Correct The Record Wednesday August 27, 2014 Afternoon Roundup

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *[image: Inline image 1]* *Correct The Record Wednesday August 27, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Sec. Clinton said the US is "committed to advancing opportunities for women as entrepreneurs and business leaders.” http://correctrecord.org/breaking-glass-womens-economic-empowerment … <http://t.co/EbjHeqTrXl> [8/26/14, 8:30 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/504425589835460608>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Pro-Clinton Group Touts Her Record on Women" http://time.com/3182146/hillary-clinton-womens-equality-day/ … <http://t.co/LPYrk3AFXm> via @JNSmall <https://twitter.com/JNSmall> [8/26/14,2:42 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/504338201398767617>] *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: "Breaking Glass: Women’s Economic Empowerment" http://correctrecord.org/breaking-glass-womens-economic-empowerment … <http://t.co/KIDwC8QKsR>[8/26/14, 1:51 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/504325175299809282>] *Headlines:* *Politico: “A Clinton-Pelosi fundraiser in San Francisco” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>* “Hillary Clinton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will headline ‘the ultimate women’s power lunch’ on Oct. 20to raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO.” *CNN: Hillary Clinton to court Democratic women in September <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>* “The former secretary of state is addressing the Women's Leadership Forum 21st Annual National Issues Conference on September 19 in Washington, CNN has learned. The fundraiser, to be hosted by the Democratic National Committee, will feature President Barack Obama as the keynote speaker.” *Politico: “Hillary Clinton and President Obama to headline event” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-womens-leadership-forum-110385.html>* “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are headlining a Democratic National Committee fundraiser together in Washington next month, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO.” *Associated Press: “Former President Clinton to campaign in Rhode Island for treasurer hopeful Magaziner” <http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6da274c27e44415ea542c4fcb8a369cf/RI--Clinton-Rhode-Island>* “Former President Bill Clinton is making a campaign stop in Rhode Island for Democratic candidate for treasurer Seth Magaziner.” *CNN: “First-week sales of Paul Ryan's book slow” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/27/first-week-sales-of-paul-ryans-book-slow/>* “Rep. Paul Ryan's first solo book sold 6,266 copies in its first week of publication, according to Nielsen Bookscan data provided to CNN by a publisher.” *Breitbart: “Exclusive – Rand Paul: Hillary’s ‘War Hawk’ Policies Led to Benghazi Attack, Rise of ISIS” <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-Hillary-Clinton-s-War-Hawk-Style-Policies-Destabilized-Libya-Syria-Leading-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS>* “In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016.” *The Guardian opinion: Megan Carpentier, The Guardian’s deputy US opinion editor: “Why Hillary Clinton should keep her mouth shut” <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/hillary-clinton-change-liberals-no-comment-policy>* “Though she is ostensibly hawking just a (sleep-inducing) memoir of her time in the foreign policy trenches this summer, and has limited her public comments to foreign policy issues, somehow, Clinton still almost seems like the change some Americans have been waiting for.” *Huffington Post blog: Robert J. Elisberg, screenwriter and columnist: “And the Rand Played On” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/and-the-rand-played-on_b_5715801.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>* “Is Hillary Clinton more conservative when it comes to supporting military involvement than some Democrats prefer? Yes, absolutely. And that is the biggest nightmare for Republicans is she is nominated.” *U.S. News & World Report opinion: Peter Roff, contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report: “Hillary Has to Throw Obama Under the Bus” <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/08/27/hillary-clinton-has-to-throw-obama-under-the-bus-to-win-in-2016?src=usn_tw>* “It’s only going to get worse. Expect over the next few months to read news exclusives in prominent left-of-center publications like The New York Times and The Huffington Post – quoting ‘administration insiders’ and the like – that Clinton was a private but vocal opponent inside the administration of many of the Obama initiatives that went wrong.” *Articles:* *Politico: “A Clinton-Pelosi fundraiser in San Francisco” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7>* By Maggie Haberman August 27, 2014, 12:47 p.m. EDT Hillary Clinton and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will headline “the ultimate women’s power lunch” on Oct. 20 to raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. The high-dollar fundraiser will take place at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco, starting at 11 a.m. Pelosi represents the San Francisco area. Pelosi was not a Clinton booster during her 2008 presidential campaign against then-Sen. Barack Obama. But she has since repeatedly said she thinks Clinton would make a strong president. *CNN: Hillary Clinton to court Democratic women in September <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>* By Brianna Keilar August 27, 2014 Washington (CNN) -- As Hillary Clinton eyes a potential 2016 presidential run, she will speak to a key constituency next month: women. The former secretary of state is addressing the Women's Leadership Forum 21st Annual National Issues Conference on September 19 in Washington, CNN has learned. The fundraiser, to be hosted by the Democratic National Committee, will feature President Barack Obama as the keynote speaker. He will address the forum shortly after Clinton is slated to speak. First lady Michelle Obama will speak on September 18 at a welcome reception for the two-day event. The conference will also feature a number of other notable Democratic women, including Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards, Stephanie Schriock of Emily's List, Neera Tanden of Center for American Progress, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, according to an invitation obtained by CNN. Feminist activist and icon Gloria Steinem will appear at the event's concluding dinner. "Turning out women voters is incredibly important to Democrats heading into November, and the conference will be an important opportunity to highlight the clear choice voters will face in November on the issues most important to women and their families," a source with knowledge of the event told CNN. Donors for the event are being asked to contribute between $25 -- which buys students access to political training sessions -- and $32,400, the maximum annual donation to the major political party committees. Among other things, the maximum donation allows an individual to take part in a welcome reception featuring Mrs. Obama, two photo receptions and the concluding dinner. The conference is one of many closely watched appearances that Clinton -- currently the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic 2016 presidential nomination, if she runs -- will make this fall political season. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, are scheduled to headline the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, just a few days before the women's event. The steak fry is a rite of passage for Democratic presidential contenders. Hillary Clinton is also slated to appear at a number of other fundraisers to benefit Democrats running in this midterm election year. *Politico: “Hillary Clinton and President Obama to headline event” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-womens-leadership-forum-110385.html>* By Maggie Haberman and Katie Glueck August 27, 2014, 12:19 p.m. EDT Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are headlining a Democratic National Committee fundraiser together in Washington next month, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. The president and his former secretary of state will both speak at the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum. The event is at the Marriott Marquis in Washington on Sept. 18-19. A welcome reception is set to be hosted by First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden, Vice President Joe Biden’s wife. Gloria Steinem is expected at the Friday night dinner and conference speakers include high-profile female Democrats like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden and EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock, along with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. *Associated Press: “Former President Clinton to campaign in Rhode Island for treasurer hopeful Magaziner” <http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6da274c27e44415ea542c4fcb8a369cf/RI--Clinton-Rhode-Island>* [No Writer Mentioned] August 27, 2014, 12:46 p.m. EDT PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island — Former President Bill Clinton is making a campaign stop in Rhode Island for Democratic candidate for treasurer Seth Magaziner. Magaziner is the son of former Clinton administration policy adviser Ira Magaziner. Clinton will headline a rally for Magaziner at the Rhode Island Convention Center in Providence on Wednesday afternoon. The political newcomer is running against former Treasurer Frank Caprio. Caprio is the Democratic Party's endorsed candidate. Clinton came to Rhode Island in 2010 to support Caprio in his campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Caprio supported Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008. The winner of the Sept. 9 primary faces former state Auditor General Ernie Almonte in November. Almonte is running as an independent. No Republican filed to run. The incumbent treasurer, Gina Raimondo, is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. *CNN: “First-week sales of Paul Ryan's book slow” <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/27/first-week-sales-of-paul-ryans-book-slow/>* By Dan Merica August 27th, 2014 11:02 a.m. EDT Washington (CNN) – Rep. Paul Ryan's first solo book sold 6,266 copies in its first week of publication, according to Nielsen Bookscan data provided to CNN by a publisher. The number puts Ryan's "The Way Forward" behind two other books by conservative authors, "America" by Dinesh D’Souza and "One Nation" by Ben Carson, both of which have been out longer than "The Way Forward," according Jason Pinter, the founder and publisher of Polis Books. The Nielsen data makes up roughly 85% of all retail book sales but does not include e-book and preorders. "Considering two years ago Ryan was the VP nominee and a rising star, first week sales have to be considered fairly disappointing," said Pinter. "Ben Carson’s book is doing huge business, not just having sold 245,885 since publication in May, but it’s still selling over 11,000 copies a week and has a good shot at the #1 spot on the New York Times bestseller list in its 14th week in release." Ryan, who is considered a possible 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, wrote the book to "challenge conventional thinking, renew the conservative vision for 2014 and beyond and show how it is essential for the well-being of our communities and the future of our nation," according to the publisher. Ryan did not receive an advance from the book, per House rules, but the eight-term congressman will receive royalties from sales. Since kicking off a book tour earlier this month in Philadelphia, Ryan has crisscrossed the country holding book events and speeches to tout "The Way Forward." In Chicago, he had his first public event with Mitt Romney, who chose Ryan as his running mate in 2012. Because Ryan is seen as a 2016 contender, his book will be seen as a gauge of his popularity heading into the national contest. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton published her latest memoir, "Hard Choices," earlier this year, a great deal of attention was focused on how many books she sold. Although Ryan outsold Clinton last week – 6,266 to 3,910 – the former first lady has sold 231,254 copies overall, according to Nielsen. Clinton's book landed atop the New York Times bestseller list when it was released in June, but her sales were considered poor because of the sizable advance she received, the attention around the book rollout and the fact her publisher reportedly ordered 1 million first edition copies. CNN reached out to a Ryan representative for comment but did not hear back. *Breitbart: “Exclusive – Rand Paul: Hillary’s ‘War Hawk’ Policies Led to Benghazi Attack, Rise of ISIS” <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-Hillary-Clinton-s-War-Hawk-Style-Policies-Destabilized-Libya-Syria-Leading-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS>* By Matthew Boyle August 27, 2014, 9:45 a.m. PDT Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) certainly has a knack for boldness. On Sunday's Meet the Press, he dubbed U.S. military engagement in Libya “Hillary’s war” and stated the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) is not a result of President Obama's inaction in the Middle East but the unintended consequence of the U.S. military engagement in Libya. The comments predictably caused heads in the GOP's foreign policy establishment to explode. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin called the rhetorical gambit “ludicrous” and said Paul holds the same views as his father, the libertarian former-Rep. Ron Paul. In an email to me, John Yoo, the former top Justice Department official in the Bush administration, said Paul is the Republicans' “own version of George McGovern.” In a phone interview, Paul expanded on his remarks and offered a detailed rendering of his views on foreign policy that, regardless of their merits, are undoubtedly innovative for a man likely to seek the GOP's presidential nomination in 2016. Paul told Breitbart News: “I would say the objective evidence shows that Libya is a less safe place and less secure place, a more chaotic place with more jihadist groups—and really, we’ve had two really bad things happen because of Hillary’s push for this war. One is that our ambassador was killed as a consequence of not having adequate security and really as a consequence of having a really unstable situation there because of the Libyan war, and then most recently our embassy having to flee by land because they couldn’t leave via the airport because of such a disaster in Libya. So I think it’s hard to argue that the Libyan war was a success in any way. From my perspective, the first mistake they made was not asking the American people and Congress for authority to go to war.” While Muammar Gaddafi, or Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—deposed during the George W. Bush administration—were certainly bad actors, Paul wants to know: who takes their place? “Sometimes people are trying to say I don’t have enough concern for this. Well, actually, I have a great deal of concern—and not thinking through the consequences of intervention has caused Islamism and radical jihadist groups to proliferate. So I think Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein were both secular dictators who were awful, and did terrible things to their people, but at the same time were also enemies of the jihadists. Assad is the same way. What we’ve done in Libya, and now what we’re doing in Syria, is we have armed groups that are commingled with jihadists.” For instance, in Syria, Paul says, by arming the “rebels” against Assad, America “degraded Assad’s capacity to wipe out the rebel groups in his country.” A year ago, Obama sought approval from Congress to engage militarily in Syria, as Paul urges, but Congress balked. Facing stiff resistance from lawmakers of both parties, the matter never even came up for a vote. According to Paul, that's how the system is supposed to work. “Think what would have happened had we seriously degraded Assad to the point where he was overrun, think who would be in charge of Syria right now?” Paul asked before answering his own rhetorical question: ”ISIS.” In conclusion, Paul said: “So we are very lucky that the American people are much wiser than Hillary Clinton, and much wiser than the president. We got the president and Hillary Clinton to slow down, but Hillary Clinton was widely reported to be the chief person proposing that we get involved in Syria. But really the only person directly involved in bombing ISIS’s bases right now is the Syrian government—so for all their wrongs, we’re actually quite lucky we didn’t have regime change, because I think it is a very realistic prediction that, had we had that happen, that ISIS would be in charge of Syria. Really, Syria, with Assad and all this war, is somewhat of a counter to the power of ISIS.” Paul's critics in the GOP are increasingly agitated by his stances, especially what they see as him positioning himself to the left of Clinton on foreign policy, even while the Middle East is becoming ever more volatile. “The last thing the Republican Party needs is its own version of George McGovern,” Yoo told me. “More than 50 percent of the American people now disapprove of Obama's isolationist foreign policy, whose disastrous effects we now see in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Asia. Paul's views will have the same bad consequences, both for the Republican Party, the United States, and the world.” On a panel on Meet The Press that followed Paul's interview, Michael Gerson, the former Geroge W. Bush speechwriter and one of the architects of “compassionate conservatism,” criticized Paul for opposing foreign aid. “He’s called for the gradual elimination of all foreign aid,” Gerson said. “I’ve seen its effect in sub-Saharan Africa and other places. This would cause misery for millions of people on AIDS treatment. It would betray hundreds of thousands of children receiving malaria treatment. These are things you can’t ignore in a presidential candidate. This is a perfect case of how a person can have good intentions, but how an ideology can cause terrible misery. He will need to explain that.” However, James Carafano, a generally hawkish foreign policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, said Paul is tapping into real currents of discontent with the American public. Paul is “onto something,” in that “in a sense that people are looking for something other than reflexively send in the bombs or reflexively do nothing,” Carafano told this reporter. “It’s not just Sen. Paul, but I’ve heard several of the people who might be Republican candidates offer different versions of the same thing,” Carafano said. “Rick Perry was here the other day and was a little more aggressive on Iraq than Paul, but in their own way, what everybody is trying to say is we need to be prudent as opposed to somebody who just says we’re going to go do this.” Paul describes himself as “a foreign policy realist like the first George Bush, like Reagan, like Eisenhower.” He elaborates: “They did intervene on occasion. It was not their first choice—but they did intervene when there were American interests involved, and I think really it’s not one extreme or the other. I often tell people in speeches one extreme goes nowhere all the time and that’s isolationism. The other extreme goes everywhere all the time. Many of the foreign policy sort of establishment in Washington, they're so used to being everywhere all of the time, that anyone who backs away from everywhere all of the time is considered to be an isolationist.” Paul said that in many cases, “there is no good alternative”—and that much of the time, each foreign policy choice by a president has negative consequences and positive ones. But the best decision, he said, is the one that acts in the best interest of America and her allies like Israel—even if that means a bad dictator remains in power. “I think one of the biggest threats to our country is radical Islam and these radical Islamist groups—they are a threat,” Paul said. Paul is currently leading the GOP field in 2016 GOP primary polls a few months out from the 2014 midterm elections. He said Americans are looking for someone they can trust to do the right thing when a foreign policy crisis arises. Paul went on: “When people are looking at choosing someone to be commander-in-chief, I think first and foremost they’re looking at whether that person has the wisdom and judgment to defend the country and make those decisions—when that 3 a.m.phone call came for Hillary, she didn’t bother to pick up the phone. In Libya, they were calling—they needed reinforcements for six months. It wasn’t just the night of the attack; for six months leading up to the attack there were repeated calls for reinforcements, for security teams, for a DC-3 to fly people on a plane to be able to leave the country. So I think the compilation of mistakes leading up to Benghazi really do preclude her from consideration to become commander-in-chief.” Regarding ISIS, the Islamic State terrorist organization that has grown a foothold in Syria and Iraq, Paul said he supports airstrikes. But if he were the president in this situation, unlike Obama, he would have called Congress back from recess to sell both chambers on action—and seek authorization before using America’s armed forces there. Paul said of ISIS: “We need to do what it takes to make sure they’re not strong enough to attack us. That means sometimes perhaps continuing the alliance with the new Iraqi government. Perhaps it means armaments, or perhaps it means air support, but frankly if I were in President Obama’s shoes at this time, I would have called Congress back, I would have had a joint session of Congress, and I would have said ‘this is why ISIS is a threat to the United States, to the stability of the region, to our embassy, to our diplomats, and this is why I’m asking you today to authorize air attacks.’ I’m betting if he would have done that to a joint session of Congress, he would have gotten approval. When you don’t do it through Congress, and you do it yourself, then you really have not galvanized the will of the nation. As a true leader, what I think we need to do is galvanize the nation when we go to war.” But since Clinton and Obama have “a disregard for the rule of law,” which generally requires congressional authorization for such military action while giving the president considerable latitude for short-term action, the administration did not seek congressional authorization for action in Libya—and probably won’t for action against ISIS, if it’s taken. Paul concluded: “Americans do want strong leadership from the president. They do think that President Obama is not being a strong leader. They do want a strong leader, something more akin to the public persona of Reagan. But they also don’t want somebody who is reckless in engaging in war; they don’t want somebody to put troops back in the Middle East. That was my point with Hillary Clinton—her eagerness to be involved in Libya and to be involved in Syria, in Libya led to very bad, probably unintended consequences and in Syria unintended consequences also. But I think you have less unintended consequences if you come to the American people through Congress and have a full-throated debate. It’s frankly difficult to convince Congress to do things—and that way, if you do it that way, you’re unlikely to go to war unless there is a consensus among the American people.” *The Guardian opinion: Megan Carpentier, The Guardian’s deputy US opinion editor: “Why Hillary Clinton should keep her mouth shut” <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/hillary-clinton-change-liberals-no-comment-policy>* By Megan Carpentier August 27, 2014, 7:30 a.m. EDT [Subtitle:] She might not be the change liberals are looking for, but her no-comment policy – on Ferguson and beyond – will keep her the frontrunner Hillary Clinton is not going to save you. She’s not your mother, your best friend or your confessor; a time machine to the 90s, the solution to the nation’s increasing divisiveness, or the correct variable in a complicated equation that equals 538; a reflection of what you want to hear, or the embodiment of what you want a “leader” to believe. What she is: a politician with two successful Senate campaigns under her belt – both in Democrat-friendly New York – and one ultimately unsuccessful presidential campaign; the former US secretary of state; an author; the former First Lady of both the United States and the state of Arkansas; a lawyer; a soon-to-be grandmother; a flawed human being; and, despite the fact that she hasn’t even said if she plans to run for office ever again, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 (if a vote were held today, which it won’t be). So why the relentless push from reporters and pundits for Clinton to comment on the brutal killing of Michael Brown and the subsequent crackdown by police in Ferguson? Why does anyone expect a private citizen to say something public about the heartbreak of another family, about the need for healing at this time, about letting the law run its course? Because, you know, President Obama did say almost all of that two weeks ago. It would be easy enough to dismiss the Hillary-soundbite fever as part of the 24-hour cable-and-internet news cycle: we want recognizable people to say moderately controversial things so that they can be written about and aggregated, played and replayed, then analyzed, dissected, allowed to cool and finally reheated for the increasingly small Sundaytalk show audience. But pundits, reporters and Clinton supporters want her to comment on everything and anything – especially domestic issues – because they want a specific kind of comment: one they didn’t get from Obama. In certain liberal quarters – not just the erstwhile Puma factions – there is a palpable disaffection with the Obama presidency and, from the Brown statement to his deportation policy to his drone program to the dearth of bankers languishing behind bars, there have been plenty of reasons for liberals to have lost that hopey-changey feel. Into that expectation gap snuck the Ready For Hillary folks – who reportedly aren’t coordinating with Clinton herself – as they hope to lay groundwork for her comeback. The Hillary hopefuls want her to be, right now, the one thing she most definitely is not: the current president of the United States. Though she is ostensibly hawking just a (sleep-inducing) memoir of her time in the foreign policy trenches this summer, and has limited her public comments to foreign policy issues, somehow, Clinton still almost seems like the change some Americans have been waiting for. But as others have noted, there is still virtually no political upside for Clinton to issuing a public statement about much of anything going on in this country – much less about Ferguson, given how deeply divided by race the country remains and how much of that divided sentiment she’d have to win over in both a Democratic primary and a general election, if she did run and secure the nomination. There’s no political upside to Hillary Clinton doing anything right now except to remain as non-controversial as possible – which, even on book tour, she didn’t quite manage to achieve. After all, she’s still outpolling her Democrat rivals by more than 50 points, and nationwide support for her is nearly 10 points higher than for Obama – though down from her tenure as Secretary of State, during which time she notably wasn’t running for office. When it comes to her political career, Clinton is a consummate politician – she is, in the parlance of the New York Times, “no angel”. So she isn’t going to resurrect disenfranchised Obama supporters’ passion for politics, and she’s not going to snap her fingers and undo Obama’s extrajudicial killing policy, and she’s not going to go back in time and support same sex marriage any faster or get single-payer pushed through. She’s not going to make grand pronouncements that mend race relations – goodness knows her supporters did their own damage to race relations in 2008 – and, even if she does destroy the glass ceiling in 2016, gender inequality will continue to exist. She might be the first woman to be elected president one day – but 2016 is a long way off. Being the front-runner is great but, to stay there, Clinton knows as well as anyone that she’s better off to stay mum and let her supporters make assumptions than to open her mouth and prove her critics right. *Huffington Post blog: Robert J. Elisberg, screenwriter and columnist: “And the Rand Played On” <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/and-the-rand-played-on_b_5715801.html?utm_hp_ref=politics>* By Robert J. Elisberg August 26, 2014, 6:02 p.m. EDT "I think that's what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there's gonna be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, 'You know what? We are tired of war. We're worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she's so gung-ho." -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), on the possibility of Hillary Clinton running for President. Actually, what scares the Democrats the most is the concept that someone like Rand Paul could become President of the United States. And so they would do most anything to see that that didn't happen. I don't tend to follow what Rand Paul generally says all that well. He so often twists his positions around on themselves, and they regularly come blowing out of unexpected orifices. But in the realm of Rand Paul comments, incomprehensible as this thinking can be, this rates among his most head-scratching. Which is saying a lot. I just don't know what on earth he was thinking or trying to gain by saying this. It's not that he was so wildly off-based in his description of Hillary Clinton. While he's exaggerating her positions, the truth is that I do think that she's more conservative than liberal when it comes to her positions on national defense. And it's a reason some Democrats don't support her for the nomination. But they know this about her already. And have for a long time. And not supporting someone for the nomination is a different kind of fish from support in the general election. So, again, I'm just not quite sure what Rand Paul was possibly thinking or trying to gain by saying this. Mind you, what Mr. Paul leaves unsaid in his comment is that while a Democrat who is more conservative on war could lose some Independent and "even some" Democratic votes, such a candidate who is positioned as very tough on national defense is also far more likely to pick up even far more Independent votes and a lot of Republican ones. So, you'd think the very last thing a Republican would want to do is paint any Democrat as playing to the GOP's own strength. After all, you know that Hillary Clinton will be strong on social issues and on immigration, concerns that are so critical to Democrats, and a candidate like Rand Paul is achingly weak there, him being on the record, for instance, as not saying that he is not a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act. So, the one issue that Republicans can ever have the upper hand on Democrats is by painting them (as they so often do) as lily-livered appeasers on national defense. And yet here is Rand Paul handing Hillary Clinton that on a silver platter. In fact, going further, the biggest issue that Republicans (wrongly) think they have on Ms. Clinton is relentlessly attacking her eternally over her supposed-involvement in the failure in Benghazi. That's a near-impossible case to make now when with the other other hand you're painting her as this defender of American in war. So, Mr. Paul is pulling the rug from under the one card Republicans believe they have. And the only other remote issue that Republicans could have on Hillary Clinton is her being a woman -- which for some means that she's too soft and tender and touch-feely and weepy emotional. And here is Rand Paul telling voters to be wary of Hillary Clinton because...she's too tough and militaristic. The only thing I can even possibly see that he thinks he's doing is trying a bit of preventative offense, campaigning against Hillary Clinton early by tarnishing her badly in the eyes of Democrats so that they won't nominate her to run for President. Against him. The problem with that is the one thing any Democrat could hope for is to be criticized by Rand Paul. Or Ted Cruz. Or Mario Rubio. The front line triumvirate of Republicans who most Democrats consider the leading heirs of the Lunatic Fringe. The specifics of what Rand Paul is saying here are empty words to Democrats -- the political equivalent of adults in the Peanuts animated specials, with just the sound of a horn going "whank-whank-whaaaaank." All that Democrats would hear is that Rand Paul was criticizing one of their own Democrats trying to get their own nomination. How dare he?!! And all that Republicans and right-leaning Independents would hear is that Hillary Clinton will "bring it on" and take it to those terrorists in the Middle East. And in the end, what he has mainly done is allow Hillary Clinton to explain that the last thing she needs is Rand Paul whining about how much she'll come to the defense of America. Because one thing you know she'll always do is go to the defense of America. Which is what she did when she was in the White House as First Lady. And when she was in the United States Senate. And when she was secretary of state, while Rand Paul is fine leaving America defenseless, she will always be on the front line defending our nation, as she always has been. And yes, she has supported war when our nation was attacked, and she has spent her career working diplomatically for peace. And Rand Paul -- honestly, she doesn't know what Rand Paul has ever stood for. Other than weakening our national defense. Is Hillary Clinton more conservative when it comes to supporting military involvement than some Democrats prefer? Yes, absolutely. And that is the biggest nightmare for Republicans is she is nominated. What scares Democrats the most is that Rand Paul will stop saying junk like this. *U.S. News & World Report opinion: Peter Roff, contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report: “Hillary Has to Throw Obama Under the Bus” <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/08/27/hillary-clinton-has-to-throw-obama-under-the-bus-to-win-in-2016?src=usn_tw>* By Peter Roff August 27, 2014, 8:00 a.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Clinton must turn on the Obama administration in order to run in 2016. The 2016 presidential contest is already being shaped by the events going on around us. From the ethnic cleansing in the Middle East to the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, the things happening now are generating themes the candidates in the next presidential contest will have to address, especially in the national security area which, all evidence to the contrary aside, has been relegated to the back bench in the last two presidential elections because issues here at home took precedence with the American voter. If you’re former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, this is a scenario that plays to your strengths but also to your weaknesses. She can discuss foreign policy in great detail, outlining a vision for America’s role in the world that could be compelling and attractive, even to the neo-isolationists in the mainstream of the Democratic Party and on the fringe of the GOP. At the same time she is going to have to answer, finally, tough questions about Benghazi, about Egypt, about the war on terror and about other issues that arose on her watch. In essence, she is going to have to be an apologist for the Obama administration’s foreign policy, both the portion she oversaw and for those things that happened after she left to sell her book and to prepare for her second run for the White House. This is not an advantageous position. President Barack Obama’s surprising return in the face of criticism from his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard suggests even private polls are showing that key voter blocs think the president is too disengaged from his work. His foreign policy, which started off with such promise, has turned into a giant lemon. Clinton has to figure out how to take that and make lemonade. It won’t be easy. There are ways to do it, but they involve turning on her president, something her patron, mentor and chief adviser is no doubt eager for her to do. Former President Bill Clinton – who is likely to take a much more hands-on approach to the management of his wife’s 2016 campaign than he did in 2008, is the master of triangulation. He is no doubt already trying to figure out ways to present his wife as the effective counter to both the incompetence of the Obama administration on the left and the insanity of the tea party Republicans on the right. It’s been done before, most notably by former (and perhaps future) French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who in 2007 managed successfully to separate himself from scandal-tainted rightest incumbent President Jacques Chirac while presenting a center-right agenda that was more appealing to French voters than the policy prescriptions put forward by Socialist Ségolène Royal. Sarkozy’s triangulation proved to be a winning combination at least once. That’s the game plan Hillary has to follow if she wants to get back into the White House: She must demonstrate that she is smarter and more competent than Obama with better ideas for getting America back to work than her opponents the right. Her evidence for this? The eight years of relative peace and prosperity America experienced during the years her husband occupied the Oval Office. Remember their comments from 1992 about “two for one”? The first step down this road is to throw Obama under the bus. There’s already been some of that – like former Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s public statements several weeks ago about how the current president had been dishonest in the way he sold his signature health care reform proposal to the American people. It’s only going to get worse. Expect over the next few months to read news exclusives in prominent left-of-center publications like The New York Times and The Huffington Post – quoting “administration insiders” and the like – that Clinton was a private but vocal opponent inside the administration of many of the Obama initiatives that went wrong. That while Obama wanted to get tough on Israel, Hillary counseled caution and doing nothing that would jeopardize Israel’s territorial integrity and national security. And, above all, that her hands are clean on Benghazi even though Team Obama tried to make her the fall guy and throw her to the wolves. Expect similar leaks on the domestic front on matters like health care, education and the rights of women and children. It will soon start to come out that, if the policy had a good outcome, she was a mover and shaker on its behalf behind the scenes and, if it had a bad outcome, she argued strongly against it to the president but was ultimately overruled. All this will be possible because, as far as most Americans who vote are concerned, the age of Obama is already over. The president never managed to live up to the promise (and promises) of his 2008 run for the White House and his excuses are getting tiresome. And, with the Senate likely to go to the Republicans in the upcoming election, Obama has simply outlived his usefulness to the Democratic Party. He is, in a word, expendable – if your eye is on the long term and setting the stage for the ground game you’re going to need next time. If he shows he can still be helpful by painting Republicans as being out of touch with the needs of middle-class Americans or by otherwise disparaging the GOP’s future electoral prospects, then his party will still defend him. But those will be short-term decisions in a long-term game, setting up the triangulation Hillary will need to have in place to become the nation’s first female president.