podesta_email_01879.txt

podesta-emails 7,148 words email

P22 P17 D6 V11 V12

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *[image: Inline image 1]* *Correct The Record Wednesday August 13, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Pres. Bill Clinton* @billclinton: Grateful for the life of Robin Williams, a true talent and a wonderful friend. He will be missed by so many. [8/12/14, 6:34 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/billclinton/status/499322972969369603>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: HRC said "best solutions...will come from harnessing energy & creativity of youth" #HRC365 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/HRC365?src=hash> #internationalyouthday <https://twitter.com/hashtag/internationalyouthday?src=hash> http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/08/196362.htm … <http://t.co/GbJm5NKlPt> [8/12/14, 6:02 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/499315005352083456>] *Headlines:* *Media Matters for America: “Maureen Dowd Reaches Self-Parody: Links Robin Williams' Death To Hillary Clinton Attack” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/13/maureen-dowd-reaches-self-parody-links-robin-wi/200415>* “Maureen Dowd's long descent into anti-Clinton self-parody hit a new low last night when she managed to transition from discussing the death of Robin Williams to an attack on Hillary Clinton.” *Wonkette: “Cool Robin Williams Story, Maureen Dowd” <http://wonkette.com/556979/cool-robin-williams-story-maureen-dowd>* “Maureen Dowd has been eating jazz cookies again. One time she met Robin Williams, which makes her think about her friend Michael Kelly, who later died covering the war in Iraq, and that’s why Hillary Clinton is a monster. Wait, what?” *Huffington Post: “Obama, Clinton Camps Move To Downplay Schism” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/obama-clinton-schism_n_5672970.html?1407881878>* “In the end, advisers said they expect Obama and Clinton to disagree on foreign policy matters. It would be odd if there was no divergence. And more likely than not, Clinton will come off as more aggressive than Obama. But the breaks, they said, shouldn’t be over-emphasized, considering the more copious common ground.” *The Hill: “White House says media won't see Obama, Clinton hug it out” <http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/215043-white-house-says-media-wont-see-obama-clinton-hug-it-out>* “If President Obama and Hillary Clinton hug it out Wednesday night, the news media won't be there to witness it.” *National Journal: Ron Fournier: “Groveling, Backpedaling, and 'Hugging It Out:' The Fear of Being Authentic” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/groveling-back-peddling-and-hugging-it-out-the-fear-of-being-authentic-20140813>* “Throughout her long career as a lawyer, a public wife, and a public servant, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a role model for millions of young people, especially women, entering politics and government. I hope none of them are paying attention now.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Hillary Clinton’s Barack Obama problem” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/13/hillary-clintons-barack-obama-problem/>* “Hillary Clinton made a strategic move to begin to distance herself from President Obama's foreign policy over the weekend. It failed.” *The Daily Beast: “So How Hawkish Is Hillary Clinton?” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/13/so-how-hawkish-is-hillary-clinton.html>* [Subtitle:] “She’s not a neocon. She has a humility they lack. However, she could stand to show a little more humility toward Democratic primary voters.” *The New York Times blog: Taking Note: “Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Know When to Stop” <http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/hillary-clinton-doesnt-know-when-to-stop/>* “When she runs in 2016, she will want to separate herself from Mr. Obama. That’s normal. Doing it now, more than two years ahead of time, is inadvisable.” *Slate blog: David Weigel: “Ben Carson's New Book Just Outsold Hillary Clinton's” <http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/08/13/ben_carson_s_new_book_just_outsold_hillary_clinton_s.html>* “According to Nielsen BookScan, Carson has pushed past Hillary Clinton and become the author of the year's second-best-selling nonfiction book.” *Articles:* *Media Matters for America: “Maureen Dowd Reaches Self-Parody: Links Robin Williams' Death To Hillary Clinton Attack” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/13/maureen-dowd-reaches-self-parody-links-robin-wi/200415>* By Ben Dimiero and Hannah Groch-Begley August 13, 2014 Maureen Dowd's long descent into anti-Clinton self-parody hit a new low last night when she managed to transition from discussing the death of Robin Williams to an attack on Hillary Clinton. In her August 12 column following the news that Williams died in an apparent suicide, Dowd opened by recounting an interview she once conducted with the comedian, before abruptly transitioning into an attack on Hillary Clinton (emphasis added): “As our interview ended, I was telling him about my friend Michael Kelly's idea for a 1-900 number, not one to call Asian beauties or Swedish babes, but where you'd have an amorous chat with a repressed Irish woman. Williams delightedly riffed on the caricature, playing the role of an older Irish woman answering the sex line in a brusque brogue, ordering a horny caller to go to the devil with his impure thoughts and disgusting desire. “I couldn't wait to play the tape for Kelly, who doubled over in laughter. “So when I think of Williams, I think of Kelly. And when I think of Kelly, I think of Hillary, because Michael was the first American reporter to die in the Iraq invasion, and Hillary Clinton was one of the 29 Democratic senators who voted to authorize that baloney war.” Dowd's bizarre segue was immediately greeted with widespread ridicule from both conservatives and liberals. Conservative website Twitchy -- which Media Matters agrees with very seldomly -- asked, "How does that make any sense whatsoever?" The site also highlighted criticism from numerous pundits, including NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, who wondered whether "the New York Times is too embarrassed to edit Maureen Dowd anymore"; Bay Area News Group editor Daniel Jimenez, who called the column "stupefyingly embarrassing" and posited that Dowd was "destroying" the Times' brand; and Forbes contributor Tom Watson, who said the Times should "be ashamed." Fox News contributor Mary Katharine Ham, writing for conservative site Hot Air, called Dowd's transition from Williams to Clinton "the most graceless, tacky, incoherent segue in recent memory." Referencing Dowd's ill-fated experiment with edible marijuana, Washington Examiner senior writer Philip Klein wrote, "From now on, I'm just gonna assume that Maureen Dowd writes all her columns from a Denver hotel room." (Examiner colleague Tim Carney replied, "I literally assumed there was an editing error.") Several critics noted Dowd's tendency to turn any news event into an attack on the Clintons. Wonkette's Rebecca Schoenkopf called the piece "as glowing an example of Maureen Dowd's Hillary vendetta as any we've seen yet," while Mother Jones' Kevin Drum asked, "I wonder if there's anything left in the world that doesn't remind Dowd of Hillary Clinton?" The answer is no. Dowd's bizarre obsession with Hillary Clinton dates back more than two decades, during which she has attacked the former secretary of state and first lady in at least 141 columns. A Media Matters analysis of Dowd's work since 1993 found that the columnist has repeatedly used popular culture references to attack Clinton, managing to link her to everything from the movie The Stepford Wives to a Picasso painting. *Wonkette: “Cool Robin Williams Story, Maureen Dowd” <http://wonkette.com/556979/cool-robin-williams-story-maureen-dowd>* By Rebecca Schoenkopf August 13, 2014, 7:43 a.m. EDT Maureen Dowd has been eating jazz cookies again. One time she met Robin Williams, which makes her think about her friend Michael Kelly, who later died covering the war in Iraq, and that’s why Hillary Clinton is a monster. Wait, what? “As our interview ended, I was telling him about my friend Michael Kelly’s idea for a 1-900 number, not one to call Asian beauties or Swedish babes, but where you’d have an amorous chat with a repressed Irish woman. Williams delightedly riffed on the caricature, playing the role of an older Irish woman answering the sex line in a brusque brogue, ordering a horny caller to go to the devil with his impure thoughts and disgusting desire. “I couldn’t wait to play the tape for Kelly, who doubled over in laughter. “So when I think of Williams, I think of Kelly. And when I think of Kelly, I think of Hillary, because Michael was the first American reporter to die in the Iraq invasion, and Hillary Clinton was one of the 29 Democratic senators who voted to authorize that baloney war.” This is as glowing an example of Maureen Dowd’s Hillary vendetta as any we’ve seen yet. There were 29 Democratic senators (or almost 60 percent of the caucus) who voted to authorize that baloney war, says Maureen Dowd. When she thinks about Michael Kelly (and Robin Williams), does she think about Blanche Lincoln Dianne Feinstein Chris Dodd Joe Lieberman Joe Biden Thomas Carper Bob Nelson Max Cleland Zell Miller Evan Bayh Tom Harkin John Breaux Mary Landrieu John Kerry Jean Carnahan Max Baucus Ben Nelson Harry Reid Bob Torricelli Chuck Schumer John Edwards Byron Dorgan Fritz Hollings Tom Daschle Tim Johnson Maria Cantwell Jay Rockefeller or Herb Kohl? Hint: one of those people is currently vice president of the United States, and is possibly maybe thinking about running for president again too! But when Maureen Dowd remembers her fallen comrade because she met Robin Williams once, she thinks about Hillary Clinton. When doesn’t Maureen Dowd think about Hillary Clinton? Never. She never doesn’t think about Hillary Clinton. Eggs on toast? Hillary Clinton. Caught in the rain? Hillary Clinton. Watching unexplainably popular Disney flicks? Hillary Clinton. Eating Chinese takeout with “Game of Thrones” on in the background? Hillary Clinton. Watching a TMC marathon of The Birds or whatever? Hillary Clinton. Soused at a drunken Irish Thanksgiving? Well, if that doesn’t put every one of us in mind of Hillary Clinton, I don’t know what would. Maureen Maureen Maureen. *Huffington Post: “Obama, Clinton Camps Move To Downplay Schism” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/obama-clinton-schism_n_5672970.html?1407881878>* By Sam Stein August 12, 2014, 6:17 p.m. EDT For months now, political junkies and the national press corps have been salivating over the prospects of Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama once again applying proverbial chokeholds to each other. Conflict seemed inevitable since she -- contemplating a presidential run -- needed distance from him -- wallowing in some of his lowest approval ratings on matters of foreign policy. After a few instances of apparent friction passed without much of a stir, the flames finally erupted over the weekend. Interviews by the president and his former secretary of state put them at odds over (at least) two matters -- one specific, the other expansive. Clinton told The Atlantic Magazine that the failure of the U.S. to arm the moderate rebels in Syria had left a vacuum that Islamic State extremists had filled. Obama, meanwhile, told The New York Times that it was absurd revisionism to think that sending arms would have changed the course of the Syrian revolution. The president, in that interview, defended a foreign policy based on prudence, planning, and caution. Clinton, meanwhile, derided the Obama-themed tag line, “Don’t Do Stupid Shit” as insufficient and uninspiring as an organizing principle. And there you had it: Enough fodder for Republican trolling, liberal hair-pulling, intra-camp sniping, and a provocative, umbrage-heavy tweet from David Axelrod, Obama’s longtime counsel. If you had flashbacks to the heydays of the 2008 campaign, when foreign policy rifts defined the Democratic presidential primary, you could be forgiven. By midday Tuesday, the emerging wisdom was that Clinton had committed the same mistake that cost her that contest. And yet, below the surface, several Democrats insisted the rift may underwhelm. Clinton’s spokesman put a statement Tuesday afternoon, saying she had reached out to the president to assure him that her interview was not “an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his leadership” and to narrow the perceived schism. “Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of as his secretary of state,” said Nick Merrill. “While they've had honest differences on some issues, including aspects of the wicked challenge Syria presents, she has explained those differences in her book and at many points since then. Some are now choosing to hype those differences but they do not eclipse their broad agreement on most issues.” Tellingly, earlier in the day, Merill declined a request for comment, saying there was not much to add to Clinton’s previous remarks. Such reserve usually comes when one thinks a story is on the verge of petering out. Indeed, elsewhere on Tuesday, several other Democrats made the case that the gulf between Clinton and Obama -– at least on the specifics -- wasn’t vast. “We are not talking about big differences in foreign policy,” Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chair and Vermont governor, told The Huffington Post. “I think the Hilary versus Obama stuff is inside the Beltway kerfuffle, irrelevant and typical Washington crap.” The substantive component of Dean’s point was that on the issue of Syria, Obama and Clinton ended up largely in the same place. While Obama clearly moved slower than Clinton wanted, he did end up sending arms to the rebels -- even if he thought it was futile. In June, he asked for $500 million more. Clinton also firmly backed the president's push to launch military strikes in September 2013 -- strikes that were called off when it became clear the president lacked congressional support, and a separate deal to rid the country of chemical weapons emerged. And while Clinton may have expressed regret that the administration moved slowly to put its imprint on Syria’s civil war, she peppered her position with skepticism (“I totally understand the cautions that we had to contend with”) and drew limits to U.S. involvement. “Most Americans think of engagement and go immediately to military engagement,” Clinton said. “That’s why I use the phrase 'smart power.' I did it deliberately because I thought we had to have another way of talking about American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.” As for her criticism of “Don’t Do Stupid Shit,” not all old Obama hands were offended. “I feel like that [phrase] has been misinterpreted. It’s not an organizing principle and it hasn’t been one for Obama,” said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama White House national security spokesman who has advised Clinton during the rollout for her book. “It is a shorthand rebuke to Bush administration.” The problem, in the end, isn’t so much the substance or tone as the history -- namely, Hillary’s. Her support of the Iraq War spooked liberals in 2008 and she hasn’t earned back their trust since. In a phone conversation, Dean -- the first Democrat to run for president on an explicitly anti-war platform -- seemed to urge people to take a second look. He praised Obama’s foreign policy as laid out in his West Point address (“He is not interested in getting in a scrum with a lot of bad guys”) and offered confidence that Clinton would not deviate. “She is very, very smart,” said Dean. “And she is more experienced with respect to foreign policy, really, than probably any American president since, gee, I don’t know ... Wow, you’d have to think how far back. Eisenhower I guess. I guess with the exception of George H.W. Bush.” That may seem like wishful thinking to some. Certainly, there is ample evidence that Clinton’s hawkishness is not an act, meant to prop up the perception of her toughness, but an honest reflection of her worldview. Her insistence that Iran have no uranium enrichment capability, and her unbending, almost defiant, support for Israel in that same Jeffrey Goldberg interview suggest as much. But Clinton’s defenders are certainly aware of the downside of that. Over the weekend, one loyalist told The Huffington Post that what made him nervous, heading into a presumptive 2016 presidential run, was disaffection on the left over matters of foreign policy. Clinton's remarks to The Atlantic likely caused their share of angina. In the end, advisers said they expect Obama and Clinton to disagree on foreign policy matters. It would be odd if there was no divergence. And more likely than not, Clinton will come off as more aggressive than Obama. But the breaks, they said, shouldn’t be over-emphasized, considering the more copious common ground. “Having a different point of view on policy than your secretary is not a rift. It is why you have smart advisers around,” said Vietor. “The notion that she has to be lockstep is ridiculous, as is the notion that he demands fealty. He is not a guy who is easily aggrieved by comments like this.” *The Hill: “White House says media won't see Obama, Clinton hug it out” <http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/215043-white-house-says-media-wont-see-obama-clinton-hug-it-out>* By Justin Sink August 13, 2014, 1:00 p.m. EDT If President Obama and Hillary Clinton hug it out Wednesday night, the news media won't be there to witness it. The press won't be allowed into the birthday party where Clinton and Obama will meet, White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters on Martha's Vineyard. "I appreciate the request, but I do think this is a private social gathering for someone’s birthday, so it’s going to be hard to bring all of you lovely people in," Schultz said. The event will be the first time Clinton and Obama will see each other since the former Secretary of State made several comments critical of the president's foreign policy, including that “don’t do stupid stuff” is not “an organizing principle” worthy of “great nations.” A spokesman for Clinton said the remarks were not intended as an attack on Obama and that the former first lady was looking forward to "hugging it out" at the birthday party of the wife of a prominent Democratic fundraiser. But Schultz swatted down reporters' requests to be present for the highly anticipated gathering. “I believe the president and Secretary Clinton have had many hugs over the years, and many of them have been caught on camera,” Schultz said. The White House spokesman said that Obama “appreciated” that Clinton had already phoned him over the interview, in which she argued Obama’s restrained approach to the civil war in Syria had created a vacuum that enabled the rise of Sunni extremists now targeting minorities in Iraq. Schultz defended the president, saying Obama was concerned that U.S. weapons “could have fallen into the hands” of ISIS if he had begun providing rebels with weapons earlier. He also said that few would agree it was wrong to avoid doing “stupid stuff.” Clinton’s comments had clearly irritated people close to Obama. David Axelrod, Obama’s former campaign adviser, on Tuesday took a veiled shot at Clinton, tweeting that “’don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.” Clinton voted for legislation authorizing military action in Iraq, a decision she said in her new memoir was a mistake. The Obama and Clinton camps have sought to play down the dispute by highlighting the get together on Wednesday. Schultz the administration was "looking onward and upward" after the rift, and described the friendship between Obama and Clinton as "close and resilient." “The president appreciates her counsel and advice, but more importantly, he appreciates her friendship,” Schultz said. Schultz did offer one crumb of news for 2016-watchers, however: President Obama will meet with Vice President Biden — among Clinton's biggest rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination — when he briefly returns to Washington next week. *National Journal: “Groveling, Backpedaling, and 'Hugging It Out:' The Fear of Being Authentic” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/groveling-back-peddling-and-hugging-it-out-the-fear-of-being-authentic-20140813>* By Ron Fournier August 13, 2014 [Subtitle:] Long a role model for young Americans, especially women, Hillary Clinton rewards bad-boy behavior. Throughout her long career as a lawyer, a public wife, and a public servant, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a role model for millions of young people, especially women, entering politics and government. I hope none of them are paying attention now. The statement she issued Tuesday to calm an offended Obama White House was exactly the type of behavior you don't want your daughters modeling—groveling to a thin-skinned boss, eating her own words, and swallowing her pride by "hugging it out." It's silly, really, this entire Obama versus Clinton frame. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and former President Bill Clinton never looked smaller than when they were race- and sex-baiting during the 2008 Democratic nomination fight. They never looked bigger than when they covered the scars and formed a genuine "Team of Rivals" in the Obama White House. Now they're back to the petty. And over what? Hillary Clinton's criticism of Obama was fair and smart—and it might even be right. She rebuked his foreign policy principle of "Don't do stupid shit," arguing that Obama should have armed the Syrian rebels to prevent the creation and growth of an Islamic state. She didn't call him an idiot. She didn't say he was a bad leader. In fact, she praised the president more than she criticized him, and her critique gave Obama an opportunity to better explain his foreign policy principles. Who doesn't want what Obama plans to do about this scary new world order? Instead, he acted like a typical politician. Mr. Hope-and-Change dialed the 20th century and sicced his attack dogs on Clinton. His top consultant, David Axelrod, tied her to President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq, as if none of what's occurred in the Mideast these past six years is Obama's responsibility. I made a mistake at the end of my column Tuesday, "The Audacity to Be Authentic: Hillary Clinton's Risky Hedge Against Obama." For the first 16 paragraphs, I challenged conventional wisdom that Clinton was distancing herself from Obama and that doing so was an obvious political victory. I noted that Clinton's remarks, consistent with her long-held interventionist views, actually ran counter to those of a majority of the public, especially the Democratic base. Why would she be willing to do that? "Call me naïve," I concluded "but maybe Clinton is simply being honest." I was naïve. A few hours after that column posted, Clinton issued this statement through a spokesperson: “Earlier today, the Secretary called President Obama to make sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies or his leadership. Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of as his secretary of State. While they've had honest differences on some issues, including aspects of the wicked challenge Syria presents, she has explained those differences in her book and at many points since then. Some are now choosing to hype those differences but they do not eclipse their broad agreement on most issues. Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out when she they see each other tomorrow night.” There are several problems with her statement. · It's inaccurate. Clinton certainly did criticize some of Obama's policies, most directly with the "stupid stuff" formulation. · It's inconsistent. She denies attacking "him, his policies or his leadership," and two sentences later notes "honest differences." If you can't be honest about "honest differences," what are you going to be honest about? · It's borderline demeaning, like a subordinate trying to get back in the boss's good graces. Clinton is an accomplished person who has challenged glass ceilings. She shouldn't have to come even close to apologizing for her opinions. · Her interview with my Atlantic colleague Jeffrey Goldberg wasn't "hyped," it was covered fairly, and now she's trying to blame the messenger. · It's too cute by half, too Clintonian. She's trying to distinguish her policies from Obama's without upsetting all the president's men. She can't have it all. For young people who might be paying attention to politics, I hope they don't take away the wrong lessons. They're already abandoning government and politics in alarming numbers. Clinton didn't make a mistake challenging a male authority figure. She wasn't wrong to speak her mind. Her aspirations are not dependent on her "hugging it out." The lesson here is to be true to yourself. Stick to your guns. Be authentic. After all, that's really what Americans want in a leader. *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Hillary Clinton’s Barack Obama problem” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/13/hillary-clintons-barack-obama-problem/>* By Chris Cillizza August 13, 2014, 10:49 a.m. EDT Hillary Clinton made a strategic move to begin to distance herself from President Obama's foreign policy over the weekend. It failed. Clinton's team, concerned about the blowback from Obamaworld for her critique of his "don't do stupid stuff" comments, put a statement out Tuesday evening seeking to quiet the tensions. "Earlier today, the Secretary called President Obama to make sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his leadership," said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. That statement, of course, is not, technically, accurate. If Clinton wasn't talking about Obama in saying that "don't do stupid stuff" wasn't an organizing principle for foreign policy then c-a-t spells "dog". This is a clean-up-the-mess statement; the Clinton people know that it stretches credulity but don't really care -- they needed to publicly defuse the tension before the two meet on Martha's Vineyard tonight (more on that below) and this, they believe, is the best way to do so. But, the sturm und drang of the past 72 hours proves two things: 1) The kumbaya story that the Obama and Clinton teams tell about their relationship isn't the whole story and 2) Clinton's attempts to distance herself from some of the less-popular policies of the Obama Administration will be more difficult than her team may have realized. On the first point, there has been much effort over the past six years -- from people in both camps -- to paint the relationship between the erstwhile 2008 rivals as one of professional respect and even personal friendship. But, old wounds rarely heal over so easily and it's clear that, at least for some, the tensions that dominated the race for president six years ago remain. In the wake of Clinton's critique-except-it's-not of Obama's foreign policy, David Axelrod, Obama's closest political adviser sent out this tweet: [TWEET] Now, one tweet does not a rift make. But, there was other pushback -- mostly private and to journalists -- from the Obama camp that suggested Clinton was re-writing history in advance of her 2016 bid. That tension flies in the face of the story Clinton has been working on building for months in the lead-up to her expected 2016 bid: That she was fusing the best of the Obama world and the best of her team into one superteam. Ready for Hillary, the super PAC functioning as Clinton's campaign-in-waiting, has hired Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart, the two men who led the Obama ground game, and Tommy Vietor, a former Obama campaign spokesman turned national security communicator in the White House, helped Clinton with her recent book tour. The reality is -- and always has been -- that the papering-over of the nastiness of the 2008 campaign was somewhat flimsy. By all accounts, the two principals respect one another but, at the staff level, some lingering hard feelings remain. Those hard feelings have begun to crop up as the political paths of Obama and Clinton begin to diverge in earnest -- a process that will continue over the coming weeks and months. That reality -- coupled with the fact, as Republicans are quick to remind reporters, that Clinton was Obama's top diplomat for four years, will make the process of creating some distance between the two on a policy front difficult for the former Secretary of State. What Clinton really wants to spend the next year (or so) doing is laying out her vision for the future of the country -- a vision that, at least from what we have seen of it to date, borrows far more from the policies of her husband's time in office than those of President Obama. That means, at least in part, that she wants to make clear some of the differences between she and the president, particularly in the foreign policy space. The problem that raises for Clinton, however, is that among Democratic base voters -- particularly among African Americans -- Obama remains incredibly popular and any attempt to "get away" from him will be met with resistance. That distancing goes double for Clinton who is always and forever fighting a battle over authenticity -- whether she genuinely has a core set of beliefs or whether she takes positions solely for political positioning. Working in Clinton's favor is the fact that there appears to be no serious challenger to her in a primary, which, theoretically, allows her more leeway in positioning herself as a centrist of sorts. Of course, if Clinton did continue to antagonize the Obama forces and the liberal left, there is the possibility that someone on the sidelines right now -- Elizabeth Warren, anyone? -- could step forward although that remains very unlikely. The back and forth over the last 72 hours -- and the incredibly awkward "hugging it out" that a Clinton spokesman suggested might happen at the party both the president and the former Secretary of State will be at tonight -- should serve as a reminder that the relationship between the Obamans and the Clintonites is like an iceberg: What you see above the water is only a small part of what's really going on under the surface. *The Daily Beast: “So How Hawkish Is Hillary Clinton?” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/13/so-how-hawkish-is-hillary-clinton.html>* By Michael Tomasky August 13, 2014 [Subtitle:] She’s not a neocon. She has a humility they lack. However, she could stand to show a little more humility toward Democratic primary voters. Okay, everybody. Deep breath, back to equilibrium. Yes, Hillary Clinton talked some smack on Barack Obama to Jeff Goldberg in that interview. But beyond those three or four sentences—and when yanked out of their larger context, sentences like that always carry more shock value than they do in context—did she really say very much that set her dramatically apart from Barack Obama? How different, really, would a Clinton foreign policy be? Despite Clinton’s very public efforts to make up with the president, the consensus verdict over these last three hyperventilating days is: dramatically different. Hillary’s a neocon! Robert Kagan, operatic Iraq war enthusiast, admires her. MoveOn, the grassroots liberal group, snarled at her like a tiger—specifically, one freshly on the prowl for a non-Clinton alternative for 2016: “Secretary Clinton…should think long and hard before embracing the same policies advocated by right-wing war hawks that got America into Iraq in the first place and helped set the stage for Iraq’s troubles today.” Having read through the interview a few times now and talked to some folks about it, I’m less convinced that the differences—with two key exceptions—are that dramatic. But those exceptions are big ones, and they make me wonder not only about any future Clinton foreign policy priorities, but about her political judgment today. The main, non-headline-making takeaway from the whole interview is that she wants a bigger American footprint in the world than Obama seems to. Okay, we’ve known that, but she spelled out what that means at some length. And she’s actually pretty nuanced about it. She does not mean, as people to her left reflexively seem to think she means, going bombs away. Money quote: “I think we’ve learned about the limits of our power to spread freedom and democracy. That’s one of the big lessons out of Iraq. But we’ve also learned about the importance of our power, our influence, and our values appropriately deployed and explained. If you’re looking at what we could have done that would have been more effective, would have been more accepted by the Egyptians on the political front, what could we have done that would have been more effective in Libya, where they did their elections really well under incredibly difficult circumstances but they looked around and they had no levers to pull because they had these militias out there. My passion is, let’s do some after-action reviews, let’s learn these lessons, let’s figure out how we’re going to have different and better responses going forward.” What did she just say there? No Iraqs. Good. But more aggressive pushing on Egyptian moderates to form political parties, get in the game, and not leave the competition to just military vs. Muslim Brotherhood (she had spoken at length on this earlier). And more follow-through in Libya. I don’t think those are positions that would have her marching in the shoot-’em-up parade next to John McCain. A bit later, Goldberg gently challenged her that the constituency in America for her middle-ground views between Obama and the neocons might not exist, and she acknowledged that by making a good point in her own defense: “…most Americans think of engagement and go immediately to military engagement. That’s why I use the phrase ‘smart power.’ I did it deliberately because I thought we had to have another way of talking about American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.” Sentiments like these left me, and others, with the feeling that differences with Obama in a lot of cases would not be that great—more presence, more follow-through, more diplomatic pressure, but not war-mongering. Heather Hurlburt, who worked for President Clinton and is now at the New America Foundation, told me: “Clinton and her closest advisers are more rooted in a style of visible, public American leadership developed in the 1990s, before the catastrophes of the 2000s, to which Obama’s personal style is in many ways a reaction. But Clinton’s assessment of the world—that the United States wields great power, has great responsibilities, and best exercises both in close coordination with others—is not fundamentally different.” Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress largely agreed, but he pointed to Clinton’s talk of smart power and her identification of “prosperity” as a central organizing principle as providing something of a contrast. “I don’t see much difference here in substance, but perhaps there is one of emphasis. Clinton talks about this more. Of course, President Obama continues to have this element in his foreign-policy outreach,” Katulis told me. “But Clinton seems to keep this concept closer to the core of her world view, which places less emphasis on limits than Obama does.” There were two issues, though, in addition to the much-discussed Syria example, where Clinton’s comments were alarming. The first was her balls-to-the-wall defense of Benjamin Netanyahu. First of all, as Peter Beinart wrote for Ha’aretz, she left a lot of inconvenient facts out of her narrative. She sounded like she was reading from an AIPAC press release—particularly surprising, said Matthew Duss, the new president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, given the way the Netanyahu government has been trashing Clinton’s own successor, John Kerry. “To completely back Netanyahu both on substance—about having control of security in the West Bank—and to do so after several weeks in which the Netanyahu government has really gone out of its way to embarrass and humiliate your successor…that’s really troubling,” says Duss. The other issue on which Clinton got pretty far out there was on Iran and the current nuclear negotiations. The position she took in the interview—no working centrifuges for Iran, or a very small number of “discrete, constantly inspected” centrifuges—sounds much harder-line than the Clinton of 2010, when she told the BBC that Iran should be “entitled to the peaceful use of civil nuclear energy.” So maybe she’s just being politically crafty here, but that’s not much of a defense. The potential long-term implication is that the Obama administration could negotiate a deal with Iran that would permit civilian centrifuges to operate, and then a President Clinton could come into office and derail the deal—a deal that she, as secretary of state, had helped forge! “Again, it’s troubling to see her weigh in on the side of U.S. hardliners,” says Duss. Those hardliners don’t all feel like Kagan. I emailed with Elliott Abrams about this yesterday, and he thinks that Clinton “has moved all over the place,” from “totally pro-Israel” as a New York senator to not so much as secretary of state, and now apparently back again. “And as Gates’s book reminds us, her views on the Iraq surge were apparently politically motivated rather than sincere,” Abrams continued. “Her track record is hard to decipher, and most of what she billed as major speeches are just laundry lists of problems we face. There’s no sense of priorities or strategy.” I don’t think she’s a neocon hawk. I think she’s what we might call a muscular internationalist. And yes, there are differences. The main one is about American hegemony: It is the neocons’ core belief that America is and must remain the world’s sole superpower and can do whatever it needs to do, unilaterally or otherwise, to maintain that status. Obama is a cautious internationalist, and on the whole I see Clinton as closer to Obama than to McCain. Yes, she agreed with McCain on Syria, but arming the Free Syrian Army is essentially a muscular-internationalist position for which the neocons are having to settle. And unlike McCain, who preens his way around Washington saying that that ISIS’s strength is entirely Obama’s fault, at least Clinton says, “I don’t think we can claim to know” what would’ve happened had the FSA been armed two years ago. That’s a humility the neocons lack. It’s a crucial distinction, and it’s a pretty damn important quality in a president. However, the interview suggests she may lack another kind of humility—toward the Democratic primary voter. Yes, she’s probably invincible. There appears to be (emphasis added) no one out there who is like Obama was in 2008—someone, that is, who could knock her off. And if her hawkishness is the left’s concern, then Elizabeth Warren isn’t the answer, since foreign policy isn’t her portfolio. So it’s hard to picture Clinton not getting the nomination. Still, she should remember that it was in large part her hawkishness—her pro-Iraq war vote—that cost her the nomination in 2008. She should be aware that U.S. public opinion, and certainly Democratic primary-voter opinion, while not exactly pro-Palestinian, is not as enthusiastically pro-Israel as it once was. And she should keep in mind that the foreign-policy establishment of Washington, D.C., whose favor she’s clearly currying in sections of this interview, consists of only a few thousand voters. To the millions who’ll vote in Democratic primaries, she’ll need to be considerably clearer about those differences between her and the neocons. *The New York Times blog: Taking Note: “Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Know When to Stop” <http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/hillary-clinton-doesnt-know-when-to-stop/>* By Andrew Rosenthal August 13, 2014, 12:33 p.m. EDT It’s hard to dispute that Hillary Clinton is the smartest person in most rooms. That’s why The Times editorial board endorsed her in the Democratic primary in 2008 over Barack Obama. She just doesn’t know when to stop. It was her problem when her husband was in the Oval Office. It was her problem in 2008, and it’s her problem now. In her failed run for the Democratic nomination, Mrs. Clinton’s team cynically introduced race into the campaign, repeatedly. Should the country be more excited about a woman president or a black president? Had African Americans really needed a white leader to achieve their civil rights goals? The “red phone” ad was a marvel of inappropriateness. It questioned Mr. Obama’s leadership abilities, tried to terrify people about the crisis that would follow his election. Mrs. Clinton gleefully led the way to making the Pennsylvania primary of 2008 a low point in campaigning. She put Mr. Obama in the same list of disasters as the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and 9/11. She talked about how she would be prepared to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Mrs. Clinton lost and Mr. Obama made her secretary of state – a mixed act of graciousness and smart politics. And Mrs. Clinton did well in that job until she decided to retire in 2013 and begin her run for the presidency in 2016. Pretty soon, her inability to stop when she should stop began to show itself. There was the bizarre interview about gay marriage in which she ended up snapping at the host of Fresh Air, Terry Gross, for daring to ask about her evolving views on same-sex marriages, instead of simply answering the question. The most recent episode, about Mr. Obama’s toughness in foreign affairs and her supposed opposition to his Syria policies while she was Secretary of State, takes Mrs. Clinton’s lack of an internal braking mechanism to new heights. Maureen Dowd did a masterful job this morning of summing it up. I’ll just add a couple of thoughts and questions. First, Mrs. Clinton did debate Mr. Obama on Syria. But in the end, she was part of the decision he made and she can’t wiggle out of that. (Just as she can’t wiggle out of her vote for the invasion of Iraq when she was in the Senate.) And the timing of her criticism was very strange, just before Mr. Obama started dropping bombs in Iraq. Her office said the interview had been long scheduled, but I find it hard to believe that Mrs. Clinton was not briefed on what was coming in Iraq, as a former secretary of state. And she still chose to attack. When she runs in 2016, she will want to separate herself from Mr. Obama. That’s normal. Doing it now, more than two years ahead of time, is inadvisable. *Slate blog: David Weigel: “Ben Carson's New Book Just Outsold Hillary Clinton's” <http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/08/13/ben_carson_s_new_book_just_outsold_hillary_clinton_s.html>* By David Weigel August 13, 2014, 12:37 p.m. EDT It's hard to gauge how seriously to take the political ambitions of Dr. Ben Carson. For starters, it's unclear exactly what his ambitions are. He lives in blue Maryland, where Democrats have comfortably won every Senate race since 1986, and where Democrat Anthony Brown is expected to soon become the state's first black governor. He has formed a PAC, and he's heading to Iowa this month -- I talked to local Carson fans who are trying to get people to his book tour stops in the western and eastern parts of the state. But as a public speaker, he's sort of unfocused, spending lots of time re-litigating the latest liberal calumny against him. And yet. According to Nielsen BookScan, Carson has pushed past Hillary Clinton and become the author of the year's second-best-selling nonfiction book. Carson's One Nation has sold 224,990 copies, a massive success for his publisher, Random House. (The book came out under the conservative Sentinel imprint.) Clinton's Hard Choices has sold 222,822 copies. The two of them have been bested only by Bill O'Reilly, whose Killing Jesus has sold 228,811 copies. They are joined in the blockbuster circle by Michael Lewis (189,726 copies of Flash Boys), Charles Krauthammer (177,121 copies of his column collection) and Thomas Piketty (158,668 copies of Capital). Carson's book is substantially shorter than Clinton's, and retails for $9.05 less, but he gets bragging rights if he decides to jump into politics. Oh, and Elizabeth Warren's A Fighting Chance has sold 71,930 copies. You were the one who asked.