Correct The Record Friday July 11, 2014 Afternoon Roundup

podesta-emails 9,720 words email

P17 D6 P22 D8 P20

-----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 Friday July 11, 2014 Afternoon Roundup:* *Tweets:* *Correct The Record* @CorrectRecord: Douglas A. Smith in @ConMonitorNews: Foreign tourism (and American jobs) got boost from @HillaryClinton: http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/12709485-95/my-turn-foreign-tourism-got-boost-from-clinton … <http://t.co/CYspfuWrvB>[7/11/14, 10:53 a.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487610563535847424>] *Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: .@HillaryClinton worked to reform the public education system in Arkansas #HRC365 http://nyti.ms/1dLeWwb <http://t.co/ICLRqksGwA>[7/10/14, 5:03 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487341247594369024>] *Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: #HardChoices spent more time at #1 in its opening weeks than most other recent political memoirs: http://correctrecord.org/hard-choices-a-success/ … <http://t.co/xAV5zbdaz0> [7/10/14, 4:35 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487334215097544704>] *Correct The Record *@CorrectRecord: $225k donation to @ClintonFdn for HRC speech already brought in $353k for UNLV Foundation: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/unlv-foundation-clinton-fee-pencils-out … <http://t.co/ddkqIjliQj> [7/10/14, 3:30 p.m. EDT <https://twitter.com/CorrectRecord/status/487317877973061632>] *Headlines:* *Le Monde [accessed with Google Translate from French]: “Hillary Clinton: ‘The Americans are open to the idea of ​​a woman president’” <https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2014/07/11/hillary-clinton-les-americains-sont-de-plus-en-plus-ouverts-a-l-idee-d-une-femme-presidente_4455460_3222.html&edit-text=&act=url>* *“What is your greatest achievement?* This is undoubtedly the work I have done to restore the image of America after eight years of the Bush administration.” *Politico: “Sen. Martin Heinrich backs Hillary Clinton” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/martin-heinrich-supports-hillary-clinton-new-mexico-108806.html?hp=l3>* “Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) is adding his name to the roster of Senate supporters backing Hillary Clinton, serving as a draw for a New Mexico event for the super PAC ‘Ready for Hillary.’” *New York Times: Sunday Book Review: “Editors’ Choice” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/books/review/editors-choice.html>* “HARD CHOICES, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Simon & Schuster, $35.) Clinton’s memoir of her time as secretary of state may not be personally revealing, but it is sober and substantive.” *Washington Post: “Christine Lagarde: ‘Don’t let the bastards get you’” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-leadership/lagarde-on-leadership-its-about-encouraging-people/2014/07/11/4696f284-06b5-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html>* *“Words that seem to regularly come up in describing you are ‘charismatic,’ ‘presence,’ ‘ability to command a room.’ Do you have any advice on how to cultivate those traits?* It’s a question of feeling confident about yourself, being reconciled with your own identity — and your own body, actually. I remember Hillary Clinton not long ago addressing the IMF staff and saying, ‘Stop being obsessed about losing weight. Be okay with yourself.’ I thought about what she’d said, and she’s right.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Ed Klein’s book is out-selling Hillary Clinton. He will not beat her with the critics or fact-checkers.” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/11/ed-klein-has-a-new-book-about-the-obamas-and-the-clinton-brace-yourself-for-the-reviews/>* “The other defining characteristic of Klein's biographies, besides their popularity with people who despise the subjects unpacked within, is that the salacious details revealed often have a tenuous relationship with reality -- as commentators of all ideological stripes have pointed out time and time again.” *Wall Street Journal: “For the Wealthy, Silence May Be Golden” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-the-wealthy-silence-may-be-golden-1405097920>* “Those who coach the rich on what to say--and leave unsaid--about their money see Hillary Clinton's controversial ‘dead broke’ comment as a big mistake. And a common one.” *Nonprofit Quarterly: “The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s Huge Speaking Fees” <https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/24491-the-philanthropic-problem-with-hillary-clinton-s-huge-speaking-fees.html?utm_source=NPQ+Newsletters&utm_campaign=b78531da89-Daily_Digest_11467_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0e1de52e53-b78531da89-11904309#.U8AVy19BBM4.twitter>* “The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation may be doing extraordinarily wonderful things for communities around the world, but additional transparency is needed, especially now that Hillary Clinton is just about guaranteed the Democratic nod for the presidency; her speaking fees from nonprofit and public universities raise questions about what the universities (or some of their well-healed donors) might want from the Clintons.” *Articles:* *Le Monde [accessed with Google Translate from French]: “Hillary Clinton: ‘The Americans are open to the idea of ​​a woman president’” <https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2014/07/11/hillary-clinton-les-americains-sont-de-plus-en-plus-ouverts-a-l-idee-d-une-femme-presidente_4455460_3222.html&edit-text=&act=url>* By Christophe Ayad July 11, 2014, 11:58 *What is your greatest achievement?* This is undoubtedly the work I have done to restore the image of America after eight years of the Bush administration. When we took office, President Obama and I, the country was facing a serious economic crisis, we were engaged in two wars, we lost the support of our European friends and we had ignored our allies in Asia. There was a lot of concern about the intention of the United States: we would pursue a policy unilaterally or work with others? President appointed me Secretary of State because he wanted to stay focused on the economy. I worked hard to put out the concept of power informed [smart power] in order to finish in finish with brute force [hard power] and unilaterally that the Bush team had applied. I merged the development and diplomacy to send the message that we would work otherwise. *And if we go into detail records?* The establishment of an international coalition to enforce sanctions on Iran was hard work. There was no will the Russians, Chinese and even some Europeans were against. I spent a year and a half to build a consensus, which eventually bring the Iran to the negotiating table. I also negotiated a cease-fire in Gaza which lasted from 20 November 2012 until recent days. I created an opening with Burma , which has led to major reforms. I deepened our relationship with China across different instances of dialogue. And I drove the "reset" with Russia , which gave very good results, including sanctions against Iran and a new disarmament treaty nuclear , as Medvedev was president. Finally, I reformed the State Department to make more agile, more flexible, more responsive, even if it is less visible. I introduced new technologies in an administration that had remained in the telegrams of the nineteenth century. I promoted women in my department not to make pretty but because where there are women, there is more stability, more democracy and less conflict. It was a lot in four years. *What are your regrets?* The Syria of course. What is happening now is what we feared and Assad, Iran and Russia wanted to see happen . From the beginning of the Syrian uprising, Assad has not fought the terrorists, but terrorists called peaceful demonstrators calling for more freedom legitimately. And now, Assad is still in power , jihadists hold portions of territory, and the moderate opposition, it was forgotten. She did not receive the help and support she deserved. My other regret is Benghazi, where Christopher Stevens was killed [11 September 2012]. This is a great personal loss. It was I who had sent in Benghazi during the Libyan revolution. I suggested as ambassador after the revolution. We were intensely engaged with Libyans to help to overcome forty-two years of bad governance. There was nothing left after Gaddafi. And yet, good elections were held. And then there was this huge problem posed by militias. Our ambassador, another diplomat and two other Americans were killed, alas. *After the chemical bombing on the outskirts of Damascus, August 21, 2013, President Obama has given up commit military action in Syria as Bashar Al-Assad had crossed the "red line" that he had drawn. This has he undermined the credit of America in the world?* I was no longer in office but I supported President Obama's decision to consult Congress. What was the problem? The use of chemical weapons in 2013 in violation of the rules set by the international community since the First World War. If the president had launched a military operation, it is likely that some sites of chemical weapons have been destroyed, but not all. He would then have had to face the consequences. When the Russians have proposed a plan to dismantle the Syrian chemical arsenal, I spoke with the president and I argued. Finally, the desired result was obtained chemical weapons have been dismantled in Syria. But it is true that this sequence was not clearly enough explained, people have not always understood the reasoning. *About the Iraq , you voted for the war in 2003. In 2011, it is you who have implemented the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Did you not correct a mistake with another mistake?* I have said and written that give the green light to President Bush's war in Iraq was a mistake. I tried later to correct this error. During his campaign, President Obama made ​​a promise: all troops should have left Iraq in late 2011, unless the Iraqi government demanded that they remain. We worked for two years (2009-2011) to find a solution to a number of soldiers remain in Iraq. But Maliki did not want an American presence. He wanted to oppress the Sunnis and the Kurds, purge the army and deny its promises without being held accountable. The United States does not stationed military force without an agreement of the host country. This was not the case in Iraq. *What is the greatest threat to the United States? The emergence of the Islamic state, the aggressiveness of Vladimir Putin or the ambitions of China?* The most immediate threat is posed by terrorists seeking to obtain a nuclear or radioactive device. They never abandoned the desire to inflict the greatest possible losses to Westerners. At this very moment, a credible threat is the airlines operating to the United States. Then all "rogue state" that accesses nuclear weapons, as North Korea is a threat. If Iran or any other country managed to acquire the atomic bomb, it would destabilize the world and lead to an arms race. It would be a tragic mistake. The Pakistan is a perfect example: nuclear warheads are pointed towards the India and it is at war with terrorist groups seeking to s' possession of these weapons. Finally, there are long-term threats such as hazardous Putin's desire to go up over time, dominate its neighbors and create a sphere of influence in which it can intimidate other countries. China shows its muscles by investing heavily in its arm ed and claims sovereignty over the South and East China Sea, causing potential conflicts with Japan , the Vietnam and the Philippines . This instability can affect eventual global growth. Against Russia and China, we have put in place long-term strategies with our partners in Europe and Asia. *You doubted you that Putin was going to be as aggressive after his reelection in 2012?* Yes, I thought so. I sent two reports to President Obama about it. He had already invaded and annexed part of Georgia in 2008. It was increasingly clear that the experience of "democracy in the margins," he was allowed to develop , would not last . When tens of thousands of Russians took to the streets in late 2011 to protest against fraud in parliamentary elections, he was shocked. He could not believe that the Russians could demonstrate against him. He held me responsible, probably to forget his unpopularity. Once elected, or rather crowned president, he asked a lot of problem. I will not say that I expected to destabilize the Ukraine and invade the Crimea. But I knew he would hate it because it could make oil stain in Russia. *Obama is often accused of being weak, indecisive, without leadership. What is your opinion?* This is not fair. The president was very clear he was elected to end the war in Iraq, and win more successful Afghanistan . The two are not of his making. In his recent speech at West Point, he made ​​it clear he wanted other approaches to treat problems that pointing the finger tap on the table and speak harsh language. This is a thoughtful project. It may be that it takes time for it to be done, but that's not to say he is wrong. Maybe he has need to explain his method more than the rest of the world understands it better. *How to explain this paradox: you are very popular in the United States when you deal with foreign policy, but as soon as you think you are going to present to the presidential criticism rained?* American politics is like football , a sports battle. I'm not surprised: the political debate is so polarized in our country that we achieve nothing Congress. This is unfortunate because we face two crises. The first is economic: our economy is not creating enough jobs, growth is inadequate, excessive inequality. We also have a crisis of democracy: we can not take some difficult decisions because, among Republicans, think that compromise is a dirty word. They do not want to cooperate . I am a woman who is honest, who has his opinions, which expresses. This raises comments. *The United States is prepared to have a president?* I hope, be it me or another. Now, more Americans are open to the idea of ​​a female president. They are aware that we have not yet definitively broken the glass ceiling while 49 countries have already done. *Who inspires you in politics?* This is Nelson Mandela . I learned well know , he was a friend. I am amazed by the way, to his release from prison he was put at the service of forgiveness, reconciliation and unity. It was not easy. It is my polar star. *Politico: “Sen. Martin Heinrich backs Hillary Clinton” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/martin-heinrich-supports-hillary-clinton-new-mexico-108806.html?hp=l3>* By Maggie Haberman July 11, 2014, 12:09 p.m. EDT Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) is adding his name to the roster of Senate supporters backing Hillary Clinton, serving as a draw for a New Mexico event for the super PAC “Ready for Hillary.” According to an invitation obtained by POLITICO, Heinrich and Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) are headlining an event this Saturday evening Albuquerque. Clinton has gotten a number of endorsements from her former Senate colleagues, primarily through “Ready for Hillary,” a low-dollar super PAC. *New York Times: Sunday Book Review: “Editors’ Choice” <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/books/review/editors-choice.html>* [“A version of this list appears in print on July 13, 2014”] July 11, 2014 FOURTH OF JULY CREEK, by Smith Henderson. (Ecco/HarperCollins, $26.99.) In Henderson’s deeply impressive novel, an overburdened social worker becomes involved with a near-feral boy and his survivalist father in 1980 Montana. HARD CHOICES, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Simon & Schuster, $35.) Clinton’s memoir of her time as secretary of state may not be personally revealing, but it is sober and substantive. FRIDAYS AT ENRICO’S, by Don Carpenter. Finished by Jonathan Lethem. (Counterpoint, $25.) Carpenter’s eccentric posthumous novel follows four aspiring writers in the heady days of the Beats. OUR DECLARATION: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, by Danielle Allen. (Liveright, $27.95.) Scrutinizing our founding document, a political theorist sees it as a clarion call for equality. UNCERTAIN JUSTICE: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, by Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz. (Holt, $32.) A portrait of the current Supreme Court in its surprisingly messy complexity. SCALIA: A Court of One, by Bruce Allen Murphy. (Simon & Schuster, $35.) Murphy’s book is skeptical, often critical, of its subject, but it takes his ideas seriously and is free of snark. A MOST IMPERFECT UNION: A Contrarian History of the United States, by Ilan Stavans. Illustrated by Lalo Alcaraz. (Basic Books, $26.99.) Even the ugly side is delivered with comics-style humor. THE BOOK OF UNKNOWN AMERICANS, by Cristina Henríquez. (Knopf, $24.95.) Latino immigrant characters face the challenges of assimilation. ELIZABETH IS MISSING, by Emma Healey. (Harper, $25.99.) A woman slipping into dementia turns detective in this spellbinding first novel. *Washington Post: “Christine Lagarde: ‘Don’t let the bastards get you’” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-leadership/lagarde-on-leadership-its-about-encouraging-people/2014/07/11/4696f284-06b5-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html>* By Lillian Cunningham July 11, 2014, 10:12 a.m. EDT This July marks Christine Lagarde’s third anniversary as head of the International Monetary Fund. When she took the post, she faced a collapsing euro zone and an institution that itself was in something of a free fall following the resignation of its previous leader, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, over allegations of a sexual assault. It was, to put it simply, an interesting time to be the first woman and the first non-economist to lead the organization. In the three years since, Largarde has helped cool the financial flames in such countries as Greece and Ireland. She has also, though perhaps with less notice, begun to reposition the IMF’s work. Climate change, income inequality and gender participation in the workforce — issues that only a decade ago would have hardly surfaced at the fund — have now become a focus of its analysis. Yet while the organization has started to loosen its necktie in regard to its areas of research and the rigid internal hierarchy of economists, it still wrestles with a number of management challenges. Among them, Lagarde says, are difficulties in getting Congress to ratify a reform measure that would give emerging countries better representation and in getting more women — any women, in fact — onto the IMF’s board. In this interview, which has been edited lightly for length and clarity, Lagarde speaks about these management hurdles. She also reflects on the leadership lessons she’s learned over a career in which she has headed international law firm Baker & McKenzie and France’s Finance Ministry. Her final words of advice: “Don’t let the bastards get you.” *How do you define leadership?* To me, leadership is about encouraging people. It’s about stimulating them. It’s about enabling them to achieve what they can achieve — and to do that with a purpose. Others would call it “a vision,” but I’d rather use “purpose” because I think that everybody has a purpose in life, and that when collectively people work together, or practice sport together, they have a joint purpose. *What do you want to be your main achievement at the IMF?* I really want the institution to continue to be relevant, and to be regarded by its members — also its clients — as a place where they can receive the best possible advice, the most honest assessment of the situation, and where they can seek support and technical assistance. I sort of gather that under the word “relevance,” because I think that’s the most important service we can provide to the membership. *When you took over, your job was basically one of crisis management. Now perhaps there’s more time to think about your vision of how to make the fund relevant into the future. How have you transitioned between managing short-term and long-term challenges? Do you think you’re better at one or the other?* When I started, which was exactly three years ago, there were two crises. One was the internal situation at the IMF, because my predecessor had left under very dramatic circumstances, which had created anxiety, concern and complete lack of motivation on the part of many of the staff. The other crisis was outside, because many countries of the euro area were in great difficulties. Greece was one, but Ireland was another, Portugal was another, and soon Cyprus, and so on and so forth — and that was only in that part of the world. There were other countries elsewhere that were suffering and were seeking advice and financial support. On both accounts, it was a question of making sure that everybody was on deck, prepared to deal with the issues, and completely motivated by the mission of the fund — which is to make sure that we put all our expertise, our money, our technical assistance and our ability to advise together, to fight the crisis and to procure some stability for the membership. I have a theory that women are generally given space and appointed to jobs when the situation is tough. I’ve observed that in many instances. In times of crisis, women eventually are called upon to sort out the mess, face the difficult issues and be completely focused on restoring the situation. Has the crisis abated, are the flames down? I wish that was the case. Obviously there is recovery in the air, but it is neither very strong nor very balanced, and there are still many countries that need support and advice. While it’s not as burning and obvious as it was three years ago, we’re not just doing maintenance at the moment. We are also doing some crisis management as well. It’s in a way the vocation of the IMF to face crises, whether they are very high on the world agenda or rather low on the radar screen. *Have you learned anything about your own leadership skills, or weaknesses, from leading during a time of crisis?* I learned that you can constantly improve, and that you should not be shy about your views, and about the direction that you believe is right. I also learn constantly about how much people can achieve; how much they can give; how much they can go beyond themselves, step out of their comfort zone and give a lot more than they ever thought they would, or that you ever expected them to do. And it’s a constant process to learn how much you should step in after having listened, and how much the team you work with can exceed your expectations. *I know your father passed away when you were young. I wonder in what ways that has shaped your character and your leadership development.* My father passed away after three years of debilitating disease, which transformed a very strong and bright man into a real wreck. And that is hard. You have to get out of that stronger, if you can, which I was lucky to be able to. I was the eldest of the family, and I had to support my mother and help my brothers. So there was an element of empowerment that resulted from his passing away, and an element of terrible sorrow and grief, which never goes away. *Words that seem to regularly come up in describing you are “charismatic,” “presence,” “ability to command a room.” Do you have any advice on how to cultivate those traits?* It’s a question of feeling confident about yourself, being reconciled with your own identity — and your own body, actually. I remember Hillary Clinton not long ago addressing the IMF staff and saying, “Stop being obsessed about losing weight. Be okay with yourself.” I thought about what she’d said, and she’s right. You have to first of all be okay with yourself, accept who you are, and not fight against yourself all the time. It’s hard, but I think being reconciled with your body and your identity is step one. The second step is about being honest and telling the truth, not covering up and pretending you are somebody that you are not deep down inside. *What’s the one thing that you would like to see change the most about the internal culture of the IMF?* I would very much like it if there were more women on the board. At the moment I have a board where all the executive directors are male, and I think that is wrong. There’s not much I can do about it other than say it loudly and clearly. Member states of the IMF designate the executive directors, and I happen to have 24 male executive directors and not a single woman. As a second change, I would very much appreciate if the United States of America would ratify the reform that they themselves engineered about four years ago, which would give better representation to the emerging and developing countries, which are gaining ground, which are expanding and which must be given a bigger say at the international table of the IMF. Those are really two key components that would help the culture of the institution. Other than that, I would like the culture to be as focused on quality and excellence as it is, but maybe a little less rigid in terms of attitude and willingness to let diverging views and dissenting opinions be expressed. That’s something that we’re working on. It’s not always obvious. *Let’s talk more about the quota reform. From a leadership perspective, what do you do when your biggest shareholder, the United States, is not supporting the reform you think you need?* Well, first of all, the IMF has to continue doing its job. Second, we have to acknowledge and deliver on the changes taking place in the world, by having a more diverse staff, by having a more diverse management, by welcoming representatives from China and other emerging markets, and making sure that we have more women, of course. That’s what we have to continue doing no matter what. We are making collectively all the efforts we can to convince members of Congress that it is worth it to reform the institution, as was intended in the first place by all authorities but with a strong leadership from the United States of America. It’s a big letdown not to actually deliver on it, given that pretty much all members have now delivered and have ratified the reform. *The fund hasn’t really grown in the past five years or so, and it’s a place without high turnover. The result seems to be that a lot of good people can’t move up the ladder quickly, and that you can’t get women into senior positions at fast as you would like. As their leader, how are you wrestling with these personnel issues?* We have two major constraints: our demographics, which we can’t deal with except by natural departure over time, and the limited territory. When you lead a corporate institution, you can expand. And whether you grow the bottom line or the top line, you have incentives at both ends and you can manage those. At an institution like the IMF, our vocation is not to grow. Our vocation is to continue to provide the best possible services within the parameters of the mandate. So in the leadership position I’m in, I have to identify what makes people click, what motivates them. And it’s not necessarily going to be promotion, as you said, so there have to be other ways to incentivize people. I soon realized that people are motivated by the pride they take in the intellectual work they produce, and that’s an important driver. A second important driver is the pride they take in serving the public good. That’s another very strong engine to actually lead the institution and motivate people. *How long do you want to be there? What would you like to do after?* I know people doubt me when I say it, but I have never, never had a career plan. And maybe that was the wrong idea, but I never had a career plan. My career, which I know is successful and regarded as such, has been the result of circumstances, of meeting people, of being called, of being drafted, of taking on the job and rising to the circumstances when it was needed. So I have no idea, honestly, what I will do in two years’ time, which is the end of my term. What I know is that I will do my term, because you have to finish what you started. But after that, I don’t have a clue. I might be still here, I might be somewhere else. I might be doing something that I have no idea about. *What’s the best piece of leadership advice anyone’s given you?* Well there’s one encouragement that I was given once by my American father, in the family I stayed with when I was 17. Whenever I had tough times, he would send me a little note or give me a call and he would say, “Don’t let the bastards get you.” And I know this is not very polite. This is not very proper language. “Don’t let the bastards get you” means: “Hang on with the work that you are doing, and just don’t give up. Stand up.” *Washington Post blog: The Fix: “Ed Klein’s book is out-selling Hillary Clinton. He will not beat her with the critics or fact-checkers.” <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/11/ed-klein-has-a-new-book-about-the-obamas-and-the-clinton-brace-yourself-for-the-reviews/>* By Jaime Fuller July 11, 2014, 11:13 a.m. EDT News broke late Thursday that Ed Klein's book about the Obamas and the Clintons, "Blood Feud," is actually out-selling Hillary Clinton's own memoir, "Hard Choices." Given that surprising turn of events, we figured we would re-surface this post from a couple weeks ago looking at just who Klein is and what literary critics think of his work (hint: there is no love lost -- if it ever existed). Ed Klein's new book, "Blood Feud: The Clintons v. the Obamas" is going to sell many copies. That is one fact about the book that will be hard to dispute. Klein's last book on President Obama, "The Amateur," displaced the latest volume in Robert Caro's Lyndon B. Johnson series in the number one slot on the New York Times bestseller list. His book, "The Truth about Hillary," sold about 200,000 copies. You should probably fact-check anything else you hear about the book. The other defining characteristic of Klein's biographies, besides their popularity with people who despise the subjects unpacked within, is that the salacious details revealed often have a tenuous relationship with reality -- as commentators of all ideological stripes have pointed out time and time again. The reviews of Klein's work, filled with contempt and adventurous adjectives, often mirror the gossipy edges of the books they describe. The reviewers may not believe all of Klein's reporting, but they are more than happy to borrow his skillful hatchet job techniques, if only to use it against him. In anticipation of the reviews that are bound to follow the tabloid-y book excerpts featuring Michelle Obama's supposed nickname for Hillary ("Hildebeest") and new (and questionable) "revelations" about Hillary's response to the Benghazi attacks, here is a retrospective of Ed Klein book reviews. Only one features a septic tank metaphor. *The Amateur* “The Amateur” by Edward Klein is a book about an inept, arrogant ideologue who maintains an absurdly high opinion of his own talents even as he blatantly fails to achieve his goals. Oh, and President Obama is in this book too. Of course Mr. Klein does not see himself as the amateur of his title. As he announces in the very first sentence, “This is a reporter’s book.” It is based on “dozens of four-inch-thick three-ring notebooks” that detail interviews with “nearly 200 people,” some of whom even allowed Mr. Klein to mention their names in print. -- Janet Maslin, The New York Times “It’s an excellent read and very insightful.” -- Donald Trump, The New York Post “Ed Klein has a proven history of reckless fabrication in order to sell books. Nobody in their right mind would believe the nonsense in this one.” -- White House spokesperson Eric Schultz *The Truth About Hillary* The book is poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced and full of the kind of loaded language that is appropriate to a polemic but not an investigative work. -- Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal This is one of the most sordid volumes I’ve ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word. -- John Podhoretz, The New York Post The book is so far out there with lurid allegations that I'm beginning to suspect that Mr. Klein is a double agent, pretending to be objective but in reality hoping to drum up visions of a vast right-wing conspiracy to do in poor Mrs. Clinton. -- Alicia Colon, The New York Sun Consider the arrival, last month, of an aggressively unflattering biography, "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President," by Ed Klein, which climbed the best-seller lists despite condemnatory reviews. Senator Clinton didn't read it, but Mr. Reines did. He had to. It was up to him to provide the news media with an informed -- if uppity -- response from the Clinton camp: "This is a book full of blatant and vicious fabrications contrived by someone who writes trash for cash." Catchy. Mr. Reines now adds this: "His 15 minutes of fame are up. I'm looking forward to his biography: 'The Truth About Ed Klein: He Writes Trash for Cash.' " -- Robin Finn, The New York Times But Senator Clinton cannot become President of the United States. The reason, as her latest pornographer, Edward Klein, makes plain, is the lesbian situation. It is entirely possible, Klein allows, that the junior senator from New York is not herself a Sapphic practitioner. But she imbibed the “culture of lesbianism” as an undergraduate at Wellesley College in the nineteen-sixties; she has certainly known a few lesbians in her time (many names are unearthed); she definitely read a Methodist magazine called motive that published, among others, Rita Mae Brown, the author of a “lesbian novel”; and once, at a White House reunion of her Wellesley classmates, she rubbed the “butch cut” hairdo of one Nancy Wanderer, remarking, lesbianically, “Maybe I’ll get a haircut like this and really shock everyone.” Reading “The Truth About Hillary,” one can easily envision Klein’s well-appointed desk in mid-composition, an antique lamp casting a lambent beam on his files of political smut. -- David Remnick, The New Yorker There are lots of reasons to distrust or even dislike Mrs Clinton. She exudes an overpowering whiff of entitlement. She seems to believe that successful career women like herself are morally superior to women who stay at home and bake cookies. She was responsible, with Hillarycare, for one of the greatest political debacles of recent years. And, most infuriating of all, she tries to play both the victim and the strong woman. But Mr. Klein has succeeded in doing the near impossible: he has written a book that will make all but fire-breathing conservatives sympathetic to her cause. -- The Economist Unfortunately, The Truth About Hillary fails even as pornography. It's about as arousing as footage from a hidden camera in the bathroom of a highway truck stop. -- John F. Harris, The New York Observer Christians should repudiate this book and determine to take no pleasure in it. -- Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary If I were a right-winger, I would be offended by both Klein and[Karl] Rove. But I am not a conservative, and so I can only wonder at their gullibility. Right-wingers are the useful idiots of our times and while they have their occasional left-wing counterparts, the lefties will not buy essentially the same book over and over again -- if only because they lack the funds. Maybe Klein has taken this as far as it will go. I hope not. My book on Hillary's romp with Paris Hilton will be out soon. It's hot. -- Richard Cohen, The Washington Post It's hard to believe that these voices on the right are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton. Here is a far more believable explanation for the treatment of the anti-Hillary book: The networks decided -- correctly in my opinion -- that this piece of junk journalism did not deserve free publicity. -- Paul Janensch, The Hartford Courant He focuses overmuch on Hillary's alleged lesbianism, for instance (she didn't shave her legs and underarms at Wellesley!), and even writes that Chelsea was conceived one night when Bill raped Hillary. Only the fringiest Clinton-haters could find pleasure with that level of prurient tabloiding of a former U.S. president and a present-day U.S. senator. After a few paragraphs, you find yourself reaching for the Brillo. -- Kathleen Parker, The Chicago Tribune There's a danger when you throw together rumor, innuendo, mind reading, and unsubstantiated blind quotes from sources who overtly hate your subject. And it's not just the risk of looking (as Edward Klein does) like an author devoid of credibility. -- Nina J. Easton, The Boston Globe The latest assault is by Edward Klein, whose name commonly appears in print these days in close proximity to words like smarmy and sleazy. -- Clyde Haberman, The New York Times This book is the literary equivalent of a backed-up septic tank. -- Larry Cox, The Tuscon Citizen What I am saying is that if Klein purposely set out to write the sleaziest, most derivative, most despicable political biography ever, he has failed both himself and his readers miserably. ''The Truth About Hillary'' is only about the 16th sleaziest book I have ever read. Though, in fairness to the author, reading creepy, cut-and-paste books is my hobby. -- Joe Queenan, The New York Times *Katie: The Real Story* Well, by now, you get the general flavor of Edward Klein's unauthorized biography, which seeks to portray its subject as a little bullet fired into the heart of the fourth estate. You may wonder why making that point was worth a book. You may also wonder if the same book would have been written about a male broadcaster. Finally, you may wonder why you should expect anything very serious from the author of "The Kennedy Curse," which describes the late Carolyn Bessette Kennedy as "sprawled on the floor in front of a sofa, disheveled and hollow-eyed, snorting cocaine with a gaggle of gay fashionistas." It takes a tough man to write a phrase like "gaggle of gay fashionistas," and, in fact, Klein has made a second career of leaving knuckle prints on famous women. -- Louis Bayard, The Washington Post *All Too Human: The Love Story of Jack and Jackie Kennedy* Ed Klein as every legal right to author a book like this one. St. Martin's Press has every right to publish it. But neither one of them should feel especially proud today. -- Ellis Henican, Newsday *Wall Street Journal: “For the Wealthy, Silence May Be Golden” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-the-wealthy-silence-may-be-golden-1405097920>* By Daisy Maxey July 11, 2014, 12:58 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Those who've risen from humble beginnings may not see themselves as wealthy Those who coach the rich on what to say--and leave unsaid--about their money see Hillary Clinton's controversial "dead broke" comment as a big mistake. And a common one. "She doesn't feel she's defined by her financial wealth," notes Katherine Lintz, founder of Matter Family Office. Her firm, with offices in Clayton, Mo., and in Denver, handles about 150 families with fortunes that range from $3 million to $1 billion. Many built their own businesses and came from humble beginnings, and they "don't think of themselves as one of the 1%," she says. "They're head-down, working," she says. "Their vision of themselves is no different than it was when they were 25 years old hiring their first employee." Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton's much-criticized reference to her and her husband's indebtedness in 2001, which she made in an ABC interview in June, broke a cardinal rule that Ms. Lintz and other advisers to the wealthy often stress: Be circumspect. "The smartest thing for the wealthy person to do is not to say anything about their wealth," says Robert Dilenschneider, who leads Dilenschneider Group Inc., a New York public-relations firm that does coaching work for some family offices and also works directly with many executives. Comments about financial status that are incorrect, misunderstood or too revealing can prove troublesome for anyone. But for the very wealthy, these can harm their public image or career, attract Internal Revenue Service scrutiny or--in a worst-case scenario--put them in danger. Of course, politicians with lots of money can't avoid discussing their finances, which are often a matter of record. Athletes and celebrities, whose big-money contracts also often become public knowledge, face the issue, too, as do a lot of moneyed individuals who go through headline-making divorces, Mr. Dilenschneider notes. At that point, "it stretches credibility" to play down one's financial status too much, he says. And "to say, 'I'm poor' is a big mistake. It offends poor people." Mrs. Clinton herself, in retrospect, called her word choice "inartful." Like Ms. Lintz, Mr. Dilenschneider deals with some clients who are very rich but don't feel it. He recalls one who was worth $13 billion--and complained about the cost of an English muffin at a Times Square breakfast spot. On the other hand, some wealthy people make a very different kind of mistake when discussing their money: They brag about it. Ms. Lintz has counseled some clients who, after making a big charitable donation, "may have boasted too much about it." Even if their philanthropic urge was genuine, this can set them up for criticism--and also make them a target for con-men or other criminals. She asks clients to ponder this question: "Who's going to pick up the paper today that you really want to know your financial business, and then act on it?" She adds, "I don't know really what the upside is of that." She encourages her clients, when speaking publicly, to focus on their experiences--the mistakes they've made in life, the lessons they've learned--rather than their finances. "All communication in the public eye just needs to be real and honest," Ms. Lintz says. Being too boastful or overly humble "is just not attractive." *Nonprofit Quarterly: “The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s Huge Speaking Fees” <https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/24491-the-philanthropic-problem-with-hillary-clinton-s-huge-speaking-fees.html?utm_source=NPQ+Newsletters&utm_campaign=b78531da89-Daily_Digest_11467_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0e1de52e53-b78531da89-11904309#.U8AVy19BBM4.twitter>* By Rick Cohen July 11, 2014, 14:16 If you have spent any time with Bill or Hillary Clinton in person, as this writer has, you’ll get this point: Whether you like or hate their politics, you cannot deny their brilliance. The former president is a phenomenal, freewheeling thinker, able to integrate knowledge from multiple sources with insight that puts him a level above the crowd. His spouse, the former senator and Secretary of State and probable presidential candidate, possesses a steely, directed brilliance that is in sharp contrast with her more extemporaneous husband. Even on their individual merits, were they not the most powerful political couple in the United States, you would want to hear them talk—and maybe even pay them to do so. But speaking fees for Bill and Hillary Clinton—and now their daughter Chelsea as well—are a cause for nonprofit and philanthropic concern, particularly with nonprofit entities that pay huge sums, six- and seven-figure fees to bring the Clintons to the dais. The news reports about the speaking fees and related political blowback regarding the Clintons have been increasing geometrically: Between January 2001, when he left office, and January 2013, when Hillary Clinton left her position as Secretary of State, the former president has received $104.9 million in fees for delivering 542 speeches. The largest source of his speaking gigs? Wall Street banks and other financial services firms, which recruited the former president for 102 speeches and paid him $19.6 million. In some cases, the former president’s speaking fees have been astronomical. Last year, the Jewish National Fund, the Israeli organization that owns or controls a significant part of that nation’s actual real estate, offered to pay President Clinton $500,000 in return for the president’s speaking at Israeli President Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday celebration. After an outcry in Israel and in the U.S., the JNF withdrew its half-million-dollar offer. That sum, though, is a quarter-million lower than the highest fee reportedly paid to President Clinton: $750,000 for an address to the telecom company Ericsson in Hong Kong. The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker reports that Hillary Clinton’s average speaking fee tops $200,000, with the former Secretary of State accepting lower fees or waiving them on occasion for black-tie society gigs. For a speech earlier this year to students and faculty at the University of California at Los Angeles, Hillary Clinton was paid $300,000, the money coming from a private trust established by Scope Industries CEO Meyer Luskin to fund a lecture series at the school. Two years ago, the UCLA paid Bill Clinton $250,000 for a speech. The Post further reported that Hillary Clinton has scored at least $1 million this year in speaking fees for speeches at the University at Buffalo, Colgate University, and Hamilton College in New York, as well as Simmons College in Boston and the University of Miami in Florida—each declining to reveal how much they paid the former Secretary of State-- plus $251,250 from a donor fund for a speech the University of Connecticut and the $300,000 for the UCLA gig. At the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, the UNLV is paying Hillary Clinton $225,000 for speaking at its annual fundraising dinner, scheduled for October 13th. The foundation is charging people to hear the former Secretary of State as much as $20,000 for some tables ($18,000 of that cost tax deductible) and has sold $353,000 in “high dollar seats.” This would give UNLV a profit from Clinton’s speech notwithstanding the high fee, though lower than the $250,000 it paid the former President in 2012 to speak to 992 guests. UNLV student government leaders have split on this issue, with some calling for Hillary Clinton to donate her fee to the university as a charitable gesture. In the wake of questions regarding Hillary Clinton’s self-acknowledged less than artful contention that she and Bill left the White House “dead broke,” family spokespersons revealed that daughter Chelsea Clinton, in addition to earning $600,000 a year as a special correspondent for NBC News, where she is rarely ever seen on camera, takes in as much as $75,000 for her speeches. The Clintons are able to command speaking fees that are close to unparalleled among politicians and celebrities. After leaving office, former Vice President Al Gore got $156,000 for a half-hour lecture in London. Former President George W. Bush’s typical speaking fee is apparently $110,000. Dick Cheney’s fee per address is about $75,000 and his daughter Liz’s around $20,000. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney makes between $40,000 and $60,000 for his appearances. In general, the Clinton fees on the political celebrity speaking circuit are like “max contracts” for players in the NBA; everyone else can only hope someday to see those numbers. The criticism of the Clinton speeches, particularly Hillary Clinton’s, is that she is taking in huge sums as she marches toward her all but inevitable presidential campaign, and that many of these huge fees are coming from colleges and universities which generate their income through charitable donations and tax revenues. Because Clinton is not yet an official candidate, her income from these speeches and her use of the fees does not have to be declared in the financial disclosure reports that are required of candidates. Hillary Clinton defended her fees in an interview with ABC’s Ann Compton. All of her speaking fees (and apparently Chelsea’s as well) are turned over to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the public charity that the family controls and operates. The high-profile foundation has a laudable mission: “to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among governments, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private citizens to turn good intentions into measurable results.” Among its programs are the Clinton Global Initiative; the Clinton Guistra Enterprise Partnership, geared to creating, scaling, and replicating social enterprises in the developing world—a special interest of Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who very controversially used his connection to President Clinton (helped by a $100 million donation to the CGI) to land face time with Kazakhstan’s brutal dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to negotiate a lucrative uranium mining deal; the Clinton Foundation in Haiti; many international health initiatives; the Clinton Climate Initiative “to create and advance solutions to root causes of climate change”; and the Clinton Presidential Center. ABC reports, however, that it has been unable to get Hillary Clinton to provide documentation attesting to the donation of her speaking fees to the foundation. A review of the Clinton Foundation’s Form 990s for several of the past years reveals no disclosure of the names of major donors and therefore no information as to whether Hillary Clinton (or Bill Clinton, for that matter) has been donating speaking fees to their philanthropy. However, Hillary Clinton’s commitment to donate the speaking fees may be a decision of somewhat recent vintage, to be revealed in future 990s. (The most recent Clinton Foundation 990 available to the public on GuideStar or the Foundation Center’s online directory is from tax year 2012.) Because the foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity, however, it is not required to reveal the names of its donors and the amount they are giving the Clinton Foundation. For Hillary Clinton to fulfill her pledge of transparency, the foundation would have to take a step that it is typically not required to do. In light of the political backdrop of the Clinton Foundation, this additional voluntary transparency is very important. Disclosure of donations to charities and foundations controlled by powerful political figures should be done as a matter of course, whether they are the Clintons’ speaking fees or the six- and seven-figure contributions of corporate and other donors who might have expectations of something in the future. One issue may be the ultimate sources of the payments for the Clinton speaking fees, who might be anticipating a good word, a positive reaction, or a business-world endorsement from the most powerful political couple in the nation. But there is another issue: These donations to Hillary Clinton’s income that are then transferred to her family foundation are not simply private contributions. In many cases, and particularly the most recent, these mammoth speaking fees are not from individual (or corporate) charitable donors, but from universities. Hillary Clinton defended the dynamic: “I have been very excited to speak to many universities during the last year and a half, and all of the fees have been donated to the Clinton Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and lifesaving work,” Clinton told ABC. “So it goes from a Foundation at a university to another foundation.” In other words, through her speeches, Hillary Clinton is in a way “repurposing” the donations others are making—or taxpayers are making—to these colleges and universities. The universities, like UNLV, take pains to suggest that, according to Michael Wixom, a member of the Nevada Board of Regents, “no student funds, no tuition funds, no state dollars are being used in any way to pay her fee,” but that only works in cases like UNLV’s where the venue is a fundraiser at which moneyed interests pay big sums, partially tax-deductible, for the honor of hearing Clinton’s speech. In other instances, the universities point to privately funded endowments or trusts that pay for Clinton and perhaps other speakers as well—or in many cases, they don’t even reveal how much they are paying or where the money for the speaking fees comes from. Nonetheless, the optics aren’t good. Money is largely fungible. Students and their parents are hard-pressed by tuition increases—a four-year increase of 17 percent in the Nevada higher education system, a 6.5 percent increase announced this year for the University of Connecticut, the imposition of “student success fees” at many University of California system campuses as substitutes for formal tuition increases—making the Clintons’ speaking fees look problematic. Universities have squirmed under Congressional scrutiny but largely left unchanged such policies as amazingly high salaries for university presidents (41 of whom had compensation packages of more than $1 million as of 2011) and very low spending rates despite huge growth in their endowments in many cases, an issue constantly raised by Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, pressing universities, much like foundations, to spend more from their endowments. The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation may be doing extraordinarily wonderful things for communities around the world, but additional transparency is needed, especially now that Hillary Clinton is just about guaranteed the Democratic nod for the presidency; her speaking fees from nonprofit and public universities raise questions about what the universities (or some of their well-healed donors) might want from the Clintons. In the case of Bill and Hillary Clinton, their intersection with nonprofits and foundations is hardly superficial. In her pre-candidacy days, Hillary Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. She was the first woman chairperson of the board of the national Legal Services Corporation and also chaired the Children’s Defense Fund, founded and run by civil rights activist Marion Wright Edelman. In philanthropy, she was a board member and one-time chair of the New World Foundation, a prominent funder of politically progressive of left-wing causes, and served on the board of the Wal-Mart corporation, whose corporate practices and philanthropic giving, generally the largest year upon year among all corporations, have been subjected to sometimes sharp criticism from political liberals. In 1999, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton co-hosted the first-ever White House conference on philanthropy, with an accompanying report that called on foundations to do more for poor people and on wealthy people to give more, particularly in comparison to the charitable generosity of American’s poor and working classes. It was notable—and not just a bit humorous—when President Clinton called for the wealthy classes, as a result of a huge run-up in the stock market, to increase their charitable giving by at least one percent of their income: “As we’ve had this phenomenal increase in wealth in our country, I would feel even better if the percentage of our national income devoted to charitable giving had gone up just a little bit. You heard Hillary say what we could do if we could just increase it by 1 percent,” the President said at the program. “But going from 2 to 3 percent is a huge increase. We've been sort of stuck at 2 percent. Now, when the stock market triples, 2 percent is a lot more than it used to be. That's not real pocket change; it’s real money.” We doubt that the irony of the president calling for a one-percent increase in charitable giving with the backdrop of progressive foundations—like New World—campaigning in conjunction with the National Network of Grantmakers was due to a simple slip of the tongue on his part. He might have seemed to be simply riffing, but having watched him before and after, we would suggest that he knew exactly what he was doing. Ten years later, when Clinton spoke at a Council of Foundations-sponsored program on rural philanthropy and called out “foundation activity in rural America has been woefully inadequate,” he knew exactly what he was saying then as well. In both instances, the uncomfortable reactions of foundation CEOs in the room were fun to watch, even if private foundations haven’t budged on their defense of a five percent foundation payout (including related administrative expenses) or appreciably increased their grantmaking to rural America. Now in charge of a very large foundation that is able to convene rich people from around the world and tally up their commitments to Clinton Foundation initiatives, both for international aid and for their domestic and presidential library program priorities, Bill and Hillary Clinton know their way around nonprofits and foundations to a degree probably unlike any other White House occupants. Probably only the Obamas, given President Obama’s past service on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago and First Lady Michelle Obama’s numerous nonprofit connections, from the Chicago office of Public Allies to her work as a vice president for the University of Chicago hospital, compare in their personal nonprofit and philanthropic engagements prior to Barack Obama’s election as president. Bill and Hillary Clinton know nonprofits and foundations better than almost any politician you will encounter. Their political advisors are dealing with the controversial political optics of the massive speaking fees by emphasizing the deposit of the fees to the Clinton’s family foundation as opposed to the Clintons’ own pockets. But the concern about the Clintons’ speaking fees isn’t one of political image. It is more than, as some in the press have intimated, a concern that the Clintons have become well ensconced in the top one percent of the nation’s socio-economic elite, aided and abetted by income from speaking fees. The issue is that the philanthropic beneficiary of the speeches is a foundation, structured as a public foundation but clearly synonymous with and controlled by the Clinton family. Bill Clinton is arguably the most powerful and influential political figure in the nation, in or out of office. Unless her campaign tanks as it did in 2008, Hillary Clinton has an awfully good shot of becoming President of the United States. Donors and institutions that are paying them and their daughter huge sums for their speeches may very well be buying recognition and face time with powerful political leaders who they hope will be able to deliver political favors in the future. It is troubling when corporate donors give to political charities with a more or less obvious expectation that softer and gentler treatment will ensue in the future. It is also troubling when some of the payers are public or nonprofit entities themselves such as colleges and universities, converting taxpayer funds and tax-exempt donations into signals that could end up in positive treatment when these institutions are themselves seeking access and favors, even if it is only a good word put in by one of the Clintons to a federal agency providing funding or to a regulator who might be taking a critical look at university tuitions and endowment payouts. It would be terribly disappointing to imagine that the colleges and universities paying the Clintons these sums might be fronting, hopefully unknowingly, for individual donors supporting these colleges’ lecture series, but individually have personal or political agendas that would benefit from being associated with an institution of higher education that pays Bill or Hillary Clinton a couple of hundred thousand for a speech—even if the money ends up in the Clintons’ family foundation. In her 2008 Democratic primary campaign against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton was resistant to calls to release the names of donors to the Clinton Foundation. Obama got a leg up against her as the “transparency candidate,” even go so far as to reveal, unlike Clinton, his senatorial earmarks, including two that went to Public Allies and one that was a request for $1 million for the University of Chicago hospital. In the presidential arena, transparency and disclosure always helps. In 2014—and as the presidential campaign for 2016 looms—Hillary Clinton should be doing the same and, given some of the legitimate criticisms, thinking seriously about the practice of taking large speaking fees from colleges and universities and repurposing them for her family foundation.