podesta_email_01640.txt

podesta-emails 7,368 words email

P22 V11 D6 P17 P18

-----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 Thursday August 28, 2014 Morning Roundup:* *Headlines:* *Politico: “Exclusive: GOP poll of women: Party 'stuck in past'” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/gop-poll-of-women-party-stuck-in-past-110398.html>* “But the GOP appears to have a long way to go when it comes to capturing a significant slice of the female electorate. Even on fiscal matters — traditionally the party’s strongest issue set — Republicans hold only slight advantages that do not come close to outweighing their negative attributes.” *People: “Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: 'I Will Help Hillary Get Elected'” <http://www.people.com/article/kirsten-gillibrand-hillary-clinton-president>* “‘In my mind, she's definitely running,’ Gillibrand tells PEOPLE. ‘Anytime I've ever talked to her, I've offered every bit of help in the world and she's never said no.’” *Wall Street Journal opinion: Sen. Rand Paul: “How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958>* “We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.” *Wall Street Journal opinion: Daniel Henninger: “It's Not a Videogame” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/dan-henninger-its-not-a-videogame-1409179337>* “These foreign-policy fiascoes, and many others, are laid at the feet of Barack Obama. And at the feet of former Secretary of State Clinton, who spent four years and a million miles in flight from all this.” *The Daily Beast: Nick Gillespie: “Hillary's Got a Millennial Problem” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/hillary-s-got-a-millennial-problem.html>* "Over at FiveThirtyEight, Harry Enten averages a bunch of polls taken earlier this year and finds that the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state rolls over Christie on average by 10 points with all voters and a whopping 27 points with “young voters” (ages 18 to 29 or 34, depending on the poll). For Paul, the shellacking is even worse, with Clinton beating him by 11 points overall and by 28 points with the kids." *Mediaite: “Fox Host Thinks NY Times Is Doing Hillary’s ‘Bidding’ by Not Endorsing Cuomo” <http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-host-thinks-ny-times-is-doing-hillarys-bidding-by-not-endorsing-cuomo/>* “While Tantaros admitted that Cuomo ‘has had some shady ethics,’ she wondered aloud, ‘Isn’t it interesting? Do you think they could be doing the bidding of, oh, I don’t know, Hillary Clinton to take out somebody who could potentially be a dark horse for 2016? I do.’” *Elle: “There's a Clothing Store Dedicated to Hillary Clinton's Pantsuits” <http://www.elle.com/news/culture/theres-a-clothing-store-dedicated-to-hillary-clinton>* “In Kosovo's capital city of Pristina, just around the corner from Bill Clinton Boulevard and a 10-foot statue of its namesake, sits Hillary—not the person, but the store, whose wares were inspired by the woman herself.” *New York Magazine blog: Daily Intelligencer: “Mitt, Again?” <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/mitt-again.html>* “Romney would lose to Clinton in the general, the polls show. But he would beat Obama, and he has some decent numbers in decisive states like New Hampshire.” *The Hill: “Could Romney really run?” <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/216124-could-romney-run>* “Mitt Romney is in demand, and it’s raising speculation about another White House run, however far-fetched that might seem.” *Articles:* *Politico: “Exclusive: GOP poll of women: Party 'stuck in past'” <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/gop-poll-of-women-party-stuck-in-past-110398.html>* By Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer August 27, 2014, 5:47 p.m. EDT A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups — including one backed by Karl Rove — paints a dismal picture for Republicans, concluding female voters view the party as “intolerant,” “lacking in compassion” and “stuck in the past.” Women are “barely receptive” to Republicans’ policies, and the party does “especially poorly” with women in the Northeast and Midwest, according to an internal Crossroads GPS and American Action Network report obtained by POLITICO. It was presented to a small number of senior aides this month on Capitol Hill, according to multiple sources involved. Republicans swore they’d turn around the party’s performance with women after Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012. And while they are in good shape in 2014, poised to pick up seats in the House and possibly take the majority in the Senate, the new report shows that they have not improved their standing with women — which could exacerbate their problems if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016. The report — “Republicans and Women Voters: Huge Challenges, Real Opportunities” — was the product of eight focus groups across the country and a poll of 800 registered female voters this summer. The large-scale project was a major undertaking for the GOP groups. “The gender gap is hardly a new phenomenon, but nevertheless it’s important for conservatives to identify what policies best engage women, and our project found multiple opportunities,” said Dan Conston, a spokesman for the American Action Network. “It’s no surprise that conservatives have more work to do with women.” Republicans in D.C. say they recognize the problem. Republicans who have seen or been briefed on the polling were not surprised about the outcome. The poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Axis Research. Paul Lindsey, the spokesman for Rove-backed Crossroads GPS, said, “There are a number of House policymakers and staff who have been willing to focus on issues important to women, and we think it’s important that they are aware of the policy solutions that are available to help address these concerns.” The solutions offered include neutralizing Democratic attacks that the GOP doesn’t support “fairness” for women; “deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other issues”; and “pursue policy innovations that inspire women voters to give the GOP a ‘fresh look.’” The report is blunt about the party’s problems. It says 49 percent of women view Republicans unfavorably, while just 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. It also found that Republicans “fail to speak to women in the different circumstances in which they live” — as breadwinners, for example. “This lack of understanding and acknowledgment closes many minds to Republican policy solutions,” the report says. The groups urge Republicans to embrace policies that “are not easily framed as driven by a desire to aid employers or ‘the rich.’” Two policies former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promoted as a way to make inroads with middle-class women and families — charter schools and flexible work schedules — were actually the least popular policies among female voters. Republicans have long had a troubled relationship with female voters, but this report, which comes out just months before Election Day, is the most recent detailed illustration of the problem. Republicans have several initiatives to attract female candidates and voters. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the No. 4 House Republican, for example, is spearheading her chamber’s effort. The Republican National Committee is trying to engage women in 25 “targeted counties for the midterm election,” a spokesman said. One bright spot is among married women. Married women without a college degree view Republicans favorably, the polling shows. Married women prefer a Republican over a Democrat, 48 percent to 38 percent. “Just like a gender gap exists, a marriage gap also exists,” Conston said. “While young unmarried women have always skewed liberal, the polling found married women across the country are far more likely to be conservative and are receptive to center-right policies.” But the GOP appears to have a long way to go when it comes to capturing a significant slice of the female electorate. Even on fiscal matters — traditionally the party’s strongest issue set — Republicans hold only slight advantages that do not come close to outweighing their negative attributes. The GOP holds a 3 percent advantage over Democrats when female voters are asked who has “good ideas to grow the economy and create jobs,” and the same advantage on who is “fiscally responsible and can be trusted with our tax dollars.” When female voters are asked who “wants to make health care more affordable,” Democrats have a 39 percent advantage, and a 40 percent advantage on who “looks out for the interests of women.” Democrats have a 39 percent advantage when it comes to who “is tolerant of other people’s lifestyles.” Female voters who care about the top four issues — the economy, health care, education and jobs — vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Most striking, Democrats hold a 35-point advantage with female voters who care about jobs and a 26 percent advantage when asked which party is willing to compromise. House Republicans say jobs and the economy are their top priorities. Andrea Bozek, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the party’s candidates “across the country are speaking directly to female voters both on the campaign trail and in their television ads.” But in Washington, Republican policies have failed to sway women — in fact, they appear to have turned women off. For example, the focus groups and polls found that women “believe that ‘enforcing equal pay for equal work’ is the policy that would ‘help women the most.’” “Republicans who openly deny the legitimacy of the issue will be seen as out of touch with women’s life experiences,” the report warned, hinting at GOP opposition to pay-equity legislation. It’s the policy item independents and Democrats believe will help women the most. The groups suggest a three-pronged approach to turning around their relationship with women. First, they suggest the GOP “neutralize the Democrats’” attack that Republicans don’t support fairness for women. They suggest Republican lawmakers criticize Democrats for “growing government programs that encourage dependency rather than opportunities to get ahead.” That message tested better than explaining that the GOP supports a number of policies that could help fairness for women. Second, the groups suggest Republicans “deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other issues.” And third, “pursue policy innovations that inspire women voters to give the GOP a ‘fresh look.’” The report suggests lawmakers and candidates inject “unexpected” GOP policy proposals into the debate as a way to sway female voters. Suggestions include ways to improve job-training programs, “strengthening enforcement against gender bias in the workplace” and “expanding home health care services by allowing more health care professionals to be paid by Medicare for home health services.” Katie Packer Gage, a political strategist who focuses on improving GOP standing with female voters, said women think of “old, white, right, out of touch” men when they think of the Republican Party. “I think a lot of folks are whistling past the graveyard on this … Certainly if Hillary is on the top of the ticket for Democrats, it is going to be a significant challenge for us,” she said in an interview. “Maybe we’ll see women on our side that will step up as well. … We have to quit sitting back and taking it on the chin. I think we have to play offense on this.” *People: “Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: 'I Will Help Hillary Get Elected'” <http://www.people.com/article/kirsten-gillibrand-hillary-clinton-president>* By Tara Fowler and Sandra Sobieraj August 27, 2014, 4:45 p.m. EDT Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand isn't positive Hillary Clinton will run for president, but the woman who took Clinton's former New York Senate seat would like to think so. "In my mind, she's definitely running," Gillibrand tells PEOPLE. "Anytime I've ever talked to her, I've offered every bit of help in the world and she's never said no." For her part, Gillibrand, whose candid new book Off the Sidelines hits shelves Sept 9., doesn't have her eye on the presidency quite yet. She's perfectly content where she is at the moment. "I have young kids," says the mom of two, when asked if she'd consider a bid for the White House. "I really like where I am." "I don't know that I aspire to it," she adds. "It's a very different job. I feel like where I am, I can accomplish a lot." It's her current job with the United States Senate that's provided the fodder for her insightful – and sometimes groan-worthy – memoir. In Off the Sidelines, Gillibrand, 47, shares a sobering incident in the congressional gym, where an older, male colleague told her, "Good thing you're working out, because you wouldn't want to get porky!" On another occasion, she writes, after she dropped 50 lbs. one of her fellow Senate members approached her, squeezed her stomach, and said, "Don't lose too much weight now. I like my girls chubby!" Gillibrand isn't especially offended by her coworkers' remarks. "It was all statements that were being made by men who were well into their 60s, 70s or 80s," she says. "They had no clue that those are inappropriate things to say to a pregnant woman or a woman who just had a baby or to women in general." *Wall Street Journal opinion: Sen. Rand Paul: “How U.S. Interventionists Abetted the Rise of ISIS” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/rand-paul-how-u-s-interventionists-abetted-the-rise-of-isis-1409178958>* By Sen. Rand Paul August 27, 2014, 6:35 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little regard to consequences. As the murderous, terrorist Islamic State continues to threaten Iraq, the region and potentially the United States, it is vitally important that we examine how this problem arose. Any actions we take today must be informed by what we've already done in the past, and how effective our actions have been. Shooting first and asking questions later has never been a good foreign policy. The past year has been a perfect example. In September President Obama and many in Washington were eager for a U.S. intervention in Syria to assist the rebel groups fighting President Bashar Assad's government. Arguing against military strikes, I wrote that "Bashar Assad is clearly not an American ally. But does his ouster encourage stability in the Middle East, or would his ouster actually encourage instability?" The administration's goal has been to degrade Assad's power, forcing him to negotiate with the rebels. But degrading Assad's military capacity also degrades his ability to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Assad's government recently bombed the self-proclaimed capital of ISIS in Raqqa, Syria. To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS. This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster. Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy. Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions. Her successor John Kerry was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a "Munich moment." Some now speculate Mr. Kerry and the administration might have to walk back or at least mute their critiques of Assad in the interest of defeating the Islamic State. A reasonable degree of foresight should be a prerequisite for holding high office. So should basic hindsight. This administration has neither. But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad's regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat. Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on. But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda. Patrick Cockburn, Middle East correspondent for the London newspaper, the Independent, recently reported something disturbing about these rebel groups in Syria. In his new book, "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising," Mr. Cockburn writes that he traveled to southeast Turkey earlier in the year where "a source told me that 'without exception' they all expressed enthusiasm for the 9/11 attacks and hoped the same thing would happen in Europe as well as the U.S." It's safe to say these rebels are probably not friends of the United States. "If American interests are at stake," I said in September, "then it is incumbent upon those advocating for military action to convince Congress and the American people of that threat. Too often, the debate begins and ends with an assertion that our national interest is at stake without any evidence of that assertion. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to engage in war." Those wanting a U.S. war in Syria could not clearly show a U.S. national interest then, and they have been proven foolish now. A more realistic foreign policy would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe. Only after recognizing the practical limits of our foreign policy can we pursue policies that are in the best interest of the U.S. The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don't make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again. *Wall Street Journal opinion: Daniel Henninger: “It's Not a Videogame” <http://online.wsj.com/articles/dan-henninger-its-not-a-videogame-1409179337>* By Daniel Henninger August 27, 2014, 6:42 p.m. EDT [Subtitle:] After ISIS, can the Democrats be trusted with national security from 2016 to 2020? When ISIS made the murder of James Foley into a YouTube video, they transported this outrage to the odd middle-world we inhabit between reality and pixels of reality. People don't ask if you saw the murder of James Foley. They ask if you've seen the video of his murder. James Foley's beheading has reset this half-real world. After watching screens on their PCs, tablets and smartphones fill with one shocking image after another—Boko Haram's kidnapping of the girls in Nigeria, Russian rebels' shooting down Flight 17 above Ukraine, ISIS's one-week capture of one-third of Iraq, massacres of Yazidis and Christians, Islamic militias fighting to take over Libya, Hamas's casual sidewalk executions—most Americans realize the stakes in the world have become bigger than the four sides of a video. The world has reframed the politics of the 2016 election. National security and the U.S. role in the world has pushed toward the top of the decision tree in that election. That is why Hillary Clinton outputted an interview this summer with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, repositioning her bland foreign-policy views to the right of Barack Obama. No more speeches about saving the oceans. That's why first-term Sen. Rand Paul used his time on "Meet the Press" last weekend to re-reposition Mrs. Clinton as a "military hawk." Even Mr. Obama himself reacted to the new realities. Whether to staunch the president's political bleeding in the polls, which is threatening Democrats this November, or the nightmare of blood elsewhere, the U.S. government is reportedly preparing possible airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria and working to mobilize our "partners" in the region, such as Saudi Arabia. Of course, the revolt of the Free Syrian Army against Bashar Assad has been on since early 2011, and Saudi Arabia concluded that being a partner of the U.S. was pointless. These foreign-policy fiascoes, and many others, are laid at the feet of Barack Obama. And at the feet of former Secretary of State Clinton, who spent four years and a million miles in flight from all this. Individual responsibility matters. The U.S. president is commander in chief even if he doesn't want to be commander in chief. If Mrs. Clinton believes what she told the Atlantic, she should have resigned and said what was on her mind then. But she didn't. Doing so would have imperiled her standing—not her standing with the American people, who were losing faith in Mr. Obama's handling of the world, but with the Democratic Party activists who would have demolished her presidential nomination in retaliation for exposing the Obama worldview, which is their worldview. In a foreign-policy election, as it looks like we are going to have in 2016, the stakes are a lot higher than picking among the one-person brands who populate U.S. presidential politics now. Party matters. Party history and belief shapes foreign-policy decisions in a time of crisis. The word "fortitude" comes to mind. So one must ask: Can the Democratic Party be trusted with U.S. national security from 2016 to 2020? At the Republicans' 1984 convention, keynote speaker Jeane Kirkpatrick famously unloaded on the opposition party's foreign policy as "the San Francisco Democrats." What we have learned the past five-and-a-half years is that Jeane Kirkpatrick is still right. It isn't just Barack Obama. It's them. If anything, the modern Democratic Party is more hostile to national defense than it was in 1984. Let us hypothesize that Mrs. Clinton is a Democratic hawk. Name one other office-holding hawk in the party? California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, sort of. Beyond these two women, none. Former Sen. Joe Lieberman, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2000? They joyously ran him out of the party in 2006. Sam Nunn ? The last of the South's great national-security Senate Democrats retired in 1996. Former Democratic Sen. Pat Moynihan served as a Republican president's U.N. ambassador. Democratic hawks, or even half-hawks, aren't an endangered species. They're extinct. The military types, pundits and big donors who claim to have spotted appearances of Clinton hawkishness are deluding themselves. Bill Clinton of Kosovo? In 2008, the progressive activists who organized and financed Mr. Obama's candidacy overthrew the Clintons ' centrist triangulation machine and took control of the party. Dutifully, Mrs. Clinton ran as an antiwar candidate. Any hawklike initiative she might attempt will be vetted and opposed by the Obama-Warren Democrats in Congress and across the blogosphere. They abhor Mrs. Clinton's "international liberalism." The MoveOn.org website has posted an online petition exhorting President Obama to "Keep America Out of Iraq!" These hearts and minds belong wholly to the domestic-spending accounts. National security needs diminish their reason for being. As to the Republicans, Rand Paul's foreign-policy minimalism remains a fringe movement, with multiple challengers. The Democrats have the opposite problem. What ought to be the party's foreign-policy fringe has seized its center, and no one in the party will challenge it. In times of peace, this tension between the we-won't-go left and everyone else gets indulged as a political videogame. Win some, lose some. In a world of spreading disorder, as now, that is asking too much. *The Daily Beast: Nick Gillespie: “Hillary's Got a Millennial Problem” <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/hillary-s-got-a-millennial-problem.html>* By Nick Gillespie August 28, 2014 [Subtitle:] The former Secretary of State looks like she’ll clobber a Republican like Rand Paul in 2016—but only if she doesn’t alienate the young. Sure, projecting a winner in a presidential election a couple of years in advance is a mug’s game. But don’t you know that Hillary Clinton has already won the 2016 contest? It’s just like 2008 all over again: Hillary can’t lose. Seriously, though, it’s obvious Hillary will win, especially when you look at the way she’s currently trouncing leading Republicans such as Chris Christie and Rand Paul among young voters. The kids love Hillary, goes this line of thinking, and since they decided the 2012 election and will only ever vote Democratic, all we need to do now is reanimate Aretha Franklin, the Eagles, or one of her other mummified favorite performers for the inauguration. But such triumphalism about Clinton and the Democratic stranglehold on younger voters is premature, to say the least. While there’s no question that the GOP has managed to alienate millennials, there’s every reason to believe that top Democrats are doing just about everything they can to squander their currently commanding advantage. Over at FiveThirtyEight, Harry Enten averages a bunch of polls taken earlier this year and finds that the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state rolls over Christie on average by 10 points with all voters and a whopping 27 points with “young voters” (ages 18 to 29 or 34, depending on the poll). For Paul, the shellacking is even worse, with Clinton beating him by 11 points overall and by 28 points with the kids. Enten argues that even though 45 percent of Americans have no idea who Rand Paul is, “it’s not entirely clear Paul’s numbers will drastically improve if young voters learn more about his positions.” Paul and the kids may be on the same side when it comes to pot legalization, privacy, and war, but they seem to be at loggerheads when it comes to immigration, healthcare, and a host of other issues. Apart from trying to look two years into the future—where was Barack Obama in 2006? or Bill Clinton in 1990?—the case against Rand Paul is largely irrelevant to Hillary Clinton’s and the Democrats’ own burgeoning youth problem. Thanks to truly epic Republican awfulness on just about every possible issue from gay marriage to foreign affairs to budget-busting, the Dems have indeed been able to take the kids for granted inrecent years. But that hasn’t always been the case. Indeed, Republicans as different as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush all managed to win the youth vote. And consider that in 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore split the 18-29 year old vote, each pulling 48 percent. Two wars and The Patriot Act later, John Kerry won 54 percent of the youth vote in 2004. In 2008, Barack Obama snagged a whopping 66 percent of it, with John McCain pulling just 32 percent. Then things get interesting, though. In 2012, Obama pulled a relatively weak 60 percent of the 18-29 vote, with Mitt Romney bucking up to 36 percent. And Obama actually lost the youth vote among 18, 19, and 20 year olds to Mitt Romney, everyone’s least favorite grandparent. According to George Washington University political scientist John Sides, Romney took 57 percent of 18 year olds, 59 percent of 19 year olds, and 54 percent of 20 year olds. It’s not clear how those kids will vote (or if they’ll vote) in 2016, but there’s no reason to buy into the idea that the youth vote is locked up by the Democrats. The Dems do need the youth vote. As Pew has pointed out, despite some slippage, young people overall still provided the generous cushion by which Obama beat Romney. Romney, like McCain before him, actually won voters 30 and over. In some important ways, then, the battle for the presidency may well be the battle for younger voters. If Obama has lost support among younger voters, it seems likely that Clinton will also struggle to maintain a connection with them as a presidential campaign gets underway. To the extent she is a known quantity to younger voters, it’s as Obama’s secretary of state -- the face of a foreign policy that is simultaneously a self-evident failure and one that simply wasn’t bellicose enough for Clinton’s tastes. Either way, that’s no way to win the youth vote; neither is her generally uncritical support of a national-security state and her use of Edward Snowden as a “punching bag.” Assuming that the GOP nominee is someone around the ages of Christie or Paul, she’ll also be about 15 years older than her opponent, which flips the age-party relationship of the past two elections as well. And the Democrats’ problems only get bigger if Clinton doesn’t run: They’ve got virtually no other obvious ready-to-go candidates in the wings. On top of that, there’s still two more years of Obama to suffer through. As pollster John Zogby has written, the president has already alienated many young voters for a number of reasons. “First and foremost,” he writes in Forbes, “is their deep distrust for all political authority and their disappointment in Mr. Obama himself. Second is the sense of a deep invasion of privacy and government overreach in their lives. And third is the Millennial style of wanting immediate answers to problems instead of bureaucratic stasis, as they see it.” If the economy stays flat or especially rough for younger Americans, or if we’re plunged back into aimless wars without end, all that will make things tougher still for any Democrat in 2016 to easily win the youth vote. Especially if she is facing a youthful Republican who is OK with pot legalization and gay marriage, pro-privacy, anti-war, and seems to have a clue on economic policy. There’s no question that the Republican Party brand is all but dead to younger voters. As the recent Reason-Rupe poll on millennials found, just 23 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 29 identify as Republican or lean Republican. Millennials are social liberals who favor gay marriage and pot legalization; if the GOP can’t come to terms with that, its future is indeed limited. The corresponding youth-identification number for Democrats is 43 percent, which sounds good until you realize that it’s still lower than the percentage of voters 30 years and old who identify as or lean Democratic (49 percent). Indeed, fully 34 percent of millennials identify as independent, compared to just 11 percent of older voters. Young voters are already not willing to vote Republican. In a few years, and absent a vibrant candidate who speaks to their concerns, they may well decide not to vote Democratic, either. Indeed, the great political achievement of the 21st century so far has been to alienate young voters from the two major parties in the U.S. And the great task for both Democrats and Republicans in 2016 will be to figure out how to woo them back. *Mediaite: “Fox Host Thinks NY Times Is Doing Hillary’s ‘Bidding’ by Not Endorsing Cuomo” <http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-host-thinks-ny-times-is-doing-hillarys-bidding-by-not-endorsing-cuomo/>* By Matt Wilstein August 27, 2014, 6:29 p.m. EDT On Tuesday, The New York Times editorial board announced that it would not be endorsing Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) in his upcoming primary bid because of his “failure” to enact meaningful ethics reform. But Fox News host Andrea Tantaros thinks the paper declined to endorse Cuomo for a very different reason. While Tantaros admitted that Cuomo “has had some shady ethics,” she wondered aloud, “Isn’t it interesting? Do you think they could be doing the bidding of, oh, I don’t know, Hillary Clinton to take out somebody who could potentially be a dark horse for 2016? I do.” On a related note, Tantaros suggested that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was refusing to financially support New York’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino because he’s “covering” for Cuomo. “I hope not,” she said. By Tantaros’ logic, if The New York Times wants to help Hillary Clinton by hurting Andrew Cuomo, then it would only make sense that Christie would want to hurt Clinton by helping Cuomo. Watch video below, via Fox News: [VIDEO] *Elle: “There's a Clothing Store Dedicated to Hillary Clinton's Pantsuits” <http://www.elle.com/news/culture/theres-a-clothing-store-dedicated-to-hillary-clinton>* By Victoria Hoff August 27, 2014, 2:00 p.m. EDT Whether it's political success, her get-it-done attitude, or meta sense of humor, there are several ways we're sure many people would like to channel Hillary Clinton. But for those who find themselves constantly inspired by the former Secretary of State's rotating wardrobe of pantsuits and conservative formalwear, you're in luck: There is actually a boutique dedicated to Clinton's aesthetic—and it'll only take you a quick plane ride to Kosovo to get you there. In Kosovo's capital city of Pristina, just around the corner from Bill Clinton Boulevard and a 10-foot statue of its namesake, sits Hillary—not the person, but the store, whose wares were inspired by the woman herself. (For those confused with this fondness for all things Clinton, the former President aided the country in its war with Yugoslavia.) Yahoo's Jo Piazza not only blessedly alerted us to the boutique's existence, but also did us a real solid by actually visiting the place in person. She reports that two photos of the politician and author "hang proudly above the store's dressing rooms," and that the real highlight of its existence occurred in 2012, when Hillary herself paid a visit. (She was presented with a navy pantsuit.) "We respect her name and her personality here," store owner Besian Morina told Piazza. "Our clothes are modeled after her own fashion." Hillary (again, the store, not the person) is apparently a favored destination for locals and tourists alike. And the most popular item? A red pantsuit, natch. *New York Magazine blog: Daily Intelligencer: “Mitt, Again?” <http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/mitt-again.html>* By Annie Lowrey August 27, 2014, 12:56 p.m. EDT Mitt Romney went on "The Hugh Hewitt Show" yesterday to say that he definitely-certainly-absolutely-not-well-maybe is running for president in 2016. Hewitt: I wouldn’t presume to ask you to say, “Yeah, I’m in the race.” But circumstances change. And if you thought that in fact it were not that way, that you thought you were the only one who could do this, you’d change your mind, wouldn’t you? Romney: I’m not going there, Hugh. I know you’re going to press, but you know, this is something we gave a lot of thought to when early on I decided we’re not going to be running this time. And again, we said look, I had the chance of running. I didn’t win. Someone else has a better chance than I do. And that’s what we believe, and that’s why I’m not running. And you know, circumstances can change, but I’m just not going to let my head go there. I remember that great line from Dumb and Dumber, where the… Hewitt: So you’re telling me I have a chance? Romney: There you go, you remember. You’re telling me I have a chance? That’s one of a million. Hewitt: Hey, all, the takeaway is already circumstances can change. I know how we’re going to play this. But here’s the thing. Many Republicans — including, perhaps, Romney himself — do not believe that any of the candidates the party has on deck have a better chance than he does. In part, that is because of the candidates’ various intrinsic weaknesses. Chris Christie, for instance, seems a bully and a cheat, while Rand Paul sits too far out on the ideological fringe. And in part, it is because of Romney’s considerable strengths: his name recognition, his money, his relatively broad appeal, his ties with party donors and kingmakers, and the number of his faithful urging him to go for it. He also has the experience of running two campaigns, making him battle-tested in a way no other candidate would be. “I hope I would be a better candidate than I was last time,” Romney said on Hewitt’s show. “I mean, you hope you learn from your mistakes.” Some early poll numbers are also fueling the Mittmentum. Right now, Hillary Clinton is handily beating many of the front-of-the-pack Republican candidates in the most important swing states, as well as in the general election. Romney would lose to Clinton in the general, the polls show. But he would beat Obama, and he has some decent numbers in decisive states like New Hampshire. Romney himself keeps on throwing kindling on the fire, too, ginning up press and winking every time he promises he would never run again. In the past few days, for instance, he has taken the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and then sat down for an interview with the Washington Post. And he’s spent the past few weeks crisscrossing the country, fund-raising, endorsing, and making appearances with Republican candidates. Those seem to be the actions of a restless, handsome billionaire in watchful-waiting mode, more so than the actions of a restless, handsome billionaire really and truly retiring from public life. None of this is to say that Romney is likely to kick off a third campaign. But, to paraphrase Lloyd Christmas, what I’m saying is there is a chance. *The Hill: “Could Romney really run?” <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/216124-could-romney-run>* By Peter Sullivan August 27, 2014, 6:29 p.m. EDT Mitt Romney is in demand, and it’s raising speculation about another White House run, however far-fetched that might seem. The 2012 GOP standard-bearer has been stumping across the country for Republican Senate candidates, highlighting his popularity two years after losing the Oval Office to Barack Obama. A Netflix documentary, “Mitt,” depicted Romney’s run for the White House in 2008 and 2012 and his devotion to his family, warming him to GOP audiences further. On policy, Russia’s incursions into Ukraine have vindicated his tough stance in 2012, something Obama famously used to mock him as out of touch. It’s all causing the public to give him a second look. Romney lost badly to Obama in the last presidential cycle, but a CNN/ORC poll in July found that if the election were held again, 53 percent of adults would vote for Romney, and just 44 percent for Obama. Romney has repeatedly said he’s not interested in running again, using the word “no” 11 times in a row in one January interview with The New York Times. On Tuesday, Romney sounded a different note during an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.” “Someone else has a better chance than I do,” Romney said of the 2016 campaign, saying “that’s why I’m not running. “And you know, circumstances can change, but I’m just not going to let my head go there,” Romney concluded. It’s just a sliver of an opening, but it got people talking, particularly given the wide-open race for the Republican nomination, for which there is no clear front-runner. Furthermore, Republicans are looking for an establishment candidate as an option to Tea Party favorites like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It’s led GOP observers to say he has a good chance at the 2016 nomination. “He's one of the very few people who can run and lock it up very early,” said Patrick Hynes, a Republican operative in New Hampshire who advised Romney’s 2012 campaign. “I think there’s a great deal of good will behind him at the moment because there’s buyer’s remorse about President Obama.” “There’s no clear frontrunner, so I certainly think he would be one of the early favorites if he were to decide to get in,” said Bob Rafferty, a former chief of staff to Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) and a 2012 Romney supporter. Hard to believe? Look at the polls. A Suffolk University poll of Republican Iowa caucus-goers released Wednesday found that Romney swamps the rest of the field, at 35 percent, compared to 9 percent for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is in second place. Romney says his reason for passing on another run is not that he does not want it. “I’d love to run for president. I loved running for president,” he said in the interview Tuesday. Instead, Romney says the reason is that someone else has a better chance. “Had I believed I would actually be best positioned to beat Hillary Clinton, then I would be running,” Romney said. “But I actually believe that someone new that is not defined yet, someone who perhaps is from the next generation, will be able to catch fire, potentially build a movement, and be able to beat Hillary Clinton.” The standing of other Republican contenders is far from certain, though. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are all tangled in controversies that could lead to criminal convictions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush might not even run, and Paul would have to win over the establishment to views that are out of the party’s traditional mainstream. “Let’s say all the guys that were running all came together and said, ‘Hey, we’ve decided we can’t do it. You must do it.’ That’s the one out of a million we’re thinking about,” Romney said. Stu Stevens, a senior adviser to Romney’s 2012 campaign, did not reject out of hand the possibility of a run when asked in an email for his thoughts on whether the former Massachusetts governor had a chance of winning the nomination again. “Thanks for reaching out. But I pretty much stay away from 2016 speculation,” Stevens wrote in an email. Another senior adviser, Kevin Madden, said Romney has been clear that he is not going to run. “You have to measure the ‘circumstances can change’ comment against a much larger body of instances where he said emphatically that he’s not going to run again,” Madden said. And of course, there are many hurdles Romney would have to face if he ran again. His favorability has not improved since the 2012 election, staying fairly steady at 47 percent favorable and 43 percent unfavorable, in a February Gallup poll. The video of his infamous “47 percent” comments still exists, and he still called for “self-deportation” for people in the country illegally, which could be major problems in the general election, if not in the primary. However, Hynes, the New Hampshire operative, argued some of the same attacks, such as those over his business dealings at Bain Capital, would not work in another election. “I don’t think the Bain stuff plays a second time around,” Hynes said. “Everybody knows who he is. We’re not going to find any new secrets about his business record.” How Obama fares in the rest of his second term could also color views of Romney. “Seems to me he's pretty clear that he doesn't intend to run, and if he opened the door at all with his comment it was the tiniest sliver under the most unlikely of circumstances,” David Kochel, senior adviser for Romney’s 2012 Iowa campaign, wrote in an email. “That said, he'd make a great president, and I've believed that for a long time now,” he added. “More Americans believe it too after seeing the repeated failures of the current president.” *Calendar:* *Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.* · August 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes Nexenta’s OpenSDx Summit (BusinessWire <http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140702005709/en/Secretary-State-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Deliver-Keynote#.U7QoafldV8E> ) · September 4 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton speaks at the National Clean Energy Summit (Solar Novis Today <http://www.solarnovus.com/hillary-rodham-clinto-to-deliver-keynote-at-national-clean-energy-summit-7-0_N7646.html> ) · September 9 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DSCC at her Washington home (DSCC <https://d1ly3598e1hx6r.cloudfront.net/sites/dscc/files/uploads/9.9.14%20HRC%20Dinner.pdf> ) · September 14 – Indianola, IA: Sec. Clinton headlines Sen. Harkin’s Steak Fry (LA Times <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-tom-harkin-clinton-steak-fry-20140818-story.html> ) · September 19 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DNC with Pres. Obama (CNN <http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/27/politics/obama-clinton-dnc/index.html>) · October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network <http://events.crewnetwork.org/2014convention/>) · October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation Annual Dinner (UNLV <http://www.unlv.edu/event/unlv-foundation-annual-dinner?delta=0>) · October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes salesforce.com Dreamforce conference (salesforce.com <http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF14/highlights.jsp#tuesday>) · October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/hillary-clinton-nancy-pelosi-110387.html?hp=r7> ) · December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW <http://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/>)