Correct The Record Monday August 4, 2014 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2014-08-04 11:25 Subject: Correct The Record Monday August 4, 2014 Morning Roundup

*[image: Inline image 1]* *Correct The Record Monday August 4, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *New York Times: “Hillary Clinton’s Fee for a Hometown Speech: Free” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/nyregion/hillary-clintons-fee-for-a-chappaqua-speech-free.html>* “The former secretary of state, who regularly commands $200,000 for speeches, returned to her adopted hometown, Chappaqua, N.Y., on Sunday to address seven high school seniors at their graduation from a summer scholarship program. In this instance, she spoke for free.” *New Republic: Anne Applebaum: “Hillary Clinton's Crystal Ball: How ‘Hard Choices’ predicts her presidential campaign” <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118705/hillary-rodham-clintons-hard-choices-reviewed-anne-applebaum>* “Hard Choices is not remotely a book for the ages. It does not belong on the same shelf as Dean Acheson’s memoir. But maybe it contains the winning formula—and for this author, winning is what counts.” *Mother Jones: “Meet the GOPers Trolling Hillary From the Left” <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/america-rising-hillary-clinton-trolling>* “With the absence of lefty criticism of Hillary this time around, America Rising is trying to fill the void.” *The College Fix: Daniel Waqar, UNLV Student Government Student Relations Director: “Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need Another $225,000, but UNLV Students Do” <http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18678/>* "In fact, in talking with students, I found them grateful and appreciative for the fundraising efforts of Clinton on behalf of the UNLV Foundation, a nonprofit organization that helps raise money to award millions of dollars in scholarships to thousands of UNLV students every year. For that matter, students are excited about anybody who would raise money for UNLV." *Towleroad: “US Ambassador to the OSCE Daniel Baer Marries Partner Brian Walsh” <http://www.towleroad.com/2014/08/us-ambassador-to-the-osce-daniel-baer-marries-partner-brian-walsh.html>* “Tweeted Baer: ‘So, I got married this morning. Thank you @BarackObama, @HillaryClinton, & @JohnKerry for your commitment to equality’.” *Associated Press: Today in History: “August 4” [Partial] <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HISTORY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* “Five years ago: North Korean leader Kim Jong Il pardoned American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee for entering the country illegally and ordered their release during a surprise visit by former U.S. President Bill Clinton.” *Associated Press: “US Sent Latin Youth Undercover in Anti-Cuba Ploy” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CUBA_SECRET_INFILTRATION_ABRIDGED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* “An Obama administration program secretly dispatched young Latin Americans to Cuba using the cover of health and civic programs to provoke political change, a clandestine operation that put those foreigners in danger even after a U.S. contractor was hauled away to a Cuban jail.” *Articles:* *New York Times: “Hillary Clinton’s Fee for a Hometown Speech: Free” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/nyregion/hillary-clintons-fee-for-a-chappaqua-speech-free.html>* By Benjamin Mueller August 3, 2014 Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently gives a steep hometown discount. The former secretary of state, who regularly commands $200,000 for speeches, returned to her adopted hometown, Chappaqua, N.Y., on Sunday to address seven high school seniors at their graduation from a summer scholarship program. In this instance, she spoke for free. At a time when the size of Mrs. Clinton’s speaking fees has drawn controversy, she left the clamor behind for a community center auditorium, where the families of graduates from New York City mingled with the suburbanites who housed students for the summer. The draw for Mrs. Clinton, who is on the cusp of a summer vacation in the Hamptons, was the Chappaqua Summer Scholarship Program, which was founded after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. The goal was to expose low-income students from struggling city schools to the advantages offered by the hamlet’s more robust classrooms. Over the course of three high school summers, under the tutelage of instructors who include a young-adult author and seasoned Shakespearean actors, the students make films, act, write essays and program tiny robots. “This program is really one of the best ways that all of us can break down the artificial barriers that too often exist,” Mrs. Clinton said, addressing the graduates from behind a microphone held together by a rubber band. But as influential as the long classroom hours were, the graduates said, the weeknights spent sleeping under One Direction band posters pasted to pink walls had an impact as well. (The students returned home on the weekends.) The nearest 50-cent honey bun was miles away, said one of the graduates, Jejomar Ysit, and the chirp of crickets replaced the “voices of fierce Latina women.” “I remember seeing an endless stretch of green: green trees, green trucks, green houses, green hills,” said Mr. Ysit, a rising senior at DeWitt Clinton High School in the Bronx, as Mrs. Clinton, dressed in an aqua-green suit, chuckled in agreement. Mrs. Clinton, who bought a $1.7 million Dutch colonial in Chappaqua with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, on the eve of her run for the United States Senate in 2000, browsed the students’ biographies and gamely closed her eyes when one asked the audience to conjure an image. Despite her grueling travel schedule, Mrs. Clinton routinely marches in the local Memorial Day parade. She was invited to the graduation by the scholarship program’s chairwoman, Diane Albert, during a book signing at the Chappaqua Library. But attendees at the event on Sunday speculated that the demands of preparing for a possible presidential run had recently kept Mrs. Clinton out of sight. Her husband, on the other hand, who addressed a group of Chappaqua scholarship program graduates in 2005, is often seen walking the couple’s chocolate Labrador retriever along the hamlet’s leafy streets. “The mystique wore off after a few years,” Nancy Silver, a scholarship program board member, said of the Clintons’ stay. Identifying with the students’ discomfort in the lush suburbs, Mrs. Clinton described her first week at college, when she made collect calls to her parents to tell them how all the students “seemed so much smarter.” Mrs. Clinton said in her speech that as the students shared their encounters with suburban wildlife, she thought, “Yes, mice, raccoons, deer, sometimes hawks and eagles, all kinds of wildlife that you just come to expect and get used to.” She exhorted the graduates to learn from tough experiences and rebound when they stumble, a maternal message that could have doubled as a metaphor for her own political ambitions. “Obviously, you can’t just jump into the deep end, as Carlos explained,” she said, referring to one graduate’s story about struggling to learn how to swim. She added, “But don’t be afraid to get caught trying.” Her possibly veiled meaning did not seem lost on Mr. Ysit. As mock iPhone shutters snapped closed around her and one student feigned a curtsy to a beaming Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Ysit digested her advice about passing along good deeds. “She’s, like, the president,” he said in amazement, and quickly caught himself. “Well, the president’s wife.” *New Republic: Anne Applebaum: “Hillary Clinton's Crystal Ball: How ‘Hard Choices’ predicts her presidential campaign” <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118705/hillary-rodham-clintons-hard-choices-reviewed-anne-applebaum>* By Anne Applebaum, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former Washington Post editorial board member August 3, 2014 Even while Hard Choices was still wafting its way across the Atlantic Ocean— and long before it landed on my desk in central Europe, an entire twenty-four hours after the official publication date—Hillary Clinton’s account of her State Department years had already led several news cycles, inspired thousands of megabytes of commentary, and left its subsequent reviewers with serious literary and philosophical dilemmas. Normally, the process of writing a book review begins after the reviewer has read the book in question. The process of “reading” Hard Choices, by contrast, begins not with the physical or even the electronic book, but rather with the advance “leaks” in Politico, and the Fox News reports about the advance “leaks” in Politico, and The Wire’s report on the Fox News reporting on the advance “leaks” in Politico. To understand this book, one must be aware also of the Diane Sawyer interview with Hillary Clinton, and the Twitter rage about the Diane Sawyer interview with Hillary Clinton, and the Slate analysis of the Twitter rage about the Diane Sawyer interview with Hillary Clinton. And then there is the NPR interview, and so on. For this reason, Hard Choices presents the reviewer with an existential problem: is it actually a book? Is it even intended to be a thing that people sit down and read, cover to cover? Or is it rather a collection of carefully crafted messages, each designed to reach a particular person, or to deflect a particular criticism, or to inspire a certain kind of remark? When my husband, who happens to be the foreign minister of Poland, saw the book on my desk, he picked it up, flipped to the index, and checked to see if he is mentioned. (He is.) I have absolutely no doubt that over the past several weeks that same action was performed by dozens of people in dozens of capitals around the world. Of course Clinton and her team anticipated, and helped to arrange, the media frenzy, and they knew that many would read the index before the book. Each description therefore reads as if it had been vetted for that purpose. In Hard Choices, almost all of Clinton’s colleagues are admirable people who are a “living embodiment of the American Dream,” or a “terrific communicator” who works hard while always remaining decent, passionate, and unstoppable. If they are slightly difficult colleagues, they might be a “creative thinker” (Rahm Emanuel) or have a “bulldozer style” (Richard Holbrooke) with which the secretary nevertheless learned cheerfully to live. Her foreign partners are much the same. In general they are “consummate professionals” and “enjoyable company.” A few, such as ex–French President Sarkozy, can even be “fun.” And even with more challenging interlocutors, such as the Chinese official Dai Bingguo, Clinton usually manages to speak “deeply and personally about the need to put the U. S.-China relationship on a sound footing for the sake of future generations.” Do not read Hard Choices if you seek a nuanced analysis of the people who run the world’s foreign policy, let alone any juicy gossip. Even the “candid” photos look staged: Hillary, Bill, and Bono sitting at a piano, for example. Yet even if we accept that Hard Choices really is a book—it has a binding, after all, and has been produced by a printing press under the auspices of a publishing house—it isn’t that easy to say to which genre it belongs. It clearly is not a work of history: the book is constructed according to geography rather than chronology, and although Clinton does give accounts of her more important policy decisions, she refrains from setting them in any particular domestic or global context. Each one is told as a separate story, and most of the stories have happy endings, even if in real life they didn’t. Clinton’s chapter on Europe, for example, begins with the deterioration of the transatlantic alliance under George W. Bush, explains how she fixed the problem by renewing relationships with “invaluable” partners, and ends with a visit to Belfast where an “old friend” is now the lord mayor of Armagh. This latter event gives Clinton a moral for her Europe story: she hopes that children growing up now in Northern Ireland will “never turn back and that their peace and progress would be an inspiration for the rest of Europe and the world.” A scant, bland paragraph or two are devoted to the European economic crisis, which was by far the most important issue at the time. There is no mention of the European Union’s longstanding failure to come up with a coherent foreign policy, no sense that anything at all is wrong with an institution which has made “many contributions to peace and prosperity within and beyond its borders.” Clinton’s chapter on Burma is similarly glossy. It begins with a description of Aung San Suu Kyi—“frail, but with unmistakable inner strength”—and ends with Burma on the road to democracy, a story that she calls a “high point” of her term in office and “an affirmation of the unique role the United States can and should play in the world as a champion of dignity and democracy.” There is no hint that the Burmese army was just then beginning its vicious war against the Karen insurgency, that a brutal conflict between Buddhists and Muslims was already growing worse, or that Suu Kyi’s prestige was starting to plummet as she failed to exert any influence to stop either one of those outrages. Even Clinton’s portrayal of Haiti, where she and her husband have a long involvement, fails to note that their plan to “Build Back Better” after Haiti’s earthquake in 2010 is now widely perceived to have failed. On topics that she knew would be examined more exhaustively, Clinton is more careful to avoid overly sunny conclusions. Her account of her attempt to “reset” relations with Russia was clearly rewritten just before publication in order to include recent events in Ukraine. Here she draws what positive stories she can—there was some cooperation with Russia in central Asia, for example—but makes clear that she had low expectations for the Russian-American relationship from the beginning. As she left office in 2013, she advised the president that “difficult days lay ahead and that our relationship with Moscow would likely get worse before it got better.” Still, even this more realistic version of events is unsatisfying, for Clinton never digs very deeply. She offers no real analysis of Vladimir Putin’s motives, and never goes into the complex history of the Russian-American relationship. She acknowledges that Russia does present a very difficult problem: “Hard men present hard choices—none more so than Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia.” But she doesn’t tell us on what basis she or anyone else will solve it. For similar reasons, Hard Choices also cannot be called a work of political philosophy or political science. There is no overall argument in the book, no marshaling of evidence to make a particular case or to set forward a particular strategy or thesis. This is not an argument for “realism” or “idealism.” It is not an analysis of America’s priorities. There are admirable nods to human rights, a discussion of climate change, and some intelligent observations about diplomacy in the Internet age. But Clinton does not connect the dots into a larger view, clearly because does not see the need to. Early on, she does dismiss the “outdated” debate between “hard power”—military force—and the “soft power” of other kinds of influence. She prefers “smart power,” which she defines as “choosing the right combination of tools—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural” in order to advance “our core national security objectives.” Yet that is an argument about process, not about policy; about the means, not the ends. Most of the time Clinton prudently stays away from thorny debates about just what those core national interests should be. And although the words “a memoir” appear in tiny print on the cover, this is also not an autobiography, at least in the classic sense of the term. It actively avoids any language that might be construed as “literary,” or any psychological insights of any kind. By her own account Clinton never gets angry, although occasionally she admits that she is “exasperated.” She doesn’t get tired very often either—or if she does, she doesn’t complain: “I drank copious cups of coffee and tea, and sometimes dug the fingernails of one hand into the palm of the other.” Instead, her personal triumphs and tragedies, like her diplomatic triumphs and tragedies, are always converted into stories and more stories, usually with moral lessons for herself, for the reader, for the nation. Her mother’s death reminds her that you must “never rest on your laurels. Never quit. Never stop working to make the world a better place.” Chelsea’s wedding makes her think of her daughter’s “dreams and ambitions”: “This, I thought, is why Bill and I had worked so hard for so many years to help build a better world—so Chelsea could grow up safe and happy and one day have a family of her own, and so every other child would have the same chance.” The news of Chelsea’s pregnancy makes her recall “what Margaret Mead said, that children keep our imaginations fresh and our hearts young, and drive us to work for a better future.” Clinton carefully puts to rest any hint of conflict between herself and her husband, or herself and President Obama. Instead she includes a scene of herself sitting in East Timor, watching ex-President Clinton nominate President Obama for the second time: “Watching from some ten thousand miles away, I was full of pride for the former President I married, the current president I served, and the country we all loved.” Of course Hard Choices could be shelved alongside the memoirs of other statesmen— Henry Kissinger, say, or Margaret Thatcher. But those books, while also painting the world in colors designed to flatter the author, are generally composed by people who did not anticipate a further career in public life. Clinton’s book, by contrast, does not seek merely to establish the author’s place in the nation’s past; it is designed also to establish her place in the nation’s future. This is clear to the reader from the cultural context—from Diane Sawyer and NPR and Fox—but also from the volume’s enigmatic conclusion. After 593 pages of writing about foreign policy, Clinton suddenly shifts gear. “Our strength abroad depends on our resolve and resilience at home,” she declares in her epilogue. “Citizens and leaders alike have choices to make about the country we want to live in and leave to the next generation. ... We need more good jobs that reward hard work with rising wages, dignity, and a ladder to a better life.” We know why she has made this gear shift—and she knows that we know. But she tells us anyway: “Over the past year, as I’ve traveled around the country once again, the one question I’m asked more than any other is: Will I run for President in 2016?” And the answer? “I haven’t decided yet.” She explains: “Whatever I decide, I will always be thankful for the chance to represent America around the world. I have learned anew the goodness of our people and the greatness of our nation. I feel blessed and grateful. Our future is so full of possibility. And for me and my family that includes looking forward to a new addition— another American who deserves the best possible future we can offer. ... There have been too few quiet moments like this over the years. And I want to savor them. The time for another hard choice will come soon enough.” And thus, having spent 595 pages eschewing anything that might look remotely like a literary device, Clinton finally resorts to the oldest one of all: the cliffhanger. In the end Hard Choices is not history, and not political philosophy, and not auto-biography. It belongs to an altogether narrower genre. Like Mitt Romney’s No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Newt Gingrich’s A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters, and John Kerry’s A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America, Hard Choices is, quite simply, one of those books that people write when they are running for president. Since it calls itself a “memoir,” and focuses on her four years as secretary of state, and since it does not have the word “America” in the title, Clinton’s version is a little different from the others. But really there can be no doubt that this is a campaign book in an autobiographical and statesmanlike disguise. I am not sure when it became de rigueur for presidential candidates to publish a work between hard covers, but nobody now runs for high office without having written, or having arranged for the ghostwriting of, a very large book. The advantages are obvious. Such books provide some vignettes for voters to chew over, and some pre-approved quotes for the press. They offer a narrative about the candidate that is entirely of the candidate’s own construction, a story that Hillary or Mitt or Barack can control from start to finish. Above all, the publication of a book, if judiciously planned, can provide an excuse for interviews, a book tour, and quite a lot of highbrow media, and all of this many months or even years before the candidate begins the tedious process of running an actual campaign. If the candidate proves really adept at the writing/ghostwriting/marketing of the thing, he or she can even make some money. But once the reviewer understands that Hard Choices belongs to this genre, then its positive attributes become much clearer. If you leaf through this book, as I initially did, looking for insight into particular people or events, you will be disappointed. If you look for a grand strategy, you will be similarly let down. But if instead you peruse the book in search of clues as to how candidate Clinton is going to portray herself over the next two years, then it becomes somewhat interesting, even downright useful. It is impossible not to notice, for example, that throughout the book Clinton emphasizes very particular personality traits. She returns again and again to the ethic of service that her parents bequeathed to her. At one point she speaks of her “ ‘service gene,’ that voice telling me there is no higher calling or more noble purpose than serving your country.” Clinton also hints at personal sacrifices: “When I chose to leave a career as a young lawyer in Washington to move to Arkansas to marry Bill and start a family, my friends asked, ‘Are you out of your mind?’ I heard similar questions when I took on health care reform as First Lady, ran for office myself, and accepted President Barack Obama’s offer to represent our country as Secretary of State.” That is a clear message: Clinton is not enjoying all of this, and she is not going to pretend otherwise. She didn’t move to Arkansas or tackle health care reform or become secretary of state because those were pleasurable things to do. She was not seeking personal gratification—on the contrary. Unlike some of the men who have been or will be her competitors, she is not motivated by narcissism, arrogance, and egotism. She is animated entirely by her “service gene.” And also by her work ethic. She lets us know that she travels doggedly and works obsessively, almost to the point of making herself ill. She tells us more than once how many countries (112) she visited while secretary of state and how many miles (nearly a million) she clocked up. She says that she encouraged her staff to “do whatever they could to stay sane and healthy amid the rigors of a grueling schedule.” Diplomats who have dealt with her do indeed testify that she really was always well-briefed and well-prepared. Whichever of those 112 countries she happened to be in, she always knew what the issues were, and she always understood to whom she was talking. Unlike Joe Biden, she never mixed up the president and the prime minister. This necessarily meant that she relied on the State Department and its employees rather than on her own relatively narrow knowledge of foreign countries—and this, frankly, is a lot better than winging it. Indeed, there is more than a hint of the technocrat about Clinton. She doesn’t delve into policy debates much herself, at least not in this book, but she likes to surround herself (along with her retinue of loyalists and handlers) with people who know about things, and she has the technocrat’s desire to find the best solution to the problem, whatever its origin. She studiously avoids anything that could be misconstrued as “ideological,” or even as an “idea.” She admires experience, preferring the sage advice of Richard Holbrooke over the “younger White House aides” who rolled their eyes when he spoke. What she seems to mean by “smart power” is policies that work. From all of this, it is possible to make a few good guesses about what kind of candidate Clinton hopes to be: deeply non-ideological, a centrist. She intends to run as a hard-working, fact-oriented pragmatist—someone who finds ways to work with difficult opponents, and not only faces up to difficult problems but also makes the compromises needed to solve them. Again and again she portrays herself sitting across the table from Dai Bingguo or President Putin, working hard, searching for a way forward. Similar methods, presumably, can be applied to the Republican leadership. Though pretty stultifying to anyone who wants a bit of moral uplift from their presidential candidate, this might well be a brilliant campaign strategy. It might even be a brilliant presidential strategy. Clinton wants to be the politician who will rise above the partisanship that has hamstrung the Obama administration, end the gridlock in Washington, cut deals, and move forward. In order to do this, she will transform herself into a figure of benign neutrality. Unlike Obama, she will not inspire, but she will also not enrage. Perhaps she provoked angry passions as First Lady, but that is all behind us now. Hillary Clinton circa 2016 will promote not the left and not the right, she will promote America. To anyone whose memory stretches back beyond the two most recent presidential administrations, this may sound familiar. In the Bill Clinton years, this stance was called “triangulation,” and it meant that the president kept an equal distance from both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress. Those who didn’t like it complained that, in practice, triangulation required a rejection of anything that looked like political principle or moral consistency in favor of whatever policies might be politically feasible. On the other hand, a decade’s worth of bitter partisanship hasn’t gotten us anywhere, either. After eight years of Bush and eight more of Obama, the nation might well be tired of Big Ideas, and might well prefer some old-fashioned wheeling and dealing instead. As for Clinton’s lack of emotion, and the reliance on stiff formulations and cliché— well, we might as well get used to it. For there is another message in Hard Choices: by writing the kind of book that she wrote, Clinton is indicating that she is not going to open up and reveal herself in some new way—ever. If there is more depth beneath the surface, if she is less stolid and lackluster than she appears to be, then we aren’t going to know about it. This is a woman who is aware that every outfit she wears, every hairstyle she adopts, every word she utters can create an international debate, and she intends to control as much of that conversation as she can. If, once upon a time, there ever was a spontaneous Hillary Clinton who said what she really thinks and did not worry about how the media would respond, that person was suppressed long ago. Maybe, if she really wants to be president, she was right to have done so. It really is true that one slip of the tongue could end Clinton’s career. It is also true that the stories with edifying morals, the glossy photographs, the promise of bipartisanship, the work ethic, the devotion to service and duty—all of this makes sense in the context of a national campaign: a lot of people who are only remotely, or not at all, interested in the nuances of the Russian-American relationship can identify with this package very easily. Those who do not want or do not need a grand strategy for America, at home and abroad, may find her “journey” very compelling. And many people will like the positive spin she puts on even the most negative world events: it is so cheerful, so upbeat. Hard Choices is not remotely a book for the ages. It does not belong on the same shelf as Dean Acheson’s memoir. But maybe it contains the winning formula—and for this author, winning is what counts. *Mother Jones: “Meet the GOPers Trolling Hillary From the Left” <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/america-rising-hillary-clinton-trolling>* By Patrick Caldwell August 4, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT [Subtitle:] With Democratic groups uniting behind a Clinton presidential bid, America Rising has swooped in to stir up her progressive critics. When Hillary Clinton declined to attend the annual Netroots Nation conference in July, the most vocal outcry came not from the progressive base, but from a Republican super-PAC founded by former staffers for Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee. "Despite flying over Detroit, MI – the home of Netroots Nation 2014 – Hillary Clinton will not strategize with Democratic activists at the United States' 'largest progressive gathering' this weekend," the group wrote on its website. "Instead, she will be traveling from Connecticut to Minnesota in order to $ell her book." That condemnation was paired with a meme-ified graphic of Clinton waving goodbye to the "grassroots" as she flew by. Officially, Hillary Clinton is still a private citizen contemplating a possible 2016 presidential campaign. But everyone else in the political world is treating her as if she were a formal candidate. A slew of right-wing books targeting Clinton have been published this summer. And a bevy of Democratic super PACs have sprung into existence to defend Clinton and expand her base of support. "I've been amazed at what a cottage industry it is… If it all stopped, a lot of people would lose their jobs," Clinton said recently on the Daily Show of the hype machine that revolves around her potential candidacy. Unlike during her 2008 presidential campaign, the progressive critique of Clinton has been tepid so far. On the left, there's really no counterweight to the newest branches of the Clinton machine. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's remark that he does "worry about the inevitability thing" is about the most damning Democratic criticism you hear against Clinton these days. Sure, there's a new group agitating for Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run in 2016, but all the big money on the left has turned to helping out Hillary. Clinton has often had an uneasy relationship with the progressive flank of the Democratic Party—during the 2008 election there was plenty of Hillary trashing throughout the primaries. But, at least so far, Democrats have been held their fire. With the absence of lefty criticism of Hillary this time around, America Rising is trying to fill the void. It launched a "Stop Hillary 2016" project and website last summer. (If you donate $5 to the PAC they'll send you a Stop Hillary bumper sticker.) And the group released an e-book titled Failed Choices to counter Clinton's State Department memoir. Some of its anti-Clinton material rests on retreading the predictable conservative tropes on Benghazi. But the super PAC hasn't confined itself to the sort of attacks you would expect from an opposition research shop manned by GOPers. "Our view is that she can't be allowed to have a free pass," says Tim Miller, the group's executive director and a former spokesman for the RNC. "And right now the entire Democratic establishment—from John Podesta to Jim Messina to Randi Weingarten to Emily's List's Stephanie Schriock—are all anointing Hillary the 2016 nominee, so we see it as part of our job to make sure that her real record is being publicized, regardless of the issue or the ideological perspective on it." The group seems to be going out of its way to stir up trouble for Hillary within the Democrats' lefty base. America Rising has highlighted Clinton's past support for the Iraq War and called her out for continuing contracts with Blackwater when she was at the State Department. The weekend of Netroots Nation, the PAC made a video that spliced together a clip of Elizabeth Warren denouncing lobbyists with an old video of Clinton defending her decision to accept donations from lobbyists, a clear appeal to the liberals who might be wary of Clinton's campaign finance record. The group's greatest concern trolling coup came in June, after Clinton was interviewed by NPR's Terry Gross. Before the interview had aired on most stations, America Rising had already clipped a seven-and-a-half minute segment during which Clinton grew defensive when Gross questioned her over her shifting views on same-sex marriage. Media outlets immediately picked up on America Rising's framing of the interview, including liberal media outlets that would traditionally defend Clinton against conservative attacks. Miller is unabashed about the intentions of America Rising; it's not just a conservative organization, but a Republican super PAC. But despite that affiliation, he doesn't find it weird to be the one behind the occasional bit of liberal prodding. "I think that a big vulnerability for Hillary Clinton throughout her entire career is that she has come off as disingenuous, and come off as overly political, and we see our job as exposing that," Miller says. "So when she is going to either move to the left to try to appease these liberal voters who might be upset about certain things in her record, or pivot to the right to prepare for a general election, that's something we're going to talk about." Until another Democrat steps up and decides to challenge Clinton for the presidential nomination, America Rising won't have much competition. *The College Fix: Daniel Waqar, UNLV Student Government Student Relations Director: “Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Need Another $225,000, but UNLV Students Do” <http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18678/>* By Daniel Waqar August 4, 2014 $225,000 for one speech. When news broke that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be paid $225,000 to address an October fundraiser for the UNLV Foundation, you could only imagine student reaction. Recent tuition hikes on UNLV students, including a four-year, 17 percent hike passed a few weeks earlier, only compounded the outrage. For students working to afford the cost of a quality public education in Nevada, life has become tougher in recent years. Unemployment rates for college-age individuals remain at record levels, and tuition for Nevada’s in-state universities has tripled in the past 10 years. Donating her speaking fee to the thousands of students who would benefit from the UNLV Foundation would be an incredible opportunity for Clinton to remain true to her commitment – stated in March at the Globalization of Higher Education conference co-organized by former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush– to making higher education more accessible and affordable for all students. Though higher education is certainly a priority for leaders both parties, especially potential 2016 presidential candidates like Bush and Clinton, student opposition to Clinton’s speaking fee is neither personal nor political. In fact, in talking with students, I found them grateful and appreciative for the fundraising efforts of Clinton on behalf of the UNLV Foundation, a nonprofit organization that helps raise money to award millions of dollars in scholarships to thousands of UNLV students every year. For that matter, students are excited about anybody who would raise money for UNLV. However, hundreds of projects on campus would benefit from the funds of her speaking fee. Not just vital undergraduate research – Huffington Post columnist Joe Ferraro calculated her fee would cover tuition and fees for almost 70 students for a semester at UNLV. In the face of tuition increasing 17 percent over four years, and more than 100 percent in the last decade, students find themselves priced further away from their education. Teenage and young adult unemployment rates in Nevada are among the highest in the nation – Fox 5 Las Vegas reported figures from the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation in March that teen unemployment was 17.4 percent. It’s becoming harder for young Nevadans to partake in the “shared sacrifice” of higher tuition, as Nevada System of Higher Education Regent Jason Geddes urged in the Las Vegas Sun, when the job market is making employment incredibly tough to find. Just two months ago, right around commencement in May, UNLV released statistics to the Las Vegas Review-Journal showing that the average debt burden of the 2012 graduating class was $21,126 per student. Some 40 percent of the 2012 graduating class had taken out student loans. With a class of about 3,000 students, the total debt burden for the class of 2012 would be about $63 million. Nationwide, student loan debt exceeds credit card debt, and it will be impossible to raise tuition without simultaneously burying students in more student loan debt. Though Clinton has spent her career standing up for higher education, both in the private sector as well as through public service, students found it difficult to reconcile that support with her receiving a six-figure speaking fee from our university. As the representative voice for 23,000 undergraduate students, the student government in which I serve wanted to let Clinton know her speaking fee, if donated back to UNLV, could serve as a gesture of solidarity with students who are sacrificing so much to pay for their education. Nevada journalist Jon Ralston noted recently that Clinton has claimed to have donated part or all of her speaking fees back to elite universities all around the country and the world, from Bryn Mawr College to the National Defense University Foundation to St. Andrews University in Scotland. When Clinton started as a paid speaker last year, Politico reported that she would “likely do some speeches for no fee for causes she champions” and expected to “occasionally donate her fees for charitable purposes.” If the former secretary of state speaks for 90 minutes, that would be $2,500 a minute, about the cost of a semester’s tuition for a UNLV student. Lost in the partisan rancor of her speaking fee was this question: Who needs the money more, hardworking students buried in student loan debt paying for their education, or a seasoned politician raking in six figures on a regular basis? *Towleroad: “US Ambassador to the OSCE Daniel Baer Marries Partner Brian Walsh” <http://www.towleroad.com/2014/08/us-ambassador-to-the-osce-daniel-baer-marries-partner-brian-walsh.html>* By Andy Towle August 2, 2014 Gay U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Daniel Baer married his partner Brian Walsh today. Tweeted Baer: "So, I got married this morning. Thank you @BarackObama, @HillaryClinton, & @JohnKerry for your commitment to equality". Congrats to them both! *Associated Press: Today in History: “August 4” [Partial] <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HISTORY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* [No Writer Mentioned] August 4, 2014 … Five years ago: North Korean leader Kim Jong Il pardoned American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee for entering the country illegally and ordered their release during a surprise visit by former U.S. President Bill Clinton. … *Associated Press: “US Sent Latin Youth Undercover in Anti-Cuba Ploy” <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CUBA_SECRET_INFILTRATION_ABRIDGED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>* By Desmond Butler, Jack Gillum, Alberto Arce and Andrea Rodriguez August 4, 2014, 3:41 a.m. EDT An Obama administration program secretly dispatched young Latin Americans to Cuba using the cover of health and civic programs to provoke political change, a clandestine operation that put those foreigners in danger even after a U.S. contractor was hauled away to a Cuban jail. Beginning as early as October 2009, a project overseen by the U.S. Agency for International Development sent Venezuelan, Costa Rican and Peruvian young people to Cuba in hopes of ginning up rebellion. The travelers worked undercover, often posing as tourists, and traveled around the island scouting for people they could turn into political activists. In one case, the workers formed an HIV-prevention workshop that memos called "the perfect excuse" for the program's political goals - a gambit that could undermine America's efforts to improve health globally. But their efforts were fraught with incompetence and risk, an Associated Press investigation found: Cuban authorities questioned who was bankrolling the travelers. The young workers nearly blew their mission to "identify potential social-change actors." One said he got a paltry, 30-minute seminar on how to evade Cuban intelligence, and there appeared to be no safety net for the inexperienced workers if they were caught. "Although there is never total certainty, trust that the authorities will not try to harm you physically, only frighten you," read a memo obtained by the AP. "Remember that the Cuban government prefers to avoid negative media reports abroad, so a beaten foreigner is not convenient for them." In all, nearly a dozen Latin Americans served in the program in Cuba, for pay as low as $5.41 an hour. The AP found USAID and its contractor, Creative Associates International, continued the program even as U.S. officials privately told their government contractors to consider suspending travel to Cuba after the arrest of contractor Alan Gross, who remains imprisoned after smuggling in sensitive technology. "We value your safety," one senior USAID official said in an email. "The guidance applies to ALL travelers to the island, not just American citizens," another official said. The revelations of the USAID program come as the White House faces questions about the once-secret "Cuban Twitter" project, known as ZunZuneo. That program, launched by USAID in 2009 and uncovered by the AP in April, established a primitive social media network under the noses of Cuban officials. USAID's inspector general is investigating that program, which ended in September, 2012. Officials said USAID launched "discreet" programs like ZunZuneo to increase the flow of information in a country that heavily restricts it. But the AP's earlier investigation found ZunZuneo was political in nature and drew in subscribers unaware that the service was paid for by the U.S. government. "USAID and the Obama administration are committed to supporting the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their own future," the agency said in response to written questions from the AP. "USAID works with independent youth groups in Cuba on community service projects, public health, the arts and other opportunities to engage publicly, consistent with democracy programs worldwide." In a statement late Sunday, USAID said the HIV workshop had a dual purpose: It "enabled support for Cuban civil society while providing a secondary benefit of addressing the desire Cubans expressed for information and training about HIV prevention." Creative Associates declined to comment, referring questions to USAID. Both ZunZuneo and the travelers program were part of a larger, multimillion-dollar effort by USAID to effect change in politically volatile countries, government data show. But the programs reviewed by the AP didn't appear to achieve their goals and operated under an agency known more for its international-aid work than stealthy operations. The CIA recently pledged to stop using vaccine programs to gather intelligence, such as one in Pakistan that targeted Osama bin Laden. The travelers program was launched when newly inaugurated President Barack Obama's administration was talking about a "new beginning" with Cuba after decades of mistrust, raising questions about whether the White House had a coherent policy toward the island nation. Drawing on documents and interviews worldwide, the AP found the travelers program went to extensive lengths to hide the workers' activities. They were to communicate in code: "I have a headache" meant they suspected they were being monitored by Cuban authorities; "Your sister is ill" was an order to cut their trip short. "We worked it so that the government here didn't know we were traveling to Cuba and helping these groups," said Yajaira Andrade, a former administrator with a Venezuelan organization. "Because that was when (President Hugo) Chavez was in power, and if he had known about us - that some Venezuelans were working to stir rebellion - we would have been thrown in jail." To evade Cuban authorities, travelers installed innocent-looking content on their laptops to mask sensitive information they were carrying. They also used encrypted memory sticks to hide their files and sent obviously encrypted emails using a system that might have drawn suspicion. It is illegal in Cuba to work with foreign democracy-building programs. Nevertheless, one contract was signed days after Gross' detention. "They arrested a contractor from another agency. That could be dangerous," one Skype message between two project workers would later read. "Thank God he's not one of ours." Documents show Creative Associates approved the use of the travelers' relatives to carry cash to the Cuban contacts. But the family members weren't to be told that the funds were from the U.S. government. Hector Baranda, who was a college student in Cuba when he was befriended by a group of traveling Venezuelans, said he was surprised to hear from the AP they were working for the U.S. government and had profiled him. "How would you feel if you offered your sincere friendship and received this kind of news?" Baranda asked. The travelers' project was paid for under the same pot of federal money that paid for the ZunZuneo program. But USAID has yet to provide the AP with a complete copy of the Cuban contracts under a Freedom of Information Act request filed more than three months ago. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was in office during the program and is a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, said in her new book "Hard Choices" that she was pleased "to see change slowly creeping into the country." *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · August 6 – Huntington, NY: Sec. Clinton signs books at Book Revue ( HillaryClintonMemoir.com <http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/long_island_book_signing>) · August 9 – Water Mill, NY: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the Clinton Foundation at the home of George and Joan Hornig (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/17/for-50000-best-dinner-seats-with-the-clintons-in-the-hamptons/> ) · August 13 – Martha’s Vinyard, MA: Sec. Clinton signs books at Bunch of Grapes (HillaryClintonMemoir.com <http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/martha_s_vineyard_book_signing>) · August 16 – East Hampton, New York: Sec. Clinton signs books at Bookhampton East Hampton (HillaryClintonMemoir.com <http://www.hillaryclintonmemoir.com/long_island_book_signing2>) · August 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes Nexenta’s OpenSDx Summit (BusinessWire <http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140702005709/en/Secretary-State-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Deliver-Keynote#.U7QoafldV8E> ) · September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today <http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html> ) · October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network <http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>) · October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation Annual Dinner (UNLV <http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>) · ~ October 13-16 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes salesforce.com Dreamforce conference (salesforce.com <http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/keynotes.jsp>) · December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)