Correct The Record Tuesday July 29, 2014 Morning Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2014-07-29 09:58 Subject: Correct The Record Tuesday July 29, 2014 Morning Roundup

*[image: Inline image 1]* *Correct The Record Tuesday July 29, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Albany Business Review (N.Y.): “What Northshire Bookstore owner says about Hillary Clinton book signing” <http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/morning_call/2014/07/what-northshire-bookstore-owner-says-about-hillary.html>* "This is big!" *New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton supports law that prevents immigrant children from quick deportation” <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-supports-law-slow-deportation-minors-article-1.1883497>* “Hillary Clinton opposes changing the law that prevents quick deportation of unaccompanied immigrant children.” *BuzzFeed: “Hillary Clinton Now Says The Law Shouldn’t Be Changed To Quickly Deport Children At Border” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-now-says-the-law-shouldnt-be-changed-to-quic>* "Hillary Clinton, who previously said the unaccompanied minors who came from Central American countries should be sent back, clarified her views after Jorge Ramos of Fusion asked her if she had a “Latino problem” because of her stance." *CNN: “Waiting with open wallets: Media mogul says he'll spend 'as much as needed' for Clinton 2016” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/28/waiting-with-open-wallets-media-mogul-says-hell-spend-as-much-as-needed-for-clinton-2016/>* “Haim Saban, a multibillionaire media mogul, said Monday he is prepared to spend ‘as much as needed’ to get Hillary Clinton into the White House in 2016.” *Bloomberg Businessweek: “Handle With Care: Pot Issue Unnerves 2016 Contenders” <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-29/handle-with-care-pot-issue-unnerves-2016-contenders#p1>* “Hillary Clinton has moved on marijuana since her first presidential run in 2008. Back then, she said she opposed decriminalizing marijuana use and wanted to see more research on the medicinal benefits of marijuana.” *Huffington Post blog: The Blog: Mike Lux: “Presidential Politics and Predictions: Be Ready to Be Wrong” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/presidential-politics-and_b_5627959.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>* “Having said that, though, it would be such a huge mistake for anyone -- most especially Hillary, but anyone else analyzing this race -- to think this race is over six months before it has even begun.” *MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s many ‘good friends’” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-many-good-friends>* “The tonal differences between her earlier memoir ‘Living History’ and ‘Hard Choices’ are striking: One is personal, the other feels professional.” *Articles:* *Albany Business Review (N.Y.): “What Northshire Bookstore owner says about Hillary Clinton book signing” <http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/morning_call/2014/07/what-northshire-bookstore-owner-says-about-hillary.html>* By Michael DeMasi July 29, 2014, 6:08 a.m. EDT Northshire Bookstore owner Chris Morrow had this to say about Hillary Rodham Clinton bringing her book signing tour today to his store in Saratoga Springs, New York: "This is big!" More than 1,100 tickets have been sold for the event, which starts at 12:15 p.m. at the 424 Broadway store. Clinton, the former First Lady, U.S. Senator and possible 2016 presidential candidate, will be signing copies of "Hard Choices." She will not be reading from the book. The memoir ranks No. 9 on the latest New York Times bestseller list. Clinton has drawn big crowds, and controversy, since starting the tour. Northshire Bookstore has been hosting book signings since Morrow's parents started the business in 1976. Morrow has continued the practice since taking over, including at the new Saratoga Springs store that opened last year. Morrow took some time away from preparations to answer a few questions by email: Q. Can you tell me how this book signing ranks with others over the years in terms of the popularity of the author? Who do you consider to be the top three authors who have appeared at Northshire for a signing? A. This is big! Neil Gaiman brought about 1,500 people for a signing at the Saratoga Springs City Center last June. Stephen King and Garrison Keillor have both reached close to 1,000. Q. How many total copies of the book have sold thus far at the Northshire stores in Saratoga and Manchester, Vermont? A. We have sold about 1,200 books total Q. To what extent have signings grown in importance in recent years at bookstores as a means of increasing sales? A. Most signings don't make money by the time you add in all the labor involved in securing the author, marketing, hosting and other related work. But the bigger name authors definitely help the bottom line. Author events are also an important way for us to differentiate ourselves. When was the last time Amazon brought an author to your town? *New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton supports law that prevents immigrant children from quick deportation” <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hillary-clinton-supports-law-slow-deportation-minors-article-1.1883497>* By Dan Friedman July 28, 2014, 11:29 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Republicans in Congress want to change the law that slows the deportation of minors back to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The law appears to have contributed to the wave of kids trying to enter the U.S. from those countries. But Clinton said she opposes changing the law. Hillary Clinton opposes changing the law that prevents quick deportation of unaccompanied immigrant children. “I don’t agree that we should change the law,” the former secretary of state told the TV network Fusion. She said minors should be screened in their native countries for possible asylum in the U.S. Republicans in Congress want to change a 2008 law that slows the deportation of minors back to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and appears to have contributed to the wave of children attempting to enter the U.S. from those countries. Many Democrats initially accepted a change in the law as part of a bill to boost security and services on the border. But under pressure from Hispanic groups, they have changed their stance. *BuzzFeed: “Hillary Clinton Now Says The Law Shouldn’t Be Changed To Quickly Deport Children At Border” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-now-says-the-law-shouldnt-be-changed-to-quic>* By Adrian Carrasquillo July 28, 2014, 4:13 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] She previously said it should be considered. Clinton also said children from Central American countries should be screened to see if they qualify as refugees before making the dangerous trip to the U.S. Hillary Clinton, who previously said the unaccompanied minors who came from Central American countries should be sent back, clarified her views after Jorge Ramos of Fusion asked her if she had a “Latino problem” because of her stance. “Some of them should be sent back,” Clinton said. “Just because a child gets across the border, what category does that child end up in?” The 2016 Democratic frontrunner said that the children coming across the border fall into two groups, migrant children who do not have a case for staying and refugee children who would be in danger if they return. “Within our legal framework we need to on a humanitarian basis provide emergency care for all the children. I don’t care who they are or where they come from. They need to be given the basics, the necessities and as much love as we can,” she said. She said the children who should be deported are those who don’t have a legitimate claim for asylum or a family connection. While Clinton said the Obama administration needs resources and a well-funded procedure by Congress to deal with the children, which it is resisting, she did not advocate changing the 2008 human trafficking law signed by President George W. Bush, which has served as a flashpoint for the debate and would need to be altered to allow for quicker deportations of the children. “No, I don’t agree that we should change the law,” she said. But in an interview with NPR before Fusion, she said the law should be looked at. “I think it should be looked at as part of an overall package,” she said. After talking about the two categories of children and needing resources deployed very quickly she added, “We need some flexibility within the laws. Our laws right now are not particularly well-suited for making the kind of determinations that are required, and that we should, as Americans, want to see happen.” In the interview with Ramos she said she agrees with an idea the administration has floated of creating a system in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to screen children “before they get in the hands of coyotes, or they get on the beast or they’re raped. Terrible things happen to them.” These refugee application programs are supported by Republican Sen. John McCain as well. “That’s why I am emphasizing the procedures because I think a lot of people are understandably, as I am, upset about what’s happening to these kids, but if we don’t have a procedure, it’s not going to stop, more kids are going to come.” *CNN: “Waiting with open wallets: Media mogul says he'll spend 'as much as needed' for Clinton 2016” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/28/waiting-with-open-wallets-media-mogul-says-hell-spend-as-much-as-needed-for-clinton-2016/>* By Dan Merica July 28, 2014, 4:53 p.m. EDT Haim Saban, a multibillionaire media mogul, said Monday he is prepared to spend "as much as needed" to get Hillary Clinton into the White House in 2016. While it is no secret that Saban, the head of Univision and a prodigious Democratic money man, is excited about the prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016, these recent comments to Bloomberg up the ante of his support. "I think she would be great for the country and great for the world, so on issues that I care about she is pristine plus, and I think she is ready plus plus and I hope that she makes the right decision," Saban said. Saban was a sizable Clinton supporter in 2008, spending and raising over $100,000 for the former senator. With the rise of super PACs, however, the media mogul will be able to do much more to help Clinton. Supreme Court decisions in the last six years have allowed private citizens to exert more influence in politics by giving money to outside organizations that in turn work to get a certain candidate elected. And with a handful of super PACs already working to urge Clinton to run for president, Saban has a number of avenues for his large fortune. Saban said earlier this year that a Clinton presidency would be a "dream," and told an Israeli newspaper in December 2013 that he will "pitch in with full might" to get Clinton elected in 2016. In addition to his political contributions to Clinton, Saban has donated between $10 and $25 million to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The irony in Saban's claim is that last week Clinton denounced outside money in politics, stating that she would consider backing a constitutional amendment to limit outside influences. "I would consider supporting an amendment among these lines," Clinton said responding to a question during a Facebook question-and-answer session. "That would prevent the abuse of our political system by excessive amounts of money if there is no other way to deal with the Citizen's (sic) United decision." Clinton is widely considered the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and has admitted in the last few months that she is seriously considering a bid. "Obviously she has a life to lead and she is going to be a grandmother soon, so all of that will obviously be taken by her into consideration," Saban said about the prospect the Clinton runs. Saban, who was born in Egypt and raised in Israel, is worth an estimated $3.5 billion and now works as the executive chairman of the company that owns Univision, the massively popular Spanish-language broadcaster. Republicans and some nonpartisan observers have questioned whether someone so closely tied with a major American broadcaster should be so chummy with a prospective presidential candidate. Univision is a major partner in a key Clinton foundation program, Too Small to Fail, which encourages parents to talk with their kids at a young age. Clinton’s partnership with Univision is focused on encouraging Hispanic families and caregivers to speak in either Spanish or English with their children as a way to develop language skills. Earlier this year, the Republican National Committee called out the partnership as an avenue for "2016 propaganda," while Raul Reyes wrote a column in February that questioned whether the "Hillary-Univision deal cross(es) a line." *Bloomberg Businessweek: “Handle With Care: Pot Issue Unnerves 2016 Contenders” <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-29/handle-with-care-pot-issue-unnerves-2016-contenders#p1>* By Jonathan Allen and Jennifer Oldham July 29, 2014 In presidential politics, pot is being treated as a dangerous substance. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have signaled varying degrees of support for medicinal marijuana. Yet at a time when the majority of Americans say recreational pot use should be legal, and two states have already made it so, none of the top-tier 2016 presidential prospects in either party has gone that far. Candidates have an opportunity now to show they can keep up with movements in public sentiment, said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican strategist. “This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, where society is changing very quickly,” said Wilson, who favors legalizing pot. “Republicans need to get ahead of the curve.” The temptation for politicians to take advantage of shifting public sentiment on marijuana is tempered by concern that voters will change their minds, said Kevin Sabet, co-founder of Project SAM, short for Smart Approaches to Marijuana. “Legalization in theory is a lot prettier than legalization in practice,” said Sabet, who served in the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. *Colorado Experiment* The nation’s first retail marijuana sales began in Colorado in January after a majority of residents voted in 2012 to allow those 21 years of age and older to buy one ounce of the drug. After two deaths were linked to ingestion of pot-laced food earlier this year, state legislators moved to tighten controls on the fast-growing marijuana edibles market. In October, for the first time in 44 years of polling on the topic, Gallup found a majority of those surveyed -- 58 percent -- said they favored making pot legal. When Gallup first measured Americans’ attitudes toward marijuana in 1969, 12 percent supported legalizing the drug. In Florida, a presidential battleground state with 29 electoral votes in 2016, 88 percent of registered voters favor legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes and 55 percent say they’d approve of it for recreational use, according to a poll released yesterday by Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut. An initiative allowing medical use of pot will be on Florida’s ballot in November. “To win the state of Colorado, a candidate needs to show respect for our laws,” U.S. Representative Jared Polis, a Democrat, said. “It will be an issue in the 2016 election.” *Christie’s Problem* Christie, who was in Colorado last week campaigning for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, will be a “tough sell” because he’s been critical of the state’s recreational-pot law in the past, Polis said. Christie has called New Jersey’s medical marijuana law, enacted before he took office, a “front for legalization.” Yet he also signed a law expanding the availability of medical marijuana to sick children under certain circumstances. Possible presidential contenders are likely to try to steer clear of the marijuana debate during the primary and general election campaigns, said Bob Loevy, a political science professor emeritus at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. “The roll out of marijuana in Colorado has had a lot of surprises,” said Loevy, co-author of the 2012 book, “Colorado Politics and Policy: Governing a Purple State.” “Politicians will do what they do when something is controversial -- stay away from it,” he said. The risk may also appear larger than the potential reward because few donors and voters are motivated by marijuana as an issue. *Donors, Voters* In the past decade, $21.4 million has been spent on ballot initiatives at the state level on marijuana, according to data compiled by the Helena, Montana-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. That compares with $636.7 million on gambling, $251 million on tobacco and $234.6 million on gay and lesbian issues. The issue may energize young voters, while being viewed as an affront by older Americans who tend to make up a larger proportion of those casting ballots. Republicans with an eye on the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus are “very nervous about this issue” because religious voters, who are a core part of the party’s base in the state, may punish them if they signal acceptance of marijuana use, Wilson said. “The only ones willing to die on a hill on this right now are evangelical conservatives,” Wilson said. While Paul has stopped short of endorsing the recreational use of marijuana, he introduced an amendment in the U.S. Senate on July 24 that would protect state medical marijuana laws and has worked to reduce federal sentences for drug offenders. *Paul Alliance* Paul’s father, former Texas congressman and 2012 Republican presidential primary candidate Ron Paul, introduced legislation in 2011 with former Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, that would have repealed the federal ban on marijuana. It didn’t pass. Hillary Clinton, considered the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, if she runs, also holds a nuanced position. Two decades ago, her husband, Bill Clinton, was forced during a presidential campaign to defend his post-graduate use of marijuana, explaining that he “didn’t inhale.” Today, acceptance of marijuana includes the New York Times, which editorialized on July 27 that “the federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.” Hillary Clinton has moved on marijuana since her first presidential run in 2008. Back then, she said she opposed decriminalizing marijuana use and wanted to see more research on the medicinal benefits of marijuana. *Clinton Stalling* Last month, Clinton said during a CNN “town hall” meeting that there are “appropriate circumstances” under which marijuana should be available for medical purposes. As for recreational use of the drug, she said that she will “wait and see what the evidence is” in Colorado and Washington, the only other state that has legalized it. Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll, said the way voters rank their priorities is one reason presidential candidates aren’t rushing to embrace a repeal of the federal prohibition on pot. “The data indicates that legalization of marijuana in some form is more accepted than it has been, clearly. The question that might take precedence about that is how salient it is to someone’s presidential vote,” Brown said. “How does that rank against the economy and foreign policy?” *Huffington Post blog: The Blog: Mike Lux: “Presidential Politics and Predictions: Be Ready to Be Wrong” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/presidential-politics-and_b_5627959.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>* By Mike Lux July 28, 2014, 3:33 p.m. EDT Markos Moulitsas at Dailykos has a thoughtful piece up on the 2016 presidential primary for the Democrats, arguing that Hillary is inevitable; Elizabeth Warren isn't running; and that the latter fact is actually a good thing for progressives. I agree with Markos that Warren is a major asset right where she is -- her Senate seat gives her a great platform to drive the progressive cause forward, now and for many years to come. He is right on target that she is a genuinely good legislator, with an amazing instinct for how to get things done there given how short a time she has been a politician, and that a presidential race could hurt her effectiveness in the Senate (although I think Markos overstates that point, there have been many senators who have run for president, lost, and came back to the chamber just as or more effective than they were before). I am an old friend of Elizabeth, and I can also verify that she is not being cagey or coy when she says she isn't running. Elizabeth is the most genuine person I have ever known with the title of politician, and everyone should take her at her word that she does not want to or plan to run. Here's the thing about Elizabeth: It isn't about ego and ambition with her. Most of the politicians I have known in my life who have come to me for advice as to whether they should run for office, the questions are almost always about whether they can win, what would it take to win, is it the right time, how would they raise the money, what's the winning electoral coalition, who should they hire to run the campaign, what should their message and lead issues be. Rarely, but every so often, a potential candidate will muse about whether their particular skills were better in a management role (president or governor) versus a legislative role. When I was talking with Elizabeth in the months leading up to the running-for-Senate decision, we spent almost no time on those kinds of questions. What she was focused on instead was where she could make the biggest difference in changing the country on behalf of everyday people, as a senator or as an organization leader, author, movement leader. Until she became convinced that the Senate was the place she could make the biggest difference, she had no intention of running. For now, I know she believes that being in the Senate is the best place for her to fight the good fight. So there is a lot to be said for Markos' article, he makes a lot of great points, but I want to push back on this Hillary is inevitable thing, because I think it is dangerous for the entire Democratic party (including Hillary, frankly) and for the progressive cause. And, to be blunt, it is just completely wrong when you look at history. Hillary may yet get a coronation, sailing to victory with little or no opposition in the primary, but I'm not at all clear that would be good for her general election campaign. The closest thing we have had to that in the recent past was Gore's relatively easy win over Bradley (although it was harder than it looked), and Gore didn't exactly roll into the general election geared up and ready for battle. And the lack of a serious fight would stifle the kind of serious and important debate the party needs to have over its policy direction in the years to come, papering over the very real populist vs. Wall Street Democrat divide that exists. It would also be pretty awful for the base and progressive movement, giving them nothing in the presidential cycle for a year and a half (until the general election) to fight for, rally around, or just be very interested in politically. So I don't think an easy win for Hillary is automatically a good thing, even for her. But I also don't think it is that likely. If you look at the history of presidential politics in the modern era, the last half-century-plus, the strongly favored frontrunner almost never cruises easily to victory. Big stuff, little stuff, insurgencies popping up out of nowhere, scandals, stumbles -- frontrunners, even the dominant ones, have lost a lot more often than they won, and generally even when they have won, they had a hell of a tough road getting there. In fact, in only two of the past 11 Democratic presidential primaries where there wasn't an unchallenged incumbent president has the clear frontrunner at this moment in the four-year cycle gone on to win the nomination, and in one of those two situations (Mondale), he had a far tougher fight than expected. In 1960, LBJ was the clear frontrunner, the dominant figure in national Democratic politics. He had by far the most important endorsements, and the strong support of the party establishment in most of the states. Hubert Humphrey was widely thought of as the only guy with a decent shot of beating him. Jack Kennedy was a lightly regarded upstart, with his youth and Catholicism considered obstacles way too big to overcome. In 1968, LBJ -- this time as the incumbent president -- was of course going to win the nomination hands down. He completely dominated the party machinery, had limitless campaign money stashed away, was further ahead in the polls than Hillary. Gene McCarthy's campaign was considered worse than a joke, it was assumed to be a short-lived token protest movement. My first political memory, as a 7-year-old just getting interested in politics, was seeing that LBJ speech where he stunned the world by announcing he would not run again, and I will never forget the looks of shock on my parents' faces. In 1972, Ed Muskie was the overwhelming frontrunner -- way ahead in the polls, the money, the endorsements, everything. A silly media frenzy over whether he cried, and a hippie volunteer army for McGovern in New Hampshire, were all it took to quickly dislodge him from the race. In 1976, Teddy Kennedy was the frontrunner in the polls but did not run. There were several Senate heavyweights who were thought to be top tier candidates, all of them faltered. Absolutely no one predicted Jimmy Carter. The 1980 race was the only serious primary against an incumbent in modern presidential election history, and oddly, Teddy Kennedy actually started with a huge lead in the polls, as Carter was pretty unpopular with the Democratic base. But after Kennedy's disastrous 60 Minutes interview, everything reversed and Kennedy never recovered. In 1984, Mondale was the overwhelming favorite, as far ahead as Hillary in the polls and with every major group and most politicians' endorsements. He didn't make any big mistakes, ran a strong early campaign, and easily won Iowa as predicted, beating Gary Hart 50-17. But Democratic primary voters were restless, bored with Mondale's safe establishment-mandated coronation, and looking for someone new. When Hart came out of the pack of candidates with a surprising second place finish, he trounced Mondale in NH and was on a roll, winning most of the next several primaries. Without some stumbles, Hart would have been the nominee. Speaking of stumbles, Hart's big one on his friend's boat, the Monkey Business, with Donna Rice forced him to withdraw in 1988 after being the overwhelming favorite in the early polling. Gephardt, who had been working Iowa for years, became the favorite after that, but last minute entry Dukakis raised a lot more money than anyone else, and Gephardt split the populist vote with Simon, Gore, and Jesse Jackson. Gephardt won Iowa, Dukakis finished a pretty anemic 3rd there, but the late-entry candidate who had been at 1% in the polls ended up easily winning the nomination in the end. In 1992, Cuomo was the strong favorite in the polling and among pundits right up until the time he decided not to run (quite late in the cycle, he was still debating with himself in the fall of '91). After that, Clinton was one of the favorites until he stumbled, after which everyone pronounced his campaign over, after which he came back and won the nomination. (And after he won the nomination, up until the Democratic convention no one thought he had a shot of beating Bush.) In 1996, no one challenged President Clinton for the nomination after he decisively beat the Republicans in the budget showdown. In 2000, there was the only primary fight in this entire saga that went pretty much as predicted, with Vice President Gore keeping his early lead and turning back a challenge from Bill Bradley, although a lot of us who closely followed the race think that if Bradley hadn't spent too many resources contesting the Iowa contest where he was never going to win, that he would have beaten Gore in NH (he only lost 51-47). In that scenario, Bradley might well have made that race a hell of a fight. In 2004, Hillary Clinton was way ahead in the early polling but did not run, and there was no real favorite. In the early days of the race, it was thought that Gephardt would win Iowa and Kerry would win NH, but then both faded and Dean came on from nowhere (literally 0 or 1% in the early polling, with no one predicting he had a chance) to a big lead in the polls, money, and endorsements. When Dean made some late mistakes, and Kerry and Edwards put together a late surge, the race was reshaped again. Finally in 2008, people have already forgotten how inevitable Hillary was seen then. At this time of the cycle then, July of 2006, it looked unlikely that Obama would even run. And throughout 2007, she had a wide lead in the polls and endorsements. That's the track record, folks: 11 contested primaries over the last 54 years, only one of them turned out pretty much as expected, and only two where the pre-season favorite even won. Anyone saying Hillary is a sure thing based on a big lead in polling, her fundraising advantages, and her status as favorite doesn't know his presidential election history very well. Right now, the polls mean nothing, the establishment support means nothing. Frontrunners decide not to run, stumble in the early going, listen to the wrong advisers in creating their campaign strategy, get upset in the early going. Even the ones who do most things right and don't have strong initial opposition, like Mondale, sometimes run into an electorate that doesn't like being told they have to vote for the frontrunner. I'm sure people will read this history and say, "Yeah, well, this time is different, Hillary is so far ahead that no one else has a chance." That could well be, but again: don't count on it. LBJ in '68, Muskie in '72, Mondale '84, and Hart '88 were all just as dominant or more dominant in the early going, and none had superstar opposition going against them. The one thing I know for sure from my years in and studying presidential politics is that it is utterly unpredictable -- crazy stuff happens out of the blue all the time. Do you really think it is inconceivable that the Clintons might be engulfed in a scandal? That Hillary is immune from serious mistakes? That a candidate with nothing going in the polls might catch a wave and suddenly raise a bunch of netroots money? Hillary is a good bet to win this election, I sure wouldn't predict anyone against her -- but please, Markos, don't bet your house on it. None of this is to argue that Elizabeth should run for president. To run for the presidency is about the most brutal thing a sane and genuine person can do to themselves, and Elizabeth is most assuredly both of those things. If a person doesn't want to run, all that craziness is unbearable, and right now she doesn't want to do it. She knows that she is having a huge impact right where she is, that she can move our national politics in a more progressive direction while also being a great legislator, that she can help build a powerful new progressive populist movement by staying where she is -- all of those things Markos said were true. If she ever changed her mind and did decide to run for president, this time, next time, whenever, I would personally drop everything I was doing and go to the barricades for her, as would tens of thousands of other activists, but I am also completely happy in supporting her in staying in the lane she has chosen for herself. Having said that, though, it would be such a huge mistake for anyone -- most especially Hillary, but anyone else analyzing this race -- to think this race is over six months before it has even begun. You just don't know what is going to happen next, and that fact truly is the only thing in this presidential race that is actually a lock. *MSNBC: “Hillary Clinton’s many ‘good friends’” <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clintons-many-good-friends>* By Alex Seitz-Wald July 28, 2014 Scientists say that most people have only a small handful of close friends, but Hillary Clinton is not most people – and she attempts to prove it in her new memoir. From aides and fellow senior government officials to world leaders and at least one rock star, “Hard Choices” is jam-packed with praise for “old friends,” “longtime friends,” “valued friends,” “invaluable friends,” and more. Outside of deposed despots, hardly anyone comes in for criticism. In what’s perhaps a tactful move ahead of a looming potential 2016 presidential bid, the memoir is extremely careful not to offend anyone, and seems optimized for the “Index Scan,” the notorious Washington practice whereby VIPs find their name and read what is written about them, and little else. After perusing the book’s extensive 32-page index, power-brokers in a dozen world capitals will be pleased to find their close relationship with Clinton certified by her official record. A list of these “friends” also provides an interesting window into the rarefied and cosmopolitan world which Clinton has come to inhabit, even as she tries to brush off charges of elitism. There are numerous heads of state, but almost zero “friends” listed who are not famous or powerful. It’s a pattern that has continued during her aggressive publicity tour promoting the book, even in forums designed to give common folks access to the former secretary of state. During a Q&A hosted by Twitter last week, Clinton took more questions from company execs and famous friends, like actress Amy Poehler, than average users of the social network. The tonal differences between her earlier memoir “Living History” and “Hard Choices” are striking: One is personal, the other feels professional. ”Living History” includes some references to friendships with bold-faced friends like Stevie Wonder and former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, but the majority are private companions, from childhood or early adulthood. Here’s a list of Hillary Clinton’s “friends,” along with some of Clinton’s “indispensable partners” and “allies” in rough order of appearance: · Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: “My good friend” who hosted a secret summit between Clinton and Barack Obama after she conceded the Democratic nomination in 2008. · Former Ohio Democratic Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones” “My dear friend … who had resisted intense pressure and stayed by my side throughout the [Democratic] primaries.” · Clinton aide Jim Kennedy: “An old friend with a magic touch for evocative language.” · Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta: “A valued friend.” · President Barack Obama: The two became “good friends” and “partners” after getting past the primary. · Eldie Acheson: “My Wellesley classmate and friend,” granddaughter of former secretary of state Dean Acheson. · Cheryl Mills: “We had become friends when Cheryl serves as Deputy Counsel in the White House during the 1990s.” · Former U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor: “My friend.” · Lissa Muscatine: “My friend and a former White House speechwriter, who reprised that role at State.” · Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair: “Our old friend.” · Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “My longtime friend.” · Other former secretaries of state: Warren Christopher “gave me what might be the most practical advice I received;” Henry Kissinger “checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations;” Colin Powell “provided Candid assessments of individuals and ideas;” George Schultz gave Clinton “the best gift of all: A teddy bear that sang ‘Don’t worry be happy.’” · Bill Clinton: “My best friend.” · Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi: “She and I embraced like the friends we had become.” · Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y.: “My friend.” · Late top diplomat Richard Holbrooke: “Our friend.” · Former CIA Director Leon Panetta: “My good friend.” · Irish politician Sharon Haughey: “An old friend.” · Former Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinosa: “One of my favorite colleagues and a good friend.” · Chilean President Michelle Bachelet: “She and I became allies and friends.” · Japanese Empress Michiko: “Who was delighted that I had decided to make Japan my first stop as Secretary.” · Kenyan political activist Wangari Maathai: “I was an fan and a friend.” · Nelson Mandela’s wife Graça Machel: “Remarkable … my friend.” · South Africa Minister of International Relations Maite Nkoana-Mashabane: “A strong woman … who became a friend.” · Nelson Mandela: “My old friend” and “a dear friend.” He and Chelsea also “developed a special bond that lasted for the rest of his life.” · U2 frontman Bono: “Another friend.” · Former Israeli President Shimon Peres: “My old friend.” · Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: The two “worked together as partners and friends.” · Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin: “My slain friend.” · Retired general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark: “An old friend.” · Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd: “My friend.” · Clinton aide Maggie Williams: “A close friend and confidante.” · Former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband: “An invaluable partner and friend.” · Miliband’s successor William Hague: “Also become a close colleague and a good friend.” · Former Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner: “An ideal partner in our engagement with China.” · Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store: “One of my partners” in addressing climate change. · Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates: “We became allies from the start.” · White House national security aide Ben Rhodes: “A strong ally in the White House” on Burma. · Then-Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: “A valuable ally on the ground.” Clinton also praises Vice President Joe Biden for his “wealth of international experience” along with his “warmth and humor,” though he doesn’t get called a friend. Of Michelle Obama, Clinton writes that the two “bonded over the challenges of raising a family in the public eye.” Countless more aides are singled out for plaudits, while she uses “friend” in the diplomatic context on a number of occasions (speaking as nations, rather than individuals), but the term is mostly reserved for leaders and senior officials. Clinton served eight years year in the Senate, where everyone is referred to as “my friend from” whatever state they represent, even when being attacked by their arch-ideological foes. *Wall Street Journal: “Book Review: 'Clinton, Inc.' by Daniel Halper” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/book-review-clinton-inc-by-daniel-halper-1406589344?mod=_newsreel_3>* By W. James Antle III July 28, 2014, 7:16 p.m. EDT The mob wives of HBO's "The Sopranos" are having lunch when the subject of Hillary Clinton comes up. " Hillary Clinton ?" the first wife remarks. "I can't stand that woman!" Carmela Soprano is particularly emphatic: "To be humiliated in public and then walk around smiling all the time? That is so false." One of the other wives demurs, referring to Hillary's attitude toward her notorious husband: "All I know is she stuck by him and put up with the bulls—t, and in the end what did she do? She set up her own little thing." The group winds up nodding in agreement. Daniel Halper's "Clinton, Inc." deals at length with what is implied by that brief TV scene: the marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton as both a business arrangement and a political alliance. Mrs. Clinton did indeed stand by her man during the humiliations of the 1990s. Now she has branched out into her own political career, one that she hopes will culminate in a stint in the White House. During Mrs. Clinton's first presidential run in 2008, she and her husband, to tease the announcement of her campaign song, spoofed the enigmatic fade-to-black final episode of "The Sopranos." Mr. Halper, the online editor of the Weekly Standard, suggests that this was a bit more than a parody. "Over the years many metaphors have been used to describe the Clintons," he writes. "Among the most common is their similarities to the mafia." The late Christopher Hitchens preferred a variation. Alluding to Clinton loyalists during the Lewinsky scandal, he wrote: "They act like cult members while they are still under the spell, and talk like ex-cult members as soon as they have broken away." For "Clinton, Inc.," his account of how the Clintons built a powerful political machine in the 14 years since they left the White House, Mr. Halper has tracked down some of these ex-cult members as well as purported loyalists who are willing to dish on the Clintons, often granting them anonymity for their comments. One charges that Mr. Clinton is still cheating on his wife (he puts the matter rather more colorfully), another that a Clinton-linked consulting business was "really seedy." To judge by a 2008 New York Times article on the keeping of a kind of Clinton enemies list, the reluctance to go on the record is understandable, if regrettable. At the core of "Clinton, Inc.," however, is not gossip or innuendo but a history of the family business. The Clintons have built a power bloc within the Democratic Party; they have also enriched themselves personally and launched a complex set of foundations and subsidiaries. The 2012 revenues for the flagship Clinton Foundation were estimated at $214 million. It focuses on issues like "health security" and "economic empowerment." One of its projects, the Clinton Global Initiative, with its summits and conferences, has put the Clintons in touch with world leaders and top CEOs. Throughout there is a mixing of fundraising, influence-seeking, hobnobbing, do-goodery and political ambition. What ties it all together is access to the Clintons. Mr. Halper concedes that, as Mrs. Clinton said to great mockery, the Clintons were technically "broke" when they left Washington in 2001—not least because of Bill's legal fees—but he notes that their earning potential more than wiped out any cash-flow problems. Bill Clinton alone, he reports, has "earned well over $100 million in speaking fees . . . including $17 million in one year alone." He received a $15 million advance for his 2004 autobiography, "My Life," which, Mr. Halper writes, was "largely considered a bulky, self-absorbed tome with moments of sparkle and brilliance." In this way, it "reflect[ed] its author." So how is it that the Clintons, no matter the scandal or defeat, always manage a comeback? Sometimes, they charm their enemies. Mr. Halper details Mr. Clinton's rapprochement with the Bushes, taking advantage of the father's Yankee manners and the son's need for friendly Democrats. Mrs. Clinton similarly ingratiated herself to GOP Senate colleagues. At other times, punishment is the order of the day. MSNBC's David Shuster, on air, suggested that the Clintons "pimped out" their daughter, Chelsea, as a surrogate during her mother's first presidential campaign. Mrs. Clinton threatened to pull out of the network's upcoming debate. "We need this debate," Mr. Shuster was told by network executives. "You're going to be the one who is going to have to jump on the grenade." He was suspended for two weeks. "In their lives," Mr. Halper writes, "the Clintons have only been loyal to one person"—Chelsea. The former first daughter had an undeniably difficult childhood, no matter how much her parents tried to shield her. As a teenager, she endured exposure to the lurid details of her father's infidelity. Now, according to Mr. Halper's sources, Chelsea has become a virtual campaign manager for her mother. She is also said to be her father's preferred choice for continuing the family business—more so, perhaps, than his wife. Another Clinton presidential nomination seems inevitable, yet liberals have rebelled against the Clintons before. There was Ralph Nader's insurgency, followed by Howard Dean's shooting-star campaign and finally Mr. Obama's victory. "Clinton, Inc." suggests that, this time around, the Clintons will thwart potential challengers—say, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren —with a new single-mindedness. They are already consolidating Obama operatives' support, despite Joe Biden's ambitions. Expect lots of tension and drama. The Clintons, Daniel Halper makes plain, aren't simply going to fade to black. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · July 29 – Fusion: Sec. Clinton interview with Jorge Ramos (Politico <http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/07/hillary-clinton-on-fusion-tuesday-192862.html> ) · July 29 – Saratoga Springs, NY: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour stop at Northshire Bookstore (Glens Falls Post-Star <http://poststar.com/news/local/clinton-to-sign-books-in-spa-city/article_a89caca2-0b57-11e4-95a6-0019bb2963f4.html> ) · 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 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/>)