on the stump, and she
seems extremely fond of linking the "other side" with "amnesia."

"It appears to me that the campaigns being run against them are depending
on the voters of Colorado having a mass case of amnesia," Clinton said in
her endorsement of Udall and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper. They want
voters to "somehow just forget the accomplishments."

Clinton made a similar argument for Martha Coakley, Massachusetts'
Democratic governor nominee, earlier this month.

Republicans are counting on "amnesia in this midterm election," Clinton
said, adding they were hoping "people will forget what they have done and
what they could do. We have been down the road. That is what is happening."

At a fundraiser in California earlier this year, she said this: "It's as
though the other side wants to cast an air of amnesia."

The line appears to be borrowed from her husband, former President Bill
Clinton, who while stumping for candidates in 2010 accused Republicans of
"amnesia."

"The Republicans are trying to make this a referendum on people's anger ...
with a good dose of amnesia," Clinton said while endorsing Sen. Richard
Blumenthal in 2010, according to reports.

3.) "You can't take anything for granted."

Clinton usually employs this line when she is stumping for Democrats who
are way up in the polls.

"If you don't show up, you don't know what is going to happen," Clinton
said in Minnesota earlier this month where she endorsed Gov. Mark Dayton
and Sen. Al Franken, two Democrats who look likely to win. "You can't take
anything for granted."

The line is more than just a call for voters to activate, however. In 2008,
Clinton found herself with a sizable lead over then-Sen. Barack Obama.
Clinton went on to lose the nomination fight and some critics of the
campaign said it was because Clinton's top advisers saw her win as a
forgone conclusion.

But as much at it is a call to voters, the line is a nod to what Clinton
has learned about campaigning.

"I want you to promise yourselves before you leave here tonight that you
won't just come to this beautiful Constitution Center and listen to the
speeches and the music then go home feeling good," Clinton said in
Pennsylvania where she endorsed frontrunner Wolf for governor. "You need to
resolve to do everything you can to make sure you don't take this election
for granted."

4.) "Everyone deserves a second chance, a third chance..."

Clinton has focused a great deal on economic populism on the stump, an
issue other Democrats thinking about seeking the presidency in 2016 have
started to tweak Clinton on.

"Everyone deserves a second chance, a third chance to keep going and to
make something of themselves," Clinton said in Iowa earlier this year.
"That was one of the most important lessons of my life."

Clinton usually uses the line to encourage compassion from a crowd, and to
show that she has compassion, too.

"The only direction that matters in life is forward," Clinton said in
Minnesota. "Never quit. Never lose faith. When you get knocked down get
right back up, recognize there is worth and dignity in every human being
and that everyone — everyone — deserves not just a chance but a second
chance and even a third chance and a better life for themselves and their
families."

5.) "Women hold a majority of minimum wage jobs in our country."

This is a double whammy for Clinton: In one line, she nods to women and the
economic struggles that many women -- and men -- are experiencing.

Clinton's many appearances have focused a great deal on women and this line
has become a staple.

"Women hold a majority of minimum wage jobs in our country," Clinton said
in San Francisco earlier this month. "When women succeed, America succeeds."

Clinton used a similar line in North Carolina while stumping for Sen. Kay
Hagan, at an event for the Democratic National Committee earlier this year
at an event with other female politicians in Washington, D.C in September.

"If we had been able to close the gap between men and women participating
in the work force, our Gross Domestic Product would be 10 percent higher,"
Clinton said at the event. "Why are we leaving 10% on the table because we
don't do enough to give women the support that they need to be empowered,
to take care of themselves and their families?"

6.) "Grandmother glow"

Hillary Clinton recently became a grandmother, and those who attend her
stump speeches get reminded of that pretty quickly.

Clinton has made her new granddaughter -- Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky -- a
staple of her stump speech and usually uses the one month old to pivot to
her vision for the future and the world she and other Democrats want to
leave for their children and grandchildren.

Clinton unveiled the line during an October paid speech in Miami, Florida.

"You look beautiful," said the moderator of a question and answer with
Clinton.

"I think it is a grandmother glow," she responded.

Since then, the line has been regularly repeated.

She took the line a step further in Charlotte, North Carolina on Saturday,
giving a nod to the city's name within the first two minutes of her speech.

"It is pretty excited being here in Charlotte," Clinton said. "I mean, it
is true that I am a new grandmother, a month tomorrow. I still have that
grandmother glow."

She added, "But I just can't tell you how much we love the name."

7.) "Fear is the last resort of those who have run out of hope"

This is another way Clinton hits Republicans. She accuses the party of
peddling fear because, as she says, that is what people do when they have
"run out of gas."

The line is regularly used when she is endorsing candidates who are facing
stiff opposition and a sizable amount of outside spending and ads.

"Elections come down often to who's got more money, who's peddling more
fear and who turns out," Clinton told the audience in North Carolina. "We
want leaders like Kay Hagan, who appeal to our hopes, not our fears," she
later added.

So far, $80 million has been spent in Hagan's race against Tillis and local
voters have complained about the number of negative ads.

"There is a reason that the senators and the governor's opponents are
running campaigns based on fear," Clinton said in Colorado. "Fear is the
last resort of those who have run out of hope... run out of gas."

*New York Daily News column: Richard Cohen: “The old hands vs. the shaky
newbies”
<http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/richard-cohen-old-hands-shaky-newbies-article-1.1989263>*

By Richard Cohen

October 27, 2014, 8:00 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] Experience without passion or the opposite?

At dinner the other night with a collection of political consultants,
pollsters, some journalists and a few civilians, we went around the table
giving our predictions of the presidential nominees for 2016. Some
interesting names popped up.

One of them was Bill de Blasio, the lefty mayor of New York, and another
was Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator who seems to be running for President
on a platform of discovering who he is. Elizabeth Warren was also
mentioned, and so, in a weary sort of way, was Hillary Clinton. Like Paul,
she’s looking for a message.

Jeb Bush was, of course, mentioned, with some insiders confiding that they
knew he would run while others said he would not. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas
was also mentioned, but his state’s bungling of the Ebola crisis did not
enhance his image any. Mitt Romney was ruled out because his wife is dead
set against another campaign.

Absent Jeb Bush, the Republican field is so wide open I almost jumped in
myself. All I lack is the necessary funds and the appropriate ideological
convictions. Still . . .

OK, let’s clear away some brush. The consensus was that the left and the
right wings of the two parties are in furious turmoil and very unhappy with
the mainstream candidates. For the Democrats, there’s no one more
mainstream than Hillary Clinton, practically an incumbent. Warren is
virtually Clinton’s opposite: a neophyte who has been in the Senate only
since 2013 and has never run a company or state. We have learned — have we
not? — that the presidency requires some executive experience.

Clinton has plenty of experience. What she lacks — and what she has lacked
for some time — is a rousing theme. Warren would be the authentic champion
of the besieged middle class and make the banks pay for their sins. Hillary
would do . . . what? Invite them to yet another meeting of the Clinton
Global Initiative? At the moment, Clinton’s main appeal is to women.
Trouble is, Warren happens to be a woman, too. Clinton needs more —
something else. In an anti-incumbent period, she’s an easy target.

Jeb Bush has a similar problem. No one could be more of an incumbent
without actually holding the office. He is the son of one President, the
brother of another and the former governor of Florida. He has adopted
mainstream positions on education and immigration, but he, too, lacks a
clear message, and he certainly is not going to criticize Bush programs
that helped trigger the creation of the Tea Party. Bush is the very soul of
conservatism. ’Tis a pity. What the party wants is spleen.

So we get to Paul. He is the son of Ron Paul, the unabashed libertarian,
and he started out as one, too. Of late though, he has been amending and
revising his positions, Botoxing some of his strange views — such as his
now-retracted objection to a crucial part of the Civil Rights Act — and
making an effort to appeal to black voters.

The trouble with Paul is that he is running ahead of his views, revising as
he goes along. He has the process backward: First find out who you are, and
then run for President. Paul is taking foreign policy tutorials, but there
is a lot to learn, and he has made some rookie errors. Last month, he
accused John McCain of having his picture taken with Islamic State rebels
in Syria — swallowing whole a ridiculous Internet rumor.

Rand Paul is not ready — never mind his cockamamie ideology. The same holds
for Warren, although she makes abundant sense. As for the establishment
front-runners, they are safe but unexciting. Almost a century after he
wrote it, we now have a political version of William Butler Yeats’ poem
“The Second Coming”: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are
full of passionate intensity.”

Oh, yes, my prediction: The center will not hold.

*The Hill: “Warren vs. Clinton: Dems say 'Why not?'”
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/222016-warren-vs-clinton-dems-say-why-not>*

By Kevin Cirilli

October 28, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT

The Democratic field in 2016 has more than enough room for two women
competing to be the nation’s first female president, according to liberal
activists.

They pour scorn on the notion that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), or any
other woman, ought to step aside if former secretary of State Hillary
Clinton launches a second quest for the White House.

"The idea that you can't run because there's somebody else who looks like
you running? Oh my God, what would all the white men do?" quipped Terry
O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

"I think the argument that two women shouldn't compete in a primary is
insulting to voters — both women and men," said Robert Borosage, the
director and co-founder of the progressive Campaign For America's Future
"This isn't a gender contest. This is a race to determine the best leader
for our country. Anyone making that argument in public would be hooted off
the stage."

A former senior Democratic staffer who supports Clinton also decried the
notion.

"I'm sick of the political boys’ club," said the former staffer, who is
female. "We always have several men running at the same time. The more
women who run for public office, the better. I want nothing more than to
have Hillary as the first female president... [but] people don't become
president because they deserve it — who becomes president is up to the
voters."

Spokespeople for Clinton and Warren did not respond to requests for comment.

Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign was largely perceived as shying away —
at least in its initial stages — from highlighting that she'd be the first
female president, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American
Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

Walsh said that Clinton had fully embraced the historic nature of her
candidacy by the end of her campaign, perhaps most notably in her June 2008
concession speech.

Clinton referred in that address to the numbers of cracks her campaign had
put in the “glass ceiling” that restricts women’s ascent.

She also said, "I am a woman and like millions of women I know there are
still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious, and I want to build
an America that respects and embraces the potential of every last one of
us."

Walsh said that if Warren and Clinton were to both run, it would likely
"reshape and change the nature of the conversation" for Democrats during
the primary.

"[Clinton] could talk about the importance and historic nature of her
candidacy," Walsh said, "but she'd likely have to run more on her
experience, too."

That reflects one potential worry for the Clinton campaign – that a Warren
candidacy would provide voters with a chance to get behind another
Democratic woman with a credible shot at making it to the White House.

Maybe that simply won’t happen. Warren joined all the other female
Democratic senators in October 2013 in a letter encouraging Clinton to run
for president.

But Warren has signaled in recent weeks that she could indeed run, despite
having previously insisted she wasn't interested.

“I don’t think so,” Warren first told People magazine when asked if she'd
run for president recently. But she then added, “If there’s any lesson I’ve
learned in the last five years, it’s don’t be so sure about what lies
ahead. There are amazing doors that could open.”

Other prominent female Democrats have also indicated that they're ready to
rally behind Clinton, who holds a dominant lead in early 2016 polls.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) told TIME Magazine in March that "Hillary
Clinton will be our first female president."

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) backed the pro-Clinton super-PAC Ready For
Hillary in June 2013.

And Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
(D-Fla.) said at a Washington forum in May that Americans would elect a
female president "in a couple of cycles" if Clinton didn't run for
president, as reported by the The Christian Science Monitor, which
sponsored the event.

When asked to clarify her remarks, Schultz appeared to back off through a
spokeswoman.

"Right now, there is no shortage of Democratic women who are ready to run
and win at every level – from the state house the White House," said DNC
spokeswoman Lily Adams.

NOW endorsed Clinton early in the 2008 Democratic primary when Clinton was
battling then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for the nomination.

But O'Neill, who called both Warren and Clinton "fabulous," pushed back
against the notion that Warren would have to step aside for the Clinton
candidacy.

"Sen. Warren is entitled to run for president if she wants and I think
she's a great candidate," O'Neill said. "There's no reason she shouldn't
run for president. We need to have a conversation about where we want this
country to go. Do we really want the .01 percent controlling everything?"

O'Neill added that, “more women need to run against each other in all races
to show it's not a big deal. That says to other women on the sidelines,
'Well, maybe I could jump in, too.'"

*Mediaite: “Chris Matthews: Clinton-Warren 2016 Ticket Not ‘Smart’”
<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-clinton-warren-2016-ticket-not-smart/>*

By Eddie Scarry

October 27, 2014, 3:01 p.m. EDT

Liberal Democrats looking to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to keep hope alive that
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) could still in some way be involved with
the 2016 presidential election had it all squashed Monday.

Since her election to the Senate in 2012, Warren has risen as a voice for
the progressive wing of her party, gaining fans who want her to run in 2016
as a challenger to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is
considering a run herself. Warren has said she isn’t running but that
hasn’t kept her supporters from pushing her toward the White House in one
way or another.

Asked by one follower during a Twitter Q&A whether Matthews thought a
hypothetical Clinton-Warren 2016 ticket would be “smart,” he said no.

“No I don’t think that is a smart ticket,” Matthews aid. “I think a smart
ticket would be Clinton/Sherrod Brown. Brown is the two-term Democratic
senator from Ohio.

What about a cabinet position for Warren in a potential Clinton
administration, another person asked Matthews. Still no.

“I think she’ll stay in the Senate,” he said.

Of course, Matthews is an open supporter of Clinton’s. And his contentious
summer interview with Warren was notable for their constant cross-talking
and his telling her that Democrats have failed to enact policies that help
middle class Americans.

*The Atlantic: “The Jeb Bush Effect”
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/jeb-bush-presidential-election-2016/381982/>*

By Russell Berman

October 27, 2014, 4:33 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] A presidential bid by the former Florida governor would
complicate the party's case against Hillary Clinton.

It has been clear for some time that a significant portion of the
Republican establishment in Washington wants Jeb Bush to run for president
in 2016. Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, the party's senior-most elected
official, has even departed from his formal posture of neutrality to openly
pine for the former Florida governor to enter the race. Bush's family name
notwithstanding, Boehner and other top Republicans see him as the candidate
with the gravitas and fundraising potential to overcome a flawed field,
unite the party, and stand on equal footing with Hillary Clinton, the
prohibitive Democratic favorite.

If this weekend's headlines are an indication, the GOP pooh-bahs may get
their wish. Bush's eldest son, George P. Bush, told ABC News that his
father was "more than likely" to run next year, and The New York Times
reported Sunday night that Jeb Bush's family–save his famously reluctant
mother–was urging him to do so.

Bush would be something of a elder statesman in a Republican presidential
field expected to feature several relative newcomers to the national stage,
including Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Governor Chris
Christie. Governor Rick Perry ran in 2012 and led Texas for the same two
terms as Bush ruled Florida, while another potential contender,
Representative Paul Ryan, was the GOP vice presidential nominee two years
ago.

Yet more than the other candidates, Bush's presence in the race would force
many Republicans to recalibrate their attacks on Clinton. So far, party
officials have targeted her on a range of issues, from criticizing her
handling of the Benghazi terrorist attacks in 2012 to lampooning her
comment that the Clintons were "dead broke" after they left the White
House. When Clinton went on her book tour over the summer, the Republican
National Committee sent a intern dressed as a squirrel to trail her while
wearing a T-shirt that said, "Another Clinton in the White House is Nuts."

The undercurrent of the GOP's argument is that the 67-year-old Clinton is a
relic whose wealth and cloistered life in the government for the last three
decades has put her out of touch with ordinary Americans.

“People are kind of tired of this show, quite frankly. There’s Hillary
fatigue out there. It’s setting in,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said on
NBC's Meet the Press at the end of June.

Jeb Bush, of course, is no fresh face either, and the fact that a Bush or a
Clinton has occupied the White House for 20 of the last 26 years is exactly
what his mother, former First Lady Barbara Bush, had in mind when she spoke
out in opposition to his candidacy in 2013.

"If you're planning to make a legacy argument, having Jeb Bush as the
nominee would complicate that," said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and
former RNC spokesman. "But I don't think that's the best argument to make
against Hillary Clinton." Heye said Republicans would be better off
focusing on Clinton's record as New York senator and then secretary of
state.

Bush would face his own obstacles in a Republican primary, particularly on
the issues of immigration and education, where the party's base has moved
to the right in the years since he served as governor and his brother,
George W. Bush, served as president. And there is little doubt that Bush's
opponents–particularly the more libertarian Paul–would argue that the
country needed to move on from the Bush family just as it should leave the
Clintons in the past.

Democrats would probably relish a Bush candidacy, even if some in the party
would fear his strength with Hispanic voters who have been alienated by
just about everyone else in the GOP in recent years. If both Bush and
Clinton made it to the general election, a battle for nostalgia between the
Clinton era of 1990s and the George W. Bush era of the 2000s would
undoubtedly favor Democrats.

That in itself is a big reason why Republicans are now trying to link
Hillary Clinton closer to her one-time rival, the unpopular President
Obama, than to her more widely-admired husband. Jeb Bush, they point out,
has his own stellar record as governor of Florida.

"She is so tied to this administration," a Republican strategist in Iowa,
Tim Albrecht, said of Clinton on Monday. "Jeb Bush was part of one
administration, and that was his own in Florida."

*Salon: “Hillary Clinton’s populism problem: What her awkward campaign
trail comments reveal about her biggest weakness”
<http://www.salon.com/2014/10/27/hillary_clintons_populism_problem_what_her_awkward_campaign_trail_comments_reveal_about_her_biggest_weakness/>*

By Luke Brinker

October 27, 2014, 1:32 p.m. EDT

[Subtitle:] As the former secretary of state eyes a 2016 bid, she's
struggling to come to terms with the new Democratic Party

Such is the absurdity of American politics that Hillary Clinton — who voted
for the financial industry’s bankruptcy “reform” bill as a U.S. senator,
graced the cover of Fortune magazine in 2007 as corporate America’s
presidential candidate of choice, and has spent her post-diplomatic career
giving paid speeches to the likes of Goldman Sachs and the medical device
industry – is now the subject of Republican attacks that she’s an
anti-business radical.

The impetus for this rather disingenuous claim came Friday, as Clinton
campaigned in Boston for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley.
Channeling the Massachusetts’ senior senator, Elizabeth Warren — a
potential 2016 presidential rival — Clinton struck a populist chord in her
speech, assailing trickle-down economics and championing an increase in the
minimum wage. But the former secretary of state ignited a political
firestorm with her remarks about businesses and job creation.

“And don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it’s corporations and
businesses that create jobs,” Clinton told the crowd. “You know, that old
theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That
has failed rather spectacularly.”

Gleeful at the chance to seize another “you didn’t build that” moment,
Republicans pounced. “How then did private sector people get jobs?” former
Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer asked on Twitter. Meanwhile, the
right-wing blog HotAir asserted that Clinton’s comments reflected
“Hillarynomics.” But just as President Barack Obama wasn’t actually saying
that entrepreneurs”didn’t build” their businesses, it’s unlikely that
Clinton truly believes that businesses don’t create jobs. Instead, her
remarks likely represented what Tim Miller of the conservative super PAC
America Rising called “a ham-handed attempt to pander to liberal voters.”

Emphasis on “ham-handed.” Clinton’s clumsy language reveals a politician
woefully out of sync with her party’s progressive populist base. Her
awkward attempt to relate to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic
Party calls to mind Mitt Romney’s cringe-inducing efforts to woo GOP
conservatives during his last presidential bid. Michael Kinsley aptly
compared Romney’s rhetorical red meat to serving haggis to your Scottish
cousins when they’re in for a visit. “You can’t stand the stuff, but
they’re supposed to like it,” Kinsley wrote. Likewise, it was hard not to
get the sense that Clinton, so unable to relate to the progressive strain
of Democratic thinking, simply thought that this is the kind of talk Warren
Democrats like to hear.

Compare Clinton’s inartful populist pandering with Warren’s extemporaneous
paean to the social contract in 2011, just as Warren launched her campaign
for the U.S. Senate against Scott Brown.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you,” Warren told a Massachusetts
house party. “But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the
roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to
educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire
forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that
marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire
someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

“Now look,” Warren went on, “you built a factory and it turned into
something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But
part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay
forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Recognizing that that message has resonated in the party, Clinton paid
tribute to Warren in her Boston appearance on Friday.

“I am so pleased to be here with your senior senator, the passionate
champion for working people and middle class families, Elizabeth Warren!”
Clinton roared. “I love watching Elizabeth, you know, give it to those who
deserve to get it,” she added. And who might “those who deserve to get it”
be? Clinton, whose family foundation has collected up to half a million
dollars from Goldman Sachs and whom many Wall Street Republicans are
already prepared to support in 2016, didn’t elaborate.

It’s telling that just after she lauded Warren’s principled liberalism on
Friday, Clinton ventured to neighboring Rhode Island, where she hailed
gubernatorial nominee Gina Raimondo as a key part of the Democratic Party’s
future. Last year, Raimondo earned the enmity of public workers in Rhode
Island when she gutted their pensions in her role as state treasurer. Very
Serious centrists and the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial board
applauded Raimondo’s move, while party progressives decried her so-called
pension reform. In September’s gubernatorial primary, 58 percent of Rhode
Island Democrats voted for a candidate other than Raimondo.

Democrats like Warren — who spends as much time excoriating Wall Street
Democrats like Robert Rubin as she does launching broadsides against
Republicans — recognize that Democrats like Raimondo pose an even more dire
threat to a progressive economic agenda than conservative Republicans do.
The neoliberal capture of the Democratic Party narrowed the range of policy
alternatives available to American voters, and what excites voters about
Warren is that she represents a break from that sordid history. And
Clinton’s inextricable link with that history — not some clumsy campaign
stump gaffe — is the real problem.

*Calendar:*

*Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official
schedule.*

·  October 29 – IA: Sec. Clinton campaigns for Iowa Senate candidate Bruce
Braley (Quad-City Times
<http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/hilary-clinton-to-visit-davenport-on-wednesday/article_2b22a4a8-419e-5804-a2b8-08525879199d.html>
)

·  October 30 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton honored by The Executive
Leadership Foundation (CNN
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/526777216907354112>)

·  October 30 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton will speak on ‘The Power of
Women’s Economic Participation’ at Georgetown (Georgetown
<http://www.georgetown.edu/news/hillary-clinton-international-council-relaunch.html>
)

·  October 30 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the launch of The
International Council on Women’s Business Leadership (CNN
<https://twitter.com/danmericaCNN/status/522470101749342208>)

·  October 30 – College Park, MD: Sec. Clinton appears at a rally for
Maryland gubernatorial candidate Anthony Brown (WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/hillary-clinton-to-rally-support-for-anthony-brown-at-the-university-of-maryland/2014/10/26/e853aa2e-5c94-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html>
)

·  November 1  – KY: Sec. Clinton campaigns in Northern Kentucky and
Lexington with Alison Lundergan Grimes (BuzzFeed
<https://twitter.com/rubycramer/status/526828273956032512>)

·  November 2  – NH: Sec. Clinton appears at a GOTV rally for Gov. Hassan
and Sen. Shaheen (AP
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/03fe478acd0344bab983323d3fb353e2/clinton-planning-lengthy-campaign-push-month>
)

·  December 1 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton keynotes a League of
Conservation Voters dinner (Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/hillary-clinton-green-groups-las-vegas-111430.html?hp=l11>
)

·  December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts
Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)