Correct The Record Monday July 21, 2014 Afternoon Roundup

From:burns.strider@americanbridge.org To: CTRFriendsFamily@americanbridge.org Date: 2014-07-21 15:50 Subject: Correct The Record Monday July 21, 2014 Afternoon Roundup

*[image: Inline image 1]* *Correct The Record Monday July 21, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Twitter:* *Pres. Bill Clinton* @billclinton: Congrats @McIlroyRory on your 2014 British Open title. See you for another round next time I'm in Ireland. [7/21/14, 3:48 a.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/billclinton/status/491127500224102400>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton’s record as secretary of state http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/benghazi-and-hillary-clintons-misunderstood-record-as-secretary-of-state/ … <http://t.co/EbiBQYA5nE> via @AaronBlakeWP [7/21/14, 12:36 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/491260554989043712>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton "We have an economic crisis and...a political crisis of our democracy and I think they are related." http://youtu.be/Ot-WT7QY9oY?t=25m11s … <http://t.co/IK9wNBS9eI> [7/20/14, 3:30 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/490941940352180225>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: As FLOTUS, @HillaryClinton spoke at summit about power of microcredit to stimulate economic activity #HRC365 http://1.usa.gov/1i5Fryu <http://t.co/2XTMVKONyI>[7/20/14, 2:30 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/490926829142695937>] *Headlines:* *Washington Post blog: Plum Line: “Why the ‘rich Hillary Clinton’ storyline is so dumb” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/21/why-the-rich-hillary-clinton-storyline-is-so-dumb/>* “Today the Republican party unveiled a new web site titled Poor Hillary Clinton, making the devastating point that Hillary Clinton has lots of money and should therefore not be elected president. If that’s what the geniuses at the RNC think is going to win the 2016 election for them, it may be time to start figuring out who’s going to be in Clinton’s cabinet.” *Vox: “5 reasons Hillary Clinton's weaknesses are greatly exaggerated” <http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5916383/hillary-clinton-running-for-president-2016>* “If you've been reading political coverage lately, you will have learned that Hillary Clinton is currently on a gaffe-laden book tour where she has proven how out of touch she is with ordinary Americans, while Elizabeth Warren is getting a rapturous reception from progressive activists yearning for her candidacy. This is an entertaining narrative, but it's missing a few key facts…” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton’s misunderstood record as secretary of state” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/benghazi-and-hillary-clintons-misunderstood-record-as-secretary-of-state/>* “The biggest takeaway from this poll is that Clinton's time as secretary of state might not be the feather in the cap that many thought it was. But people shouldn't look at this poll and suddenly see it as a liability.” *Slate blog: Weigel: “The Poll That Will Make Democrats Panic About Hillary Clinton” <http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/21/the_poll_that_will_make_democrats_panic_about_hillary_clinton.html>* “So it should be interesting to see if the criticism of Clinton is turned back by an aggressive left -- by David Brock's groups like Correct the Record and Media Matters, for example -- or if it emboldens one of the junior Democrats to criticize her and raise speculation about primary challenges. So far, there's a little of the former and none of the latter.” *Christian Science Monitor blog: DC Decoder: “Hillary Clinton's $12 million problem: Will focus on her wealth persist?” <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0721/Hillary-Clinton-s-12-million-problem-Will-focus-on-her-wealth-persist>* “When she switches into a more overtly political mode, she will begin making policy proposals and speaking more directly about the national situation. Then the media focus will move from Clinton wealth gaffes and book sales to the newer, more substantive material.” *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Payback: Republicans Paint ‘Millionaire’ Democrats as Out of Touch” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/21/payback-republicans-paint-millionaire-democrats-as-out-of-touch/>* “And of course there is the nonstop Republican smirking about Hillary Clinton‘s wealth — virtually all of it emanating from Mrs. Clinton’s book tour statement that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House 13 years ago.” *Salon column: Joan Walsh: “GOP’s ’16 consolation vanishes: Suddenly, Democrats have the deep bench!” <http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/gops_16_consolation_vanishes_suddenly_democrats_have_the_deep_bench/>* “In the end, the rising number of possible alternatives to Hillary Clinton is a sign of Democratic strength, even if the media tends to bill it as weakness.” *Twitter: “Today at Twitter: Ask @HillaryClinton your questions” <https://blog.twitter.com/2014/today-at-twitter-ask-hillaryclinton-your-questions>* “We’re thrilled to welcome Secretary Hillary Clinton to Twitter headquarters in San Francisco today.” *Politico: “Bill Clinton: Hillary 'wants time'” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-wants-time-109175.html>* “Hillary Clinton still needs ‘time’ to think through her message ahead of a possible presidential run, according to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Joe Biden is the most interesting politician that has no chance of becoming president” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/joe-biden-is-the-most-interesting-politician-that-has-no-chance-of-becoming-president/>* “Osnos conducted many interviews with Biden -- and even talked to President Obama. You should read the whole thing -- especially since the New Yorker archives are now open for browsing this summer -- but here's a look at some of the most interesting tidbits.” *Articles:* *Washington Post blog: Plum Line: “Why the ‘rich Hillary Clinton’ storyline is so dumb” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/21/why-the-rich-hillary-clinton-storyline-is-so-dumb/>* By Paul Waldman July 21, 2014, 12:08 p.m. EDT Today the Republican party unveiled a new web site titled Poor Hillary Clinton, making the devastating point that Hillary Clinton has lots of money and should therefore not be elected president. If that’s what the geniuses at the RNC think is going to win the 2016 election for them, it may be time to start figuring out who’s going to be in Clinton’s cabinet. But what may be even more remarkable is that so many in the press go right along with this stupidity. For instance, a Bloomberg News story from this morning begins this way: “Hillary Clinton has earned at least $12 million in 16 months since leaving the State Department, a windfall at odds with her party’s call to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor.” There’s a hidden assumption in some of this coverage that candidates should be nothing more than advocates for their class. If you’re rich, then you can’t sincerely care about the well-being of people who aren’t, and anything other than advocacy on behalf of other rich people is odd, even suspect. But politicians aren’t motivated only by self-interest. How, exactly, is Clinton making a lot money “at odds with her party’s call to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor”? Did I miss the Democratic policy paper demanding a national cap on speaking fees, or a proposed law making it illegal to get rich? No, I don’t believe I did. What we see here is actually a journalistic version of the paranoid billionaire whining that people who criticize wealth inequality are like Nazis ready to herd hedge fund managers into concentration camps, because it portrays the inequality issue as one in which poor and middle-class people are completely absent. The only question it asks is whether the rich are heroic job-creators or evil kleptocrats, and you’re supposed to take one position or the other. So let’s say this real slow: You can simultaneously believe that 1) It’s perfectly fine for some people to get rich, even spectacularly rich, and 2) government policies should be geared toward maximizing fair economic treatment of everyone, particularly those at the bottom. That is, more or less, the position of Hillary Clinton’s party. And it has been for the entire lifetime of anyone who will vote in 2016. It’s absolutely legitimate for reporters to look closely at Clinton’s income, just as they should for every presidential candidate. But much of the coverage of the dispute over it fails to supply political context. What’s often missing is a discussion of what the parties stand for, how they’re perceived, and why it matters. The fact that Democrats advocate policies like increasing the minimum wage and achieving universal health coverage that are aimed at the interests of the non-wealthy, while Republicans advocate policies like upper-income tax cuts and the weakening of labor unions that are aimed at the interests of the wealthy, is one of the foundational contrasts of American politics. The dynamic that contrast creates — how much success Democrats have in exploiting it and how much success Republicans have in working around it — helps determine the outcome of pretty much every presidential campaign. And it is in this context that the question of whether Clinton’s wealth is politically damaging needs to be considered. In recent history there has not been a single instance in which a Democratic presidential candidate was significantly harmed, let alone lost an election, because of his or her personal wealth. Yet it has been a problem for Republican candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain (who, you’ll recall, couldn’t remember how many homes he and his wife owned). Why might that be? The answer is that when it comes to extremely practical issues like economic policy, voters draw connections between the personal and the political. They didn’t care that Franklin Roosevelt was rich, because he was clearly an advocate for the downtrodden. The reason the issue of personal wealth was a potent one for Democrats to use against Romney was that they successfully told a story in which he gained his wealth by stepping over the broken lives of working-class people, and that showed, they argued, how he would act as president. What story are Republicans trying to tell about Clinton’s speaking fees? There doesn’t appear to be one, and there is precisely zero evidence that anyone who thinks income inequality is a problem that should be addressed will vote against Clinton because she has a lot of money — particularly when the Republican nominee in 2016 will almost certainly say that inequality isn’t actually a problem at all. The “who’s on your side” issue will work to Democrats’ advantage whether Republicans nominate a career politician whose wealth is limited (which describes many of the 2016 GOP contenders) or whether they nominate Scrooge McDuck. Democrats will make it an issue, because they always do; the only question is whether it turns out to be somewhat effective or extremely effective. Unless Clinton’s rather sudden elevation into the ranks of the super-wealthy actually made her change her policy positions and what should would do as president — in other words, unless getting rich turned her into a Republican — there’s no reason to believe her wealth will have any serious impact at all. *Vox: “5 reasons Hillary Clinton's weaknesses are greatly exaggerated” <http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5916383/hillary-clinton-running-for-president-2016>* By Andrew Prokop July 20, 2014, 4:00 p.m. EDT If you've been reading political coverage lately, you will have learned that Hillary Clinton is currently on a gaffe-laden book tour where she has proven how out of touch she is with ordinary Americans, while Elizabeth Warren is getting a rapturous reception from progressive activists yearning for her candidacy. This is an entertaining narrative, but it's missing a few key facts about what's going on in advance of the Democratic presidential primary right now — facts indicating that Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite. 1) Clinton's lead in polling is much larger than it was in 2008 Yes, Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner in 2008 and then lost the nomination. But back in early 2007, she reached only 30 to 40 percent in polls of Democratic voters — indicating that a majority of Democrats weren't yet on board with a Clinton candidacy. Now, she regularly tops 60 percent in polls, and sometimes even breaks 70 percent, as you can see on RealClearPolitics. In particular, her position in Iowa, where she lost to Obama in 2008, is now enormously stronger, as Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight points out: *FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten* @ForecasterEnten: At this point in the 2008 cycle, Clinton was at 26% in Iowa Caucus polling http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/the_first_iowa_.html … <http://t.co/umrNSvVBlv> Right now? 70% http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/what-we-learned-about-christie-clinton-rand-paul-week-n158281 … <http://t.co/XtBdvS6241> [7/18/14,12:53 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/statuses/490177603362648065>] With clear majorities of Democrats nationally and in the two major early states already saying they'll back Clinton, it's difficult to see an opportunity for a challenger. 2) Democrats don't actually want a more liberal nominee The assumption among people who talk to a lot of very progressive activists is that the Democratic base is yearning for a much more liberal nominee. But according to a poll from CNN and ORC International, that's not the case at all. Only 11 percent of Democrats would prefer a nominee who's more liberal than Clinton — compared to 20 percent who'd like a more conservative nominee. Once again, it's difficult to see the opening for a progressive challenger here. 3) The experience of Obama's presidency has discredited the main anti-Clinton argument In 2008, Obama ran on an inspirational platform of bringing hope and change to America and transcending partisan politics. Of course, this didn't happen. Therefore, any Democratic candidate sounding similar themes in 2016 will face serious skepticism from the party's voters. TNR's Noam Scheiber made this point in a recent article — he found support for Clinton among many progressive activists, and expounded on why in an interview with Vox. "When you pressed further it was about disappointment in President Obama," Scheiber said. "Watching the system not change really made an impact on these people. I don't think they want to get burned again." 4) Inequality is not Iraq In 2008, Obama and Clinton were quite similar in most policy areas. But he always had one issue on which he could draw a very clear contrast with Clinton — her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. "Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake," Obama said in his February 2007 announcement speech. He continued to emphasize this contrast throughout the primary campaign, and capitalized on serious resentment from party activists against Clinton and other Democratic leaders who had authorized the war. Some commentators have argued that Clinton could be similarly vulnerable on issues of economic inequality in 2012. But every major figure in the party, including Clinton, now agrees that inequality is a serious concern. The rhetoric Clinton uses on the issue sounds quite a lot like Warren's, as you can see in the video above, and in this video mashup of the two by the Huffington Post. Now, on the narrower issue of banking regulation, there are some serious rhetorical and substantive differences between Clinton and Warren. But there's no real indication that that issue has enough national resonance to dislodge a front-runner — especially considering the above poll results that indicate there's little desire among Democrats for a more liberal candidate. 5) There's no credible challenger who can amass broad party support A recent article by Phil Rucker and Robert Costa of the Washington Post lists many examples of potential Democratic candidates purportedly "making moves" to "position themselves" as an alternative to Clinton. Martin O'Malley has been giving speeches to Democrats all over the country. Amy Klobuchar is visiting Iowa. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Governor Andrew Cuomo are releasing books. Vice President Biden even called some of his former aides, "ostensibly to say hello"! Yet while all this happens, Clinton has been racking up actual endorsements from Democrats — even though she's not yet running. These include figures who endorsed Obama last time around, like Tim Kaine and Claire McCaskill. Indeed, several of the potential contenders mentioned in the Post article — including Warren — actually signed a private letter urging Clinton to run for president. (Warren has said she hopes Clinton runs and that "Hillary is terrific," but hasn't publicly endorsed so far.) It's more plausible that the politicians mentioned by the Post are positioning themselves so they can jump in if Clinton doesn't run. It's prudent for them to prepare for that possibility, however small, since the nomination really would be up for grabs, as Amy Walter lays out here. Plus, for the younger potential candidates, building a national network now might help prepare them for 2020 (if Clinton loses) or 2024 elections. But serious challenges to Clinton still seem extremely unlikely — except, perhaps, for the most quixotic of contenders. *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Benghazi, and Hillary Clinton’s misunderstood record as secretary of state” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/benghazi-and-hillary-clintons-misunderstood-record-as-secretary-of-state/>* By Aaron Blake July 21, 2014, 10:47 a.m. EDT There's something of a bombshell headline this morning at Politico: "Dim views of Hillary Clinton’s time at State." The story, which is based on a new poll conducted by GfK, has quite a different take than previous polling on Clinton's record as secretary of state, which has regularly shown that people view her as a success. In fact, a Washington Post poll just last month showed 59 percent of people approved of her tenure. Here are a few sample headlines for similar polls: NBC/WSJ poll: Nearly 70% approve of Hillary Clinton’s job Hillary Clinton remains popular for her time as secretary of state, viewed apart from Obama Hillary Clinton’s Strengths: Record at State, Toughness, Honesty So why the disconnect? Are people suddenly rethinking one of Clinton's biggest qualifications for running for president? Is Benghazi having the impact Republicans always thought it would? Not completely. But the poll does lend us some valuable perspective on what has been a widely misunderstood portion of Clinton's resume. The big reason for the disparate results: While most polls ask whether people approve or disapprove of Clinton's time as secretary of state, the new poll asked people to rate it as "excellent," "good," "fair" or "poor." We generally dislike this type of question -- mostly because those writing about such polls lump "fair" together with "poor" to suggest people in both camps disapprove of the person in question. We see "fair" as a much more neutral response. (The great Maggie Haberman, who wrote the story, did not make this conflation, but others undoubtedly will.) One person might look at this poll and see that a majority of people (53 percent) rate Clinton as either "fair" or "poor," while another could make a credible argument that it shows more people think she did well (42 percent said "excellent" or "good") than poorly (32 percent). Both are okay arguments, as long as they are in the correct context. But in this case, we actually like this question, because it exposes the casual nature of support for Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. Secretary of state is a great resume-builder, and the vast majority of the United States' top diplomats have emerged from the job quite popular (proof here). It's a job that sets you up for success. But just because people say they approve of their secretary of state doesn't mean they are huge fans. Perhaps she did well enough to earn people's "approval" but not necessarily enough to get positive marks -- hence "fair." But part of the new poll is also that the bloom is off the rose. Clinton's numbers in general have dropped pretty significantly, to the point where she's not really all that popular anymore. Her numbers as secretary of state have remained a little better, but it's not surprising to see scrutiny of Clinton -- including on Benghazi -- to prompt even those numbers to drop. The biggest takeaway from this poll is that Clinton's time as secretary of state might not be the feather in the cap that many thought it was. But people shouldn't look at this poll and suddenly see it as a liability. *Slate blog: Weigel: “The Poll That Will Make Democrats Panic About Hillary Clinton” <http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/21/the_poll_that_will_make_democrats_panic_about_hillary_clinton.html>* By David Weigel July 21, 2014, 8:22 a.m. EDT At the moment I'm wrapping up a piece about progressive activists and Netroots Nation, having found (as most reporters found) young party activists pretty much satisfied by the promise of Hillary 2016 campaign. Other candidates, like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, have their adherents who want to shift the party's stances on banks, on student loans, on inequality. But few doubt that Hillary is the most electable, most Republican-infuriating candidate on the horizon. Comes now this Politico poll: [GRAPHIC OF POLITICO POLL “HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE JOB THAT HILLARY CLINTON DID AS SECRETARY OF STATE?] As Maggie Haberman writes in her summary of the poll, Clinton left Foggy Bottom with a favorable rating well above 60 percent. Profiles of her tenure took for granted that she was a "rock star," a historic figure, a success. The decline is undoubtedly, as Haberman writes, tied in part to 18 months of no-end-in-sight Benghazi investigations; I wish the Politico pollster had asked voters to think of a single word to describe Clinton, because surely "Benghazi" would have erupted from most Republicans and led the list. What else might explain the swoon? Well, turn your eyes north from Libya, up to Russia. In a piece subtly titled "Is Hillary Clinton imploding?" Jonathan Last asked readers to look at what Hillary Clinton told the BBC about the administration's Russia stance. Was it untenable? Well, according to Hillary, the thoughtful observer had to look at the situation when she arrived at State. “Medvedev is President, Putin is Prime Minister, and there were jobs that we wanted to get done. We wanted to get Russia on board with tough sanctions against Iran. We wanted to have a new START Treaty to limit nuclear weapons. We wanted to get their help in transiting across through huge country to get things we needed into Afghanistan. We got all that done. Putin comes back. Look where we are now. He invaded another country, so yes, but while we had that moment, we seized it, we used it, and succeeded.” "He invaded another country, so..." is, to my ears, a more face-palm-worthy quote than "we were dead broke" (which was basically true) and "what difference does it make?" (which was about the Republican focus on September 2012 talking points, not a callous dismissal of dead heroes). Is there some way for Hillary to run as the person who was at the wheel before the Obama administration's policy failures? Maybe. But her re-emergence happened to concede with a run of major setbacks, and that's complicating the storyline of Clinton as a "rock star" secretary. It follows months and months of Republicans chortling at the inability of Clinton allies to name a major accomplishment. (In this interview she cites START, but her allies are really lost at sea in discussing this stuff). So it should be interesting to see if the criticism of Clinton is turned back by an aggressive left -- by David Brock's groups like Correct the Record and Media Matters, for example -- or if it emboldens one of the junior Democrats to criticize her and raise speculation about primary challenges. So far, there's a little of the former and none of the latter. *Christian Science Monitor blog: DC Decoder: “Hillary Clinton's $12 million problem: Will focus on her wealth persist?” <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0721/Hillary-Clinton-s-12-million-problem-Will-focus-on-her-wealth-persist>* By Peter Grier July 21, 2014 [Subtitle:] Hillary Clinton has earned $12 million since leaving the State Department in early 2013, says a Bloomberg News report. Though GOP officials are gleefully sharing this story on social media, here's why the issue of her wealth is likely to fade. Hillary Clinton’s wealth problem isn’t fading. It began in June when she said she and husband, Bill, were “dead broke” when they left the White House – a comment she later publicly labeled “inartful.” It has continued through July as media reports document the Clintons' wealth and Republicans bash the former secretary of State as a closet 1 percenter. The latest episode in this political soap opera is Monday’s Bloomberg News report that, since resigning as secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton has earned at least $12 million by giving speeches and selling books. “Her earnings represent a fraction of the Clinton family’s total income and yet were large enough to rank her not only in the top 1 percent of the nation’s earners but in the top one-hundredth of the 1 percent,” write Bloomberg’s Lisa Lerer and Lauren Streib. Republican Party officials have gleefully disseminated this story on social media. They’re using it as a means to promote their latest anti-Hillary website, poorhillaryclinton.com. “How out of touch is Hillary? ... We’ve documented it,” tweeted the Republican National Committee on Monday morning. Will mocking Clinton for her “hard knock life” help the GOP in the long run? Maybe – that’s the sort of political trend line it’s impossible to precisely predict. Perhaps Republican strategists hope to simply increase vague negative feelings about Clinton in the months prior to her expected 2016 presidential run. But there are some problems with the tactic of attacking Clinton for her cash, per se. Presumably Democratic voters are the ones most concerned with the issue of inequality and concentration of US wealth. However, they don’t appear at all concerned about charges of Clinton buck-raking. As we reported last week, polls show Clinton rolling full throttle toward the Democratic 2016 nomination, if she wants it. She’s crushing all potential intraparty challengers. That stuff about a challenge from the left by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Basically it’s bored journalists looking for ways to inject drama into a foreordained race. Republican voters will be happy to tut-tut about Clinton’s perceived hypocrisy on money. But there’s a twist: What will they feel about their own party attacking someone for making money? Kind of a role reversal, no? That’s what Politico’s Dylan Byers opines Monday in his post about Bloomberg’s new Clinton numbers. “Wouldn’t it be rich if the same Republicans who complain about the demonization of wealth decided to turn this into a talking point? Oh wait,” writes Byers. It’s likely the focus on wealth will fade at some point. It has persisted partly because Clinton is an unusual presidential precandidate, writes Bloomberg View political pundit Jonathan Bernstein. At this point in a campaign the media are generally busy filling in the life story and political background of potential candidates. But everybody knows Clinton, so instead they’re picking at holes in her story. When she switches into a more overtly political mode, she will begin making policy proposals and speaking more directly about the national situation. Then the media focus will move from Clinton wealth gaffes and book sales to the newer, more substantive material. “None of the [current media] attention appears to be obstructing her path to the nomination, and it will be long forgotten by fall 2016. Except, perhaps, by those who aren’t going to vote for her anyway,” writes Mr. Bernstein. *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Payback: Republicans Paint ‘Millionaire’ Democrats as Out of Touch” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/21/payback-republicans-paint-millionaire-democrats-as-out-of-touch/>* By Reid J. Epstein July 21, 2014, 1:18 p.m. EDT When Democrats in 2012 tarred Mitt Romney as so wealthy he was out of touch, the Republican pushback was to assert that there’s no shame in being rich. “Republicans come here and say everyone should live like this,” Mr. Romney said at one fundraiser held at a supporter’s mansion. Back then it worked, as President Barack Obama and his allied Democrats launched a full-scale campaign to tag Mr. Romney as the candidate of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. By and large, that worked, with a handful of assists from Mr. Romney himself. Two years later, it’s Republicans who are using their opponents’ wealth as a campaign cudgel. In Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania and Georgia, GOP candidates have taken shots at their opponents for being wealthy – usually as part of trying to build a larger case that the foe is out of touch. And of course there is the nonstop Republican smirking about Hillary Clinton‘s wealth — virtually all of it emanating from Mrs. Clinton’s book tour statement that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House 13 years ago. On Monday morning the Republican National Committee launched a website called poorhillaryclinton.com. Almost every attack Republicans are throwing at Democrats on their wealth could have been made against Mr. Romney – some of them were, almost verbatim. Starting last fall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker branded his Democratic opponent Mary Burke “Millionaire Mary.” The Walker-controlled Wisconsin GOP mocked her for owning a “swanky second home valued at nearly $600,000.” And last week Mr. Walker’s campaign released a new TV ad called “Fortune” in which it accused Ms. Burke of “making millions of dollars” when her family’s bicycle company moved some of its manufacturing operations to China. (That whether the company actually did outsource jobs to China is in debate mirrors the Romney campaign’s insistence it did not offshore jobs.) On Friday Allysia Finley of the Journal’s editorial page criticized Mr. Walker’s attacks on Ms. Burke’s business record. “Economic populism is usually the province of Democrats who don’t understand how free markets work or who cynically hope to exploit voters’ insecurities,” she wrote. But Mr. Walker is hardly the only Republican attacking a Democratic opponent’s wealth. In Pennsylvania, GOP Gov. Tom Corbett‘s campaign dubbed his Democratic self-funding opponent “Millionaire Tom Wolf.” And in New York, Republicans are trying to tar Democratic House candidate Sean Eldridge as wealthy and out of touch. Virtually every missive the National Republican Campaign Committee blasts about Mr. Eldridge – the husband of Facebook billionaire Chris Hughes who has spent more than $1 million of his own funds in his campaign against GOP Rep. Chris Gibson in an upstate New York district – replaces the first letter of his first name with a dollar sign. “After repeatedly ignoring the media, refusing to answer questions about the stunning hypocrisy of his multimillion dollar investment portfolio, and putting voters off by using his dark money group to try and buy an election, the only thing Eldridge is going to gain on Election Day is some much needed humility,” NRCC spokesman Ian Prior said in one representative missive. Obama campaign aide David Axelrod, in a plea for campaign donations in October 2012, wrote: “I’ll be blunt: They are trying to buy this election.” And in Georgia – where Republicans will vote Tuesday in a run-off election between Rep. Jack Kingston and David Perdue – the highlight of the final debate was Mr. Kingston laying into the wealth of Mr. Perdue, the former CEO of Reebok and Dollar General. “Your whole lifestyle is based in a different way,” Mr. Kingston snapped at Mr. Perdue, the Associated Press reported. “You live inside a gate inside a gated community with a gate on your house.” Mr. Perdue responded much the same way Mr. Romney did in 2012: “I’m not going to apologize for my success.” *Salon column: Joan Walsh: “GOP’s ’16 consolation vanishes: Suddenly, Democrats have the deep bench!” <http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/gops_16_consolation_vanishes_suddenly_democrats_have_the_deep_bench/>* By Joan Walsh July 21, 2014, 1:10 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] After Romney’s 2012 loss, pundits raved about the GOP’s new leaders. But two years later, Democrats have the edge In the wake of President Obama’s re-election in 2012, reporters found one soothing source of solace for the GOP. “One race the Republicans appear to be winning is the one for the deepest bench of rising stars,” wrote the Washington Post, and plenty of folks followed up. Democrats, meanwhile, had nobody on the bench but Hillary Clinton – a formidable candidate if she were to run, but that wasn’t even certain. Beyond Clinton, there seemed to be a wasteland populated by ambitious governors no one had ever heard of (Martin O’Malley), some who were well known but not widely liked (Andrew Cuomo). Oh, and Brian Schweitzer. The Republican list, meanwhile, seemed almost infinite: blue and purple state governors like New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Ohio’s John Kasich and Virginia’s Bob McConnell, and Tea Party senators like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Romney’s ambitious, “wonky” running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, had his fans, as did former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Even Texas Gov. Rick Perry, recovered from back surgery and sporting hot new glasses, could have another life in 2016. But in two years, the situation has almost reversed itself. Promising GOP governors – McDonnell, Christie, Walker – find themselves dogged by scandal. The Tea Party trio of Paul, Cruz and Rubio still vies for media attention and right wing adoration, but Rubio’s immigration reform work doomed him on the right. Unbelievably, Paul is widely labeled the frontrunner (but don’t tell that to Cruz), while the party establishment and neocon hawks search for an alternative. Despite all that impressive talent, Mitt Romney leads the pack in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, in what’s widely being reported as trouble for Hillary Clinton, because that’s the narrative the media know best, it turns out there are a bunch of popular and maybe even formidable Democrats. Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren wowed the crowd at Netroots Nation. (Check out this great New Yorker Biden profile if you want to know how the VP is keeping his options open). The Netroots buzz inspired the Washington Post’s Phillip Rucker and Robert Costa to survey the landscape of Democrats who’ve put a toe or more in the water for 2016. We learned that Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar is visiting Iowa (it is only one state away), while New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has a book coming out. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is said to be huddling with donors, believing the party could use a dose of red state common sense. This is all framed as mildly ominous news for Hillary Clinton – the headline is “With liberals pining for a Clinton challenger, ambitious Democrats get in position” — but Klobuchar, Gillibrand and Nixon have all endorsed Clinton, and Warren has encouraged Clinton to run while insisting she won’t do so herself. The only Democrats listed who may still run even if Clinton does too are O’Malley and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. Regardless of the intent of the framing, the Rucker-Costa story actually pointed up the vitality in the Democratic Party, where lively debates over income inequality and foreign policy have so far fallen short of creating bitter divisions and factions, at least so far. Again, contrast that with the GOP, where Ted Cruz seems to be staking his 2016 hopes on his ability to humiliate every party leader and make sure Republicans will never make inroads with the Latino population. He’s blocking bipartisan emergency legislation to deal with the border crisis, and pushing to reverse President Obama’s deferred action on deportation for young people brought here by their parents. Meanwhile Warren, the progressive elected the same time as Cruz, is touring the country campaigning for Democratic Senate candidates, even some who are more centrist than she is, like Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes and West Virginia’s Natalie Tennant. She’s focused on growing the Democratic Party, not cutting down colleagues who are less progressive. So: the GOP’s right wing firebrand is a loose cannon who is completely out for himself, while the Democrats’ left wing firebrand is working amiably with party leaders and deflecting talk of a primary challenge to Clinton. In the end, the rising number of possible alternatives to Hillary Clinton is a sign of Democratic strength, even if the media tends to bill it as weakness. *Twitter: “Today at Twitter: Ask @HillaryClinton your questions” <https://blog.twitter.com/2014/today-at-twitter-ask-hillaryclinton-your-questions>* By Katie Stanton July 21, 2014, 15:57 UTC We’re thrilled to welcome Secretary Hillary Clinton to Twitter headquarters in San Francisco today. We frequently welcome delightful and inspiring people in to meet our employees and talk about their careers, their passions and how they use Twitter to connect with the world. Given the impact Secretary Clinton’s work throughout her career has had on the world—much of which she documents in her new book about her time as America’s chief diplomat, “Hard Choices“—we want to open her visit to you too. At about 5:20 p.m. PT, I will join the Secretary on stage in front of our employees to hear from her about the challenges she faced and the lessons she learned during her time as America’s 67th Secretary of State. We’ll explore how those experiences have shaped her views on human rights, domestic policy and other topics. And of course I’m curious to learn the backstory of Tweets like this: *Sec. Hillary Rodham Clinton* @HillaryClinton: It’s so much more fun to watch FOX when it’s someone else being blitzed & sacked! #SuperBowl <https://twitter.com/hashtag/SuperBowl?src=hash> [2/2/13, 8:44 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statuses/430154695860953088>] You can tune in live at about 5:20 p.m. PT by visiting Secretary Clinton’s Twitter profile at Twitter.com/@HillaryClinton; we’ll stream the event from a Tweet pinned to the top of her page. You can also send the Secretary questions that I will do my best to ask her by using the hashtag #AskHillary. I’ll be checking Twitter throughout the day so feel free to start sending your questions now. We look forward to sharing this special event with all of you. See you later this afternoon! *Politico: “Bill Clinton: Hillary 'wants time'” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-wants-time-109175.html>* By Katie Glueck July 21, 2014, 11:30 a.m. EDT Hillary Clinton still needs “time” to think through her message ahead of a possible presidential run, according to her husband, former President Bill Clinton. In an interview with CNN published Monday, he said that the former secretary of state — and presumptive Democratic frontrunner if she gets in — needs space to “work through” that. His comments come as Clinton continues on her book tour to promote her new memoir, “Hard Choices,” amid questions of what her case would be for 2016. “We’ve reached a point in our life when we think you really shouldn’t run for office if you don’t have a clear idea of what you can do and a unique contribution you can make and you can outline that,” Clinton told CNN, according to the news organization’s write-up. “Now that the book is done, she wants time to think about that and work through it. “ He added that Clinton “hasn’t asked me yet” about his advice on 2016, but called her the “ablest public servant” with whom he’s ever worked. *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Joe Biden is the most interesting politician that has no chance of becoming president” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/21/joe-biden-is-the-most-interesting-politician-that-has-no-chance-of-becoming-president/>* By Jaime Fuller July 21, 2014, 12:43 p.m. EDT The New Yorker's Evan Osnos has been working on a profile about Vice President Biden for months, and it finally published this week -- with a big focus on the vice president's role in the Ukraine crisis. Osnos conducted many interviews with Biden -- and even talked to President Obama. You should read the whole thing -- especially since the New Yorker archives are now open for browsing this summer -- but here's a look at some of the most interesting tidbits. *Obama: "In the foreign-policy front, I think Joe’s biggest influence was in the Afghanistan debate."* As the wars in the Middle East have ended, Biden has shifted to smaller foreign policy priorities, although his relationships in Ukraine have also proved invaluable. Osnos sums up his foreign policy role now as "big assignments that may not have a huge political upside" especially for someone who may be eying another presidential bid. Obama adds, “You know, when I sent him to Ukraine for the recent inauguration of Poroshenko, and he’s there, a world figure that people know, and he’s signifying the importance that we place on the Ukrainian election,” Obama went on. “And then world leaders can transmit directly to him their thoughts about how we proceed. That’s not necessarily helping him in Iowa. ” However, his political schmoozing skills have proved invaluable in international affairs throughout his career -- and continue to come in handy. Osnos writes, "After so many years, he has an arsenal of opening lines that he can deploy in Baghdad, Beijing, or Wilmington. One of his favorites: 'If I had hair like yours, I’d be President.'" George Mitchell, the Maine Senator who helped bring about the Good Friday Agreement, told Osnos that he "remembers welcoming visiting heads of state to Capitol Hill. 'I’d say, ‘Here’s Senator Smith, here’s Senator Jones.’ When I got to Joe, the leader would look out and say, 'Hi, Joe.' " *Joe Biden and Robert Gates do not like each other at all.* In his memoir, "Duty," former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Biden was "impossible not to like” but he was also “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” When Osnos asked Biden about Gates, the vice president called him “a really decent guy,” but ... he went on to add, "You go back, and everything in the last forty years, there’s nothing that I can think of, major fundamental decisions relative to foreign policy, that I can think he’s been right about!" Biden ended his soliloquy on Gates by later saying, “I can hardly wait — either in a Presidential campaign or when I’m out of here — to debate Bob Gates. Oh, Jesus.” *While we're on the topic of presidential campaigns, Biden's obviously thinking about one.* As you might have already noticed. He talks about it a lot. But only if Hillary Clinton decides not to start her own campaign. When Osnos "asked John McCain, who is one of Biden’s close friends, if Biden would run without Clinton in the race, McCain said,'In a New York minute.' " Obama doesn't get why either Clinton or Biden would ever want to run again. “I think that, for both Joe and for Hillary, they’ve already accomplished an awful lot in their lives. The question is, do they, at this phase in their lives, want to go through the pretty undignifying process of running all over again.” *Biden and Obama are pretty surprised they get along so well.* Osnos writes, “The trials facing the President and the Vice-President, who are separated by nineteen years and a canyon in style, have brought them closer than many expected — not least of all themselves. John Marttila, one of Biden’s political advisers, told me, ‘Joe and Barack were having lunch, and Obama said to Biden, ‘You and I are becoming good friends! I find that very surprising.’ And Joe says, ‘You’re [f***ing] surprised!’” However, Biden adds that if he ever had a "fundamental moral disagreement" with Obama,"I’d announce I had prostate cancer and I had to leave.” *Bush once said he had gotten "a sense of his soul" after staring into the eyes of Vladimir Putin. Biden later told Putin, "I don’t think you have a soul."* Borrowing comedic tactics from "Arrested Development," Biden turned an immortal line from the Bush presidency into a callback. “To illustrate his emphasis on personality as a factor in foreign affairs, Biden recalled visiting Putin at the Kremlin in 2011: ‘I had an interpreter, and when he was showing me his office I said, ‘It’s amazing what capitalism will do, won’t it? A magnificent office!’ And he laughed. As I turned, I was this close to him.’ Biden held his hand a few inches from his nose. ‘I said, ‘Mr. Prime Minister, I’m looking into your eyes, and I don’t think you have a soul.’ ‘ “‘You said that?’ I asked. It sounded like a movie line. “‘Absolutely, positively,’ Biden said, and continued, ‘And he looked back at me, and he smiled, and he said, ‘We understand one another.’ ‘ Biden sat back, and said, ‘This is who this guy is!’” Biden isn't a fan of the more rebellious additions to the Senate. He told Osnos, "I’ll never forget the first time I heard someone on the floor of the Senate refer to the President as Bubba." The profile also notes that "Biden’s friendships were so varied that he was the only senator who was asked to speak at funerals for both Strom Thurmond, the former segregationist, and Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat, who called Biden 'the only Catholic Jew.' " *There are lots of wonderful descriptions of Biden's inherent Biden-ness.* *To wit:* "When he was thirty years old, he became one of the youngest senators in history, and he has parted with youth begrudgingly. His smile has been rejuvenated to such a gleam that it inspired a popular tweet during the last campaign: 'Biden’s teeth are so white they’re voting for Romney.' At seventy-one, with his hairline reforested and his forehead looking becalmed, Biden projects the glow of a grandfather just back from the gym, which is often the case." "Biden likes to be candid in such settings. In 1979, on one of his first trips to the Soviet Union, he listened to an argument from his Soviet counterpart, and replied, 'Where I come from, we have a saying: You can’t [sh** a sh**ter.]' Bill Bradley, then a fellow-senator on the delegation, later asked the American interpreter how he had translated Biden’s comment into Russian. 'Not literally,' the interpreter said." "The full package — the Ray-Ban aviators, the shameless schmalz, the echoes of the Fonz — has never endeared him to the establishment, but it lends him an air of authenticity that is rare in his profession. It has also produced a whiff of cult appeal, such that his image now has more in common with Betty White than with John Boehner." "Biden rule No. 1: No funny hats." "Biden held on to his locker at the Senate gym, where he liked to kibbitz." "Biden is such a close talker that he occasionally bumps his forehead into you mid-chat, a gesture so minor that it’s notable only when you try to picture Barack Obama doing the same thing." *Daily Caller: “Republicans Launch New Hillary Attack: PoorHillaryClinton.com” <http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/21/republicans-launch-new-hillary-attack-poorhillaryclinton-com/>* By Sarah Hurtubise July 21, 2014, 12:12 p.m. EDT The Republican National Committee launched PoorHillaryClinton.com Monday to attack the Democrat for claiming that she and Bill struggled financially after leaving the White House. The website features claims by the Clintons downplaying their wealth and reports on their current earnings, which make Hillary one of the richest individuals in the country. Clinton claimed recently that she and Bill are not “truly well off,” and were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2000. Clinton has already earned $12 million in speaking fees since leaving the State Department just 16 months ago, according to a Bloomberg analysis out Monday; President Bill Clinton has amassed a fortune of almost $106 million in speaking fees alone since leaving the White House over a decade ago. “Is this really what ‘dead broke’ looks like? Seems like the Clintons should be just fine with their two multi-million dollar houses,” the website says. “No need to add the ‘White House’ to the list.” The site launched Monday with a sampling of links to stories that undercut Clinton’s attempts to connect with Americans that are struggling financially. Hillary has pulled in hefty speaking fees at public universities. Clinton most notably charged the University of Buffalo $275,000 to be featured in a Distinguished Speaker Series. She has said that she donates speaking fees at public universities to the family’s charity — The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. As a leading contender for the 2016 presidential race, Clinton’s already received significant pushback for her Wall Street-friendly policies and long history in Washington. Rival Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren has already attracted an intense following — largely because she can be taken more seriously on income inequality issues. “In the span of just a few weeks, Hillary Clinton made enough out-of-touch comments about her wealth to fill an entire website. So the RNC created one,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. “Here’s the truth Hillary doesn’t understand: you’re not ‘dead broke’ when you can make five times the median household income with a single speech.”