Correct The Record Wednesday July 9, 2014 Morning Roundup

podesta-emails 8,389 words email

D6 P17 P22 V14 V11

-----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 9, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Says She Asked to Be Removed From Rape Case” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/08/clinton-says-she-asked-to-be-removed-from-rape-case/>* “The pro-Clinton group American Bridge 21st Century sent out a ‘Correct the Record’ item saying that the controversy amounted to an effort by conservative critics to ‘rehash old news.’” *Washington Post column: Ruth Marcus: “Hillary Clinton’s lawyerly past” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-hillary-clintons-lawyerly-past/2014/07/08/9a7fd5ee-06c1-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html>* “The real scandal in this case would have been if she had let her feminist ideology trump her ethical responsibility — to zealously represent even the most loathsome client.” *Huffington Post blog: Peter D. Rosenstein: “The Media Obsession With Hillary and Bill Clinton Continues” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/the-media-obsession-with_b_5564233.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>* “After 45 years in the public eye Hillary can still be the candidate of the future, which would finally include more women in power.” *Media Matters for America: “How Morning Joe Is Helping To Turn Clinton's Legal Work Into A Political Liability” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/08/how-morning-joe-is-helping-to-turn-clintons-leg/200033>* “Joe Scarborough and Ezra Klein are helping to normalize guilt-by-association smears targeting defense attorneys based on their clients, arguing that Hillary Clinton's work defending an alleged child rapist in 1975 is becoming a political liability.” *Washington Free Beacon: “Is MSNBC Turning on Hillary?” [VIDEO] <http://freebeacon.com/politics/is-msnbc-turning-on-hillary/>* “MSNBC’s Hardball was home of a contentious debate Tuesday night between left-wing Salon‘s Joan Walsh and MSNBC analyst Michelle Bernard over the ‘Hillary Tapes’ uncovered by Washington Free Beacon reporter Alana Goodman.” *Boston Globe: Letter to the Editor: President of Simmons College Helen Drinan: “Simmons tuition didn’t pay Clinton fee” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2014/07/08/simmons-tuition-didn-pay-clinton-fee/oGntSrNlQO5ysuGFRmKwWJ/story.html>* “The Simmons Leadership Conference, not Simmons College, sponsored Clinton’s appearance. All proceeds from the conference go to fund graduate scholarships at the college. This year’s proceeds, which represent the surplus after all costs are covered, were the highest in conference history. Clinton’s appearance was instrumental to that end.” *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton: Some Families ‘Just Have a Commitment’ to Politics” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-some-families-just-have-a-commitment-to-politics/>* “Mrs. Clinton, in a new interview with Der Spiegel of Germany, didn’t apologize for the preponderance of Bushes and Clintons on the national political scene.” *CNN: “Clinton weighs in on American political dynasties” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/08/clinton-weighs-in-on-american-political-dynasties/>* “The Clintons and the Bushes aren't the only families with an extended presence in American presidential politics. That's a piece of history Hillary Clinton was sure to note in an interview published Tuesday in Germany's Der Spiegel when asked if America will turn into a monarchy if she or Jeb Bush were to win the presidency in 2016 (should either decide to run).” *National Journal: “What Hillary Clinton Gets Wrong About Political Dynasties” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-hillary-clinton-gets-wrong-about-political-dynasties-20140708>* “Hillary Clinton is an ambivalent member of a political dynasty—at least when she's talking to reporters.” *New York Times: “It Takes a Village (and a Composer and a Writer)” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/theater/hillary-and-bill-clinton-inspire-musical-theater.html>* “Now she [Sec. Clinton] can add another line to her résumé: musical theater muse.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Hillary Clinton is rich. She is not Mitt Romney rich.” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-is-rich-she-is-not-mitt-romney-rich/>* “But it's also worth noting that, while Romney has spent his life as a part of the upper economic echelon of Americans, the Clintons are relative newcomers to extreme wealth. And their extreme wealth isn't quite as extreme as Romney's.” *Politico Magazine column: Sec. John Kerry: “Why Is the Senate Hobbling American Diplomacy?” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/why-is-the-senate-hobbling-american-diplomacy-108683.html#.U70lFfldV8E>* “Last year, high-level State Department advocacy was responsible for more than $5.5 billion worth of contracts awarded to U.S. companies by foreign governments. These contracts translated directly into thousands of jobs for Americans here at home.” *Articles:* *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Clinton Says She Asked to Be Removed From Rape Case” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/08/clinton-says-she-asked-to-be-removed-from-rape-case/>* By Janet Hook July 8, 2014, 2:42 p.m. EDT A decades old legal case is continuing to haunt Hillary Clinton, who said in a new interview on the subject that she had asked to be removed from a 1975 case defending a man accused of child rape. In a July 4 interview with Mumsnet, a British online network, Mrs. Clinton said the case came up while she was teaching at the University of Arkansas and doing legal aid work, and a local judge appointed her to represent a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. “I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not,” said Mrs. Clinton, who was 27 at the time. “And I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did.” Some Republicans have seized on the case, and Mrs. Clinton’s defense tactics, to discredit Mrs. Clinton’s claim to be a lifelong defender of women’s rights. The old case came back into focus last month after the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, disclosed audio clips of Mrs. Clinton saying in an interview that she took the case after a prosecutor asked her to as “a favor.” She indicated that she believed the man was guilty because she laughed when she told the interviewer, laughing, that it “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs” when her client passed a polygraph test. Citing that clip, Joe Scarborough, the Republican host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” during Tuesday’s broadcast said Mrs. Clinton’s latest statement that she was forced to represent the defendant contradicted her earlier characterization that she was doing it as a favor to a legal colleague. “Hillary Clinton chose to do this,’’ Mr. Scarborough said. “This completely changes the conversation.” The pro-Clinton group American Bridge 21st Century sent out a “Correct the Record” item saying that the controversy amounted to an effort by conservative critics to “rehash old news.” “The right wing is speculating that Clinton chose to take the case, even though that myth has been widely debunked,” the group said in a memo, who cited interviews with the prosecutor who corroborated Mrs. Clinton’s account of the case in her 2003 book, “Living History.” *Washington Post column: Ruth Marcus: “Hillary Clinton’s lawyerly past” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-hillary-clintons-lawyerly-past/2014/07/08/9a7fd5ee-06c1-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html>* By Ruth Marcus July 8, 2014, 8:11 p.m. EDT It should not be necessary to write this column. Lawyers represent clients. Criminal defense lawyers represent clients accused of crimes — sometimes horrible, evil clients accused of heinous crimes. It is the ethical and professional responsibility of these lawyers to defend those clients as vigorously as possible. Sometimes such representation results in less than perfectly just results. As Justice Benjamin Cardozo famously put it, the criminal goes free because the constable has blundered. That is the way — the only way — an adversary system of criminal justice can function. End of story, or it would be, except that the decades-old criminal case at issue here involves Hillary Clinton. To back up, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law professor in 1975 running a newly formed legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. As reported by Glenn Thrush in Newsday in 2008, “hard-drinking factory worker” Thomas Alfred Taylor had been accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, the daughter of a family he was living with. Taylor had asked the judge to fire his court-appointed male lawyer and have a female attorney represent him instead. There were only a half-dozen women practicing law in the county at the time, and the judge picked Clinton. When the prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell her the news, “Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” Gibson told Newsday. Clinton herself described the incident in her autobiography, “Living History”: “I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.” So Clinton went to work. She mounted an attack on the physical evidence against Taylor, enlisting a noted forensics expert to cast doubt on the validity of the physical evidence against her client. And, as is distasteful but common in rape cases, Clinton prepared to attack the victim’s credibility. Requesting that the victim undergo a psychiatric examination, Clinton wrote in an affidavit, “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.” Was there a basis for this claim? The victim says not; the state’s investigator doesn’t recall such evidence; the records were lost in a flood. In any event, the forensic attack carried the day; the prosecutor reduced the charges from first-degree rape to unlawful fondling of a minor. Taylor received four years’ probation and a year in jail. This story was revived recently after the Washington Free Beacon unearthed audiotapes of interviews conducted by reporter Roy Reed and deposited at the University of Arkansas. “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed — which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton recalled and chuckled. “What was sad about it was that the prosecutor had evidence, among which was his underwear . . . which was bloody,” she recalled. The crime lab “neatly cut out the part that they were going to test,” came back with results and promptly sent back the underpants with a hole — having thrown away the crucial piece. So Clinton presented the prosecutor with her expert’s credentials and announced, “This guy’s ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” Again, chuckling. To the Free Beacon, this story “calls into question Clinton’s narrative of her early years as a devoted women and children’s advocate in Arkansas.” In its view, Clinton “struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor.” Let’s stipulate: Clinton’s laughter can sometimes be off-putting; she tends to use it as a way to deflect unwelcome questions. Not in this case. Certainly, Clinton could express more empathy for the girl. But her laughter, as I hear it, is at the vagaries of the system and bureaucratic ineptitude, not the victim. In short: Feel free to dislike Clinton. Feel free to believe she’d be a terrible president. Don’t blame her for doing her job. The real scandal in this case would have been if she had let her feminist ideology trump her ethical responsibility — to zealously represent even the most loathsome client. *Huffington Post blog: Peter D. Rosenstein: “The Media Obsession With Hillary and Bill Clinton Continues” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/the-media-obsession-with_b_5564233.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>* By Peter D. Rosenstein, political consultant July 7, 2014, 12:59 p.m. EDT Two, three or more major stories about Hillary and Bill Clinton are in the papers and on TV daily. The Hillary stories range from glowing to glowering. The NY Times has had a reporter assigned to the Hillary beat for more than a year. In a recent Washington Post column Fareed Zakaria writes about Hillary's hardest choice, "Clinton's great challenge will be to decide whether she represents change or continuity." In a NY Times story she is compared to John McCain and the reporter does a "Chicken little the sky is falling" piece on her poll numbers. The Washington Post running out of new things to say about Hillary has taken to writing stories about Bill's quest to be First Gentleman. The Nation says the media are suffering from Hillary Fatigue, yet they are still writing about her and dreaming up new things to say. The interesting thing isn't the stories but the fact that media outlets are so obsessed with the Clintons clearly believing the public is too. Reporters writing pure speculation and general nonsense get it on the front page. Maybe the public is obsessed with them but it must be hoped if Hillary runs the stories will migrate to a discussion of issues and less of the "How much Hillary is paid for a speech" or whether "Bill is involved in strategy." The poll number stories aren't new. From the day she became first lady of Arkansas to being appointed secretary of state, her poll numbers have swung wildly. When she is out of day-to- day politics her numbers are up and when the opposition is skewering her the numbers go down. So what? Zakaria is totally wrong about what her hardest choice will be. Hillary doesn't have to make a conscious decision about representing change or continuity. Rather she can talk about her vision for a better America and what she sees is going right with what she believes she can change for the future. In her book Hard Choices, Clinton laid out foreign policy areas in which she is in lock-step with the president and some such as her recommendation to arm the Syrian opposition Obama chose not to follow. There is every reason to believe that Clinton will be nuanced in a campaign. It isn't simply a case of "with-em-or-agin-em," which is what reporters would like to see. Voters are smarter than that. Hillary and Bill Clinton have been in the public eye since Hillary Rodham was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College in 1969 and when Bill ran for Congress in Arkansas in 1974. There isn't much new the press can find that we already don't know. Their marriage, with its ups and downs, has lasted longer than all those of their critics. Hillary has always fought for universal health care and will benefit because many of the issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act will have been settled by the time she may announce. Then the recent Supreme Court decision on the Hobby Lobby case to which Hillary voiced strong disagreement allows her to point out the continuing war on women by five old Catholic men and the Republican Party candidates who support them. Hillary will point out that a Democratic president, Barack Obama, saved the nation pulling it out of a deep recession. But she has shown an understanding that there is a long way to go before everyone is participating in the recovery. Bill will remind people of the state of the nation when he was president. We weren't at war and there were budget surpluses. But Hillary can share her vision for change and she has acknowledged and shown an understanding that we are living in a different world than existed 20 years ago. Stories like the one in the Washington Post about Bill having made over $100 million since leaving office has people like me thinking "that ain't bad for a good ole southern boy from Hope, Arkansas." For years no one has paid that much attention to the huge sums of money made by all the ex-presidents and other politicians or celebrities who make millions from their speeches. But Hillary suddenly out-performs and gets paid more than all of them and it's now a major story. Wow, a woman with views worth more and commanding more money than men. Voters often elect wealthy people. John F. Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt with inherited wealth; and Ronald Reagan and both Bushes, who were millionaires when elected. Mitt Romney didn't lose because he was rich but rather because people felt he couldn't connect with those who weren't. Hillary Clinton doesn't have that problem. People know where she stands on issues and they know where she comes from and that neither she nor Bill was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. People have always respected her incredible work ethic from her earliest days at the Children's Defense Fund and her work for universal health care; equal pay for equal work for women; a great education for all children; and a world that will be more at peace tomorrow than it is today. After 45 years in the public eye Hillary can still be the candidate of the future, which would finally include more women in power. She will break that final glass ceiling if she runs. Hillary is a grandmother building a better world for her grandchild, something no longer the sole province of grandfathers. What Republicans fear is that voters will recognize how a brilliant and feeling woman in the White House will make a difference for them, their children, and their families. Hillary understands how that resonates here and around the world. Winning the White House for a Democrat will be made easier when more women vote. Hillary can make that happen and her skirt-tail effect would impact elections up and down the spectrum. Some question whether she can create the excitement that will cause that to happen. The media's obsession with her and Bill show she can. When the campaign actually begins, we can only hope the media will focus on the issues that matter to people because that is what is important to the future of America. *Media Matters for America: “How Morning Joe Is Helping To Turn Clinton's Legal Work Into A Political Liability” <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/08/how-morning-joe-is-helping-to-turn-clintons-leg/200033>* By Jeremy Holden July 8, 2014, 7:28 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Vox's Ezra Klein Joins Scarborough In Mainstreaming "Disturbing" Guilt-By-Association Smear Joe Scarborough and Ezra Klein are helping to normalize guilt-by-association smears targeting defense attorneys based on their clients, arguing that Hillary Clinton's work defending an alleged child rapist in 1975 is becoming a political liability. The American Bar Association has condemned this type of attack as "disturbing." Clinton's work on the case, known publicly and reported on for years, re-emerged after the Washington Free Beacon violated library policy and published an interview Clinton gave in the mid-1980s discussing her legal representation of the alleged rapist. Clinton defended her work on the case in an interview with Mumsnet that was published July 4, explaining once again that she was assigned to the case, that she asked to be relieved from the assignment, and that she "had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability." Reporting on the warmed-over scrutiny of the case on Tuesday, Vox claimed that "a criminal defense case from Hillary Clinton's past as a lawyer is becoming a political liability." The headline ominously stated: "Hillary Clinton's legal career is coming back to haunt her." Klein, the co-founder of Vox, appeared on Morning Joe to expand on the idea that Clinton's legal work was a political liability. "I think it's hard for folks to understand why you would go to the mat for a client who had done something terrible who you knew is guilty," Klein said. "And what she's saying there is that that was her obligation as a lawyer and that the prosecution had done a horrible job." [VIDEO] While Scarborough at one point agreed that attorneys "usually take that court appointment and do their best to defend their client," he subsequently tried to parse the distinction between a public defender and Clinton's role as a court-appointed attorney from a legal aid clinic: SCARBOROUGH: [I]sn't there a distinction, though, between when you are hired by a public defender's office, and the purpose of the public defender's office is actually to give people the representation that they are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America? And then you have Hillary Clinton's case, where she was running a legal clinic. She may have been court-appointed, but obviously she had a lot more discretion on whether she was going to take a child rapist or not on as a client than if you are a public defender, where you are working as a public defender, you have no choice. Legal and child welfare experts told Newsday that Clinton's work in the case was appropriate in 2008, the last time her work in the case came under media scrutiny. Clinton wrote about the case in her 2003 autobiography, Living History. Jonathan Adler, a libertarian law professor, has urged Clinton's critics not to attack her representation in this case, specifically warning that it could be chilling to send a message to young attorneys that representing unpopular clients could become a "political liability." Adler is not alone. Republicans Ken Starr, Lindsey Graham, and Michael Mukasey have all cautioned against using an attorney's clients as a cudgel. Scarborough's and Klein's analysis of why this case is a liability for Clinton focused in part on their interpretation of Clinton's tone in the 30-year-old interview, which Scarborough claimed amounted to "boasting" about her successful defense of the alleged rapist. "She sounded boastful on the tape that she was able to get this 41-year-old guy who raped a young girl, a minor girl, and get him off and was laughing about the evidence, laughing about the lie detector test, laughing about a lot of it. It does sound -- it's disturbing to say the least, isn't it?" Scarborough did not reconcile his claim that Clinton was being "boastful" with the fact that she called the case "sad" while explaining how the prosecution had destroyed evidence, forming the basis of an eventual plea bargain. CLINTON: But you know what was sad about it was that the prosecutors had evidence, among which was his underwear. ... His underwear, which was bloody. Sent it down to the crime lab [unintelligible]. The crime lab took the pair of underpants, neatly cut out the part that they were going to test, tested it, came back with the result of what kind of blood it was, what was mixed in with it, then sent the pants back with a hole in it as evidence. So I got an order to see the evidence, and the prosecutor didn't want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented. So they presented the underpants with a hole in it. I said, "What kind of evidence is that?" You know, a pair of underpants with a hole in it. Course the crime lab had thrown away the piece that they'd cut out. It was really odd. I mean, I plea-bargained it down because it turned out they didn't have any evidence. Morning Joe did air parts of the interview where Clinton discussed what she thought was sad about the case. CNN legal analyst Paul Callan has rejected claims that Clinton can be heard laughing about the result of the case and instead argued that Clinton is clearly laughing generally about the legal process. "It's a lawyer telling a lawyer tale," Callahan said. The criticism of Clinton is part of an alarming trend of using a lawyer's clients as a disqualification for public service. In March, the Senate blocked Debo Adegbile's nomination to the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division amid scrutiny of his work at the NAACP on behalf of an accused cop killer. And the American Bar Association condemned the Republican Governors' Association earlier this year for running ads attacking a South Carolina gubernatorial candidate for his work as a criminal defense attorney. In a letter to RGA Chairman Chris Christie, ABA President James Silkenat warned: "The Republican Governor's Association ad sends a disturbing message to lawyers -- that their clients' past actions or beliefs will stain their own careers, especially if they want to serve their country in public office." *Washington Free Beacon: “Is MSNBC Turning on Hillary?” [VIDEO] <http://freebeacon.com/politics/is-msnbc-turning-on-hillary/>* By Washington Free Beacon Staff July 8, 2014, 8:07 p.m. EDT MSNBC’s Hardball was home of a contentious debate Tuesday night between left-wing Salon‘s Joan Walsh and MSNBC analyst Michelle Bernard over the “Hillary Tapes” uncovered by Washington Free Beacon reporter Alana Goodman. Goodman unearthed tapes from the 1980s of Hillary Clinton discussing an accused child rapist she defended when she was 27 years old, part of which included her laughing about facets of the case that ultimately resulted in her client, who she thought was guilty, serving less than one year in prison. Host Chris Matthews laid out the facts behind the case to introduce the segment, adding he’s not particularly fond of “clever” defense lawyers. “I have listened to the whole tape,” Matthews said. “She does laugh throughout it. I don’t know how to talk about it.” “It’s not a fun tape to listen to,” Walsh said. “I’m not going to try and sugarcoat it.” However, when Bernard laid out the New York Times’ reporting that Clinton had been appointed to the case, rather than that Clinton actually took it because the prosecutor called and asked her to take it on, Walsh grew indignant and accused Bernard of “filibustering.” “This is very serious,” Bernard said. “Hillary Clinton took the case. This is a woman who undoubtedly has always been an advocate for women, children and families but she took the case. She knew what the allegations were. She indicated in the tape that she believed that her client, more likely than not, was guilty of the crime that he was accused of. People are going to say, inevitably, ‘Who is the real Hillary Clinton?’” An upset Walsh accused Bernard of presenting a “twisted” view of the facts, but even Matthews was puzzled at that accusation, asking, “What was twisted?” “The facts are the facts,” Bernard replied. At one point, Matthews just looked down and sighed while the two argued over Clinton. *Boston Globe: Letter to the Editor: President of Simmons College Helen Drinan: “Simmons tuition didn’t pay Clinton fee” <http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2014/07/08/simmons-tuition-didn-pay-clinton-fee/oGntSrNlQO5ysuGFRmKwWJ/story.html>* By Helen Drinan, president of Simmons College July 9, 2014 In his column last Friday, Kevin Cullen called out Simmons College for paying Hillary Clinton an undisclosed speaking fee. He suggests that a parent paying tuition to send a student to Simmons College would want to know the amount of that fee. Cullen, however, is misinformed. The Simmons Leadership Conference, not Simmons College, sponsored Clinton’s appearance. All proceeds from the conference go to fund graduate scholarships at the college. This year’s proceeds, which represent the surplus after all costs are covered, were the highest in conference history. Clinton’s appearance was instrumental to that end. Helen Drinan Boston *Wall Street Journal blog: Washington Wire: “Hillary Clinton: Some Families ‘Just Have a Commitment’ to Politics” <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-some-families-just-have-a-commitment-to-politics/>* By Peter Nicholas July 8, 2014, 7:03 p.m. EDT Is the U.S. presidency a dynasty controlled by a few privileged families? Should Hillary Clinton win the White House in 2016 and serve two full terms, that would mean either a Bush or Clinton will have held the presidency for 28 of the prior 36 years (interrupted by Barack Obama’s eight-year stint). Even the Bush family matriarch, Barbara Bush, questioned last year whether the country is well served by more of the same. “We’ve had enough Bushes,” she said, in reply to a question about the presidential prospects of her son Jeb, the former Republican governor of Florida. Mrs. Clinton, in a new interview with Der Spiegel of Germany, didn’t apologize for the preponderance of Bushes and Clintons on the national political scene. She said that “certain families just have a sense of commitment or even a predisposition to want to be in politics.” Two that come to mind? The Roosevelts and the Adamses, Mrs. Clinton said. John Adams was the nation’s second president; his eldest son, John Quincy Adams, was the nation’s sixth. Theodore Roosevelt served from 1901-1909; his distant cousin Franklin Roosevelt served from 1933 until his death in 1945. Still, Mrs. Clinton said that her last name proved to be no help when she ran for president in 2008 and lost to someone with no political pedigree: Mr. Obama. The U.S., she said, “is not a monarchy in which I wake up in the morning and abdicate in favor of my son.” But what about her daughter? Chelsea Clinton has become an increasingly prominent figure in national public life and now plays a leadership role in the family’s charitable foundation. Would Mrs. Clinton like to see Chelsea find her own place in politics–the family business? “It is really up to her, and I’ll support her in whatever she chooses,” Mrs. Clinton told Der Spiegel. *CNN: “Clinton weighs in on American political dynasties” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/08/clinton-weighs-in-on-american-political-dynasties/>* By Dana Davidsen July 8, 2014, 4:01 p.m. EDT The Clintons and the Bushes aren't the only families with an extended presence in American presidential politics. That's a piece of history Hillary Clinton was sure to note in an interview published Tuesday in Germany's Der Spiegel when asked if America will turn into a monarchy if she or Jeb Bush were to win the presidency in 2016 (should either decide to run). "We had two Roosevelts. We had two Adams," Clinton said, adding "It may be that certain families just have a sense of commitment or even a predisposition to want to be in politics." "I ran for president, as you remember. I lost to somebody named Barack Obama, so I don't think there is any guarantee in American politics. My last name did not help me in the end," she said. "Our system is open to everyone. It is not a monarchy in which I wake up in the morning and abdicate in favor of my son." If Bush ran and won in 2016, he would be the third Bush in the White House over the past three decades. And if Clinton ran and won the next election, she would be the second President Clinton in the White House in the past two decades, after her husband. As Clinton weighs whether to launch a campaign for the White House in 2016, her name recognition - as former first lady, as well as secretary of state and senator - has been a double-edged sword. Her global popularity helped during her time as America's top diplomat and will undoubtedly spur book sales as she continues the European leg of her book tour for "Hard Choices." But being such a longtime figure in U.S. politics might also prove to be a negative if she runs for president as Americans' trust in Washington falters. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, is also considering a run for the White House. Should he run, he has the support of his family - including his father, Bush 41, and his brother, Bush 43 - but his mother, Barbara Bush, has expressed reservations about having another Bush in the White House. She said in an interview earlier this year "I think this is a great American country, and if we can't find more than two or three families to run for high office, that's silly." Bush has joked about his mother's comments, but also discussed how his family name may hurt him as much as help him if he decides to run for the White House in 2016. And a majority of Americans agree with Mrs. Bush. Sixty-nine percent of people questioned in a NBC News/WSJ poll conducted in April said there should be more diversity in families in the White House. *National Journal: “What Hillary Clinton Gets Wrong About Political Dynasties” <http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-hillary-clinton-gets-wrong-about-political-dynasties-20140708>* By Emma Roller July 8, 2014 Hillary Clinton is an ambivalent member of a political dynasty—at least when she's talking to reporters. In an interview with the German newspaper Der Spiegel, Clinton insisted for the umpteenth time that she hasn't made up her mind about running for president. But more interesting was this question posed to Clinton, which framed her potential run as evidence of the quasi-aristocratic nature of the presidency [emphasis mine]: SPIEGEL: For the past 25 years, there were two families that were very prominent in politics, your family and the Bush family. First George Bush was president for four years, then your husband led the country for eight years, and then George W. Bush was president for eight years. If either you or Jeb Bush were to win the election in 2016, once again a member of these two families would become president. Will the American democracy turn into a monarchy? Clinton: We had two Roosevelts. We had two Adams. It may be that certain families just have a sense of commitment or even a predisposition to want to be in politics. I ran for president, as you remember. I lost to somebody named Barack Obama, so I don't think there is any guarantee in American politics. My last name did not help me in the end. Our system is open to everyone. It is not a monarchy in which I wake up in the morning and abdicate in favor of my son. Clinton's right—we do not live in a monarchy. But it might seem like it, surveying the field of popular Democrats who want to run in 2016 whose initials are not HRC (cue crickets). Which raises the question: Do dynastic families have more of a genetic commitment to public service, as Clinton suggests, or is it just the family business? Blake Carrington would never claim to "just have a sense of commitment or even a predisposition to being an oil tycoon." Still, one recent study found that inherited political power is more about nurture than nature. Researchers at Brown University found that political power in Congress is self-perpetuating, and that the longer a politician holds office, the more likely he or she is to see relatives become politicians. They found that, from 1789 to 1996, 8.7 percent of members had relatives who previously served in Congress. The authors of the study concede that "unobserved family characteristics" could contribute to politicians' dynastic powers. They also found that children of politicians aren't necessarily more likely to become miniature versions of their parents—nor does having political parents give them a predisposition for public service. But if these political offspring do decide to go into politics, they'll have a leg up on the competition: “We find that dynastic politicians are less likely to start their career in the House, suggesting they have the ability or means to enter directly through the Senate, a much smaller and more prestigious body. This difference cannot be attributed to a later entry into Congress: dynastic legislators enter Congress at about 44 years of age, just like non-dynastic legislators. Dynastic legislators are not more likely to come from a state different than the one they represent and are significantly less likely to have previous public experience, although they are more likely to have a college degree.” Americans generally have a love-hate relationship with political dynasties—we say we don't want the same families to continue holding office, but as soon as names are named, we flock to their corner. In a recent survey on dynasties, a majority of respondents said they hope the Bushes and the Clintons of the world don't dominate the 2016 presidential race. Ironically, most respondents also reported favorable views of the Clinton and Bush families. Liking a political family is, of course, different from voting one's members into office cycle after cycle. But data presents a startling disconnect between how voters want democracy to work in theory and in practice. Whether or not having a household name helps your election chances, belonging to a political dynasty certainly conveys some privileges that no-name candidates don't have. Practically, it's easier to raise money and organize supporters as a candidate when you are (or your family is) a known commodity, potentially with a ready-made support network already at your service. And psychologically, the power of incumbency cannot be underestimated, as political reputations trickle down from patriarch or matriarch to family members. Of course, this effect could also backfire for politicians whose names bear negative associations. Jeb Bush publicly acknowledged earlier this year that his name was "an issue." Then again, it appears that time can heal many wounds—George W. Bush is more popular today than he was during his last three years in office. Are political dynasties different from other types of dynasties? In U.S. culture, the first family takes on de facto royalty status in a way that other family empires rarely do—unless your last name happens to be Kardashian. But unlike in a monarchy, what America's royalty does with the power conferred upon them is completely up to them. *New York Times: “It Takes a Village (and a Composer and a Writer)” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/theater/hillary-and-bill-clinton-inspire-musical-theater.html>* By Amy Chozick July 8, 2014 As Hillary Rodham Clinton contemplates another run for the presidency in 2016, she has written a book (“Hard Choices”), delivered upbeat paid speeches to trade groups (“Leadership is a team sport”) and pitched in at her family’s foundation. Now she can add another line to her résumé: musical theater muse. Like Eva Perón in “Evita” and Imelda Marcos in “Here Lies Love” (not to mention the Founding Fathers who crowd “1776”), Mrs. Clinton is a larger-than-life political leader whose career cries out for music. Or so believe the creators of “A Woman on Top” and “Clinton: The Musical,” two shows currently testing the waters in New York. Depending on whom you ask, Mrs. Clinton is either one of the world’s most admired women or a political animal who attracts scandal. The more positive view mostly wins out in these stage depictions. “A Woman on Top,” which will hold a reading for potential investors on Wednesday, is the inspirational tale of a female political candidate’s battles against sexism, set to song. Virginia Stanton is a New York senator who, in her noble quest for the presidency, inspires millions of women but ends up suffering a precipitous loss to a charismatic male opponent. (Shock spoiler alert: Her husband, a charming Southern governor, can’t control his impulses.) “Clinton: The Musical,” a satire about scandals of the 1990s, will make its United States premiere on July 18 as part of the New York Musical Theater Festival. Written by Paul and Michael Hodge, Australian brothers, it portrays two sides of President Bill Clinton: the jovial id who cannot control himself and the pensive policy wonk who cannot stop talking about the intricacies of health care reform. Mrs. Clinton is the struggling-to-be-stabilizing force, grappling with the Lewinsky scandal while slyly eyeing her own Senate run. Paul Hodge said his inspiration was Mr. Clinton’s 2004 autobiography, “My Life,” in which the former president explored his “outside life” and his “internal life.” Dick Morris, the former Clinton aide-turned-enemy, called these parallel lives “Saturday Night Bill” and “Sunday Morning President Clinton.” Different actors play each side of the former president. “He’s so complex that it seemed like an appropriate device,” Mr. Hodge said. There’s only one Hillary. In the song “No!,” she and both versions of her husband struggle to write a 1998 State of the Union address that will not remind people of the Lewinsky affair. Lines like “We can stand erect ...” and “No longer on our knees ...” are promptly rejected. The Clintons have already left a big mark on pop culture, from the 1998 movie “Primary Colors,” based on the roman à clef by Joe Klein, to “The Special Relationship,” a 2010 HBO movie about Mr. Clinton and Tony Blair. The USA Network’s political drama “Political Animals,” with Sigourney Weaver as a fictional version of Mrs. Clinton, lasted a single season. Other projects haven’t gotten off the ground. Last fall, NBC abandoned plans to develop a mini-series about Mrs. Clinton, starring Diane Lane. Around the same time, CNN scrapped a documentary from Charles H. Ferguson, who won an Oscar for the 2010 documentary “Inside Job.” Mrs. Clinton’s supporters and critics had expressed concerns that the projects would either denigrate her in order to create TV drama or cast her in an unfairly positive light ahead of the 2016 election. (Both networks said the outside pressure had no impact on their decisions to cancel the projects.) The creators of the musical “A Woman on Top,” Rhonda Kess and Dale Kiken, are unabashed Clinton supporters. They began writing the show in the years after Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 defeat by Barack Obama, when talk of sexism permeated cable news. “If there’s a way for this piece to stimulate conversation while being extremely entertaining, then we’ll have set out with what we wanted to do,” said Ms. Kess, a classical composer who wrote the music that accompanies Mr. Kiken’s dialogue. (They previously collaborated on “Lost and Found: The Trial of St. Bernadette,” which had its premiere in Los Angeles last year.) As Virginia Stanton seeks the country’s highest office, she says things like “Liberty, freedom and equality still ring true in the ears of America,” while her ex-husband and opponent, Gov. George Reitman of Texas, tries to squash her ambitions. “Naw, honey, why would you want to get all that muck over your nice skirt,” he says. “Clinton: The Musical,” which was nominated for best new musical at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 2012, takes a less earnest approach. Paul Hodge said he had the idea for the show after he went with his father to a production of “Keating!,” a musical about Paul Keating, the former prime minister of Australia. At the end of the performance, his father remarked that he didn’t think politicians were necessarily the best musical subjects. “He said, ‘The only politician who would make a good musical would be Bill Clinton,’ ” Mr. Hodge recalled. “And I said, ‘Of course!’ ” For the Hodges’ show, Mrs. Clinton’s character always had political ambitions, but the musical has evolved as it became clearer that she could run for president again in 2016. And the history of the Lewinsky scandal, which inevitably plays a big part in the musical, had to be rethought after Ms. Lewinsky re-emerged with an essay in the June issue of Vanity Fair. “That reminded everyone, us included, that she is a real human being and not just a joke that has been going on for all these years,” said Adam Arian, the show’s director. The creators of both shows hope to attract attention and backing to reach large audiences. For the “Clinton: The Musical” team, in particular, the New York Musical Theater Festival is a chance to gauge the local appetite for all things Clinton after its debut in Edinburgh. “Paul wanted to know what the American audience thought about material developed by an Australian in the United Kingdom,” said Dan Markley, the executive director of the festival. Will the much debated phenomenon of Clinton fatigue extend to the stage? In “Clinton: The Musical,” Duke Lafoon portrays Billy Clinton, the fun-loving side to the serious W. J. Clinton (Karl Kenzler). Mr. Lafoon had previously played Mr. Clinton in “Monica! The Musical,” a 2005 Off Broadway show that featured Mrs. Clinton as a scheming strategist. He said he’ll hang up his Bill Clinton act after this one. “They’re so heavily in the news right now, with Hillary’s book and potential run for the White House, so we’ll ride that wave,” Mr. Lafoon said. “At the same time, I understand what people say. Do we need these jokes again?” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Hillary Clinton is rich. She is not Mitt Romney rich.” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-is-rich-she-is-not-mitt-romney-rich/>* By Aaron Blake July 8, 2014, 8:30 a.m. EDT Hillary Clinton's wealth is still all the rage -- first because of some "inartful" comments she made about it and more recently because of scrutiny of her massive speaking fees. But just how rich is Clinton? Well, as the chart below shows, she would likely be wealthier than any other major 2016 presidential candidate or recent president who has filed an official federal financial report. But she's not really in the same ballpark as two other recent candidates: Massachusetts' own Mitt Romney and current Secretary of State John Kerry -- or at least she wasn't as of 2012. Here's how that looks, according to the most recent federal filings: [INTERACTIVE NET WORTH CHART, 2012] And here's the full interactive graphic. You'll note that Clinton's maximum estimated net worth ($25 million) was about 1/10th that of Romney, with whom Kerry is in the same ballpark. It's important to note that the Clintons likely upped their net worth significantly after Hillary Clinton left as secretary of state -- some have estimated it at $55 million or higher -- but that's a lot of ground to make up. Does it matter that Clinton's wealth is not quite on-par with the Romneys and the Kerrys of the political world? Maybe not. Clearly, they are all far wealthier than the vast, vast majority of Americans, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that, just like Romney, Clinton will have to deal with questions about whether she's out of touch with average Americans (and $225,000 speaking gigs won't do anything to quell that). But it's also worth noting that, while Romney has spent his life as a part of the upper economic echelon of Americans, the Clintons are relative newcomers to extreme wealth. And their extreme wealth isn't quite as extreme as Romney's. *Politico Magazine column: Sec. John Kerry: “Why Is the Senate Hobbling American Diplomacy?” <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/why-is-the-senate-hobbling-american-diplomacy-108683.html#.U70lFfldV8E>* By Sec. John Kerry July 8, 2014 Boko Haram’s horrifying abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria ignited universal calls for help to “bring back our girls.” President Barack Obama responded with urgency, but lost in the story is that one tool the United States would like to have at our disposal is hampered by the absence of U.S. ambassadors in neighboring Cameroon and Niger. Both embassies have been without ambassadors for more than eight months. That means we lost eight months when we would have had full-strength, highest-level capacity to build greater regional cooperation and trust to combat the rising threat from this brutal extremist group. Eight months when U.S. advice and training could have helped equip these critical countries to better help themselves. Eight months when we could have provided better assistance to respond to a moral outrage. This is not an isolated example. The United States continues to operate without a complete diplomatic toolbox to exert our leadership and advance our security and economic interests across the globe, because a broken Senate confirmation process has left us without permanent ambassadors in 40 countries. The nominees for these jobs, including Niger and Cameroon, are victims of a confirmation backlog that grows with each passing day. It leaves too many of our best and brightest — particularly career Foreign Service officers — languishing on the sidelines instead of being on the ground fighting to protect and promote our interests. Who are these diplomats? Fifty-three State Department nominees are pending before the Senate. Thirty-seven of them have been approved by the Foreign Relations Committee and could be confirmed immediately with a simple vote. The majority of the nominees, 35 in all, are apolitical career diplomats, and none of them are controversial. There is a solution staring us in the face — and that answer is the powerful example of how military nominees are traditionally treated by the Senate. The administration’s military nominees are confirmed quickly and en bloc, which is the proper way to handle them. For America to play a strong role in the world, we need equal treatment for diplomats. The Senate should carve out State’s career nominees and expedite their confirmation just as it does for military promotions. Make no mistake: Vacancies in so many world capitals send a dangerous message to allies and adversaries alike about America’s engagement. This perception makes it much more difficult to do the nonpartisan work at the heart of U.S. foreign policy — defending the security of our nation, promoting our values and helping our businesses compete to create American jobs back home. The length and number of these vacancies compromise U.S. national security. In the Middle East alone, the tragic conflict in Syria and rising extremism threaten a region where we have extensive economic and security interests. The Senate, to its credit, confirmed ambassadors to Egypt and Iraq last month, but more remains to be done. The Senate must quickly approve ambassadors to Algeria, Kuwait and Qatar, just three of the countries where we have pressing security interests. Vacancies also exist in strategic European countries like Hungary, Turkey, the Czech Republic, Moldova and Albania. Without the authority of an ambassador, we cannot engage fully with officials at the highest levels in places where shared democratic values are under threat. In yet another example, we need an ambassador in Honduras to help find ways to prevent the crush of unaccompanied minors along our southwestern border. Ambassadors also are the front line of our global push on behalf of U.S. businesses large and small. Last year, high-level State Department advocacy was responsible for more than $5.5 billion worth of contracts awarded to U.S. companies by foreign governments. These contracts translated directly into thousands of jobs for Americans here at home. America’s leading companies recognize that our ambassadors are vital to their success overseas. Already this year, U.S. businesses have sought embassy assistance in pursuing $119 billion worth of contracts in countries where a nominee is pending. These opportunities will go to our global competitors if we don’t have ambassadors to lead our advocacy. We simply cannot lead if we are not represented. In my travels as secretary of state, I have seen as never before the thirst for American leadership in the world. And in my nearly 30 years in the Senate, I saw firsthand the determination of most senators to make their institution work effectively. I believe that both of these are powerful reasons for the Senate to act now to both provide greater American leadership around the globe and to demonstrate that our democracy can work here at home. *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · 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>)