podesta_email_17991.txt

podesta-emails 9,575 words email

P17 P22 D6 V11 V9

-----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 July 16, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Did you catch Secretary Clinton on The Daily Show last night? See the full segment here! [Link To Sec. Clinton's "The Daily Show" Interview"] <http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8wmce1/exclusive---hillary-clinton-extended-interview-pt--1> * *Headlines:* *Politico: “Hillary Clinton talks Gaza, media scrutiny on Daily Show” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-daily-show-gaza-media-scrutiny-108967.html#ixzz37azpsIwq>* “Hillary Clinton joked about an office with ‘fewer corners’ and said she’s surprised at the ‘cottage industry’ of interest in her but got serious talking about the violence in the Mideast on Tuesday in an interview with ‘The Daily Show’ host Jon Stewart.” *Cosmopolitan: “Jill Abramson: ‘I'm Not Ashamed of Getting Fired’” <http://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/interviews/a29085/jill-abramson-not-ashamed-of-getting-fired/>* Former Editor-in-chief of the New York Times Jill Abramson, “Both [Bill and Hillary] have first-class minds, and that is a great building block for a successful presidency. I think he was a successful president, and I think she would be too.” *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Sen. Mark Warner to headline ‘Ready for Hillary’ fundraiser” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/sen-mark-warner-to-headline-ready-for-hillary-fundraiser/>* “To the growing list of Democrats proclaiming themselves ‘Ready for Hillary,’ add Sen. Mark Warner (Va.).” *Politico: “Priorities keeps pledge with $1,845 haul” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/priorities-keeps-pledge-with-1845-haul-108948.html>* “The low intake is part of Priorities USA making good on its pledge not to compete with fundraising efforts in the midterms, after an uproar over whether it would be helpful during a tough fight for Democrats.” *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Jon Stewart to Hillary Clinton: No one cares about your book” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/jon-stewart-to-hillary-clinton-no-one-cares-about-your-book/>* “Hillary Clinton appeared Tuesday on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to promote her book, ‘Hard Choices.’ Stewart briefly discussed the 656-page tome about Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and then asked exactly what everyone is wondering.” *Politico: “Ready for Warren? Backers launch site” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/ready-for-warren-backers-launch-site-108946.html>* “A group encouraging Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president is ramping up, launching a websiteTuesday just ahead of the liberal Netroots Nation conference.” *CNN: “Michele Bachmann's take on Elizabeth Warren: If I were Hillary, I'd be concerned” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/15/michele-bachmanns-take-on-elizabeth-warren-if-i-were-hillary-id-be-concerned/>* “Should Hillary Clinton be concerned about a possible Elizabeth Warren candidacy in 2016? Rep. Michele Bachmann believes so.” *The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Warren could beat Clinton” <http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/212374-warren-could-beat-clinton>* “Elizabeth Warren could beat Hillary Clinton.” *New York Times: The Upshot: “The Risks of Hillary Clinton’s Quasi-Campaign” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/upshot/the-risks-of-hillary-clintons-quasi-campaign.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus>* “Despite looking a lot like a candidate, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t sound much like one at this stage, and that could be costly in the long run.” *Salon: “The right’s new, ridiculous Clinton conspiracy will make your head explode” <http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/the_rights_new_ridiculous_clinton_conspiracy_makes_no_sense/>* “That gets to the logic of the alleged scheme – how, exactly, would emailing entire copies of ‘Clinton, Inc.’ to influential journalists who salivate over Clinton minutiae serve to dull interest in the book? That’s precisely what publishers do to increase interest in books. None of this makes sense." *CNN: “Progressive group announces $1 million raised for candidates” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/16/progressive-group-announces-1-million-raised-for-candidates/>* “The Progressive Change Campaign Committee said Wednesday that it raised over $1 million this campaign cycle. The report comes a day before the kickoff of Netroots Nation, the largest annual gathering of progressives in the country.” *New York Times opinion: Thomas B. Edsall: “The Coming Democratic Schism” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/thomas-edsall-a-shift-in-young-democrats-values.html>* "When asked by Reason if they would consider voting for Clinton, 53 percent of those surveyed said yes, and 27 percent said no. Both Joe Biden, the vice president, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, received more yesses than nos." *Articles:* *Politico: “Hillary Clinton talks Gaza, media scrutiny on Daily Show” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hillary-clinton-daily-show-gaza-media-scrutiny-108967.html#ixzz37azpsIwq>* By Maggie Haberman July 15, 2014, 10:45 p.m. EDT Hillary Clinton joked about an office with “fewer corners” and said she’s surprised at the “cottage industry” of interest in her but got serious talking about the violence in the Mideast on Tuesday in an interview with “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart. In her first comments on the broken Gaza cease-fire, the former secretary of state expressed sympathy for people in Gaza who are “trapped by their leadership” but also said Israel has a right to defend itself. “When I negotiated the cease-fire in November of 2012, it was right on the brink with Israel once again invading Gaza because of the rockets … and the Israelis are absolutely right in saying that they can’t just sit there and let rockets rain down,” Clinton told the Comedy Central host. “They have a missile defense which is working well, but that can’t be certain, and now there are drones, apparently, that are being launched from Gaza.” Clinton said the Hamas leadership is now viewed as a threat by the Egyptian government, saying that Hamas isn’t interested in making “the situation too much better because that gives them a lot of leverage over the poor people in Gaza.” “Unless we can give people enough of a sense of security on both sides that they will be better off and their children are going to be better off,” Clinton added, “then the guys with the guns can always disrupt anything.” For Clinton, it was a chance to show a lighter side that her friends and aides insist is on display in private but is not frequently seen in public. At one point, Stewart asked her about her “dead broke” comments, pertaining to how she and her husband were in debt coming out of the White House. Clinton repeated her recent cleanup, calling the comments “inartful” and saying she wants to make sure everyone has opportunities to succeed in the United States. Stewart interrupted her and said he knew she was running for president because of how quickly she pivoted from the “dead broke” line “to income inequality.” Clinton said a “combination” of factors is contributing to the Washington toxicity, including a “Congress that’s no longer functioning” but that’s “very focused on taking on special interests.” But she said there’s a ton of lethargy in the bureaucracy of the executive branch. There is a “very difficult situation in our executive branch because — I think if President Obama were here, he would be the first to say — it has not kept up with the times,” she said. Clinton also was asked bluntly by Stewart about running for president at the beginning of the roughly 20-minute interview, which was aimed at promoting her book, “Hard Choices,” which she is pushing to keep toward the top of the bestseller list. Stewart encouraged her to announce her candidacy on his show, referring to her book and saying, “I think I speak for everybody when I say nobody cares; they just want to know if you are running for president.” The crowd howled. Clinton said he had been a “spoiler,” adding, “I think I’ll just reconsider where I go do it.” Clinton did little of the “if-I-run” pushback she’s engaged in during most recent interviews while sitting with Stewart, joking along with him about her next job. When Stewart referenced two new unauthorized books about her and her family and pointed out that a lot of the interest in her would just go away if she said she was not running, she said, “I think a lot of people would lose their jobs if it stopped.” “I’ve been amazed at what a cottage industry it has become,” said Clinton, who has been the focus of intense media interest since her days as first lady in the White House. When Stewart pretended to give her a quiz to help her find her next job, she said she would like an office with “fewer corners.” *Cosmopolitan: “Jill Abramson: ‘I'm Not Ashamed of Getting Fired’” <http://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/interviews/a29085/jill-abramson-not-ashamed-of-getting-fired/>* By Laura Brounstein and Leslie Yazel July 15, 2014 [Subtitle:] When Jill Abramson was appointed the first female executive editor of The New York Times, it was a big deal. When she was fired only two and a half years into the gig for her "brusque management style," it was an even bigger deal, making headlines across the globe. In her first magazine interview since, she talks about how to get ahead ... and fight your way back. Boxing Gloves I knew I was being fired beforehand, but it went public on a Wednesday. My kids were upset, and the loudness of the coverage was surprising. So I arrive at my trainer in Manhattan, where I always went early on Thursdays. He had these boxing gloves, and he said, "You need this." I said, "Take a picture of me." I wanted to send it to my kids to see I wasn't at home crying and sitting in a corner. Within a nanosecond, my daughter, Cornelia, had put it on Instagram, and it went viral. The next morning, it was on the cover of the New York Post. I did the boxing once more after that. It feels fantastic. Men vs. Women What [New York Times publisher] Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has said publicly is that he had problems with my management style. The whole issue of how women's management styles are viewed is an incredibly interesting subject. In some ways, the reaction was much bigger when Politico ran this hatchet job on me [the profile by Dylan Byers called her "stubborn," "condescending," and "uncaring"]. If there is a silver lining, it was the giant reaction from other women journalists. These women editors at the Chicago Tribune, who I have never met, sent me flowers after that article. No Shame Is it hard to say I was fired? No. I've said it about 20 times, and it's not. I was in fact insistent that that be publicly clear because I was not ashamed of that. And I don't think young women — it's hard, I know — they should not feel stigmatized if they are fired. Especially in this economy people are fired right and left for arbitrary reasons, and there are sometimes forces beyond your control. Tears I did cry after reading [that] article about me in Politico. I don't regret admitting I did. The reason I wanted to do this interview is that I think it is important to try to speak very candidly to young women. The most important advice I would still give — and it may seem crazy because I did lose this job I really loved — you have to be an authentic person. I did cry. That is my authentic first reaction. I don't regret sharing that. Rejection The times I didn't get jobs I wanted, I remember feeling dispirited, really crestfallen. I didn't get a job as [then Secretary of State] Cyrus Vance's speech writer in 1977 or 1978. But be careful what you wish for. It can be best to get passed over for a job as there may be a better job out there. After that, I was hired into the election unit of NBC News. Networking Tip A lot of younger staffers just asked me to coffee. There's a way to do networking that isn't overly brown-nosing. I was fine if someone just said, "I want to have coffee and talk about my career." The Next President? I met Hillary Clinton the first time in 1978. I was writing for a political consulting firm, and Bill was running for governor and was one of the firm's clients. I went to Little Rock for two weeks to gather material. I was impressed that Bill Clinton had this very smart lawyer wife and this very brash woman as his top political lieutenant, Betsey Wright. Later, I went to work at American Lawyer, and I relied on Hillary as a source. Any time I was calling her for her own expertise, she was fantastic, friendly, and helpful. But as First Lady and as a candidate's wife, she was sometimes angry at me and at some of the stories I wrote. Both [Bill and Hillary] have first-class minds, and that is a great building block for a successful presidency. I think he was a successful president, and I think she would be too. For Journos I taught at Yale for five years when I was managing editor and what I tried to stress for students interested in journalism, rather than picking a specialty, like blogging or being a videographer, was to master the basics of really good storytelling, have curiosity and a sense of how a topic is different than a story, and actually go out and witness and report. If you hone those skills, you will be in demand, as those talents are prized. There is too much journalism right now that is just based on people scraping the Internet and riffing off something else. Pay Days My advice on getting a raise is what everybody's advice is: to become a confident negotiator, but that is so hard. My admiration for women who are good at that is unbridled. Women in general have a harder time talking about money with their bosses. It's part of that syndrome, like you're so lucky just to have the job. Sheryl Sandberg has written very brilliantly about this in Lean In and in her TED talk. Men never chalk up their success to luck but women often do. In my experience, men more often than women brought up money and talked about it and pressed for what they wanted in terms of salary before they agreed to be promoted. Point of Pride When I was managing editor, for the first time the masthead [the list of top editors at the Times] was half women, but it was because they were great and they deserved it. I am totally proud of that. A couple of times I had to explain that to men. I think there was some surprise at the speed at which some women got promoted. Cheer Squad It helps that my husband and I have been together since sophomore year at Harvard. Having him in my corner and my kids and my sister helps. My sister called me up after I got fired to say our father would be as proud of me that morning as when I got the job. That's sort of how you dust yourself off. Her Posse This is going to sound incredibly out of it, but I didn't in real time read what was written about me and losing my job. It was a survival mechanism. A lot of my friends [like Maureen Dowd, Michiko Kakutani, Jane Mayer, Ellen Pollock] were like my medieval food tasters. They read, and if I really needed to know something, they would tell me. One thing I love is TheLi.st, an e-mail group of women in their 20s and 30s. I was a very big thread. TheLi.sters called me a badass, which is a cool thing in their view. And I'm like, "I am!" But, you know, it's a little dangerous to be a badass. Tough Calls Sometimes the CIA or the director of national intelligence or the NSA or the White House will call about a story. You hit the brakes, you hear the arguments, and it's always a balancing act: the importance of the information to the public versus the claim of harming national security. Over time, the government too reflexively said to the Times, "you're going to have blood on your hands if you publish X," and because of the frequency of that, the government lost a little credibility. But you do listen and seriously worry. Editors are Americans too. We don't want to help terrorists. Teaching Moments I'm teaching at Harvard this fall, and the thing is, my daughter is in Boston so that will be lots of fun. I'll get to hang out with her and her husband and the new puppy I gave them, Magic, a golden retriever. Labels I don't mind the word fired. I do not like the word former. It just sounds icky. Leisure Time I now have time literally to read the whole New York Times print paper every day. It's great; I love it. I love the institution still. I love Girls although I didn't love the last season. Marnie has completely fallen apart as a character, although Allison Williams is a good actress. Proudest Moment The Times did such a public service by publishing David Barboza's stories on the corruption of the Chinese leadership. The New York Times website was shut down by the Chinese government. The Times had just started a Chinese language website. They had capitalized on this great market hungry for news. There were immediate consequences. Beyond Work It can be a danger to define yourself by your job. I miss my colleagues and the substance of my work, but I don't miss saying, "Jill Abramson, executive editor." I don't. I was once told a former executive editor of the Times, who knew he was going to stop being editor, made sure to make reservations at a particular restaurant because he was afraid after that they wouldn't give him a table anymore. That's not high on my priority list! Sexism at Work Of course I experienced sexism early on. I remember being in story sessions, and so many times, I would have an idea and I would talk about it. Then the convener of the meeting would say, "And as Jerry was just saying ..." and they would remember the idea as coming from a male colleague. I didn't pipe up in real time. I did grouse about it with other women in the office, which in some ways is safer and more cowardly but is very comforting and kind of gratifying. Salad Days Since getting fired, I've watched every Yankees game, and I've gone to a couple of day games that I would never have been able to. I've reread a couple of novels that I read in school. To Kill a Mockingbird and All the King's Men. My dog, Scout, she is relaxing company. I went to Greece with my sister, and in Athens, we went to museums then just sat on the beach in Mykonos for a week and talked and read and laughed. I didn't have to worry about calling in to the news desk. What's Next I still love to write and report, and I'm doing some writing. I just handed in a piece this morning. A lot of news organizations have approached me. I know I don't really want to run something again right now. *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Sen. Mark Warner to headline ‘Ready for Hillary’ fundraiser” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/sen-mark-warner-to-headline-ready-for-hillary-fundraiser/>* By Philip Rucker July 16, 2014, 12:21 a.m. EDT To the growing list of Democrats proclaiming themselves "Ready for Hillary," add Sen. Mark Warner (Va.). Warner, a former governor and businessman who has long entertained his own run for national office, is headlining a fundraiser for Ready for Hillary, the grassroots super PAC laying the groundwork for Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential 2016 presidential campaign. Warner is slated to appear as a "special guest" at a fundraiser Aug. 5 in Richmond alongside a number of close associates and other prominent Virginia Democrats, according to an invitation posted on Ready for Hillary's Web site. Warner's move comes after fellow Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) signed up to help Ready for Hillary during a May visit to South Carolina, where he called Clinton "the right person for the job." A number of other senators have made similar declarations, including two top Democrats, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois. Ready for Hillary announced this week it had raised more than $2.5 million from more than 43,000 contributors between April and June, bringing its total to $8 million since its founding last year. The group is working to build a list of Clinton supporters and convince the former secretary of state that, if she runs for president again, she would have an enthusiastic base of backers. Ready for Hillary has relied heavily on small-dollar donations. The ticket price for the Richmond fundraiser featuring Warner is a symbolic $20.16, while event hosts are being asked to contribute $201.60. The Richmond event's co-chairs are: Tyler Bishop, who served in Warner's administration and has advised current Gov. Terry McAuliffe; Mark T. Bowles, a Virginia fundraiser and consultant; Keyanna Conner, a party activist and Warner campaign aide; Larry Framme, a former Virginia Democratic Party chairman; Eva Hardy, a former Dominion Power executive and Warner's campaign chairwoman; and Susan Swecker, a Virginia political consultant. *Politico: “Priorities keeps pledge with $1,845 haul” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/priorities-keeps-pledge-with-1845-haul-108948.html>* By Maggie Haberman July 15, 2014, 5:48 p.m. EDT The high-dollar super PAC that’s planning to back Hillary Clinton for president raised in the high four figures for the second quarter of 2014, bringing in just $1,845. The low intake is part of Priorities USA making good on its pledge not to compete with fundraising efforts in the midterms, after an uproar over whether it would be helpful during a tough fight for Democrats. “Priorities USA Action continues to focus our efforts on supporting Democrats in 2014,” said Peter Kauffmann, a spokesman for the group. Priorities now has $1.48 million in cash on hand and has given out just over $1 million in disbursements, officials said. It transferred $250,000 apiece to the House Majority PAC and Senate Majority PAC this past quarter, as well as $100,000 to the Missouri Voting Fund. *Washington Post blog: Post Politics: “Jon Stewart to Hillary Clinton: No one cares about your book” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/16/jon-stewart-to-hillary-clinton-no-one-cares-about-your-book/>* By Katie Zezima July 16, 2014, 12:48 a.m. EDT Hillary Clinton appeared Tuesday on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to promote her book, "Hard Choices." Stewart briefly discussed the 656-page tome about Clinton's tenure as secretary of state and then asked exactly what everyone is wondering. "No one cares," about the book, he said. "They just want to know if you're running for president." Stewart, like so many, tried to get the answer -- even telling Clinton that it sounded like she had just declared that she was running. Like so many others Stewart couldn't confirm anything, but he gets points for asking the most creative questions. "I was going to make an announcement, but you spoiled it for me," Clinton joked. "That's a yes?" he asked. Instead Stewart gave Clinton a mock high school career aptitude test to gauge whether she would be a good fit for the Oval Office. Stewart asked if Clinton would rather commute to work or have a home office. "I've spent so many years commuting, I'd kind of prefer a home office," Clinton said. "Do you have a favorite shape for that office?" Stewart asked. "Would you like it to have corners or like it not to have corners?" The fewer corners the better, Clinton replied. The world is complicated enough, she said. Pointing to two unauthorized biographies of Clinton and her family and the hullabaloo around her book, Stewart asked Clinton if she thought the circus surrounding her would stop if she simply declared that she does not plan to run for president. "I think a lot of people would lose their jobs if it all stopped," she said. "I've been amazed at what a cottage industry it is." Clinton said she believes that America essentially needs a new marketing campaign. "We have not been telling our story very well," she said. "And let's get back to telling it to ourselves first and foremost." Clinton said the U.S. has not done this well since the Cold War (what about Bill Clinton's presidency?) when lines were drawn between the Soviet Union and the United States and American ideas permeated the globe, like when Vaclav Havel said he was inspired by Lou Reed. The first step is getting America to agree on what the country stands for. ""I think we need to get back to a consensus in our own country of who we are," she said. While the show was edited, it was done so in such a way that Clinton pivoted right to income inequality -- prompting Stewart to remark that it was a clear sign that she plans to run for president. Clinton backed away from the comments she made a few weeks ago about how she and Bill Clinton were "dead broke" after leaving the White House. Instead she focused on how lucky the two of them were to start their careers at a time when they thought they could make it simply by working hard, climbing the ladder and being fortunate enough to take advantages of opportunities given to them. "I think a lot of people don't believe that it exists for them any more," she said. Clinton said the Congress is "no longer functioning effectively" and that the executive branch "hasn't kept up with the times." It is not nearly as technologically driven as it should be, she said, and doesn't have the type of "agility" and "technology" it needs to function today. Technology has changed the way governments operate and communicate with one another -- people are now "empowered by the bottom up," she said. According to Politico, Clinton addresses Hamas's rejection of a cease-fire in the full interview, which has yet to be posted online. Clinton expressed concern for people in Gaza, but asserted Israel's right to defend itself. Clinton negotiated a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel in 2012. *Politico: “Ready for Warren? Backers launch site” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/ready-for-warren-backers-launch-site-108946.html>* By Katie Glueck July 15, 2014, 5:16 p.m. EDT A group encouraging Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president is ramping up, launching a websiteTuesday just ahead of the liberal Netroots Nation conference. Ready for Warren’s site, ready4warren.com, went live after several months of the group pushing its cause on Twitter and Facebook, confirmed Erica Sagrans, one of its leaders. Some progressives have long hoped that Warren, with her populist, anti-Wall Street credentials, might jump into the 2016 race, something the Massachusetts senator has said she’s ruled out. “We aren’t wealthy or well-connected,” reads a post on the site. “We don’t have any lobbyists. What we are is a movement of individuals working together who believe that folks like us should have a greater say in the direction of our country. We Are Ready for Elizabeth Warren to run for President in 2016. Warren is the backbone that the Democratic Party too often forgets it needs.” The Ready for Warren site includes a petition urging Warren to run, and, according to reports, there are plans to generate momentum for the organization at the Netroots gathering this week in Detroit. Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose said in an email to POLITICO that the senator “does not support this effort.” The Ready for Warren label is similar to Ready for Hillary, the organization urging Hillary Clinton to run for president. It reported raising $2.5 million in the second quarter earlier on Tuesday. A spokesman for Ready for Hillary declined to comment on the new group. *CNN: “Michele Bachmann's take on Elizabeth Warren: If I were Hillary, I'd be concerned” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/15/michele-bachmanns-take-on-elizabeth-warren-if-i-were-hillary-id-be-concerned/>* By Elizabeth Hartfield July 15, 2014, 7:30 p.m. EDT Should Hillary Clinton be concerned about a possible Elizabeth Warren candidacy in 2016? Rep. Michele Bachmann believes so. The Minnesota Republican, who ran for president in 2012, was responding to a question posed Tuesday by CNN’s Van Jones on “Crossfire” on whether Warren might be somebody who could pull away Republican votes in a presidential election. “I don’t see her as necessarily taking Republican votes,” Bachmann said. “But I think she will be an extremely attractive candidate for Democratic voters in 2016… If I was Mrs. Clinton, I would be extremely concerned with what I see.” On Tuesday, Ready for Warren, a super PAC formed to rally support for a Warren candidacy in 2016, launched its website as it continues in its efforts to draft the Massachusetts senator to a White House bid. Warren has repeatedly denied any interest in running for president, insisting she plans to serve out the rest of her term in the Senate, which expires in 2018. If Warren does run however, Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, a longtime supporter of Hillary Clinton, offered up his support to his friend. “If she had Charlie Rangel in her corner and she was concerned about Sen. Warren, I would tell her darling, they haven’t got anyone to run against either one of you two,” Rangel said. “And that should give her small comfort.” *The Hill opinion: Dick Morris: “Warren could beat Clinton” <http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/212374-warren-could-beat-clinton>* By Dick Morris July 15, 2014, 7:43 p.m. EDT Elizabeth Warren could beat Hillary Clinton. The contrast between the two woman couldn’t be sharper. Clinton is the ultimate political insider, taking $20 million from Wall Street including $5 million from Goldman Sachs. In two recent speeches to Goldman Sachs — at $200,000 a pop — she spoke about why the big banks shouldn’t be blamed for the financial crisis. “We’re all in this together,” Clinton reportedly told them. Her political campaigns have been financed by Wall Street. Her family foundation is underwritten by banks, corporations and foreign governments Even as secretary of State, Clinton aggressively lobbied for major U.S. corporations like Boeing to get lucrative foreign contracts. In Boeing’s case, it returned the favor by making a $900,000 contribution to her favorite charity: the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Enter Elizabeth Warren, a new face in the Senate whose reputation was made by fighting the very same big banks that finance Clinton. Warren pushed for reforms in bankruptcy, subprime mortgages and student loans. In her recent book, A Fighting Chance, Warren criticizes the “too big to fail policy” as one that “allows the megabanks to operate like drunks on a wild weekend in Vegas.” She attacks Wall Street for rigging our economic system to favor the top 1 percent. She has become the darling of the left. Like Clinton, Warren is touring America to promote her book and to campaign for progressive Democrats. Her populist economic message is attracting overflow crowds who cheer her anti-Wall Street rhetoric: “Citibank and Goldman Sachs and all those other guys on Wall Street, they’ve got plenty of folks in the U.S. Senate willing to work on their side,” she said. “We need someone one on our side willing to work for America’s families.” Warren, who insists that she has “no present plans” to run, certainly hasn’t issued a Shermanesque denial. If she runs, she might just win. The overwhelming reason that voters support Clinton is that she would be the first woman president. But so would Warren. And Warren has an issue: the crony capitalism of the Clintons. Until Hillary Clinton’s recent gaffes — and lies — about her family’s finances, few were interested. But that’s changed. Everyone’s interested now. Even in her 2003 book The Two-Income Trap, Warren criticized Clinton’s flip-flop on bankruptcy legislation that was detrimental to working women. Warren persuaded Clinton to convince her husband to veto it. But once a senator, Clinton reversed her position and voted for a virtually identical bill. Warren has consistently railed against crony capitalism and could credibly attack the Clintons and paint them with their own speaking fees and donations. Add in rumors that President Obama wants Warren to run and has promised financial and organizational support and Warren’s chances jump up a lot further. The left of the Democratic Party is not interested in Clinton’s centrist, hawkish, corporatist positions. Meanwhile, Clinton is repeating the mistake she made in 2008: targeting general election voters and ignoring the primary electorate. Back then, she supported the Iraq War until well into 2007 and voted for the Patriot Act, alienating her base. Now, fearful of Obama’s drag on a 2016 ticket, she is distancing herself from the president, obliquely criticizing him as a man who paints “a beautiful vision” but cannot follow through. This won’t play well with the base. The only real argument Clinton would have against Warren is inevitability: that she will win. That kind of argument holds supporters for a while, but as more and more turn to Warren, drawn by her ideology and her challenge to Wall Street power, the odds become shorter and her chances better. Then, a self-fulfilling prophesy can set in, fueling her candidacy with each gain in poll numbers. And then, Democrats will remember how Clinton blew the nomination — once assumed to be safely hers’ — in 2007and 2008. The less she looks like a winner, the more they will turn to Warren. It could happen. *New York Times: The Upshot: “The Risks of Hillary Clinton’s Quasi-Campaign” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/upshot/the-risks-of-hillary-clintons-quasi-campaign.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus>* By Lynn Vavreck July 15, 2014 Hillary Clinton is not running for president — at least not by her own admission. But it’s been a month since the start of her “Hard Choices” book tour, and nearly all the elements of a presidential campaign have emerged. There are boisterous crowds, speeches, interviews, an appearance tonight on “The Daily Show,” lists with names and email addresses, attacks from the opposition, and gaffes. The only thing the tour is missing is the central element of a campaign: a raison d'être, a vision. It’s missing this, of course, because to Mrs. Clinton, it is not a campaign. But no matter how many times Mrs. Clinton says she isn’t sure if she’s running in 2016, the rest of the world is sure she’s a candidate, and they are treating her like one. That divergence makes this book tour risky for Mrs. Clinton, if she does run for president. The ritual of introducing a national candidacy through a book goes back at least as far as John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” and includes recent titles like Barack Obama’s “Audacity of Hope,” John McCain’s “Faith of my Fathers” and Mitt Romney’s “No Apology.” In each of these cases, the reader comes away with a sense of what made the author extraordinary, and the same is true of “Hard Choices,” with one exception. Most Americans first met Mrs. Clinton 22 years ago, and hardly anyone needs a primer on how she got to this moment. According to survey data from Gallup, fewer than 5 percent of Americans have no opinion — favorable or unfavorable — of Mrs. Clinton. By way of comparison, two years before Mr. Romney’s first presidential bid, in December 2006, 69 percent of Americans had no opinion of him. In the same survey, Gallup asked people about Mr. Obama, and 47 percent of Americans couldn’t rate him. He would not reach Mrs. Clinton’s current level of familiarity until a couple of weeks before the Iowa caucuses in 2008. There are other attractive reasons beyond introducing the candidate’s biography to write a book before a presidential campaign. A nationwide tour can build an up-to-date, geographically diverse network of supporters who are ready to knock on doors and make phone calls when the time comes. It gives people the chance to identify with the author and become part of the team. Similarly, selling books means that the data on people who buy them can be leveraged to target readers with direct appeals or to recruit more volunteers. And of course there’s the money, which is typically a benefit but in Mrs. Clinton’s case has turned into a liability. Why do people care that the Clintons are now “well-off” and that Mrs. Clinton has become a celebrity who earns celebrity-type paychecks for her appearances? The answer centers on one of the biggest costs of a national book tour for someone who is as viable a presidential candidate as Mrs. Clinton is. People are not evaluating her for the party nomination; they are sizing her up as a president. They evaluate Mrs. Clinton on what they think life would be like under her presidency, but she’s actually giving them very little domestic policy information to go on. In the absence of policy statements to guide the thought experiment about life under President Hillary Clinton, voters gravitate toward personal traits and characteristics — like how much money she and Bill Clinton have earned since leaving the White House. In Sam Popkin’s book on voter decision-making in low-information environments, he describes the process like this: When policy information is scarce about what life would be like if this or that candidate wins, voters extrapolate from observed personal data to unobserved personal data, and from that to future presidential policies and performance. They judge, for example, whether candidates will have an honest administration from perceptions of personal honesty. It’s just like figuring out if you want to go on a date with someone you’ve just met. You quickly extrapolate from observed personal traits, like weight, height or clothing, to unobserved personal traits like whether this person would be considerate, strong or relatable. In the political realm, the extrapolation goes one step farther, Mr. Popkin argues — from unobserved personal traits like compassion or loyalty to future job performance in the Oval Office. This is the danger for Mrs. Clinton in running a quasi-campaign instead of a real campaign and holding off on discussing the things she would do as president if she were to run and win. She risks campaigning in a low-information environment of her own making. And that means that instead of debating whether her tax policies would help the middle class, we are left to talk about whether her conception of herself as not “truly well-off” or “dead broke” means she cannot relate to the middle class. Instead of asking what qualities she would favor in nominating justices to the Supreme Court, we instead focus on whether she hid or changed her public position on gay equality over the decades because it was politically expedient. Data from presidential campaign speeches going back to 1952 reveal that 91 percent of the appeals candidates make in their stump speeches between Labor Day and Election Day are centered on policy. On average, 40 percent of appeals in campaign speeches are about domestic policy goals, and 27 percent are about the economy. Only 9 percent of the appeals in candidates’ speeches are about personal traits. Voters are used to hearing candidates talk about what they want to do if elected. It’s what a presidential candidate sounds like. Despite looking a lot like a candidate, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t sound much like one at this stage, and that could be costly in the long run. There are, however, risks and rewards to both strategies. More policy discussions about what she would prioritize as president would surely deflate the strong, nonpartisan and statesmanlike narrative she tried to build as President Obama’s secretary of state. It is not hard to understand why she would like to avoid that. But the absence of discussion of Mrs. Clinton’s broader vision for America — and how she might achieve it — leaves people to fill in the blanks based on personal characteristics. Given the narrative so far, it is also not hard to understand why she would like to avoid that. *Salon: “The right’s new, ridiculous Clinton conspiracy will make your head explode” <http://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/the_rights_new_ridiculous_clinton_conspiracy_makes_no_sense/>* By Simon Maloy July 15, 2014, 2:53 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Conservatives and the media tie the Clintons to an imagined book-leaking scheme. It's too soon to be this stupid As of this moment, we are 847 days out from Election Day 2016. There are no declared 2016 candidates. We haven’t even had a Donald Trump head fake yet. Hell, we’re still 112 days from Election Day 2014, which means there’s a long way to go before you can even start making a plausible case that the 2016 election cycle has begun. And yet, the mere thought of Hillary Clinton as a potential candidate has us acting like it’s late October 2016 and we’re all freak-show obsessed idiots. A bunch of prominent political journalists recently received unsolicited emails from a person identifying himself as Robert Josef Wright. This person had apparently obtained an early copy of “Clinton, Inc.,” the forthcoming book by Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard, and scanned it into PDF form so he could send it to these journalists. “Will you take it seriously or will the liberal press coronate the Clintons by attacking the messenger,” this strange person wrote. No one seems to know how this guy got a copy of the book or how he had the email addresses of so many big-shot journalists, but bored reporters and anonymous sources with wagging tongues quickly helped to fill the information gap with whatever was at hand. The theory that quickly emerged was that Robert Josef Wright was a person pretending to be a conservative and was likely affiliated with the Clintons. That, at least, was the speculation passed on by Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast, who attributed this theory to an anonymous “publishing source.” “‘The working theory of who it might be is somebody who wants to come across as a conservative, but in a way it seems like they’re trying too hard,’ this source said. ‘So it might be somebody who’s not a conservative. They have an excellent, sophisticated media list, including people who are not commonly known, so this is somebody with some Washington-New York media savvy. The most likely suspect would be someone affiliated with the Clintons.’” “That, of course, is pure speculation, unsupported by evidence,” Grove wrote, stating the glaringly obvious. But unsourced allegations unsupported by evidence were reason enough to contact Clinton spokespeople and ask them if they’d set up a fake-conservative sock puppet to illicitly obtain and blast out copies of Halper’s book. Team Clinton, of course, denied this had happened. Regardless, the Clintons had been named by some guy in connection to an alleged scheme that may or may not have happened, which (if you’re familiar with the history between the Clintons and the media) is more than enough to secure a conviction. And even though there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that this scheme even existed, the Washington Free Beacon is now saying it’s “backfired.” “Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast suggests that the ‘strange leak’ threw a wrench in the ‘ambitious and detailed plans for the rollout’ of the book by publisher HarperCollins. “Though many have suggested that the leak is intended to ruin the release, it seems to have had the opposite effect. The book has received wide publicity and praise since it was sent around the media world.” Follow the bouncing ball, if you can: A strange man emails copies of the book to journalists telling them to read and promote it; the Daily Beast quotes an anonymous person wondering if this person was actually pretending to be conservative; from there it’s assumed that this fake-conservative person was somehow trying to squelch interest in the book; that assumption is held as true, and conservatives say his scheme backfired because the book is drawing intense interest (which was exactly what the stated intent of the original emails was). That gets to the logic of the alleged scheme – how, exactly, would emailing entire copies of “Clinton, Inc.” to influential journalists who salivate over Clinton minutiae serve to dull interest in the book? That’s precisely what publishers do to increase interest in books. None of this makes sense. And, of course, hovering over all of it is the assumed involvement of the Clintons, who obviously had a hand in this because Whitewater Travelgate Vince Foster etc. We’re only halfway through July 2014. It’s too early to be this stupid. *CNN: “Progressive group announces $1 million raised for candidates” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/16/progressive-group-announces-1-million-raised-for-candidates/>* By Dana Davidsen and Paul Steinhauser July 16, 2014, 6:00 a.m. EDT As liberals flock to Detroit this week for a major progressive confab, a leading grassroots group announced a big fundraising haul to help Democratic candidates ahead of the midterm elections. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee said Wednesday that it raised over $1 million this campaign cycle. The report comes a day before the kickoff of Netroots Nation, the largest annual gathering of progressives in the country. The group bills itself as the Elizabeth Warren side of the Democratic Party, and will have a significant presence at the four-day liberal gathering surrounding the Massachusetts senator and liberal icon's keynote address. "Elizabeth Warren's economic populist agenda is popular from Maine to Iowa to Oregon and progressives are working to elect Elizabeth Warren's allies in 2014," said Adam Green, the group's co-founder. "This grassroots outpouring shows that the path to winning elections - and keeping the Senate - is to campaign on an economic populist agenda including Wall Street reform, expanding Social Security benefits, and reducing student debt." The PCCC said it raised over $2.7 million for candidates in 2012, but added that their most recent fundraising success indicates a solid and growing progressive infrastructure. Warren has a large cadre of support among progressives urging her to launch a campaign, though she's adamantly said she isn't running for the White House. Still, she's had a frequent presence on the campaign trail, stumping in nearly half a dozen states so far this year for other candidates ahead of the 2014 midterms. But 2016 is all in full-swing as other possible Democratic contenders court the gathering of progressives, who are a key part of the Democratic Party's base. A tough critic of Wall Street and big banks, the first-term senator's staple as a politician has been advocating for consumers against unfair practices in the banking industry. Vice President Joe Biden, also a possible 2016 contender, will address the liberal gathering. The presumed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, will not attend the conference but several Clinton supporting groups will be there. *New York Times opinion: Thomas B. Edsall: “The Coming Democratic Schism” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/thomas-edsall-a-shift-in-young-democrats-values.html>* By Thomas B. Edsall July 15, 2014 There is a striking generational split in the Democratic electorate. This deepening division is apparent in a June Pew Research Center survey of more than 10,000 people, “Beyond Red vs. Blue.” The Pew survey points up the emergence of a cohort of younger voters who are loyal to the Democratic Party, but much less focused on economic redistribution than on issues of personal and sexual autonomy. Back in April, Pew researchers wrote that “huge generation gaps have opened up in our political and social values, our economic well-being, our family structure, our racial and ethnic identity, our gender norms, our religious affiliation, and our technology use.” These trends, Pew noted, point “toward a future marked by the most striking social, racial, and economic shifts the country has seen in a century.” I asked Andrew Kohut, the founding director of the Pew Center, what he made of these results. He emailed me his thoughts: “There is a libertarian streak that is apparent among these left-of-center young people. Socially liberal but very wary of government. Why? They came of age in an anti- government era when government doesn’t work. They are very liberal on interpersonal racial dimension, but reject classic liberal notions about ways of achieving social progress for minorities.” One reflection of the confused state of generational politics today is that an earlier Pew poll, which I wrote about during the last presidential election, revealed that younger voters were less hostile to socialism than their elders. Two other studies document the broad trends that the most recent Pew survey identified. A research paper, “Generational Difference in Perception of Tax Equity and Attitudes Towards Compliance,” by three professors of accounting — Susan Jurney, Tim Rupert and Martha Wartick — found that “the Millennial generation was less likely to recommend progressive taxation than” older generations. In addition, a July 10 YouGov poll of young adults (aged 18 to 29), sponsored by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian research organization -- “Millennials: The Politically Unclaimed Generation” — did not directly compare younger and older voters but does shed light on the views of younger voters generally. “Social and cultural issues are currently more central to millennials’ political judgments than economic policy,” the report says. “When asked to explain the reasons for their ideological identifications, social and cultural concerns largely defined their labels.” Returning to the Pew data, even though younger Democrats are less committed to the central tenets of traditional economic liberalism, there is a strong body of evidence suggesting that the partisan commitment these voters made to the Democratic Party when they first came of political age will endure. A paper published last month, “The Great Society, Reagan’s Revolution, and Generations of Presidential Voting” by Yair Ghitza, a doctoral candidate at Columbia, and Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia, found that the “political events of a voter’s teenage and early adult years, centered around the age of 18, are enormously important in the formation of these long-term partisan preferences.” My Times colleagues at the Upshot have produced an interactive graphic to demonstrate the lasting power of the partisan loyalties that men and women establish in their late teens and early twenties. Although a majority of younger voters today are reliably Democratic, there are key issues on which they differ notably from their elders within the center-left coalition. The July Pew survey identifies two predominately white core Democratic constituencies: the “solid liberals” of the traditional left, which is 69 percent white, with an average age of 46, who exhibit deep progressive commitments on both economic and social issues; and younger voters, 68 percent white, with an average age of 38, which Pew calls the “next generation left.” The two groups were asked to choose whether “most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard” or whether “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.” A decisive majority of the older “solid liberal” group, 67 percent, responded that hard work is no guarantee of success, while an even larger majority, 77 percent, of the younger “next generation left” believes that you can get ahead if you are willing to work hard. According to Pew, the older group believes, 73-20, that “government should do more to solve problems.” Only 44 percent of the younger group agrees — and of younger respondents, 50 percent believe that “government is trying to do too much.” Eighty-three percent of the older group of Democratic voters believes that “circumstances” are to blame for poverty; only 9 percent blame “a lack of effort.” The younger group of pro-Democratic voters is split, with 47 percent blaming circumstances and 42 percent blaming lack of effort. An overwhelming majority of the older cohort, 83-12, believes that “government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means more debt,” while a majority of the younger Democratic respondents, 56-39, believes “government cannot afford to do much more.” A 56 percent majority of the younger group of Democrats believes that “Wall Street helps the American economy more than it hurts,” with just 36 percent believing that Wall Street hurts the economy. Older Democrats have almost exactly the opposite view. 56 percent believe that Wall Street hurts the economy; 36 percent believe it helps. One area of major divergence between young and old Democrats is race. Asked by Pew to choose between two statements — “Racial discrimination is the main reason why many blacks can’t get ahead” and “Blacks who can’t get ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition” – the older Democratic cohort blamed discrimination, by an 80 to 10 margin. In contrast, only 19 percent of the younger group of Democrats blamed discrimination, with 68 percent saying that blacks “are mostly responsible for their own condition.” Some 91 percent of the older group said the “U.S. needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights,” and just 6 percent said the “U.S. has made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights.” 67 percent of the younger group said the United States has done enough for blacks, and 28 percent said that the country needs to do more to give blacks equal rights. Even though younger voters lean toward the Democratic Party, they clearly do not fit into traditional left-right categories. Looking again at the Reason poll, the survey found that “while millennials see themselves as closer to Republican governor and potential presidential candidate Chris Christie on economic issues, and closer to likely Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on social issues, they say they are voting for Clinton.” When asked by Reason if they would consider voting for Clinton, 53 percent of those surveyed said yes, and 27 percent said no. Both Joe Biden, the vice president, and Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, received more yesses than nos. The Reason survey found, on the other hand, that every one of the prospective Republican presidential candidates pollsters mentioned — Christie, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and Bobby Jindal — received more nos than yesses from millennials, by margins ranging from two nos for every yes to four nos for every yes. The young voters in the Reason survey are more pro-business than anti-business, but not by the overwhelming margins of some Republican constituencies. Just over half, 54 percent, believe corporate profits are about right or too low, while 44 percent say corporate profits are too high. By a margin of 70-35, millennials in the Reason survey chose “competition is primarily good; it stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas” over “competition is primarily harmful; it brings out the worst in people.” By 64-25, millennials picked “profit is generally good because it encourages businesses to provide valued products to attract customers” as opposed to “profit is generally bad because it encourages businesses to take advantage of their customers and employees.” In some other respects, the millennial voters studied by Reason appear to hold orthodox liberal views: they support more spending to help the poor, even if it means higher taxes; government action to guarantee a living wage, enough for everyone to eat and have a place to sleep; and a government guarantee of health insurance. Conversely, majorities of the same voters believe that wealth should be distributed according to achievement as opposed to need, and that “people should be allowed to keep what they produce, even if there are others with greater needs.” Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, believes that the generational differences within the Democratic Party will not damage the party’s prospects in the short-to-medium term. “You may have issue differences within the Democratic Party, but they become irrelevant when confronted by a Republican Party determined to turn elections into cultural conflicts,” Greenberg said in a phone interview. “These differences don’t matter in the context of a Republican party that brings out the commonality of the Democratic Party.” David Leege, an emeritus professor of political science at Notre Dame, wrote in an email to The Times that younger Democrats “are products of a totally different environment and culture than their grandparents.” As a result, he said, “there is a vast difference between the communitarianism of the elders and the individualism of the younger liberals.” In the future, Leege argues, “the combination of unanchored and individualistic electorates and the post-Citizens United political arena can make elections perpetually close.” Money, in Leege’s view, will likely trump the demographic trends favoring Democrats. Leege raises a fundamental question. The Democratic Party could well gain strength politically as it edges away from economic liberalism to a coalition determined to protect personal liberties from conservative moral constraint. This shift, however, will erode what remains of the opposition to the business community’s efforts to lower tax rates, especially on the affluent; to reduce social spending; and to pare back regulation of the commercial and financial sectors. Corporate America faces a divided Democratic Party, vulnerable to the kind of lobbying pressures that the business elite specializes in. Under this scenario, Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce will enjoy increased leverage in the policy-making arenas of Congress and the executive branch despite – or even because – of Democratic political success. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · July 17 – Ridgewood, NJ: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour stop at Bookends (Star-Ledger <http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/hillary_clinton_to_visit_nj_for_book_signing_next_week.html> ) · July 19 – Madison, CT: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour stop at R.J. Julia (Day of New London <http://www.theday.com/article/20140708/NWS01/140709708/1047>) · July 20 – St. Paul, MN: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour stop at Common Good Books (AP <http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-plans-st-paul-stop-on-book-tour/> ) · July 29 – Saratoga Springs, NY: Sec. Clinton makes “Hard Choices” book tour stop at Northshire Bookstore (Glens Falls Post-Star <http://poststar.com/news/local/clinton-to-sign-books-in-spa-city/article_a89caca2-0b57-11e4-95a6-0019bb2963f4.html> ) · August 9 – Water Mill, NY: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the Clinton Foundation at the home of George and Joan Hornig (WSJ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/17/for-50000-best-dinner-seats-with-the-clintons-in-the-hamptons/> ) · August 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes Nexenta’s OpenSDx Summit (BusinessWire <http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140702005709/en/Secretary-State-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Deliver-Keynote#.U7QoafldV8E> ) · September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today <http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html> ) · October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network <http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>) · October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation Annual Dinner (UNLV <http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>) · ~ October 13-16 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes salesforce.com Dreamforce conference (salesforce.com <http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/keynotes.jsp>)